See for yourself what our Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices has to say about Speed Limits:
"2B-10 Speed Limit Sign (R2-1)

The Speed Limit sign shall display the limit established by law, or by regulation, after an engineering and traffic investigation has been made in accordance with established traffic engineering practices. The speed limits shown shall be in multiples of 5 miles per hour.

In order to determine the proper numerical value for a speed zone on the basis of an engineering and traffic investigation the following factors should be considered:

Road surface characteristics, shoulder condition, grade, alignment and sight distance.
The 85th percentile speed and pace speed.
Roadside development and culture, and roadside friction.
Safe speed for curves or hazardous locations within the zone.
Parking practices and pedestrian activity.
Reported accident experience for a recent 12-month period.
Two types of speed limit signs may be used: One to designate passenger car speeds including any nighttime information or minimum speed limit that might apply, and the other to show any special speed limits for buses and trucks. No more than three speed limits should be displayed on any one speed limit sign or assembly. Where a special speed limit applies to trucks or other vehicles, the legend TRUCKS 40, or such similar message as is appropriate, shall be shown below the standard message or on a separate plate (R2-2). When used independently, the Truck Speed sign should carry a reference to SPEED or MPH.

Minimum speeds shall be displayed only in combination with the posted speed limit.

Advisory Speed signs are treated elsewhere (MUTCD Section 2C-35).

The standard Speed Limit sign shall be 24 x 30 inches. On expressways the sign should be at least 36 x 48 inches, with 48 x 60 inches prescribed for use on freeways.

2B-11 Night Speed Sign (R2-3)

Where different speed limits are prescribed for day and night, both the limits shall be posted. This may be done in either of two ways:

Immediately below the standard Speed Limit sign (R2-1) or combined with it, a Night Speed sign (R2-3) carrying the legend NIGHT 45 (or other suitable numerical limit) may be erected. In this case the numerals in the Night Speed sign and only the words SPEED LIMIT in the standard sign, should be reflectorized. As a special but logical exception to the general color scheme, the Night Speed sign should have its legend in white upon a black background.
A changeable message sign may be used, so that only the appropriate regulation is visible at a given time. The sign may have interchangeable panels, or reflectorization of the nighttime speed superimposed over the unreflectorized numerals of the daytime speed, to permit only the nighttime speed to become legible in the beam of motor-vehicle headlamps at night.
2B-12 Minimum Speed Sign (R2-4)

Where an engineering and traffic investigation shows that slow speeds on a highway consistently impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic, signs may be used to post a minimum legal speed. Driving slower than the minimum limit is illegal except when necessary for safe operation or in compliance with the law. The minimum speed shall be displayed only in combination with the posted speed limit, and if desired, these two signs may be combined (R2-4a). The Minimum Speed sign shall have a standard, and minimum, size of 24 x 30 inches.

2B-13 Location of Speed Limit Sign

Speed Limit signs, indicating speed limits for which posting is required by law, shall be located at the points of change from one speed limit to another. These signs shall not be erected until the speed limits are approved and officially authorized.

At the end of the section to which a speed limit applies, a Speed Limit sign showing the next speed limit shall be erected. Additional signs shall be installed beyond major intersections and at other locations where it is necessary to remind motorists of the limit that is applicable. In school areas, the END SCHOOL ZONE sign may be used as an alternate to the Speed Limit Sign.

The Speed Zone Ahead sign may be used to give advance notice of a speed zone with a lower limit.

In rural districts on U.S. and other State numbered routes, Speed Limit signs indicating the statutory speed limits shall be erected at entrances to the State and at boundaries of metropolitan areas. A special oversize sign is often desirable at these locations.

2B-14 Sign for Reduced Speed Ahead (R2-5)

This sign should be used in rural areas to inform the motorist of a reduced speed zone when an advance notice is needed to comply with the speed limit posted ahead. The sign is not ordinarily needed in urban areas where speeds are relatively low.

This sign shall always be followed by a Speed Limit sign erected at the beginning of the zone where the altered speed limit applies.

This sign shall have a standard size of 24 x 30 inches. It shall, however, be of the same size as the Speed Limit sign at the beginning of the speed zone, shall be erected in the same manner, and shall display one of the three illustrated legends..."

Federal law, as you may be aware of, supercedes that of the state.

The Federal Highway Administration has metric and customary versions of their book "Standard Highway Signs." Unfortunately, only the customary is currently available online, but there is a "stub" for the metric version on their website and it supposedly will be available online.
http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/ser-shs_millennium.htm

Remember that "metric is the preferred measurement system of the United States" and that the Federal government is under executive order to metricate. Granted, the order lacks teeth, but the direction seems clear.

Latest MUTCD is metric first (imperial)
A link to the signs chapter
http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/HTM/2003r1/part2/part2b1.htm

My summary:
Size of a speed limit depends on road speed. The minimum size is 600 mm x 750 mm for an "English" speed limit sign (it does not require MPH legend).
Minimum size for a metric speed sign is 600 mm x 900 mm. The numeric value must be in a circle, km/h below the circle, which accounts for the larger minimum size.

I must confess I have never seen a metric speed limit in the US, but the MUTCD is ready. :)

This page is much easier reading that the MUTCD itself and has many pictorial examples (and clearer explanation) of allowable metric signage (including speed) in the US, plus some history from 2000, the first time signage with metric speed was allowed.
http://lamar.colostate.edu/~hillger/laws/mutcd.html

While legal, it is not used much. At least for Americans near the northern border, many of us also see metric signage in Canada, so we have some familiarity with it. I wish the damn "dual speedo" markings were at little more equal and not so primary/secondary. The metric is very difficult to read when in Canada.

Oh well, never mind.

Just because there's no Erin, you're indifferent to the US having defined fully equally metric signage so we're "good to go" if we ever convert, while you Brits make your preferred measurement system ILLEGAL when applied to roads and beer? What's up with that?

I guess we'll just have to get used to it, you know, with us preferring metric and all.

Bloody "miles", eh?

Bill?

<<while you Brits make your preferred measurement system ILLEGAL when applied to roads and beer? What's up with that?>>

Better tell 'erin' about this - he's convinced that the UK is 'metric'

<<Better tell 'erin' about this - he's convinced that the UK is 'metric'>>

I've been there enough to realize you are only partially metric.

Granted, I bring an American perspective, but I am completely baffled by a decision that the country should go metric, yet some things remain BY LAW in imperial. I understand the resistance to metric as shown on this board much better than I understand these legal choices. I was hoping someone could offer a British perspective that made some sense of it.

(In American politics, I would just recognize that brewers and milk producers had very well paid lobbyists, but it is not clear what "action group" benefits from imperial roads in a country well into metric conversion)

Erin will have written a new name on his "hate-list"

A typical Steve response. Even if the UK is 80 % metric, that is closer to being full metric then even half FFU.

Another admission!

Erm...

"Yesss"

BTW - What's FFU?

Is it like DCO units?

Steve H wrote

<<
BTW - What's FFU?

Is it like DCO units?
>>

No, it is nothing to do with DCO. When in South Africa I used to bank with Barclays Bank DCO - "DCO" stood for "Dominion and Colonial Office". All the dominions and colonies now used metric units, not Fred Flintstone Units.

What about "Didn't catch on" units?

Is DCO then another name for FFU? You say DCO stands for "Didn't Catch On". Well, since metric is used by 97 % of the world (proving that metric did indeed catch on) and imperial is phased out everywhere but a few limited remnant locations, it is only logical that reference is to imperial.

Thanks for the explanation.

Yes, "DCO" stands for didn't catch on.

Check out a conversation in the UK or better still, the US (where you live, apparently)

Is there any chance this thread could get back to discussing differences in what constitutes legal signage between the US and the UK? That was my intent in updating a nearly 4 year old thread. Instead, it seems to be a few posters insulting the two unit systems, and one another.

Insulting names for the "other" unit system are not a very strong argument and I think the board would have better quality debate if they were avoided. There may be other suggestions but some obvious terms:
Meter based: Metric, SI, MKS
Foot based: Imperial (UK), Customary (US, English (generic), FPS, foot-pound, inch-pound.
They are neutral and describe the system in a way that avoids confusion. The shortest would be FPS and SI.


The original post may have been slightly out of date as the 2000 MUTCD was the first to make provision for metric signage, but the immediately prior version did not. Comments have been collected and incorporated to improve the metric signage provisions in the 2003 MUTCD, even though there is almost no metric signage actually used in the US, and I don't see the States rushing to switch. Yet it is legal, and all necessary decisions have been taken to be ready if metric signage is needed.

On the other hand, the UK, while having forced metric in many areas, has forbidden it relative to distances, speeds and overhead clearances relative to road signage. As far as I can tell, there is no plan (yet?) to eventually change.

I'd like to see a civil discussion about the differences in approach and opinions on where it is going. (If we have any Canadians here, I'm also wondering if the US metric signage is consistent with that used in Canada, or if anyone has a link to the Canadian equivalent of MUTCD. I've seen the signage, found it easy to read, but I didn't pay enough attention to exact formats)

"""Insulting names for the "other" unit system are not a very strong argument and I think the board would have better quality debate if they were avoided. There may be other suggestions but some obvious terms:
Meter based: Metric, SI, MKS
Foot based: Imperial (UK), Customary (US, English (generic), FPS, foot-pound, inch-pound.
They are neutral and describe the system in a way that avoids confusion. The shortest would be FPS and SI."""


What you would call "foot based" is not a system. Even the US government doesn't officially recognize it as a system. Their name for it is US Customary Units, or USC. It isn't US Customary System, English, nor Imperial. The very reason it isn't called a system is because it isn't. It is just a collection of non-related units that are just thrown together.

FFU (Fred Flintstone Units) is meant to be a collect all name not just for imperial or USC, but for all non-SI units no matter where they came from. This was a name I came up with some years ago in a discussion with a USMA member who thought USC should be called WOMBAT (Way Of Measuring Badly in America Today). FFU was meant to be connected with Fred Flintstone, both of whom have their origins in the stone age.

OOOPs! That was from me!

Erin, please explain what qualities the SI "system" has that the FPS "non-system" does not have. How do you define a system?

Bud

In metric units:
1 cm^3 of water has a mass of 1g
1 litre (1000cm^3) of water has a mass of 1kg
1 m3 (1000 litres) of water has a mass of 1 tonne (or 1000kg3)

In FPS system:
1 pint (UK) of water has a mass of 1.25lbs and a volume of ???
1 gallon (UK) of water has a mass of 10lbs and a volue of ???
1 ton(US) of water has a volume of ????
1 ton (UK) of water has a volume of ????

More than the mass of water, in fundamental equations like Newton's 2nd law, there is no constant (or it's unity), f = ma. In FPS, because of the definition of pound-force, it is either necessary to use a gravitational constant or made up "calculation units" like poundals or slugs. SI has consistent units for energy and power across engineering disciplines, particularly mechanical, chemical, and electrical. "Metric" wasn't always that way; many old units had to deprecated to have a rational system of units.

Most of those advantages are in scientific and engineering work. The rational and reusable set of prefixes is better, in my view, than the odd and unique set of scaling factors between large and small units in FPS.

<<What you would call "foot based" is not a system. Even the US government doesn't officially recognize it as a system. Their name for it is US Customary Units, or USC. It isn't US Customary System, English, nor Imperial. The very reason it isn't called a system is because it isn't. It is just a collection of non-related units that are just thrown together. >>

Clearly, there are universities that teach engineering disciplines in FPS and include enough conversions, corrections, etc, that it does function as a system and engineers can do competent work. I feel the necessary corrections make it overly complex, and in some cases they differ by discipline, making it hard for engineers from different disciplines to communicate. I find SI a lot simpler to work in, and more elegant. I really feel any engineer who learned the system and gave it an honest chance would strongly prefer SI, and never look back.

But really, referring to the other units as FFU, WOMBAT, etc only polarizes the conversation, and does little to change the minds of those who hold contrary views; if anything, it stiffens their resolve. That makes it a poor tool for debate or for winning "hearts and minds." Particularly in the US, where Congress clearly lacks the will to force SI in any way, it is all about "hearts and minds."

John, by now you should realise that "Erin" is the best ambassador an anti-metric group would ever seek to employ!


<<<his was a name I came up with some years ago in a discussion with a USMA member who thought....>>>

"Erin", this will be the USMA site you were banned from, would it not?

So Martin, you are saying that in a "system", units have to have a 1:1 correspondence with no dinensionless conversion factors. Although I disagree, I understand why you would say that.
You can fill in your question marks above with what you already wrote. For example, in the first line, the volume is one pint.

John, we have been through the FPS force units before, but there is a very good reason for introducing the constant in Newton's second law. It is not arbitrary, and the convenience that results from having force and mass numerically equal usually outweighs the nuisance of having the constant in the second law.

<<John, we have been through the FPS force units before, but there is a very good reason for introducing the constant in Newton's second law. It is not arbitrary, and the convenience that results from having force and mass numerically equal usually outweighs the nuisance of having the constant in the second law. >>

I acknowledge the mathematical equivalence of it. Assuming any students who are learning FPS units are also being taught SI units, upon reflection, I think it is very bad for them to be learning different equations for the same phenomena depending on whether they use FPS or SI units. I would much rather see poundals or slugs used to rationalize it. Somehow, f = ma/g didn't upset me, but I was horrified when I saw the FPS form of Bernoulli's equation in the link in the poundal thread. I think it is clear there are many problems I could not struggle through in FPS, and would have to convert everything to SI.

(I don't really have a problem with an experienced engineer doing it as a shortcut, vs an explicit separate calculation of poundals or slugs, but I have a big problem with it in a college course. I see it as potentially extremely confusing and a possible source of error.)

"""Erin, please explain what qualities the SI "system" has that the FPS "non-system" does not have. How do you define a system?"""


With the 3 Cs....Coherancy, Consistancy and Completeness:




SI is coherant because each quantity to be measured has only one unit and each unit has a simple relation to each other.

FFU has multiple units to measure the same quantity with chaotic relationships.

SI is consistant because each unit has only one meaning.

FFU has many units that have multiple definitions and meaning, sometimes thousands.

SI is complete because everything that can be measured, can be with an SI unit.

FFU does not have a means to measure certain natual phenomena, such as electricity, magnetism, radiation, etc.

""But really, referring to the other units as FFU, WOMBAT, etc only polarizes the conversation, and does little to change the minds of those who hold contrary views; if anything, it stiffens their resolve. That makes it a poor tool for debate or for winning "hearts and minds." Particularly in the US, where Congress clearly lacks the will to force SI in any way, it is all about "hearts and minds.""""


Those who are hardened against metric are not going to be swayed away from their stance no matter how much sugar and sweetness you pour on the words. Their resolve is stiffened not by terms like FFU or Wombat, but by even questiioning their habits or taking efforts to reduce the "power" of their side. Think how many people who are against metric are hardened in their resolve just from the changes that have already taken place, even if nothing is said.

Some people are so determined to fight metric to the death, that winning the "hearts and minds" of this lot is not going to happen. It is a wasted effort. You can see this for yourself. How many of the anti-metrics agree with your comments? None, as you are challenged at every turn. And that would not change no matter whether you continue to pour sugar or sling doo-doo.

To the neutrals who don't care one way or the other, sweetness may be the right way but not here; where you are dealing with hardened metric opponents. John you can post the most logical arguments as to why SI is easier and superior and you will not win one heart or one mind to the metric side.

Think of the number of times you had to be harsh with your children in order to change an attitude. There are times where sweetness and reasoning just don't work.

<<Some people are so determined to fight metric to the death, that winning the "hearts and minds" of this lot is not going to happen. It is a wasted effort. You can see this for yourself. How many of the anti-metrics agree with your comments? None, as you are challenged at every turn. And that would not change no matter whether you continue to pour sugar or sling doo-doo.

To the neutrals who don't care one way or the other, sweetness may be the right way but not here; where you are dealing with hardened metric opponents. John you can post the most logical arguments as to why SI is easier and superior and you will not win one heart or one mind to the metric side. >>

Of course there are some who will never be convinced. I would be HIGHLY surprised if I converted Tony or SteveH.

But others hold a more moderate position, only lean slightly one or the other, or are even undecided. I'm arguing for their hearts and minds. And if I'm arguing SI is more rational, I think I need to attempt to personally be rational as is the system I'm promoting. Or, maybe that's just my style.

Ask the one's who you think are moderate (on this forum) if there is a chance they can be swayed to the metric side? Then ask them what it would take?

I'll bet the answer to the first question is a snowball's chance in hades.

<<Of course there are some who will never be convinced. I would be HIGHLY surprised if I converted Tony or SteveH. >>

No need.
I already see the benefits of metric.
Although the vast majority of the UK prefer to use and talkl in imperial I like to choose metric (DCO) OR imperial, depending on task.

Ignore Erin's possible ramblings on this and feel free to question me further if you'd like more info.

It is only someone who cannot comprehend opinion formation that will not understand the concept of choice.

<<Although the vast majority of the UK prefer to use and talk in imperial I like to choose metric (DCO) OR imperial, depending on task.>>

Even if I don't agree, I'd be interested in what tasks are genuinely easier in Imperial in your view.

I'm certainly used to buying groceries in Customary (due to different volumetric measure, Imperial would be a problem for me) so I have the benefit of familiarity. In the US, we don't have a lot of groceries sold in metric, so perhaps I'm missing something, but I have the feeling it wouldn't be hard to get used to if it were around me.

Obviously for repair of existing things, there is a need for matching threaded fasteners, pipes, fittings etc, but I certainly encounter things which are metric and require a metric screw if I drop one. My hardware store carries a collection, albeit, fairly limited.

If I am cutting wood for some project, I frequently use metric to avoid common fractions (if I have to work in inches, I prefer decimal subdivisions, and I have scales so marked, but I've never seen a carpenter's tape measure, square, etc.)

Many other tasks I do in inches because inches are all around me and I'm not a fanatic. But if metric measures were all around me, I'd use those.

In my mind, the problem with "choice" is that it requires many people to be facile in two systems. It is like the language issue. I look at problems with bilingual requirements in Canada (except Quebec where English is deprecated) and I would like to see the US declare English the official language. On a "de facto" basis it is, but there are continuing demands for government to be multilingual. It is good to speak another language, especially if you travel there for business (I speak Brazilian Portuguese as I traveled there a lot) but I don't think the US needs to be a "Tower of Babel" with multiple language requirements. Not sure if you have the same issue in the UK.

I can fully understand why Americans would find themselves using non-metric even if they would prefer otherwise.

I have that difficulty in the UK in some situations especially when travelling by car. I am forced to think in mph for speed, and in miles for distance.

I am also forced by social pressures to talk of my height in feet and inches and my weight in stones and pounds even though I think of my height in metres weigh myself in kilograms.

I've no time for those that argue for choice or try to make out that prometric are fanatics. There isn't any choice and people are just as obstinate and fanatical with imperial as anyone could be over metric.

So as far as I am concerned if we have to decide one or the other - which we do - I will go for metric.

re (Erin GoBragh): "Is DCO then another name for FFU? You say DCO stands for "Didn't Catch On". Well, since metric is used by 97 % of the world (proving that metric did indeed catch on) and imperial is phased out everywhere but a few limited remnant locations, it is only logical that reference is to imperial"


REPLY: I hate to see people posting misinformation. Visit the 'International' Board sometime (it's not far away) and revise your 97% figure downwards

<<REPLY: I hate to see people posting misinformation. Visit the 'International' Board sometime (it's not far away) and revise your 97% figure downwards>>

From your posts, you obviously count one incidental use of "old" units as a sign a country is 100% (or at least 99%) Imperial. I'm pretty sure the US has one the title of "least metric developed country" yet there are claims as much as 40% of our industry is metric, liquor, larger size soda and pharmaceuticals come only in metric, everything else is dual labelled, and the government, while a little behind the 1991 Executive order is slowly getting itself metric. It would be hard to guess how metric the US is since many industries go metric quietly. I'm guessing somewhere between 20-50%
So when you count either people or GDP still on Imperial/Customary, please don't count us all.

A mile of road and a pint of beer doesn't make the UK Imperial either. You are probably 60-80% metric.

I don't know where to place the dividing line, perhaps
<20 % Imperial/Customary: fully metric
20-80%: Mixed
>80% Imperial/Customary: fully Imperial or Customary
Perhaps the 20% and 80% threshholds should be 10% and 90%.

What besides miles on roads and pints of pub beer/home delivered milk are still in imperial/

What industries in the UK still produce FFU products? I'm not referring to those that may mark FFU as a secondary factor on products, but those that actually produce rounded imperial products using imperial machines. What buildings and homes are still built in FFU today?

How many products are still built using non-metric fasteners, non-metric components? How many people would still use FFU on the job? I'm not referring to someone in a casual conversation talking about how many miles away granny lives.

How many people shop in a purely imperial environment where metric is not available at all?

I think if you really factor out the trade name and the afterthought usage you'll find metric is well past 80 % in use in the UK.

<<I think if you really factor out the trade name and the afterthought usage you'll find metric is well past 80 % in use in the UK.>>

It is a nonlinear scale and subjective, so it is certainly open to debate. It is also pretty much a SWAG as I have no way of doing a detailed survey.

My thoughts:
*They have to lose a lot of points for it being ILLEGAL to measure certain things in metric. If it were dual, it wouldn't be a big deal, but when Imperial is actually still mandated for a few things, are you really committed to metric?
*While metric is required in everyday consumer commodities (except as above) there is active resistance from both consumers and tradespeople.

The use of metric in industry is certainly important, but to be FULLY metric and to be compared to a metric country, you have to look at government, education and media, industry, and everyday life.

You could invent a scorecard similar to an ISO/QS 9000 audit, but I'm not sure it's worth the trouble. Canada, UK and US have all "stalled out" in their own ways in going FULLY metric. Australia seems to have done better, and I don't really know where South Africa stands.

JohnS-MI wrote

<<
Australia seems to have done better, and I don't really know where South Africa stands.
>>

South Africa is fully metric. (I lived there during the metrication process) and have made a few visits back there since. SteveH has gleefully pointed out that people have reverted to using ft and inches for people's heights (I have confirmed this), but apart from that, everything else out there is metric.

One of the first phases of the metrication program was to ban the sale of Imperial measuring devices. Although some might regard that as being high-handed it worked and anti-Aprtheid politicians certainly did not create a fuss about that. To a certain degree the population trusted the Government on this issue because when the currency was decimalised ten years earlier, things went off smoothly and the Government stamped on any profiteering very quickly.

It is of course also notable that to the North of South Africa, Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) and Zambia - two implacable enemies on either side of the Zambesi were both metricating their systems of measure at teh same time.

Thanks for update. It's interesting that we don't hear much about the process in countries that have successfully metricated. They just do it and move on.

What we hear about are the countries that began the process and stalled out in one way or another. (We are probably the guiltiest of the bunch, but not by much)

You hear about it because there is internal conflict in the countries that "stalled out". In an economy completely metric, there is no conflict. Everyone uses the same system and thus no communications problems and no hard feelings.

In a country like the US, you have 40 % of industry metric. That 40 % conflicts with the 60 % that isn't. This does not include the massive amount of metric imported products into the US. There are problems in communications if the two cross. There are bad feelings because someone who may have to deal with metric but doesn't want to. Someone gets in trouble or is fired from making a conversion mistake that cost a company big money.

Those who claim they don't want metric feel they shouldn't have to encounter it, those who want it feel they shouldn't be "punished" for using it.

You can make a list of the problems a dual system economy causes. And the longer it persists the more hardship one will encounter. With the majority of the manufacturing shifting to metric Asia, more and more products, both industrial/commercial and consumer will appear in metric. In consumer applications, re-describing a metric product in FFU goes unnoticed unless the product is serviceable and needs metric parts to repair it.

Industrial/commercial products always need repair at some point. That means a repair technician always will need metric tools. One of the silly reasons I've been told that America can't go metric is because it would force millions to buy new expensive tools. So instead the work is exported, the products now are imported but with metric parts, which still require metric tools.

Now the service guy has two sets of tools when only one is really needed. Busineeses that stock parts must have a set of metric and FFU to accommodate both systems, which adds cost to inventory. It is strange nobody sees this as a cost of not metricating. But since it is passed on to the consumer, and the consumer isn't complaining, then the policy is accepted.

Part of the problem is that the average American doesn't go into the factories that still exist and see the billions of dollars in new, overseas made, metric machinery and how it affects their pocketbook. Meaning that their resistance to metrication maintains an expensive dual system economy that they pay extra for. But people don't know and falsely assume that America and products in America are 99 % FFU and metric is just a European plot to control America and the world.

John,

Have you ever taken a private survey for your own knowledge by asking people in casual conversation if they think that American cars should metricate? If they already know they are they will ask you back "Aren't they already?". The majority who don't know that they are and have been for 30 years would say no, and be shocked if you told them they had been for those 30 years. Try it sometime and lets us know what results you get.

Being more concerned with people than state (I actually believe a country is owned by its people as a birthright rather than anything manmade like "the state") I would say that the % that a country is imperial or DCO is based upon its people.

So I'd say that the UK is 95% imperial
I'd also say that:-

Canada is 70% imperial, the US is 98% imperial, France is 10% imperial, Australia is 40% imperial etc etc.

The fact that a sewage pipe 20 feet under my house might be imperial or DCO does not make my country an Imperial one or a DCO one.

For Erin's view on how metric the UK is - read his own doctor's prognosis here:

http://www.network54.com/Forum/thread?forumid=209958&messageid=1113562667&lp=1113823659

"""Being more concerned with people than state (I actually believe a country is owned by its people as a birthright rather than anything manmade like "the state") I would say that the % that a country is FFU or SI is based upon its people.

So I'd say that the UK is 95% FFU
I'd also say that:-

Canada is 70% FFU, the US is 98% FFU, France is 10% FFU, Australia is 40% FFU etc etc.

The fact that a sewage pipe 6 m under my house might be FFU or SI does not make my country an FFU one or a SI one."""

It is not a state vs the people that determines whether a country is SI or FFU, but which gets used and in what areas. The people may use FFU in their own personal space, but when they react outside of that space, SI takes over.

An engineer may speak FFU in the pub, but he speaks metric on the job. A housewife may talk FFU to her neighbor, but both shop in stores selling metric products. If the housewife bakes a cake and her oven is calibrated in degrees Celsius and her recipes are in degrees Celsius she is using metric even if she may speak FFU elsewhere. One incident of FFU usage does not constitute a 100 % usage as you seem to think.

A person who has a motor vehicle, might be aware of miles on the road, but buys his petrol and oil in litres and is aware of the litre price, even if he just fills the tank each visit. He may also service his car, thus needing metric tools, metric parts and if he has a factory service manual, the specs he will encounter will be in metric.

The family that turns on the TV and hears the news and weather in metric are also using metric. They know what the degree celsius temperature means, even if some people try to pretend these people don't.

People who spend a major part of their day (not counting the time one is asleep) in the metric environment of the factory and/or office, or in the shopping centre are highly exposed to metric even if it is casual, taken for granted exposure and use.

Thus, factoring all of this in puts the UK at about 80 % metric, Canada at 60 % metric, US at 20 % metric, France at 100 % metric (old units used as slang terms don't count as one using FFU), Australia at 95 % metric.

<<Thus, factoring all of this in puts the UK at about 80 % metric, Canada at 60 % metric>>

In what ways do you consider Canada less metric than the UK.

In one respect, they are more so, the roads have distances and speed limits in kilometers, not miles; clearances/widths are in meters. I'm not sure how their beer is dispensed, it came in units of "a beer," but I don't think they have milk in pints. I would estimate them at more metric than the UK, less than Australia. (Certainly the US is less metric than the UK, but possibly not by such a high factor.)

I know the speedometers in Canadian cars are dual, but metric primary, whereas the US is dual, but Customary primary. Odometers, vehicle warranties, etc are kilometers.

I listen to a Windsor radio station and their weather report is metric for temperature, wind, pressure, and precip.

However, they do have some issues. Pachaged goods are metric;, however, produce and random weight packages are SUPPOSED to be metric, but a lot of traders sell Imperial. And a lot of dual unit stuff is Customary rather than Imperial for FPS measure. They have some inch-pound advocates, but they seem less organized than the Brits here.

Erin edited my post.

= desperation

also read this:

<<<<Thus, factoring all of this in puts the UK at about 80 % metric, Canada at 60 % metric, US at 20 % metric, France at 100 % metric (old units used as slang terms don't count as one using FFU), Australia at 95 % metric.>>>

Then read this:

http://www.network54.com/Forum/thread?forumid=209958&messageid=1113562667&lp=1113823659


John - take a tip.
As a "proper" pro-metric you should avoid being tarred with the same brush as ErrorNB

SteveH,

It was actually Erin's post I was debating, as I question his rank ordering.

I do accept your rank order, although I think your %-FPS numbers are rather high. Australia and South Africa appear to be pretty nearly metric, with Canada and UK over halfway, but having a ways to go. The US is certainly under half, but I'm not sure I buy "nearly zero."

I accept your numbers if I only look at "common folk." However, I would argue we are all democracies and accountable for our governments (at least collectively; individually, some of us voted for the other guy). If we really felt it was wrong, we have an obligation to do something about it. I suspect it is more like the doctor telling us to lose weight. We know it is right even if we grumble about it. Also the number of people who work in metric industries and have to process metric data at work is not negligible.

There is certainly room for "flex" in how to weight the various factors I proposed, but 100% "common folk" and 0% on the others is probably beyond my flex point.

P.S. When I say "John" up there I mean "JohnS-MI", and not the "John" who posts rubbish under the name of "Erin".

Sorry if that caused confusion

Back in April, I posted links to the MUTCD (Manual for Uniform Traffic Control Devices) and the Standard Highways Signs book which contains detailed dimensioned drawings. At that time, the metric online version of Standard Highway Signs was an empty stub with no content. (MUTCD shows both)

The metric is now online. The English and metric refers to the sign dimensions, not content. Metric content versions are shown in both books.
English: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/ser-shs_millennium_eng.htm
Metric: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/ser-shs_millennium_met.htm