Comments on: Metric campaigners unimpressed by poll findings

By: Frank F.

Frank F. — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 17:17:22 +0000

saw in one of the guides I’ve looked at recently was the height restriction sign showing both Imperial and metric above a 50 YRD notice sign. The foreign driver unfamiliar with Imperial is not likely to understand YRD (yerd???), nor will the UK driver be aware of the fact that the sign is actually posted exactly 50 meters (not 50 yards) from the bridge up the road!

By: lee kelly

lee kelly — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 13:48:25 +0000

i have an idea that would save money just put 30 mph signs in built up areas & schools then under the sign put a label saying km/h that would then be 20 mph ? then on non built up areas put 50mph signs up then put a label saying km/h it would be 31mph it would be the logical solution ?

By: Robin Paice

Robin Paice — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 09:11:33 +0000

I am not aware of any research evidence to support Dan’s theory. These generalisations are very debatable. For example, the health service employs mainly women and is entirely metric for internal purposes. There appears to be some correlation between social class, educational attainment and willingness to use metric. It is also confused with political attitudes to the EU and to government regulation generally. I would guess that any differences between the attitudes of men and women are a reflection of these factors.

By: Dan

Dan — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 02:35:07 +0000

Has anyone ever conducted a poll to see what is the preference for metric or imperial based on gender? I personally believe that most of your anti-metric types are women and that a majority of men will prefer metric.

It seems that the majority of posters to this forum are men and they seem to be mostly if not all pro-metric. The one or two women who post here are all anti-metric.

Industries that employ mostly men are all metric, such as engineering and the sciences, yet those that tend to employ mostly women are lagging, such as the clothing industry.

Most shopping is done by women and as the result the metrication of the market place has not been smooth.

Anyone agree or disagree with this observation?

By: Derek

Derek — Sun, 17 Aug 2008 10:02:25 +0000

When those two masters of spin, the AA and the DfT, report on the same topic then expect fireworks. This recent article in â€œNew Civil Engineerâ€? did not disappoint.

â€œRoad condition surveys paint contrasting pictures

Britainâ€™s roads are either improving fast or getting ever worse according to two new, contrasting reports on the state of the network.

A survey of 17 500 AA members says road surfaces are in a worse state than they were 10 years ago, while new statistics from the Department for Transport (DfT) show that the condition of local roads is improving.

In the AA/Populus Panel survey published last week (early June 2008), 40% of respondents said the condition of the road network was much worse than 10 years ago, while only 2% thought road conditions had improved. â€¦

The DfT report on local roads says that condition of the network has improved every year since 2000 when funding started to improve again.

Principal roads have improved from a defects index of 121.2 in 2000 to 71.3 in built up areas and 91.5 to 70.9 in non built up areas. â€¦â€?

By: Derek

Derek — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 14:20:25 +0000

The spokesman for Active Resistance to Metrication, Mr Bennett, has often said that opposition to metric road signs is 70% to 90%, repeating this on 30 July. So the AA Populus poll at 76% is, as the UKMA press release says, no surprise.

When UKMA published its report â€œMetric signs aheadâ€? in 2006, a similar poll of 500 civil engineers (who design and construct the roads in metric then sign them in imperial) had 42% in favour of metric signs and 56% against. That, for me, was a surprise.

The AA Populus poll says that 8% are in favour â€“ about 3 million people if the poll is representative of the adult population. This is also a surprise when you realise that:

* The Department for Transport has opposed the project since 1970, and in 2006 published a grossly inflated estimate of the cost.
* Successive governments since 1970 have never given public support.
* For many years, the tabloids had campaigned vigorously against all things European, including metric road signs.

Only on TV has there been any semblance of a balanced debate.

Still, it is reassuring to know that there are probably more than three million independent thinkers out there.

By: Mike Dimmick

Mike Dimmick — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 22:34:48 +0000

Miles per gallon (or otherwise distance over fuel volume) only makes sense if you’re trying to compute the range that your vehicle can travel by buying a certain amount of fuel, or its range.

However, this isn’t actually very useful information for most drivers. They know how far they want to travel and want to calculate how much fuel they’ll need and how much that will cost.

The 1/x relationship (graph at http://www.mathsnet.net/graphs/curb2.html for those who’ve forgotten what it looks like) means that an increase of 10mpg may halve the amount of fuel used, or may only reduce it by less than 20% – it depends whether you’re currently getting 10mpg or 50mpg. Measuring as fuel volume divided by distance means you can directly calculate how much money you’re saving. Also, CO2 emissions correlate very closely to the amount of fuel burnt, something completely unintelligible to those who insist on using mpg.

By: Dave Brown

Dave Brown — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 11:08:24 +0000

I’m not quite sure what Thesis means about l/100km making more sense, but I use this measure because it is far, far easier to use. If I know the distance I want to travel, I can instantly calculate how many litres of petrol I’m going to need. The only drawback is that no one else in the UK seems to use this. When the conversation comes on to fuel consumption, and say that my motorcycle averages 6 l/100km, while my people-carrier uses 12, all I get are blank looks.

By: PhilH

PhilH — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 09:40:59 +0000

Sorry to take issue with the previous poster but the comparison with mpg isn’t correct. There is a constant in mpg namely ‘1′ ie. one gallon which plays the same numerical role as the 100 km in the metric case.

I don’t know the history behind the convention of L/100 km but at a guess I’d say it has been adopted because the litre is a relatively large quantity for vehicle fuel consumption per km. If it were expressed as L/km then the numbers would typically be much less than one and not very convenient to work with. For example my own car uses about 7 L/100 km which is fairly typical of a small family saloon. If this were expressed in L/km it would be 0.07

I also suspect that mpg rather than gallons/mile has arisen for the same reason as the 100 km rule. If consumption were measured directly (rather than by its inverse) then we’d get figures like 0.025 (40 mpg).

The real issue for the UK is the fact that fuel is measured and sold by the litre not the outdated gallon which makes mpg awkward and inappropriate. Obviously a change to km for distance would pull everything together properly and all UK drivers would at last be able to enjoy a sensible regime of measurement for all aspects of motoring.

By: Thesis

Thesis — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 01:17:47 +0000

I am astounded that an organisation like the AA would conduct such flawed and fallacious survey. As the editor said in one comment, it lacks credibility, the AA lack credibility. What makes it even more damning is that the AA have a presence in the public and they are merely spreading misconceptions about metric measurements.

L/100 km makes more sense than MPG because the 100 km is a constant, where as fuel capacity is variable amongst vehicles yet fuel consumption can be the same between different vehicles. Not hard to think about. This should be made more aware of rather than just reserved for the small print on car posters! Though I don’t own a car.