Metric Silliness

Toro · #1 09-22-2005, 01:00 PM

About 10 years ago the Federal Highway Administration forced the State Highway Departments to go metric. Thank god that has been reversed but today I had the pleasure of reviewing a plan that was in design prior to changing back to english.

Normal lane widths are 12 feet but because we were forced to metric this plan shows lane widths at 3.66 meters. And the whole plan is like this. The thing that metric has going for it is even numbers but if you have to convert from english to metric you end up with odd numbers like 3.66.

Not as interesting as what everyone had for lunch but I always feel better after I've had my rant.

swede123 · #2 09-22-2005, 01:06 PM

Your post is labeled incorrectly. It should be called "conversion silliness." Of course it's going to be a big ass mess when converting from one system to another. However, the metric system is about 29087344982374534 times more consistant and effecient than the U.S. system with regards to volume to weight to distance relationships and so on. Can you count to ten? Good, you can grasp the metric system.

Swede

2planka · #3 09-22-2005, 01:06 PM

Sheesh. Give you a centimeter and you take 2.2 kilometers.

Patrick del Poker Grande · #4 09-22-2005, 01:07 PM

As much as it's a pain in the ass and how expensive it would be to do, I really wish we could just convert completely over to metric. Maybe you civil guys don't have to worry about much in the way of messy units, but it's hell on a stick sometimes for mechanical/aerospace engineers.

RunDownHouse · #5 09-22-2005, 01:07 PM

I'd be pretty happy if the US converted to metric. Its far easier to use, and I got really used to it while living in Germany. Its also pretty stupid - but understandable, I guess - that the major reason we aren't using metric is inertia.

Patrick del Poker Grande · #6 09-22-2005, 01:08 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Its also pretty stupid - but understandable, I guess - that the major reason we aren't using metric is inertia.

[/ QUOTE ]
Plus, there's a HUUUUUUGE cost associated with converting, not only in retooling every piece of machinery in the country, but also in all the standards and common practices of thousands of companies.

swede123 · #7 09-22-2005, 01:11 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Sheesh. Give you a centimeter and you take 2.2 kilometers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, give you 2.54 centimeters and you take 1.6 kilometers.

Swede

Toro · #8 09-22-2005, 01:15 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Sheesh. Give you a centimeter and you take 2.2 kilometers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't you mean "Give you 2.54 centimeters and you take 1.6097561 kilometers.

mslif · #9 09-22-2005, 01:21 PM

[ QUOTE ]
As much as it's a pain in the ass and how expensive it would be to do, I really wish we could just convert completely over to metric. Maybe you civil guys don't have to worry about much in the way of messy units, but it's hell on a stick sometimes for mechanical/aerospace engineers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Coming from Europe, I use the metric sytem daily. It is also used in my field of study (cellular and molecular biology). I find the system used in the US unscientific and impractical.

Toro · #10 09-22-2005, 01:24 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Sheesh. Give you a centimeter and you take 2.2 kilometers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, give you 2.54 centimeters and you take 1.6 kilometers.

Swede

[/ QUOTE ]

Damn, I had my post all set to go and would have beat you to it but I got a phone call on our Bike Trail project which btw was designed metric and he needed the mounting height for the Stop signs. So i looked it up in the Manual for Uniforn Traffic control Devices and told him to mount it at 2.1 meters. Used to be 7 feet, now 2.1 meters. See what I mean.