Athletics - Hopefuls To Go Through Paces
By Dave Mckibbin
--------------------------------------------------------

Saturday 11th June 2005

"Most of the Commonwealth Games candidates will be in action today at the Mary Peters Track in the Northern Ireland and Ulster track and field championships.

"Ballymena and Antrim pair Anna Boyle and Paul Brizzel are hot favourites for sprint doubles. Anna defeated her top Irish rivals in Bratislava where she ran a record 11.58 seconds for 100 metres while Paul reached the final of the UK Inter-counties.

"Young athletes will be on view in the sprints, too, with schools champions Jason Smyth and Amy Foster both likely to take medals.

"Paul McKee has entered for both 200 and 400 but is likely to concentrate on the shorter distance where he will go close to Brizzel.

"James McIlroy drops down in distance to run the 400 where he will face Commonwealth youth runner Stephen Aiken, Irish schools winner Michael Morgan and Nigel Carlisle.

"The ladies' 400 will be fascinating with Irish junior record holder Joanne Cuddihy of UCD going against Vicki Kennedy, Abbey pair Elaine McCaffrey and Michelle Rodgers. Vicki is expected to retain her 400 hurdles crown.

"The 100 metres hurdles title should go to Tamsin Stephens with Scots-based Liam McDermid likely to dispute men's 400 hurdles with reigning champion Ian Neely.

"In the longer events, Fionnuala Britton of Sli Cualainn can take a 1500 and steeplechase double although it will be interesting to watch young Lynsey Freel in the metric mile..."



The reason, of course, that people compete in the 200 metres, not the 250 metres, and the 400 metres, not the 500 metres, and 800 metres not 1,000 metres, is because these distances are the nearest metric equivalents of the furlong, quarter-mile and half-mile

Maybe. Certainly an interesting theory, and 400 m and 800 m do seem a little "odd" compared to 500 m and 1000 m. You have to really like common fractions though to regard 250 m as "rounder" than 200 m. :)

It is almost certain that the 400m and 800m races are hang-overs from the quarter-mile and half-mile and haev been retained because athletics tracks were traditionly a quarter of a mile. I notice of course that the mile is no longer an Olympic distance and that apart from the marathon, all the longer distances are round numbers of metres.

BTW, the 200m race, while probably being derived from an eighth of a mile is a round metric distance - more so than 250m as is suggested by Tony. The reason that I say this is that most entities that are built around metric units (for example money, weights etc) are in a ratio 1-2-5-10-20-50-100-200-500 etc.

I don't think anyone disputes the fact that some modern metric distances/measurements derive from an old imperal measurement.

The metric side doesn't dismiss the historic value of the old units at all - it just recognises the fact that old units are gradually replaced with newer, better ones.

Its called evolution...(although wasn't someone disputing the thoery of evolution on here recently!?)

I get the impression the imperial side often mistakenly believe that we (the pro-metric side) have the same hatred for imperial measures that you lot do for metric. This is generally not the case.

Andy, the history of metric clearly reveals a tale of 'imposition', and 'compulsion', one could equally say 'obliteration' - certainly not 'evolution'.

Evolution implies gradual change, of the kind for which there is no evidence, by the way, in the natural world.

All there is evidence for is the unfolding of the fantastic variety possible from the orginally created genetic DNA pools of the original created 'kinds' of plants and animals.

There is no mechanism whereby you, or I, or any plant, animal, bird, reptile, mammal or insect can acquire *any* extra DNA. It was all there from the very beginning. All we can do is 'shuffle the pack', so to speak. The original 'packs of cards' for humans, plants and animals were arranged and designed at the start

<<I get the impression the imperial side often mistakenly believe that we (the pro-metric side) have the same hatred for imperial measures that you lot do for metric. This is generally not the case>>

The only people I've known on the boards that have admitted to hating certain measures are eric ('metre'), euric (aka loads of other names), EURobert (remember him?), Matahari (remember her?) and one or two on the USMA site.

And all those are against imperial.

Even X-Cole has not mentioned a hatred of metric.

Ok - anyone currently posting to these boards hate either metric or imperial?

<<<Ok - anyone currently posting to these boards hate either metric or imperial?>>>

Well most of the anti-imperial posters you mention are probably the same person anyway. PLus, expressing a dislike for something on an anonymous internet board is not necessarily evidence of genuine feelings.

Whether he admits it or not is a different matter, but clearly the person on these boards with the deepest hatred for certain measurements is Tony, since he goes to such extreme lengths to obliterate any trace of them.

<<Ok - anyone currently posting to these boards hate either metric or imperial?>>

Hate is such a strong word. But I dislike the time and energy required to be knowledgable in two completely different system of measurement and the conversions between them. That is roughly three times harder than just understanding one. All English speaking nations at least have a policy, and generally a plan to go metric, but the US and UK seem particularly stuck in the middle of conversion.

I'd prefer to see us finish the job, and Imperial fade into being an obscure unit in literature, like varas and leagues, not ones I need to understand daily. Obviously, even when conversion is "finished," there is a need for a few odd repair parts necessary for fit and function to preserve operation of things worth repairing, and I have no problem making exception for those.

<<Well most of the anti-imperial posters you mention are probably the same person anyway. PLus, expressing a dislike for something on an anonymous internet board is not necessarily evidence of genuine feelings.>>

I deliberately picked those names because they are (or 'were' should i say) differnt people.

<<Whether he admits it or not is a different matter, but clearly the person on these boards with the deepest hatred for certain measurements is Tony, since he goes to such extreme lengths to obliterate any trace of them. >>

I cannot answer on behalf of Tony.

Tony? Are you there? Do you hate millimetres? What about kilogrammes? Do you despise them enough to call them names? Do you frequently call those who use metric as idiots, etc? Do you make things up to belittle metric?

You may, folks, have noticed that I have 'loaded' my question a tad there.

;-)

re (SteveH): "Tony? Are you there? Do you hate millimetres? What about kilograms? Do you despise them enough to call them names? Do you frequently call those who use metric as idiots, etc? Do you make things up to belittle metric?"


REPLY: It is obvious by now that Andy has got me sussed. I have been trying hard to keep it a secret that I go round daily into wine shops altering all those signs saying 70 cl, 1 litre etc. Also, several times a day I visit garages and alter adverts for 2-litre cars etc., then if I've any time left, I visit all the DIY shops and go round altering the labels on all those 5-litre paint cans (nearest they can get to a gallon), 4cm x 4cm (nearest to '2 by 2') wood and 25mm (nearest to one inch) nails etc. etc. Plus stopping off at the supermarket to alter all those cans and jars saying '253g', '317g' or whatever. Of course, I have my metric to Imperial tables with me at all times - and a pocket calculator, indelible paints and stick-on labels in my pockets. Oh! - plus a large badge on my anorak proclaiming: 'I hate metric'.

I thought I could convince people that all I was doing was ensuring that local authorities obeyed the law enacted by Parliament that road and footpath signs should be only in miles, yards, feet and inches.

But now that Andy has rumbled my deep hatred of all things metric, I may as well come out now as a 'Metric-hater'. 'Metric-hater and Proud'. From time to time, I even lead Metric-hate Pride marches.

I will never drink wine as it comes out of bottles measured in litres, never use paint for the same reason. I never buy petrol for my car because it is sold in litres. I never buy any food labelled in grams. I would far rather starve. Better dead than metric.

But I am not to blame for this hate. It was that BWMA literature that started it all off, with their incitement to metric hatred.

It's about time there was a law against inciting hatred, if you ask me...

At last an admission that metric is all round us.

Also I point out that the above only demonstrates that it is practically impossible to avoid metric no matter what one feels. I doesn't prove the feeling isn't there though.

Tony Bennett:
"I thought I could convince people that all I was doing was ensuring that local authorities obeyed the law enacted by Parliament that road and footpath signs should be only in miles, yards, feet and inches."

Stan:
What law enacted by parliament are we talking about here?

Stan,

If a piss-take came up to you and slapped you straight in the face would you shake its hand and say "how do you do?"

Steve,

Have you ever heard of the phrase "Many a true word is spoken in gest"?

Tony Bennett:
"Evolution implies gradual change, of the kind for which there is no evidence, by the way, in the natural world."

Stan:
Careful Tony. Next you'll be saying that all those imperial units that have "evolved" aren't natural.

Unless of course it's just another "piss-take" for Steve's benefit.

<<< There is no mechanism whereby you, or I, or any plant, animal, bird, reptile, mammal or insect can acquire *any* extra DNA. It was all there from the very beginning. All we can do is 'shuffle the pack', so to speak. The original 'packs of cards' for humans, plants and animals were arranged and designed at the start >>>

Is this true of genetically modified crops?

I don't know my biology. Are genes made of DNA?

re:
Tony Bennett:
"I thought I could convince people that all I was doing was ensuring that local authorities obeyed the law enacted by Parliament that road and footpath signs should be only in miles, yards, feet and inches."

Stan:
"What law enacted by Parliament are we talking about here?"


ANSWER: The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 (S.I. No. 2002 No. 3113, made 16 December 2002), secondary legislation to the 1984 Road Traffic Regulation Act

re: "<<< There is no mechanism whereby you, or I, or any plant, animal, bird, reptile, mammal or insect can acquire *any* extra DNA. It was all there from the very beginning. All we can do is 'shuffle the pack', so to speak. The original 'packs of cards' for humans, plants and animals were arranged and designed at the start >>>

Is this true of genetically modified crops?"


REPLY: Throughout human history, humans have re-arranged the DNA within 'kinds' - the different breeds of dogs being a classic example. What is going on here is that humans have selected those playing cards from the pack that they wish to feature - large breeds (e.g Great Danes), small breeds (Pekinese), hunting breeds (Beagles), fierce breeds (Rottweilers), long breeds (Dachshund) etc.

These different varieties of dog are derived from the original dog 'pack of cards' on Day 5 (Genesis 1 v. 21). Put all these breeds back in the wild, and after a few generations they would 'revert to type'. This kind of genetic arrangement is highlighted in Genesis 30 vv. 25-43, where there is an account of how Jacob selected and bred different breeds of sheep and goats.

The essential difference with all 'genetic modification', either of crops or other forms of life, is the introduction of, to pursue the analogy, a playing card from another pack. Like, say, introducing a card from 'Happy Families' into a normal pack of playing cards.

To take a classic example, one is supposed to achieve better tomatoes by introducing a few strands of DNA from a species of fish. So we now do have an artificial means of, if you like, one species acquiring extra DNA - from another species.

There is no evidence that it happened in nature prior to artifical genetic modification. How far this genetic modification process can be taken, and whether or not genetically modified crops or life forms could survive long-term in the wild, remains to be seen

<<<all I was doing was ensuring that local authorities obeyed the law enacted by Parliament that road and footpath signs should be only in miles, yards, feet and inches.>>>

So what about the law enacted by Parliament that fruit and veg should be sold by the kilogram (with lbs/oz allowed as a supplementary indication) ?

The fact that you are only passionate about ensuring the law is rigorously obeyed, when that law requires imperial, shows clearly that upholding the law is not your concern, merely an excuse. To prove this, you actively supported the traders who broke the law by selling in pounds and ounces!

Even in your piss-take post above, as in all your posts, the fact that the use of metric irritates you intensely comes across very clearly. The fact that on seeing a 5 litre can of paint you have to justify it as "the nearest they could get to a gallon"

<<
Stan:
"What law enacted by Parliament are we talking about here?"


ANSWER: The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 (S.I. No. 2002 No. 3113, made 16 December 2002), secondary legislation to the 1984 Road Traffic Regulation Act
>>

Parliament itself did not mandate what units shall be used. That authority was delegated to the Minister. Under the TSRGD the minister has the authority to permit, retrospectively if neccessary, any sign that he sees fit. This includes signs in metric units.

<<Parliament itself did not mandate what units shall be used. That authority was delegated to the Minister. Under the TSRGD the minister has the authority to permit, retrospectively if neccessary, any sign that he sees fit. This includes signs in metric units.
>>

I think the part about the Minister approving is somewhat of an "escape clause."

I read the code online at UKMA because I had trouble believing the point that metric is "outlawed." Please remember I am an American reading unfamiliar UK legal style. But as near as I can figure metric is only allowed for height, width, and length limits, and then, only when accompanied by an Imperial sign. In speeds and distances, it doesn't seem allowed (I never found footpaths though). The text has a lot of tables defining all the allowed variants. On speed limit signs, you can vary the number, but not the unit. Those variant tables explicitly allow meters for the vehicle height, width, length limits under defined terms.

On the other hand, in the US, the MUTCD defines a full range of metric signage, even though it is almost entirely unused. The states get to choose here, from the imperial or metric styles in the MUTCD; the Federal government can't force the units choice.

John,

If you visit http://www.swindonweb.com/life/lifemagi0.htm you will see a road sign that is certainly not in the UK highway manual. The road sign concerned (and road layout as well) certainly required ministerial approval.

Please visit this site and stare in amazement - it is not called "The Magic Roundabout" for nothing.

I've made several trips to UK on business, but usually would depend on a colleague for a ride. The one time I tried driving, for a week, it was not as bad as I expected. But I am extremely thankful I did not encounter that!

re (Andy): "The fact that you are only passionate about ensuring the law is rigorously obeyed, when that law requires imperial, shows clearly that upholding the law is not your concern, merely an excuse. To prove this, you actively supported the traders who broke the law by selling in pounds and ounces!"


REPLY: Actually, they did not break the law. It was plain in Court that the Weights and Measures Act 1985 permitted Imperial units - and that the 1994 Weights and Measures (Units of Measurement) Regulations, passed round the Europoean Communities Act 1972, could not overturn the wording of the Act.

To get round that problem, Lord Justice Laws - with the help of obedient civil servants hovering over his shoulder, so to speak, he took a few months to invent the novel doctrine of a 'hierarchy of statutes'

<<
To get round that problem, Lord Justice Laws - with the help of obedient civil servants hovering over his shoulder, so to speak, he took a few months to invent the novel doctrine of a 'hierarchy of statutes'
>>

Sometimes there are maverick judges. They are kept in place by a system of appeals. In the case in question, the judgement was passed on to two higher courts, neither or whom thought the arguements presented were worthy of a hearing. (Lord Justice Steyn(?) said as much).

<<Have you ever heard of the phrase "Many a true word is spoken in gest"?>>

Would that be the husband of Liza minelli or that blonde woman who does modelling and presents shows on "Men and Motors"





<<I don't know my biology. Are genes made of DNA?>>

No - they are made of a much more tough substance called 'denim'


<< To prove this, you actively supported the traders who broke the law by selling in pounds and ounces!>>


I do it all the time - when I ask for loose stuff in Tesco. Naughty me, eh?

<<The fact that on seeing a 5 litre can of paint you have to justify it as "the nearest they could get to a gallon" >>

In the car painting industry they still refer to those 5L car paint cans as gallons

<<If you visit http://www.swindonweb.com/life/lifemagi0.htm you will see a road sign that is certainly not in the UK highway manual. The road sign concerned (and road layout as well) certainly required ministerial approval.>>

Do you know what? I am willing to bet that no minister was informed of that sign. Apart from it being a consolidation of other valid signs do you think ministers approve all strange signs? (like 'ducks crossing', 'frogs crossing' etc) They're prob more busy counting those sticks by the side of the road.

<< But I am extremely thankful I did not encounter that!>>

There are quite a few of them - in one form or another. They actually work quite well.

<<<< But I am extremely thankful I did not encounter that!>>

There are quite a few of them - in one form or another. They actually work quite well.>>

Bi-directional "magic" roundabouts?

I do OK on the regular ones, I just have to remember to go around them (for me) ass backwards. Massachusetts (where I went to college) has a lot of traffic circles, as we call them here, although they are rare outside New England.

Since we drive on the right, we proceed counterclockwise.

<<
Since we drive on the right, we proceed counterclockwise.
>>

Roundabouts are quite common in France, but are rare in Germany and Italy. AS in the US, the French drive around their roundabouts anti-clockwise. Until a few years ago, the French had a cardinal rule of "Priority from the right". This meant that traffic entering a roundabout had priority over traffic already in the roundabout (ie the roundabouts were self-filling rather than self-emptying). In recent years however (without admitting it), they have adopted the UK principal that traffic already in the roundabout has priority. If you drive in France you will see signs on the entrance to roundabouts warning drivers of the "reversed" priority.

<<Until a few years ago, the French had a cardinal rule of "Priority from the right". This meant that traffic entering a roundabout had priority over traffic already in the roundabout (ie the roundabouts were self-filling rather than self-emptying). In recent years however (without admitting it), they have adopted the UK principal that traffic already in the roundabout has priority. >>

In New England, that priority difference existed between Massachusetts and New Hampshire. I don't know if either ever changed. (In Massachusetts, reality is that right-of-way belongs to the bold, law be damned)

It obviously makes more sense to let the people in the circle out. Then, there's room for more.

In California, the very few roundabouts in existence have very explicit signs posted at each entrance/exit warning everyone to yield to traffic already on. But of course, as with changing lanes, the bold drivers (and the ones with the biggest trucks) have the right of way in reality.

Just thought I'd throw that in.