I've recently seen a sign on the A46 at the beginning of West Lindsey (just as you come out of the district of East Lindsey) giving the distance of Newark (upon Trent) as "24½" miles (there was another distance on there almost as long, using the same fraction alongside the whole number).

I believe this is illegal, and can't help but cringe at it as I can't help but notice that 24½ miles is 40km!

See how important it is to work as hard as possible to halt and reverse metrication.

This would appear to be yet another example of how the government, aware that metric road signs would never be accepted democraticaly, are resorting to covert methods.

More than likely this sign was erected in the 1970's when metrication of road signs was iminent. The local council (or whoever was responsible for the sign) had re-calcuated the distance in kilometres. This sort of planning is quite normal in Government departments.

After the Thatcher victory in 1979 and metrication being put on ice, the localc council merely replaced the sign that was there. While it is not lawful under the TRDGD 2002 to erect a sign bearing a distance of of "24½" miles, the TRSGD 2002 does have clauses covering road signs that already exist, so the sign is probably lawful on the grounds that it was lawful when erected and has not since been explicitly proscribed.

I believe '24 1/2 miles' is a genuine attempt at giving the true distance to Newark - *not* a subtle 'pre-metric' distance.

My reasons for saying this are three:

1. 40 kilometres converts to 24.84 miles - more than 24 1/2

2. 24 1/2 miles converts to 39.43 kilometres i.e. 39 to the nearest kilometre, not 40

3. There are many road signs which add on a rather unnecessary '1/2', '1/4' or '3/4' - e.g. I have seen '30 3/4' - officials being over literalist when clearly '31' would be better.

The recent proliferation of '1/3 mile' signs is another matter. That's 536.46 metres - dangerously close to '1/2 km'

Points one and two are the same. Point three does not disprove the theory, unless 30 3/4 miles equates to something other than a round metric figure.

Tony Bennett wrote
<<
dangerously close to '1/2 km'
>>

SI is a decimal system so it is normal to write 0.5km. Leave "1/2" for non-decimal systems such as the Imperial system.

The truth is that often, when you read decimal figures or percentages, you mentally convert them to fractions to understand them, like you convert passive sentences into active sentences to understand them. People think in fractions, not decimals, and... I wonder how oft in the metric world fractions of a kilometre are used.

Isn't imperial superior.

When talking about halves and quarters you are probably right. When talking about eights and sixteenths some people work one way , other work another way, when you get below sixteenths decimal is definitely superior.

I recently saw a report of the trading prices of some American stock. The price was something like "34 41/64" which is just silly. A price of "34.64" is much easier to handle. (Note - the exchange concerned dictates the size of a "tick" - the smallest amount that the stock is allowed to move. European exchanges have ticks that are decimal but most American exchanges have ticks that are factional and geuss which exchange cause most problems for computer programmers and for stock analysts - it is not the European exchanges.

Re: The "metric" imperial signs:

I suspect a little conspiracism is going on here!

I'm happy with fractions of miles, even if they are "near" a round KM figure.

Most people use "half" when it comes to miles - even in day2day chatting

Frederick,
Tell us more about converting passive sentences into active sentences. Give an example.

It seems that SOME of the imperialists are running scared of imperial road signs now! Next we'll see the ARM defacing imperial signs that have a resemblance to metric or ones with decimal points in them!

I've been driving for more than 30 years (yeah I know, long journey that) and I don't recall ever seeing signs giving fractions of a mile when the distance is as great as this.

As far as I recall they've always dropped fractions over any distance greater than about 5 mile.

So if the true distance is in fact 40 km, then it should have been signed as 25 mile.

Looks like there are some people in Highways Authorities who need a lesson on how to round numbers correctly according to the required level of precision, just like those who over-use mm to ridicule the metric system.

About fifteen yeas ago I recall a sign near Andover that gave the distance to Exeter to the nearest quarter of a mile. I do not recall the exact distance, but it was certainly well over 24 miles. Counting the squares on my AA ROad atlas (12.5 km per square), I estimate the distance ot be about 130km (whatever that is in miles - no doubt SteveH will convert).

130km? Yeah sure that's about 130,000,000mm

(That's for meter man!)

About passive and active sentences, well here's an example.

When we read that a sign has been demetricated, we convert it to it being that ARM have demetricated it. Out of habit. That's how we make sense of the sentence.

Is this an example of an active sentence or an example of a passive sentence?

In hifi an active speaker is one with its own power supply whereas a passive speaker uses the power of the supplying amp.

Just thought I'd drop that bit of irrelevancy in.

Hmmmm

So if a sentence has ARM in it, it must be an active one because of what the A stands for.

Unless it has something to do with the sign having its own power supply.

Frederick,
Please provide an example of a passive sample, then an active sample.

Passive:

"Regulations were introduced by the government in 2000, against the wishes of over 90% of the British people, to make it a crime to sell in pounds and ounces"

Active:

"The government introduced regulations in 2000, against the wishes of over 90% of the British people, to make it a crime to sell in pounds and ounces"


[Grammar lessons free on bwmaonline, courtesy of ARM]

Quotes from Concise Oxford Dictionary

Active
...
5 Gram. designating the voice that attributes the action of a verb to the person or thing from which it logically proceeds (e.g. of the verbs in guns kill; we saw him).
n. Gram. the active form or voice of a verb.

passive
...
4 Gram. designating the voice in which the subject undergoes the action of the verb (e.g. in they were killed).

Surely that should be "gramme" ;-)

I have just checked the spellings as given by the International Bureau for Weights and Measures (www.bipm.fr).

The English spellings are: metre, kilogram
The French spellings are: mètre, kilogramme


Metre man is correct - the English spelling is "gram".

How can a system that is truely international have different spellings in different countries?

The longhand spelling might be different in order to accomodate the grammar and script rules of the language in question (See for example http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/el/consleg/pdf/1980/el_1980L0181_do_001.pdf - the greek version of the EU directive 80/181/EEC), but the symbol is the same in all languages:

Thus kilogram (English) = kilogramme (French) = kg (International)

BWMA: "How can a system that is truely international have different spellings in different countries?"

Haha, nice try BWMA !
May I remind you that the abbreviations are international, even in countries where the Cyrillic or Arabic alphabet is used.

Martin you are surely showing your darker than dark sense of humour again?

I believe "Meter man" had abbreviated the word "grammatical".

Please say you're not being serious!

The word "gram" in my last post was taken straight from the Concise Oxford Dictionary (CD version). It's their abbreviation not mine (I assumed short for grammar or gramatical definition).

It's funny, I never noticed the pun.

Hasn't it gone quiet on all the threads?

Perhaps everyone is on holiday!