Congratulations to the people of Eire on your successful conversions of road and traffic signs to metric.

Congratulations to the people of the EU on the successful launch of the new Airbus A380, the largest commercial plane ever produced.

Congratulations to the people of the EU on the successful landing of the Cassini-Huygens probe on the moon Titan.

Yes it's easy to forget sometimes while we are having our little debate here that some momentus events are occuring elsewhere.

We haven't seen much of the images from Huygens yet but I await with great exitement. Titan must be a truly bizzarre world with lakes of hydrocarbon substances and temperatures 200 degrees colder than here.

<<<Congratulations to the people of the EU on the successful launch of the new Airbus A380, the largest commercial plane ever produced.>>>

Which does less than (wait for it) 2 mpg !

And they say all the oil will run out within 40 yrs. Worrying.

SteveH wrote

<<
Which does less than (wait for it) 2 mpg !
>>

Where did you get this figure?

Yesterdays newspaper.

I suspect you are going to tell me what it is per passenger now. I was referring to the plane as a whole.

Per passenger its something like 60 miles per litre.

SteveH wrote

<<
Yesterdays newspaper.
>>


Which newspaper?

Which miles?

Does that mean "There are so many miles- which one", or does it mean "There are no iles any more. Bo!"?

"Which newspaper?"

The Daily Mail.

No! Now stoppit! Don't blame me!! It's the choice of my other half.
Personally I don't like being told what to think and do.
It was a direct result of the daily mail that I bought as many "video nasties" as I could!

However - they're not known for telling (mirror like) lies.

You know? "The Mirror"? The paper which gloated over Steve Thoburn being done for selling a pound of bananas?


Actually one good thing about the daily mail. It has a bit near the back (before the sport) that covers "questions and answers" - that can be quite interesting. Anyone know what I mean?

SteveH wrote

<<
"Which newspaper?"

The Daily Mail.
>>

Well, the Daily Mail got it wrong. Figures that I saw were 2L/100km per passenger. It seems that the journalist concerned got his knickers in a twist trying to convert figures for the average Mail reader.

To put this figure into perspective, the average Mini gets uses 5 L/100km. Thus, if the Mini has two passengers, the fuel consumption per passenger is comparable to the fuel consumption per pasenger of the Boeing 380. If of course Mail readers were familiar with L/100km, it would not have been neccessary foer the journalist to have converted the figures.

If the journalist had of engaged brain, he would have realised that 2mpg for an aircraft that carries 500 pasengers is a very good fuel consumption. (A dozen 4x4 gas-gazzlers drivng in covoy use more than that and at best they can only carry 50 or 60 passengers).

<<< However - they're not known for telling (mirror like) lies.

You know? "The Mirror"? The paper which gloated over Steve Thoburn being done for selling a pound of bananas? >>>

The Mirror is no worse than other tabloids for lying/bending the truth.

Obviously we all know Thoburn being done for selling a pound of bananas was a lie.

<<<Actually one good thing about the daily mail.>>>

NO!!

"Figures that I saw were 2L/100km per passenger. It seems that the journalist concerned got his knickers in a twist trying to convert figures for the average Mail reader."

Let me wathe through your arrogance here, Martin.

[Makes swimming motion in the air]

The average ***BRIT*** works with MPG not litres per wotsits.
This is how it is, Martin. Honestly. Please ask a member of the public.
The fact that I may have got it wrong (having to recite it from memory) does not disguise the real facts of reality of what people would rather see.

<<To put this figure into perspective, the average Mini gets uses 5 L/100km. Thus, if the Mini has two passengers, the fuel consumption per passenger is comparable to the fuel consumption per pasenger of the Boeing 380. If of course Mail readers were familiar with L/100km, it would not have been neccessary foer the journalist to have converted the figures. >>

The average Brit won't have a clue what you're on about.

Anyway I was talking OVERALL mpg not per passenger.
I hear that the 777 gets 80mpg per passenger, making it one of the most economical planes.



Makes you wonder where they put all that fuel though. Scary thought that most of the plane is highly flammable liquid!

A boeng 747 cannot return to land at an airport - it has to fly out to sea first and dump most of its fuel.
Now THAT's freaky!



Andy - I said "ONE" good thing about the Daily Mail.

<<< The average ***BRIT*** works with MPG not litres per wotsits >>>

Actually I don't think the average Brit would have a clue about *working* with MPG, since the gallon part is every bit as irrelevant to British roads as the kilometre part of L/100km.

MPG is used only as an index by the majority of people

<<Actually I don't think the average Brit would have a clue about *working* with MPG, since the gallon part is every bit as irrelevant to British roads as the kilometre part of L/100km.>>

I think most will have a "feel" for what a gallon looks like - either from the fact its 8 pints ("Ere lads, one more pint and I'll have had a gallon")

<<MPG is used only as an index by the majority of people>>

Absolutely correct.
I cannot imagine someone measuring out a mile and comparing it to the actuall size of a gallon. That's how all stats are.

Say my car does nought to 60mph in 5 seconds - I know that 5 seconds is a bloody good figure for that - but to somehow measure it out visually is nonsense.

The same goes for mpg

We know an avg of 20mpg is pretty 'orrible.

The missus's car is a diesel that'll do upto 60mpg. WE ALL (martin included) see that as a really good figure.

Then if you say a plane does 2mpg we think "blimey"

Reword it as per passneger and the 777 doing 80mpg sounds a lot better than even the missus's car.

Everything is just numbers that we can gauge upon - especially derived ones (mpg rather than just m)

Steve, you missed my point. If we use mp[UK]g and nobody else int ehworld does so, we put an impossible burden on journalists who have to translate everything into "British Units". If the journalist concerned did not really understand what was meant by 2L/100km per passenger, it wuold have been a lot better for him just to copy it verbatim and hope that the reader understood it. Instead he made a right pig's ear of it.

Martin, I don't see what the Mail did wrong. 2L/100km/passenger=141 passenger-miles/gal. (using UK gallons). If there are about 70 passengers, which seems reasonable to me, then 2 mpg is correct.

Martin - British newspapers translate any news story into readily readable English or Welsh that British people understand best.

End of story.

And they say all the oil will run out within 40 yrs. Worrying.



You must not be a proponent of "Peak Oil". There are those who believe that we don't have that much time. It is not a matter of running out, but there will not be enough produced in the next few years to meet increasing huge demands.

The most worrisome part is when the "resource wars" start to escalate.


http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/

SteveH wrote

<<
Martin - British newspapers translate any news story into readily readable English or Welsh that British people understand best.
>>

In this particulat case, the journalist got it horribly wrong. In many cases they add on precision which cannot be justified. In short, they ar emis-leading the public.

SteveH wrote

<<
Martin - British newspapers translate any news story into readily readable English or Welsh that British people understand best.
>>

In this particulat case, the journalist got it horribly wrong. In many cases they add on precision which cannot be justified. In short, they ar emis-leading the public.


People are accustomed to hearing certain terms, but that does not imply they comprehened those terms or would recognise these terms when being incorrectly used. It has already been proven that citizens of the UK are failures at understanding both metric and imperial units. Mostly because they are taught metric, but fail to use it outside of the classroom and cling to terms they have not been taught and have no feel for other then parroting the words.

The situation worsens at he visability of imperial disappears. As products are labelled only in metric the concept and feel of the imperial is lost. As customers purchase petrol in litres, the concept of the gallon is lost, even if the term persists. If customers visiting different shops continue ask for imperial amounts, receive varying amounts, all visible in kilograms only, the person is desensitised to the original value of the pound. Products advertised in imperial, but sold in metric only aids the desensitising process.

What I found the most interesting concerning the metrication of roads in Eire were the "complaints" and "confusion" about some of the speed limits appearing in certain areas. Such as 100 km/h in front of schools. There was an outcry when this occured, yet the same speed limit was always there before metrication only it was expressed in miles. Didn't the people know what the mph speed really was until it appeared in km/h before they understood it to be wrong for a school zone?

The only people who may truely maintain a feel for the size of old units are those that make an effort to do so, mainly the minority of people who have an interest in old units and become members of forums such as this. The general population does not.

<<Didn't the people know what the mph speed really was until it appeared in km/h before they understood it to be wrong for a school zone?>>

They simply say a large number that they weren't used to and panicked.

The Irish have a feel for mph.

There is a simple test that can prove this. If you are interested then please ask.

To Martin - Have I not already conceaded that it was probably *ME* that made the mistake, not the reporter? Read back to find out.

There is a simple test that can prove this. If you are interested then please ask.


Ok.....proceed with the test

<<<They simply saw a large number that they weren't used to and panicked.>>>

No, they didn't actually know what the speed limit was at all before the change. There used to be very few speed signs in Ireland and as well as replacing the old mph signs they have now almost doubled the total number of signs.

<<<The only people who may truely maintain a feel for the size of old units are those that make an effort to do so, mainly the minority of people who have an interest in old units and become members of forums such as this. The general population does not.>>>

Very true

<<<The Irish have a feel for mph.>>>

Of course they do now, but they will very quickly get a feel for km/h. Its not difficult.

<<Ok.....proceed with the test>>

This relies on integrity and honesty on your part - and if you ARE Irish then I'll accept you already have that! ;-)

Right:-

Take the missus out in the car.

(all speeds below are mph unless explicitly stated)

Drive at 10mph and aks the missus to guess the speed (make a mental note of accuracy)
Accelerate to 20 and do the same.
Then do the same at 30 - again note the accuracy.
Now drive at 70km/h and ask her to guess the speed but ask for it in km/h

I did thsi with my missus and she was accurate within 2 mph.
When I asked for the km/h figure she responded with "how am I meant to know that?" I insisted she guessed and she was way out.

My missus has no interest at all in the imperial/metric debate, btw.

Here's another test.

Challenge a friend to drive past a speed camera as close to the speed limit as possible with his/her speedo covered over so they have to take a chance whether they will get a speeding fine.

Would you do it?

Speed camera enforcement has caught so many people out because they don't watch their speed. Our instincts for judging it aren't that good. We have to rely on the instrument. So the issue as to whether it's in mph or km/h is irrelevent.

Regarding the recent changeover in Ireland, it now means that motorists will have to do exactly that - watch their speed carefully, something they didn't do before.

Ireland has one of the worst road safety records in the EU and it is hoped that this changeover will greatly improve safety.

Admittedly its not the change from mph to km/h itself that will improve safety, but anything that improves safety can only be a good thing

<<Challenge a friend to drive past a speed camera as close to the speed limit as possible with his/her speedo covered over so they have to take a chance whether they will get a speeding fine.

Would you do it?>>

I would. Naturally I might drop to being too slow - but that'll be adrenalin.

<<Speed camera enforcement has caught so many people out because they don't watch their speed. Our instincts for judging it aren't that good. We have to rely on the instrument. So the issue as to whether it's in mph or km/h is irrelevent.>>

Yes it is - most people 'speed' from time to time. And they know they will be speeding.
Once the yellow box is in view the usual response is to take your foot off the gas.
That's because you already know that you were already speeding about, say, 30mph.
A quick glance down at the speedo will show the needle fall from about 40 to about 30-32.
You are doing it all the time without even thinking.

It's just like the use of imperial measures in everyday speech - we do it without even noticing.

I disagree totally. Neither of us can prove what we say so we'll have to agree to disagree.

People automatically easing off when they see a speed camera is a natural reaction to checking ones speed.

I maintain categorically that people cannot judge speed instinctively to sufficient accuracy to be able to know they are driving at a safe and/or legally allowed speed.

There are so many factors that can affect this. Modern cars give such a quiet ride compared to old bangers of 20 or more years ago that 30 mph seems like you are crawling along. The institute of advanced motorists advise the use of the 3rd gear in 30 mph zones to keep better speed control coupled with constant attention to the speedometer.

<<I disagree totally. Neither of us can prove what we say so we'll have to agree to disagree.>>

Let's write to "Why Don't You?" to see what they might say.

Or better still, "How"

<<
Admittedly its not the change from mph to km/h itself that will improve safety, but anything that improves safety can only be a good thing
>>

I wonder how much they could have improved safety by spending the X million pounds/euros/whatever on safety rather than changing the road signs.
If they want to improve safety, there are much better ways of doing it.

And anything that improves safety does not necessarily have to be a good thing. Banning cars would greatly improve safety.

I wonder how much they could have improved safety by spending the X million pounds/euros/whatever on safety rather than changing the road signs.

If they want to improve safety, there are much better ways of doing it.


You missed the point. The point of changing the signs was primarily to restore a common system of measurement to Irish roads. Distance signs were already in kilometres, so it made no sense to continue to have speeds in miles per hour.

Ireland is both a member of the EU and a metric country. That may not sit well with some people but that is a reality. EU regulations require the use of the metric system and Ireland is complying. Like the people of much of the world, Ireland has no problem being a metric country.

The issue of safety was a parallel issue, something like killing two birds with one stone.

Bud wrote

<<
wonder how much they could have improved safety by spending the X million pounds/euros/whatever on safety rather than changing the road signs.
>>

They lowered the speed limit at the same time on many roads.

...and made people aware of the limits - previously there was little awareness of limits partly due to lack of signage.

During the changeover not only did they replace the existing signs they put almost the same number again of new signs.

Martin, from what I understood, they lowered the speed limit slightly on slower roads but raised it slightly on the faster highways.
This is, of course, entirely a consequence of the conversion factors.

And the safety reason is really quite pathetic. No one would believe that the units on the road signs have anything to do with safety. Just because they are changing the units and increasing awareness at the same time doesn't mean that the two are related.

And the safety reason is really quite pathetic. No one would believe that the units on the road signs have anything to do with safety. Just because they are changing the units and increasing awareness at the same time doesn't mean that the two are related.



Ireland killed two birds with one stone. The metrication of the road signs had nothing to do with the safety issue. The safety issue was tackeled by the actual change in speed limits. They not only had to change the signs to correct irregularities with the speeds, they also added new signs where none were present.

Irelands metrication of speed limits was really a completion of a program to metricate distance signs long ago began but left hanging. The metrication of distance signs and keeping the imperial signs for speed was sort of nonsensical. The metrication of speed signs and the completion of distance signs metrication by years end, will bring Irish roads in compliance with EU regulations and end the nonsense that has existed for twenty years.

Can you non-Irish accept this?

Bud wrote

<<
Martin, from what I understood, they lowered the speed limit slightly on slower roads but raised it slightly on the faster highways.
This is, of course, entirely a consequence of the conversion factors.
>>

On the contrary, from what I understand, may 60mph roads became 50km/h and some in residential some areas 30km/h zones were introduced

<<<And the safety reason is really quite pathetic. No one would believe that the units on the road signs have anything to do with safety.>>>

Logically no-one would believe that the units on the road signs have anything to do with safety, but opponents of metrication are always quick to use this as a reason to further delay the change in Britain.

Andy - check out the differences between Irish road safety and UK road safety.

EGB: "Can you non-Irish accept this?"

Is it only me that can see the irony of that when realising where you actually typed it?

<<
On the contrary, from what I understand, may 60mph roads became 50km/h and some in residential some areas 30km/h zones were introduced
>>

I hope not. 60 mph to 50 km/h would probably not go too well with the drivers.


And before anyone starts accusing me of misinterpreting anything, the Irish Government's metric web site explicitly states "The change to metric speed limits will improve road SAFETY and there will be MORE signs to help drivers." It doesn't make a connection.

<<
I hope not. 60 mph to 50 km/h would probably not go too well with the drivers.
>>

Typo on my part. I meant 60 mph to 80 km/h (ie a speed reduction of about 15%)

your over-estimation is almost identical to someone confusing miles and kilometres.

;-)