6 ms·
But how are those problems to drivers today? The vast majority of drivers don't drive between multiple systems very often, so within their experience it is unif
by mejari 11y ago
But how are those problems to drivers today? The vast majority of drivers don't drive between multiple systems very often, so within their experience it is uniform. And what is simpler about km vs miles, given that everyone already knows miles?
- shmerl 11y agoI'm not sure why you single out drivers. It's a global change. I just brought examples above where there is an apparent lack of progress in metrification effort. Road signs aren't the only such example.
- mejari 11y agoJust providing that as an example. The same points hold true for temperature. Why is it more simple and more uniform from the perspective of a society that is mostly non metric? What problems would switching solve that people actually deal with on a semi-regular basis? I ask this because unless there are such problems what is the motivation to switch? Why should we?
- shmerl 11y agoThose questions should be answered as a whole. And metric systems is simpler overall - there is no debate about it. I don't think it makes any sense to switch to it only partially. The only reason US doesn't switch is inertia (i.e. habit), and not concerns like "how it can improve things".
- mejari 11y ago>The only reason US doesn't switch is inertia (i.e. habit), and not concerns like "how it can improve things" You say that like they're two different things. No one does anything just because. The benefits of switching have to outweigh the benefits of staying the same, one of which is always going to be "it's already done". Why bother reversing inertia and switching unless it improves things? You aren't articulating why the change should be made, you're just asserting that it should. And just saying "It's simpler" means nothing, because being simple isn't a benefit all on it's own. Does it being simpler mean X number of increased work hours because we aren't wasting time converting? Does it being simpler mean Y fewer accidents on the road or in the workplace? These are reasons, not just "it's simpler".
- shmerl 11y agoYou can find details about switching and views on it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metrication_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metrication_in_the_United_Stat... US was pushing the effort in the past, with government obviously convinced that benefits are worth it. But inertia was too much, and they ditched active pushing in order not to risk their public image. Since then it's kind of formally "on the plate", but in practice it's barely moving anywhere.
- mejari 11y agoYes, I understand all that, but it's still not an answer to the question of what, given the facts as they are, the benefits are that make it worth going against that inertia. (Also: The only discussion on potential benefits in your link is sourced by a dead link)
- shmerl 11y agoThe benefits are pretty obvious to me - uniformity. I don't think you need any links for it.
- mejari 11y agoI already addressed why this is not sufficient: >And just saying "It's simpler" means nothing, because being simple isn't a benefit all on it's own. Does it being simpler mean X number of increased work hours because we aren't wasting time converting? Does it being simpler mean Y fewer accidents on the road or in the workplace? These are reasons, not just "it's simpler". What are the tangible benefits to people's lives that "uniformity" would bring? And do you think they outweigh the benefits of continuing to use our existing system? Why or why not?