Unnecessarily Accurate Distances on Signs
Moderator: Site Management Team
Re: Unnecessarily Accurate Distances on Signs
There are a few ".5 km" signs in Carrickmacross pointing towards Inniskeen.
9.5 km at the N2 junction
10.5 km near the town centre
9.5 km at the N2 junction
10.5 km near the town centre
it/he/they | aka computerfan0
My travelled roads can be found here.
My travelled roads can be found here.
Re: Unnecessarily Accurate Distances on Signs
I passed this today, but missed the 'f' on the sign, and thought of this thread. It is advertising a local radio station, obviously.
Make poetry history.
Did you know there's more to SABRE than just the Forums?
Help with maps using the new online calibrator.
Add your roads knowledge to the SABRE Wiki.
Did you know there's more to SABRE than just the Forums?
Help with maps using the new online calibrator.
Add your roads knowledge to the SABRE Wiki.
Re: Unnecessarily Accurate Distances on Signs
There used to be an advance warning sign for a side road on the A13 in London (it just pre-dated Google) whose plate warned it was in 188 metres, obviously a conversion from 200 yards by someone both unnecessarily precise and who didn't know metric is not used. It was there for years.
- Vierwielen
- Member
- Posts: 5739
- Joined: Sun Jun 08, 2008 21:21
- Location: Hampshire
Re: Unnecessarily Accurate Distances on Signs
During the New Year of 1981/82 I joined a tour that crossed the Sahara by Landrover. WHen travelling on one of the main north-south roads in Algeria, I saw many roadsigns pointing to villages a little off the main road that were rounded to the nearest 100 metres. (The distances were usually less than one kilometre).
- the cheesecake man
- Member
- Posts: 2486
- Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2019 13:21
- Location: Sheffield
Re: Unnecessarily Accurate Distances on Signs
Or perhaps someone measured it very badly and thinks the roundabout is 92 femtometres away.
It's not a great advert as it doesn't tell me the name of the radio station.
Re: Unnecessarily Accurate Distances on Signs
In these days of 'shrinkflation' I can imagine there'd be a lot of industry support for redefining a 'metric pint' as 500ml. Would solve a lot of problems!John McAdam wrote: ↑Fri Oct 22, 2021 20:00As I often hear in the pub: "Yes please, 568 millilitres of beer, thanks" ...Jonathan24 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 22, 2021 19:15 ... For anyone under 50, anywhere in the UK, do they actually use imperial measures anymore, unless they absolutely have to? Metric just seems to make so much more sense, otherwise why don't we go back to using pounds, shillings and pence again?
Quite agree with your underlying point though!
-
- Member
- Posts: 135
- Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2016 15:31
Re: Unnecessarily Accurate Distances on Signs
Back in the days of imperial measurement, does anybody know why the UK measured engine sizes in cc rather than cu in?
- the cheesecake man
- Member
- Posts: 2486
- Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2019 13:21
- Location: Sheffield
Re: Unnecessarily Accurate Distances on Signs
Because they're smaller so manufacturers could quote a bigger number?linuxrocks wrote: ↑Wed Dec 08, 2021 10:47 Back in the days of imperial measurement, does anybody know why the UK measured engine sizes in cc rather than cu in?
Re: Unnecessarily Accurate Distances on Signs
Like temperaturesthe cheesecake man wrote: ↑Wed Dec 08, 2021 12:42Because they're smaller so manufacturers could quote a bigger number?linuxrocks wrote: ↑Wed Dec 08, 2021 10:47 Back in the days of imperial measurement, does anybody know why the UK measured engine sizes in cc rather than cu in?
Make poetry history.
Did you know there's more to SABRE than just the Forums?
Help with maps using the new online calibrator.
Add your roads knowledge to the SABRE Wiki.
Did you know there's more to SABRE than just the Forums?
Help with maps using the new online calibrator.
Add your roads knowledge to the SABRE Wiki.
Re: Unnecessarily Accurate Distances on Signs
These days you're more likely to hear engine sizes quoted in litres, so the imperial equivalent would be pints, eg 'What do you think of my new 3½ pint Audi?'linuxrocks wrote: ↑Wed Dec 08, 2021 10:47 Back in the days of imperial measurement, does anybody know why the UK measured engine sizes in cc rather than cu in?
- Chris Bertram
- Member
- Posts: 15805
- Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2001 12:30
- Location: Birmingham, England
Re: Unnecessarily Accurate Distances on Signs
Ha ha, that sounds so wrong. The use of metric measures here is, I think, in no small part down to the influence of German engineers and manufacturers in the early days of the motor industry; their engines dominated the market, so their units became standard. Conversely, flying heights of aircraft are quoted in feet because of the involvement of the USA at the outset, and TV sizes are in inches because of the UK's role in its development.skiddaw05 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 08, 2021 18:38These days you're more likely to hear engine sizes quoted in litres, so the imperial equivalent would be pints, eg 'What do you think of my new 3½ pint Audi?'linuxrocks wrote: ↑Wed Dec 08, 2021 10:47 Back in the days of imperial measurement, does anybody know why the UK measured engine sizes in cc rather than cu in?
“The quality of any advice anybody has to offer has to be judged against the quality of life they actually lead.” - Douglas Adams.
Did you know there's more to SABRE than just the Forums?
Add your roads knowledge to the SABRE Wiki today!
Have you browsed SABRE Maps recently? Try getting involved!
Did you know there's more to SABRE than just the Forums?
Add your roads knowledge to the SABRE Wiki today!
Have you browsed SABRE Maps recently? Try getting involved!
Re: Unnecessarily Accurate Distances on Signs
I had wondered that my self at times and when did they start -- The RR Merlin was 27 litres, when made by Packard in the US it was a V-1650 (1650 cu in). Other RR Aero engine were also quoted in litres.linuxrocks wrote: ↑Wed Dec 08, 2021 10:47 Back in the days of imperial measurement, does anybody know why the UK measured engine sizes in cc rather than cu in?
Pre-war Austin 7's had a 748cc engine and races were organised by the 750 Motor Club. Early engine were quoted as power output (hp) not displacement, but when displacement was quoted it always seemed to be in cc.
“The simple step of a courageous individual is not to take part in the lie" - Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn
Johnny Mo
Johnny Mo
Re: Unnecessarily Accurate Distances on Signs
probably more to do with American dominance of consumer electronics. That said it did look funny in a German supermarket seeing TV's advertised in zoll (inches) with the official EU metric measurement in brackets.Chris Bertram wrote: ↑Wed Dec 08, 2021 18:53 ... and TV sizes are in inches because of the UK's role in its development.
“The simple step of a courageous individual is not to take part in the lie" - Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn
Johnny Mo
Johnny Mo
- the cheesecake man
- Member
- Posts: 2486
- Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2019 13:21
- Location: Sheffield
Re: Unnecessarily Accurate Distances on Signs
TV sizes are instead inflated by quoting the diagonal. I'm not aware of anything else that's measured like that. Eg B&Q may sell me a 3m x 4m lump of wood, they won't insist it's 5m.Chris Bertram wrote: ↑Wed Dec 08, 2021 18:53 ...and TV sizes are in inches because of the UK's role in its development.
- Bfivethousand
- Member
- Posts: 1387
- Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 22:16
- Location: Derbyshire
Re: Unnecessarily Accurate Distances on Signs
There's a verrrrry old AA sign listed here on Ebay for Stacksteads which includes the destination "LONDON 199 3/4"
16 Sodium atoms walk into a bar
followed immediately by Batman
followed immediately by Batman
Re: Unnecessarily Accurate Distances on Signs
I think this may be a new record low: 12 yards in Croydon.
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.3835904 ... 384!8i8192
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.3835904 ... 384!8i8192
"I went to a planet without bilateral symmetry and all I got was this lousy F-shirt."
Re: Unnecessarily Accurate Distances on Signs
And utterly redundant, given that there are also three width restriction roundels with the same restriction on them. Whether the physical obstruction is there, in 12 yards or in three miles, the legal ban on vehicles wider than the limit starts at that point. It's just sign clutter!Klepsydra wrote: ↑Thu Feb 17, 2022 22:17 I think this may be a new record low: 12 yards in Croydon.
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.3835904 ... 384!8i8192
Chris
Roads.org.uk
Roads.org.uk
-
- Member
- Posts: 629
- Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2020 15:46
Re: Unnecessarily Accurate Distances on Signs
It looks like new width restriction signs have been added to the "12 yard" ones, when they should have replaced them - look at the 2008 view and there's no restriction sign on the outer posts.Chris5156 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 19, 2022 09:28And utterly redundant, given that there are also three width restriction roundels with the same restriction on them. Whether the physical obstruction is there, in 12 yards or in three miles, the legal ban on vehicles wider than the limit starts at that point. It's just sign clutter!Klepsydra wrote: ↑Thu Feb 17, 2022 22:17 I think this may be a new record low: 12 yards in Croydon.
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.3835904 ... 384!8i8192
The signs on the other side also say "12 yards" and are much further back - as best as I can tell on satellite view it's about 35 yards to the bollards, or 25 to the start of the hatching, certainly a lot more than 12. From that side, the restriction sign is just past the bollards - so if you hit the bollards with a wide vehicle, technically you haven't breached the width restriction.
- the cheesecake man
- Member
- Posts: 2486
- Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2019 13:21
- Location: Sheffield
Re: Unnecessarily Accurate Distances on Signs
Sorry we had 11 yards earlier:Klepsydra wrote: ↑Thu Feb 17, 2022 22:17 I think this may be a new record low: 12 yards in Croydon.
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.3835904 ... 384!8i8192
Vierwielen wrote: ↑Thu Oct 14, 2021 22:51I would have put the yellow board behind the traffic light.
BTW, 11 yards looks suspiciously like 10 metres to me.
Re: Unnecessarily Accurate Distances on Signs
Not a distance but a percentage:
Search for the word Vatersay here:
https://www.walkhighlands.co.uk/Forum/v ... =9&t=91351
Then scroll down a few pictures for a gradient percentage given to one decimal place...
[OK, so it's 1 in 9 as the writer points out, but 11.1% does seem peculiarly precise!]
Search for the word Vatersay here:
https://www.walkhighlands.co.uk/Forum/v ... =9&t=91351
Then scroll down a few pictures for a gradient percentage given to one decimal place...
[OK, so it's 1 in 9 as the writer points out, but 11.1% does seem peculiarly precise!]