Comments on: Steering a wrong course on the highways? http://www.metricviews.org.uk/2007/01/08/highways-decimal-distance-measurement/ Commentary on the measurement muddle in the UK Tue, 06 Jan 2009 15:38:17 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.5 by: Phil Hall http://www.metricviews.org.uk/2007/01/08/highways-decimal-distance-measurement/#comment-47 Mon, 08 Jan 2007 13:47:02 +0000 http://www.metricviews.org.uk/2007/01/08/highways-decimal-distance-measurement/#comment-47 People think in tens perhaps more so than they realise. No body would say, for example, "there's a Post Office about 48 yards up the road"; No they'd say "about 50 yards up the road". What is more the Government's own rules for distances in yards on road signs say it should be rounded to the nearest 10 yards. National speed limits are always multiples of 10 mph as well. So why do we do this? There is no mathematical rule that says things should be estimated to the nearest ten or hundred of something. It is purely and simply because that's the way we count. The nearest ten or hundred or thousand etc fits naturally with this. It's far easier to concieve of progressively larger measurement units in the same manner. The ancient mariners clearly recognised this and (without the baggage of trader's obscurations) ended up with tens and hundreds as as their scale factors. I commend the above article as a good example of how we instinctly go decimal when we have a clean sheet and ease of use is the prime consideration. People think in tens perhaps more so than they realise. No body would say, for example, “there’s a Post Office about 48 yards up the road”; No they’d say “about 50 yards up the road”.

What is more the Government’s own rules for distances in yards on road signs say it should be rounded to the nearest 10 yards. National speed limits are always multiples of 10 mph as well.

So why do we do this? There is no mathematical rule that says things should be estimated to the nearest ten or hundred of something. It is purely and simply because that’s the way we count. The nearest ten or hundred or thousand etc fits naturally with this. It’s far easier to concieve of progressively larger measurement units in the same manner.

The ancient mariners clearly recognised this and (without the baggage of trader’s obscurations) ended up with tens and hundreds as as their scale factors.

I commend the above article as a good example of how we instinctly go decimal when we have a clean sheet and ease of use is the prime consideration.

]]>