Fomalhaut30: We would have to replace all the mile marker signs, speed limit signs, distance signs, and on/off ramp signs (since those tend to be based on mileage). That would be an unbelievable cost for something that has little to no practical usage in that area.

rtcvb32: Considering a lot of the infrastructure (bridges and dams) are in serious need of servicing and not getting it... This would add to the problem most likely...

As much as it seems like it would be a problem, at the same time it wouldn't. If you change your address, the DMV in some states issues you a sticker you replace the bottom of your driver's license. To the same effect, printing weather resistant labels and replacing the markers with appropriate changes would be less costly; Probably some cities would actually get the full work done and other sections get patches. After which you keep working your way out until everything gets converted. Probably take a few years...

The speedometers in cars would be more annoying to change over... Most likely for speed signs you'd add the new speed sign, leave the old one up for a couple years, then remove the old one when everyone's switched over...

tammerwhisk: 1. Stickers are easy to vandalize.
2. Covering all those miles and what is probably millions of signs still isn't a small expense.
3. Expecting everyone to switch over is laughable.
Also consider mile markers and other things where a sticker wouldn't suffice, that is not a small thing to overhaul by any means.

tammerwhisk: Do you realize how many accidents and how much confusion there would be during a gradual switch-over? It would be a logistical nightmare. Our roads are already a clusterfuck in some areas last thing we need is a largely pointless transition to a different system. We already use metric in all the areas that it truly makes a major difference (science/technology), anything else is going to be needlessly expensive and complex with no benefit.

Also, Dvorak sucks as does AZERTY.

tammerwhisk: That is exactly why both systems have their uses. For general use and approximations imperial is infinitely easier to relay (for most usage you will be dealing with 1-2 positive digits and maybe the occasional fraction). For scientific, technical, or any that requires precision though metric is definitely the way to go.

In the US we learn both and the common conversions, the only reason a lot of people don't know/use metric is because post-schooling a lot of people never have a real reason to use metric (and thus forget from disuse) unless one is in a scientific or technical field the precision is unnecessary. For general trivial things dealing with a decimal and sometimes negatives is a pain in the ass.

For example the outdoor temperature with the metric system negatives and decimals come up all the time, with Fahrenheit there are "more degrees" within the range humans typically inhabit for many locales negatives are rarely used and decimals are never needed generally.

Celsius "normal outdoor temperature ranges": -17.77~C to 37.77~C
Fahrenheit "normal outdoor temperature range": 0 to 100
(ignoring extremes)

mabrookes: As for the temperature thing, that is just more "im used to it" bias. If there was a country that used a new system that went from 33.123 - 36.004 for the entirety of normal living temperature ranges (making up numbers because it doesnt matter) it would be as completely sensible and relatable to them, without any question, as Fahrenheit is to you.

tammerwhisk: For example the outdoor temperature with the metric system negatives and decimals come up all the time, with Fahrenheit there are "more degrees" within the range humans typically inhabit for many locales negatives are rarely used and decimals are never needed generally.

Celsius "normal outdoor temperature ranges": -17.77~C to 37.77~C
Fahrenheit "normal outdoor temperature range": 0 to 100

ET3D: I'm just coming into this thread, I have no idea what's being discussed, but that was so ridiculous it made me laugh. I mean, the use of two places after the decimal point.

What's wrong with writing

Celsius "normal outdoor temperature ranges": -17C to 37C
Fahrenheit "normal outdoor temperature range": 0F to 100F

I mean, that's somewhat silly as well (due to the selective definition of "normal"), but the implication that decimals are somehow really needed, to the point of needing two digits for the fraction, is flat out hysterical.

Fahrenheit has less than twice the accuracy of Centigrade. The most you would need is marking half degrees C, and that would already make it slightly more accurate than F.

tammerwhisk: Well, for one that would ignore how rounding generally works. For two if we are talking room temperature .77~ can make a hell of a difference for some people.

ET3D: I doubt people would be able to tell the difference between 0.77 and 0.8 of a degree, and if someone can tell the difference between .77 and 1, they'd also be able to tell the difference between 0.5F and 1F.

So yes, there's a slight difference in accuracy, and it might matter in some cases, but, again, using two decimal points is totally ridiculous.

tammerwhisk: .77 in C is just under one and a half degrees in Fahrenheit, so your example needs work.
Food for thought if convenience and simplicity didn't matter with measurement systems (read: less numbers and or whole numbers) Kelvins would be used instead of Celsius for everything.

ET3D: There's no difference between F and C in simplicity, and very little other practical difference for everyday life. They're simply different scales.

tammerwhisk: Except for the whole fact C necessitates the use of decimals if someone wants any sort of precision

tammerwhisk: and will frequently require the use of negatives for non-tropical and or equatorial climates.

tammerwhisk: For general use whole numbers are a lot simpler to remember and work with.