Comedic "things you would ban": minor things that irritate you

[Mcr Warrior]

Pendant alert but weight can only be measured in Newtons, all the others are units of mass. Sorry, it's one of my irritations!!!

So, essentially, weighing scales should show Newtons? Fairly sure that wouldn't cause any confusion?!

 

[Ediswan]

So, essentially, weighing scales should show Newtons? Fairly sure that wouldn't cause any confusion?!

Just think of them as devices for measuring mass.

 

[DelW]

So, essentially, weighing scales should show Newtons? Fairly sure that wouldn't cause any confusion?!

Actual scales - the type with a balance arm and pans for the item being measured and a pile of calibrated, erm, "weights" - would work in any non-zero gravitational system, so they're measuring mass. Anything that uses a spring system, like bathroom scales, is actually measuring force and the values shown are only accurate when they're used on the surface of the earth - which, to be fair, they mostly are.

The differentiation between mass in grams or kilograms, and force in Newtons or kiloNewtons, is one of the benefits of SI units. Imperial has pound force and pound weight, and then poundals, all of which leads to even more confusion ...

 

[Peter Mugridge]

The BBC irk me when quoting the weight of a person in kg (lb). The UK traditional units of weight (person) are stones and pounds, often just the stones.

I only ever use kilos for my own weight. Can't get my head round stones and pounds...

 

[Richard Scott]

So, essentially, weighing scales should show Newtons? Fairly sure that wouldn't cause any confusion?!

They should but I know they wouldn't hence why I said pendant alert!
Weight is one of many scientific words used incorrectly, fluid and pressure being two that also spring to mind.

 

[AM9]

But you shouldn't if visibility more than 100metres. In conditions other than poor visibility they are dazzling and a distraction and can make brake lights harder to spot.
I can easily see cars in both heavy spray and snow with normal lights on, if you can't then please get your eyes checked as may not meet standard for safe driving.
The clue really is in the name of fog lights, I have never used them in any other conditions for reason stated above.

Who said that visibility was more than 100m. Frequently, waterlogged road surfaces will produce considerable spray such vehicles less than 100m ahead are barely (if at all) definable, - as @PeterMugridge posts, cases of inadequate visibility of vehicles ahead due to heavy spray does occur. My eyesight is not inadequate for driving in any conditions that I deem viable, - however, visibility of other vehicles should be better than just discernable in a cloud of airborne spray to be able to detect it's movement and any unexpected changes in position.
To be more specific, in my experioence much of the poor conditions of spray occurs on multi-lane roads (e.g. dual carriageways and motorways) where vehicles in adjacent lanes can make conditions worse in seconds. Some people have some extreme aversion to high intensity rear lights and for their part claim that any use other than in fog so thick that they can't see is dangerous to all. Fortunately not everybody agrees with their assertion. Driving is not a competition to see who can see the furthest in poor conditions.

The BBC irk me when quoting the weight of a person in kg (lb). The UK traditional units of weight (person) are stones and pounds, often just the stones.

The 'traditional' way of measuring human weight is Kg, and has been since the 1960s when the UK formally adopted metric weight. The dwindling numbers of the population still stuck in imperial measures is an ancient tradition. Lucki9ly, the NHS and all other heath concerns use the current measure.

 

[Richard Scott]

Who said that visibility was more than 100m. Frequently, waterlogged road surfaces will produce considerable spray such vehicles less than 100m ahead are barely (if at all) definable, - as @PeterMugridge posts, cases of inadequate visibility of vehicles ahead due to heavy spray does occur. My eyesight is not inadequate for driving in any conditions that I deem viable, - however, visibility of other vehicles should be better than just discernable in a cloud of airborne spray to be able to detect it's movement and any unexpected changes in position.
To be more specific, in my experioence much of the poor conditions of spray occurs on multi-lane roads (e.g. dual carriageways and motorways) where vehicles in adjacent lanes can make conditions worse in seconds. Some people have some extreme aversion to high intensity rear lights and for their part claim that any use other than in fog so thick that they can't see is dangerous to all. Fortunately not everybody agrees with their assertion. Driving is not a competition to see who can see the furthest in poor conditions.

The 'traditional' way of measuring human weight is Kg, and has been since the 1960s when the UK formally adopted metric weight. The dwindling numbers of the population still stuck in imperial measures is an ancient tradition. Lucki9ly, the NHS and all other heath concerns use the current measure.

Whether you agree or not isn't the point, Highway Code says visibility less than 100yards/metres and that is that. Spray isn't fog and afraid may make things hard to see but doesn't warrant fog lamps as it doesn't totally obliterate the vehicle; you can still see it. Common sense says slow down in these conditions and you'll easily see the vehiclein front. The idiot doing 70mph in these conditionsis generating loads of spray is of no concern to me as there well ahead and, as they're going faster than me, I won't be runninginto the back of them. Like I said I cannot recall any time (and have driven in some horrendous conditions) with heavy rain and spray where fog lamps would have helped. They make things worse as they are dazzling and mask brake lights so would rather you follow Highway Code guidance rather than make your own up please because you think you're right.

 

[Ediswan]

Whether you agree or not isn't the point, Highway Code says visibility less than 100yards/metres and that is that.

But it doesn't define, in an objective manner, what '100m visibility' means. Hence, arguments.

 

[Western Lord]

The 'traditional' way of measuring human weight is Kg, and has been since the 1960s when the UK formally adopted metric weight. The dwindling numbers of the population still stuck in imperial measures is an ancient tradition. Lucki9ly, the NHS and all other heath concerns use the current measure.

So why are the weights of new born babies almost always given in pounds?

 

[dangie]

So why are the weights of new born babies almost always given in pounds?

I’m guessing that 7lb 5oz sounds better than 3.317kg

 

[Richard Scott]

But it doesn't define, in an objective manner, what '100m visibility' means. Hence, arguments.

Visibility of 100m is can I see 100m, surely? If thick fog no, if raining then almost definitely I can. Fog lights are there so can see vehicle in reduced visibility when I approach it, which I may not have seen before. They are not needed in heavy rain as the spray tells me a vehicle is there and I know to look out for brake lights incase it's slowing down. If it's stopped no spray so jo issue seeing it, if it's moving I want to know if it is slowing down hence don't want to see dazzling fog lights just the brake lights.
It really isn't that difficult, surely? I cannot see why some people are debating this. I assume they have never followed someone with fog lamps on in the rain otherwise they wouldn't argue, they really are very dazzling and distracting and hence a danger.

 

[AM9]

So why are the weights of new born babies almost always given in pounds?

Habit of an ever decreasing proportion of the population.

 

[dangie]

Habit of an ever decreasing proportion of the population.

Hopefully we still get beer in pints and not half litres

 

[AM9]

Hopefully we still get beer in pints and not half litres

All tastes the same and will cost the same.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

Hopefully we still get beer in pints and not half litres

All tastes the same and will cost the same.

What's the chances that there'd be a reduction from 568ml to 500ml, but no corresponding price reduction?

 

[AM9]

What's the chances that there'd be a reduction from 568ml to 500ml, but no corresponding price reduction?

That will be at the appropriate point in an inflation phase.

 

[GordonT]

I can't actually recall how straightforward (or otherwise) the conversion of petrol/diesel sales at filling stations from gallons to litres was but perhaps others can? I don't remember the sky falling in, however.

 

[75A]

I believe you multiply the number of litres by .22 to get the number in gallons.

 

[AM9]

I believe you multiply the number of litres by .22 to get the number in gallons.

Yes that's right, 1 imperial gallon = 4.54 litres, therefore 1 litre = 1/4.54 ≈ 0.22 imp. gal.

 

[dangie]

All tastes the same and will cost the same.

Yes that’s my point. Less for your money.

 

[bspahh]

I can't actually recall how straightforward (or otherwise) the conversion of petrol/diesel sales at filling stations from gallons to litres was but perhaps others can? I don't remember the sky falling in, however.

I think the conversion was done when the cost per gallon was going to go over £1, when petrol pumps were often designed for prices up to 99p. Prices would have still be displayed in £ per gallon, but not for the display on the pumps.

http://www.speedlimit.org.uk/petrolprices.html has petrol prices from 1983 (36.7 p/litre, £1,67/gallon). The consensus in this discussion was that the changeover from selling in litres to gallons would have been in the early 80s.

welshfarmer
I passed my test in 1984 and have only ever bought in litres. I would say 1981-1982 sounds about right

 

[GordonT]

The prefixing of descriptive words with the additional word "super". On breakfast television this morning a presenter described something as being "super-annoying" which caused me to wince and perceive the expression to be... erm ... "super-annoying".

 

[jon81uk]

What's the chances that there'd be a reduction from 568ml to 500ml, but no corresponding price reduction?

Its already happened with a lot of glass bottled drinks. When Magners first launched in the UK it was pint bottles, now its 500ml. Although in Ireland they still use the pint (568ml) bottles!
Just another shrinkflation example.

For draught service it would need a change in the law. Draught beer and cider can only be sold in third, half, two-thirds of a pint and multiples of half a pint. https://www.gov.uk/weights-measures-and-packaging-the-law/specified-quantities

 

[Ediswan]

The apparent obsession with reducing as many things as possible to Three Letter Abbreviations.

 

[gg1]

The apparent obsession with reducing as many things as possible to Three Letter Abbreviations.

IKR

 

[GordonT]

IKR

In full AGT. (agreement).

 

[Strat-tastic]

Yes, and not defining them.

 

[D6130]

The apparent obsession with reducing as many things as possible to Three Letter Abbreviations.

All started by BR in the 1970s when they invented the CRS station codes!

 

[Hadlow Road]

In full AGT. (agreement).

Mind you, AGT is a contraction, rather than an abbreviation, and should not, therefore, have the full stop after it.

Pedantry lives.

 

[dangie]

Not so much an irritation, more of a despondence, but Strictly Come Dancing began tonight.

I have no problem at all with the programme. It keeps the wife quiet for an hour or so.

What is despondent is that the final is at Christmas. In my mind it's still summer(ish).