On Wednesday, in article
Post by Derek TearnePost by Les CargillPost by Derek TearnePost by benjNothing new. The English drive on the left side of the road while
everyone else drives on the right. But they think theirs is the sensible
choice.
This is a perfect example of a standard. There is no 'sensible' side of
the road to drive on, no inherent 'correct' value. Driving on the right
makes no better sense, in and of itself, than driving on the left. The
only thing that is sensible is to adhere to which has been defined as
the standard in the country where you live.
Shifting right handed makes all kinds of sense.
As does shifting left handed - which leaves the right (statistically
likely to be dominant) hand on the wheel controlling the direction of
the vehicle.
I've even seen some people claim that this is one of the reasons why
manual transmissions are more common in Britain than in the US. (Seems
highly unlikely; manual transmissions are also common in Europe, where
they drive on the right.)
Post by Derek TearneWhen the decisions were made about which side of the road to drive on,
vehicles had completely different controls, heck it may even have been
before motorised vehicles were invented.
The decisions started long before motorised vehicles: the Pope decreed
in 1300 that people travelling to Rome should travel on the left, and
the 18th century saw Britain mandate driving on the left, while Russia,
Denmark and (post-revolutionary) France passed laws requiring driving on
the right; Napoleon then spread this French influence around all the
places he invaded. Motorised vehicle controls didn't come into it.
Post by Derek TearnePeople brought up with one can, and will, create post-facto
justifications for what was essentially an arbitrary decision, or a
decision which came about due to circumstances that no longer apply.
Such as which side people carry their swords, or where the drivers seat
was on a covered wagon (both of which I think are bogus origin stories).
The sword one has almost universal traction, and makes sense to me; in
violent times, when you pass someone in the street, it is better for
them to pass on your right, where you can defend yourself with your
sword hand; also it is much easier to mount a horse from the left than
the right if your sword hangs to your left (which they almost
universally do), so starting and stopping on the left side of the road
makes sense. (It is also alleged that, regardless of swords,
right-handed people find it easier to mount a horse from the left -- I'm
not a horse rider, so I wouldn't know.)
The covered wagon version sounds highly unlikely, but a more plausible
one is that teamsters driving two-abreast teams of horses in the US
would sit on the rear-left horse, leaving their (right) whip hand
well-placed to control the rest of the team (as well as mounting from
the left being allegedly easier for right-handed people); and with the
width of the vehicles they found it safer to pass oncoming vehicles to
their left, where they could see the separation clearly, than to their
right.
There are lots of web pages that claim to be authoritative on this
subject, e.g.
http://www.worldstandards.eu/cars/driving-on-the-left/
http://www.historic-uk.com/CultureUK/Why-do-the-British-drive-on-the-left/
http://www.bbcamerica.com/anglophenia/2015/01/brits-drive-left/
They can make interesting reading regardless of whether you believe them
or not...
Post by Derek TearneIt's like Farhenheit vs Centigrade, people will come up with
justifications for one or other, that really boil down to "It's the one
I'm used to".
Quite so. Although I grew up with both: Fahrenheit was used for high
temperatures but Celsius (then called centigrade) was used for low ones.
8-/
Like you, Fahrenheit temperatures now means little to me: I have to
convert into Celsius to make any sense of them.
Post by Derek TearnePost by Les CargillSome things in Imperial work better. I find people still use
feet instead of purely using meters.
Again, this boils down to '"It's what I'm used to" rather than which is
'better'. Although some people in metric countries (sometimes including
me) still use inches (although in my case rarely feet) it's more to do
with having learned that when young, than it being 'better'.
Agreed, although there is an argument that dividing large things up into
multiples in the 10-20 range (12 inches, 16 ounces, 14 pounds etc.)
makes for nicer numbers than using thousands or hundreds -- yes, I know
the SI has deca- and deci- but they are rarely used (decibel being the
only one I can think of offhand).
Post by Derek TearneI happily use metres and kilometres for distance, and have completely
lost any understanding of lbs, ounces and the execrable 'stone' for
weights.
What has the poor stone ever done to you? 8-)
I have a much better understanding of human body mass when expressed in
stones and pounds than as large numbers of pounds; I never understood
why the US abandoned stones in favour of just using pounds. Why not
abandon feet as well and just use inches to describe someone's height?
Post by Derek TearneThe point is, there are these competing standards and ways of doing
things, that aren't necessarily inherently any better than the other -
but there is value in people adopting one (not necessarily the 'best').
http://mentalfloss.com/article/25845/quick-6-six-unit-conversion-disasters
Not that using the correct unit conversions helps if you don't think
about what you're doing; I cringe when I read things like seed packets
instructing you to plant things "approximately 2.54 cm apart" or in rows
"about 31.5 cm apart". And it's usually easy to spot when a recipe has
been written for one unit system then converted to another, because the
quantities end up being awkward.
Post by Derek TearneHowever, people who are used to one, will vociferously defend it, while
arguing against another, simply because of familiarity.
Not that there's nothing intrinsically wrong with sticking to things
you're familiar with; people tend to fall back on prior knowledge in
times of stress, and changing from one system to another can produce
catastrophic consequences when the wrong one is unthinkingly applied.
Change for change's sake is a Bad Thing IMHO.
--
Simon Turner DoD #0461
***@twoplaces.co.uk
Trust me -- I know what I'm doing! -- Sledge Hammer