21 September 2013

Minutes and Metres

I find it particularly annoying when finger posts, directional signs and maps quote distances in times instead of actual measurements. Saying that Westminster Cathedral is 4 minutes away by foot is a little bit idiotic. What if I don't have a watch? What if I walk substantially slower/faster than everyone else? 

This problem is particularly acute in London, where many maps encircle areas that are within a particular distance – quoted in minutes of course. 

The problem with using minutes on finger posts and directional signs is simple: a minute is not the same to everyone. An elderly person may cover 40 metres in a minute, a short person may cover 60 metres in a minute and a tall person (like myself) can easily cover 120 metres in a minute. 

To make matters even more confusing, there is no record as to what speed one is expected to walk at to match the times posted on these signs. So pedestrians are left completely in the dark about the actual distance they actually need to travel to reach their destination. 

My opinion is very simple. Get rid of the minutes and use metres. It makes sense. A metre is te same to everyone, everywhere.  I'd even prefer yards to minutes – and that says a lot. 

In Leyton, it seems like Waltham Forest council have made a feeble attempt to  reduce the ambiguity of 'minute' sighs by also including metres. Whilst I am happy that metres we're chosen in place of yards, the signs quote metres as an abbreviation 'mtrs' instead of the approved symbol 'm'.

When will they learn. 

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

pleased to see on

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Coronation+Gardens/@51.559848,-0.00891,3a,75y,299.66h,83.58t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1szdzEtZn_zbqgi40ROc2cog!2e0!4m2!3m1!1s0x0:0xb9fe635952256e20

that this filthy metrickery has been removed.