Puffer

I have no real idea of the corresponding 'union' position in the UK, but doubtless it will impede work and increase costs and time on a major construction project. Fortunately, a great deal of new-build and renovation work is done by non-union businesses and individual tradesmen, who are usually fairly adaptable and often multi-skilled. I can fairly claim to be too, in my 'amateur' way - and am currently doing some work (alas, unpaid!) on my middle stepson's rebuilt and extended house, alongside 'professional' builders, plasterers, plumbers and sparkies - none of whom seem to upset the others or object to my input - which has necessarily included some reworking of what they have done, e.g. moving a wrongly-placed socket outlet and altering skirting boards to accommodate fitted wardrobes. So much for my retirement ...!

In the UK, the size increment is supposedly a 'barleycorn' (= 1/3") but it is the last rather than the shoe that is designated, with men's and women's sizes being theoretically the same. The last is intended to be longer than the foot by 'around' 1/2", but there is no clear agreement as to foot length; a UK11 shoe being variously said to fit a foot almost anywhere between 11" and 12" long! It is my understanding that US sizes also have 'barleycorn' increments; the sizing formula being quoted thus: 'Today in America, the sizing generally adheres relatively closely to a formula of 3 times the length of the foot in inches (the barleycorn length), less a constant (22 for men and 21 for women)'. So, a foot measuring 11" would equate to a size of USM11 or USW12, which I find odd as perceived wisdom suggests that a number difference of two (not one) between male and female sizes is generally the case. Or is that 'plus one' a purely theoretical difference, as in most cases the shape and fit of the female shoe requires 'plus two' in sizing? (I know that my feet - equivalent to USM12 or 12.5 - require a full USW14 if to fit properly. You quote USW9 as being 9 7/8" (although 1/3" increments would suggest 9 2/3" or 10"). And the 'formula' would suggest USW9 = 10". I'm sure that neither of us would quibble over these tiny theoretical differences, but taking actual measurements in millimetres to identify sizes (as the Eu system does) is less controversial. That is how I got the Eu38:40 ratio of 95%. I may have misunderstood your application of the percentage, in that I was suggesting that the steepness of an Eu38 4" heel is the same as that of an Eu40 4.25", obtained by dividing 4 by 0.94. But we are both agreed that (obviously) the apparent steepness of a given heel height decreases with increasing foot length and in the same proportions.

Interesting, and forgive me if I rework your calculations (with no criticism intended). I'm assuming that you are taking Eu38 as the benchmark for heel measuring? I think you meant 'divide by 94%' to convert a size Eu40 heel into its Eu38 equivalent, i.e. 100/0.94 = 10.64 or 4.2" (10.7?). I have a table quoting the length of Eu38 as 237mm and Eu40 as 250mm, so the ratio 237/240 is 0.948 - in round fgures 95% (rather than your 94%). On that basis, a 100mm heel in 40 would be 105mm in 38 to be in proportion. I accept of course that tables do vary and so do manufacturing tolerances, so differences of two or three millimetres is of no real consequence (except to a statistician - and we all know that there are 'lies, damn lies, and statistics'!). I can certainly agree that a 'high' heel is 4" or more, so the difference between that and its metric equivalent (102mm), or when considering the proportions on either side of a 'standard Eu38', is pretty trivial. For the record, I would consider a true 5" (127mm) heel as being the start of the 'very high' range - or 'stripper territory' when combined with a big platform as Shyheels opines - so 120mm is a tad on the low side. As higherheels says, a 130 or 140mm stiletto (with little or no plarform) can look very elegant and remain wearable, albeit not by everyone. And a 120mm heel with, say, a 30mm platform can look both ungainly and ugly.

Exactly (as I stated in the 'other' thread). UK timber is invariably sold in length increments of 300mm, which is close to the imperial foot that used to be the increment. 2.4m (7.87 feet) is a very common length and still often referred to as an '8 foot' - but don't complain if it isn't quite that long when making something! UK Practice does vary. It seems that '4 x 2' is very commonly used (and I favour that), but some chippies and most timber merchants would refer to or list it as '2 x 4'. The latter is logical in that a whole range of timber used for rafters, joists, studwork etc is a nominal 2" thick but varies in width from a nominal 2" to 8" or more, so typically listed as '2 x 4, 2 x 5, 2 x 6' etc (or nowadays by the metric equivalents: 47 x 96 etc). But any builder or carpenter will know what is meant by a '2 x 4' (or a '4 x 2'!) even if he never worked in imperial measurements. 'Plasterboard' is the usual term for the generic product (as we have at least three major UK manufacturers) but some older folk call it 'Gyproc', which is the trade name used (though not now very prominently) by the oldest supplier - British Gypsum. You will sometimes hear the installers called 'dry wallers', but that is not really correct as plasterboard was originally introduced as a means of boarding ceilings - walls came later! It is more usual to call the installer a 'plasterer' (if he also skims the boards) but plasterboard is often installed by general builders or carpenters; it is not really a skilled task. Boards often have tapered edges (filled with plaster filler over paper or mesh tape - another relatively unskilled task) rather than square (flush) edges which need tape and a full skim-over, which is where the proper plastering skills come in.

I think that the posts from mlrose and at9 are responding in the wrong thread - see

UK anachronisms also include: milk bought in either pints or litres (according to the seller); beer on draught in pints but when in cans or bottles it is metric (330, 440 or 500 ml etc). Timber sold in length increments of 300mm (the 'metric foot') and plasterboard which was 8' x 4' now 'shrunk' to 2400 x 1200mm, but most other sheet material (e.g. MDF, plywood) still 2440 x 1220mm (equivalent to 8' x 4')! And model railways, for example, are commonly built to a scale of 4mm:1 foot (UK) or 3.5mm:1 foot (US and Europe), both using a track gauge of 16.5mm (which is therefore too narrow to represent standard gauge of 4' 8.5" in the UK but almost spot-on for US/Europe models). You need your wits about you when doing construction work or model-making, but we are used to the mixture. I still 'think better' in imperial when doing joinery or plumbing etc but will often use millimetres when dealing with small measurements, as working in, say, 64ths of an inch is rather tiresome.

Getting back to the Hot Chicks discussion, this lady ('Engineering in Heels') has a number of videos showing her wearing, and analysing in detail, some very high stilettos - 13cm and above. Well worth a viewing. Link to one of the Hot Chick 130 appraisals:

Thanks for clarifying your shoe size; I now see why the heel height varied. My former GF had no obvious experience in ballet or any other activity that might have helped with high heel wearing. (Her occupation was a maternity assistant in hospital - so on her feet most of the time and in 'sensible shoes' too!) The 5.5" stilettos were slingback courts from Honour in London and had no platform. She didn't go 'striding out of the shop' after they were bought, but wore them for a few hours at home before going out in public with little difficulty. She did say that she doubted that she could dance in them; that was never really attempted. I wish that I had taken a pic or two!

Some interesting discussion about these different heel heights and wearability. But I'm confused - mlroseplant says that Hot Chicks in size 40 have a measured 13.7cm heel, but higherheels says that hers (apparently also size 40) measure 12.7cm, which sounds a little low. Which is right, please? Nearly 30 years ago, I had a GF who had not been a regular wearer of significantly high heels and had probably not gone above about 3.5" (9cm). She was not a particularly nimble or athletic person either. But she was perfectly willing to go higher and was soon wearing 4 - 4.5" stiletto heels (UK 7 = Eu40) regularly - and when she acquired a pair of 5.5" (14cm) courts she had little difficulty in wearing them from the outset (unless on very slippery/uneven ground, understandably). Alas, the relationship did not last but the memory of her high stilettos did!

My observations about 'northern women' particularly relate to the Tyneside and Glasgow areas. It was certainly more obvious there that shorter (but not necessarily slimmer!) women prefer heels and that 'dressing up' was more common, and likely more traditional/expected, even for fairly routine activity such as work or shopping. The current observations of VirginHeels bear this out. Frankly, I get the distinct impression that few women in the south can be bothered to make an effort unless they are attending a really dressy event, in which case expensive designer clothes will often be present, but not necessarily an improvement on high street fashions.

There is certainly such a divide. Women in the north of England and Scotland are often shorter, hardier and more inclined to make a statement with their appearance and demeanour (not always attractively). Altogether, those factors tend to promote high heels - and bare legs/sandals/no coat, even in cold weather. From my own observations, men in the north tend to dress in a much more casual and often sloppy manner - unless at a formal event, such as a wedding, when the waistcoats and ties - albeit typically left undone as soon as possible (ugh!) - will be seen. I suspect that this male contrast and discomfort stems from a working-class background: a miner or shipwright for example would tend to dress in rather shabby clothes but have a 'Sunday best' suit in which he was never really comfortable - and which was often in the pawnshop when not immediately needed.

I was at a modest family function yesterday morning - a granddaughter's third birthday party in a village hall. The guests were mostly couples in their early thirties with their children aged from 2 months to about 8 years. Of the dozen or so mums present, all were wearing trousers (except for one in leggings), and all were in nondescript flat shoes or boots. Whilst it wasn't a 'dressy' occasion in the accepted sense, it was disappointing to see that none of the women had made any real attempt to depart from very casual 'weekend' wear. And the men were but little smarter; I was almost the only one not wearing trainers.

I think you mean 'conkers' (hoarse chessnut 🤥).

I assume that, as is conventional, the central heating is fed from the engine's cooling system - or do you have an auxiliary diesel boiler?

Agreed - but one cannot assume that a copy Hot Chick (or any other footwear) is of 'poor quality fit, manufacture and materials' without actually inspecting and trying it. If there was universal condemnation (at least in the UK/US) of Chinese footwear imports, it is most unlikely that they would still be actively marketed there, which is clearly not the case although of course there are both good and bad reviews.

It was not clear from mlr's comment if he was referring specifically to 13cm Hot Chicks, but there are Chinese clones of these available too, along with many other styles of 13cm (and higher) heels. And it is purely speculative to say that wearing any of them must be dangerous, although no doubt some are poorly made or poorly fitting and pose a hazard - but only someone who has tried a particular pair could comment on that. And, as I understand the many online comments by genuine Hot Chick owners, the real thing is not easy to wear, comfortably and safely, either. I have also read that, although they are discontinued, Louboutin will still make the 13cm Hot Chick as a 'special order' - at a hefty price, of course.

I claim no expertise in identifying Louboutin copies, but it took me just two minutes to find this offering on AliExpress, which appears to mimic Hot Chick (12cm heel) closely - in appearance, if probably not in quality. All for £30 and in big sizes too. And there are many others similar.

From a UK perspective, I find that rather surprising. Whilst it is certainly true that genuinely high (4"+) heels, especially stilettos, are fairly rare on the high street and on some major retailers websites, there is still quite a large selection online from e.g. ASOS and the smaller and more specialised outlets, quite apart from the likes of AliExpress, Amazon etc - which regularly offer heels of 5", 6" or even more. Clearly, most of these are Chinese-made and may be of unknown quality or fit (buyer beware), but they do exist and are being actively sought and bought. I do wonder if the limited availability from local or other physical shops is self-defeating - would more heels be bought if they were more actively promoted in the high street and on display? There must be very many (youngish) women who have never had a proper opportunity simply to try 'high heels' properly, and I can't believe that they are not at least curious, however much society seems to condemn high heels for one reason or another.

I think you miss the point. If stopped for any reason (realistic or not) by the police (e.g. manner of driving; speeding etc), an officer will usually check both the vehicle (tyres etc) and the driver (drink/drugs?). Any unusual footwear or clothing, if seen, is likely to excite his interest if it suggests in his opinion some 'impairment of control', or worse. But the principal situation would be police involvement after some type of accident, whether or not involving a third party - in which case any evidence of possible impairment will be noted. I did not, and do not, suggest that simply being observed driving whilst wearing heels is likely to lead to any form of report, charge or prosecution. Of course it won't, unless it clearly constitutes some danger in itself or is said to have been potentially contributory to one. I suggest we leave it there; further speculation has little merit and the only opinion that really matters is that of a police officer on the spot.

The evidence offered by a police officer would be considered, with other factors, by the court. And the civil aspect is perhaps even more important in that any third party claim is very likely to involve consideration of apportionment of negligence, with a loss of control due to inappropriate footwear being a potentially key factor. It is by no means as trivial or clear-cut as you suggest. This from the AA: 'In 2010, the AA conducted a survey and found that 27% of people said their choice of shoes led to difficulty while driving. Around 5% went as far as to say their footwear caused them to drive dangerously, lose control, or even have an accident. Evidently, the kind of driving shoes you wear really does make a difference – no matter the weather or road conditions. You may be tempted during warmer months to drive without shoes. However, according to Rule 97 of the Highway Code, drivers should make sure “clothing and footwear do not prevent you using the controls in the correct manner." Failure to do so can result in fines or a penalty. Driving barefoot isn’t illegal, but it’s also not advised.'

There is no specific UK law that prohibits driving barefoot, or in any particular type of footwear such as stilettos or flip-flops. But it would not be difficult to frame a charge on the blanket basis of 'failing to control' a vehicle properly if, following a collision or other motor accident, it is alleged that particular footwear (or the lack of it) caused or contributed to the lack of control. There have certainly been instances where individual drivers have been challenged by the police when wearing e.g. skimpy mules, high heels, heavy boots or wellies. Let's be honest, all of those footwear choices can prevent full pedal sensitivity and control, especially if wet or muddy.

In a 'proper' car (manual gearbox), we use both feet! And probably better to replace both stilettos than having a pair of mismatched shoes on to drive.

On TV last night, I saw part of a quiz programme with 'celebrity' parent and child teams. The attractive daughter (19) of her (equally attractive) TV sports reporter mother had long legs in long trousers (a little baggier than bootcut) which partially concealed her boots, with what looked like a close-to-4" slimmish block heel. It was good to see a pretty teenager wearing 'proper' heels but, alas, she did not walk that well in them when striding to and from the podium. I think that her mother (usually in 4" stilettos for formal appearances, as last night) needs to give her some lessons.

My Victorian house has 10' ceilings on the ground floor; steps are essential for any overhead work; heels would not suffice. My wife is a skilled seamstress and has made some beautiful (and quite elaborate) curtains for the floor-ceiling drop in those high rooms. They are heavy and take two people to fit or take down. I recently described my wife to a friend as someone 'who readily runs-up curtains' - and maybe I should have added 'but not in high heels', to further confuse the listener. (I'm assuming that 'runs-up' is generally understood outside the UK to mean 'makes', as by sewing or carpentry.)

I have recently been doing a great deal of work in my middle stepson's rebuilt and extended house. My wife has also been there, doing painting. I have lost count of the times she has taken away from me my short stepladder or hop-up platform because her painting target was just - only just - out of reach. My suggestion that a pair of comfy 4" wedge heels would have been her more convenient option was not well-received, alas.