On one programme a couple of days ago, I think it was a local news programme they tried to be helpful by describing it as the length of Peter Crouch lying on the floor which I thought was a strange example to use given that most people have only seen Crouch on the tv so wouldn't be able to make that accurate a comparison. There are also those who wouldn't have a clue who Peter Crouch was.
Surely it's better to simply say 2m or 6ft as I doubt the additional six inches are going to make much difference.
They said on the tv this morning about 3 paces but no doubt there will be some arguing that they are really tall so that would be too much and some very short saying it's not long enough!!!
Some people seem to lack common sense.