Jim Elwell wrote:
> (1) Change/remove all laws that prohibit use of metric labels (if
> any exist)
Strangely enough, such laws do exist in Britain -- for draft beer and cider
and for official highway signs. Here, at least, there appears to be no
federal prohibition of dual highway signs -- just little enthusiasm for them
by the individual states. There may not even be a federal prohibition of
SI-only highway signs. (Anybody know?)
> (2) Change/remove all laws the require the use of colloquial units.
Well, there's also some (slow) progress there (UPLR) in 27 states. Jim
Frysinger has a page on that (which can be reached through the introduction
to the topic [at http://metric1.org/currentevents.htm] on the SI Navigator
site). The same item on the SI Navigator page also has a link to a
comprehensive (but not exhaustive) list of the products covered by UPLR.
The problem with the current state of affairs is that those manufacturers
who distribute nationally from a single plant or even from multiple plants
will see no economic advantage to leaving the non-SI units off their
packaging, just for those 27 states. Those who distribute regionally from
regional plants might be persuaded, but I think it's unlikely, unless their
top management is heavily pro-SI. Unless there's a real sea change in the
mid-term elections next year, I don't see the current Congress mandating
that the other 23 states accept the use of SI-only labels.
Of course, there's no reason to hold back on proselytizing them. <g>
> (3) Mandate the all government entities do procurement using metric units
> (the federal government is the single largest purchaser in the country).
This should be a no-brainer and I would have put it at the top of the list,
with item 4 right after it. Many of us were/are under the impression that it
was mandatory from the beginning (i.e., from 1975), but obviously not all
the Washington bureaucrats agree with us on that.
> (4) Mandate that all government operations use metric units (not just
> procurement, but everything in the operation, such as road signs and
> government-supplied weather reports)
>
> (5) Mandate that quasi-government operations be fully converted to metric
> (USPS -- how many people will learn about "grams" and "kilograms"
> when they
> mail boxes and letters?)
>
> (6) Mandate common carriers to use metric only (UPS, FedEx, freight
> carriers, etc.)
>
> (7) Mandate that public-license broadcasters (radio and TV) show
> dual units.
Items 4, 5, 6 and 7 are all in the spirit of the Omnibus Trade and
Competitiveness Act of 1988 -- a fact we members should constantly
communicate to those in government.
> (8) Mandate soft-conversion for consumer product labels, and
> unit-pricing be done with metric units.
As a purist, I like to see round numbers. The trouble with soft conversion
is that the less numerate members of the public continue to see metric as
difficult. Lacking critical thinking skills, they will see values like 454 g
as being an inevitable characteristic of metrication, rather than a
temporary convenience (to the manufacturer), based on the transition from
the old units.
However, as a pragmatist, I'd much rather settle for an indefinite period of
soft conversion than for no conversion at all.
> (9) Mandate all *new* consumer products be designed with hard
> metric (i.e., use metric fasteners, etc.)
>
> (10) Mandate that *new* non-consumer products be designed with
> hard metric.
I know that you are uncomfortable with items 9 and 10, Jim. However, subject
to the regulations specifying reasonable (i.e., non-draconian) penalties for
non-compliance, I'd like to see both of those happen. You suggest below that
events could overtake the need for them. In fact, industry associations
might well have already agreed on some standard sizes (although I have
little confidence in the willingness of the manufacturers of low-tech
consumer products to undertake the kinds of standardization developed by
organizations like the EIA).
> My bet is that by the time we reach #6 (a few years?), the rest
> will already
> be well on the way to happening, perhaps obviating the need for more
> "mandates".
>
> My only objection to the lists below is "rational sizes." I know they feel
> good, but there are many reasons for picking non-rational sizes, as is
> evidenced by the plethora of non-rational colloquial sizes on the store
> shelves. I don't see any advantage in the big picture to such a
> requirement.
As we've already discussed in this list, the need for uniform container
sizes (for shelf stacking purposes) for products that are labeled by mass is
bound to result in non-rational values, simply because of variations in
product density. Our goals, in this case, need to relate to unit pricing (by
the gram or by the 100 g, as appropriate).
I think your post illustrates, quite clearly, that the Jim Elwells and the
non-Jim-Elwells of the metrication movement are not all that far apart.
However, I think we should also take heed of Robert Bushnell's admonition
(see USMA:13218). Rather than trying to re-invent the wheel, we should be
copying Canadian, Australian and British wheels (metaphorically speaking, of
course), along with pursuing the kinds of political action the USMA, as a
tax-exempt organization, is not allowed to pursue.
Bill Potts, CMS
Roseville, CA
http://metric1.org [SI Navigator]
