2002-12-25
Metrication in the Commonwealth countries did not occur by direct government
involvement. Basically the governments said we are going to do it, but we
will allow each business to formulate and co-ordinate metrication based on
their business cycles. The governments involvement was to initiate the
change; industry had to carry it out.
Committees were set up with representatives from various sectors of the
economy. They had to investigate, plan, schedule, and implement metrication
based on input and feedback from industries within their sectors.
There is no reason a similar plan can not be initiated by the US government.
This is what I meant earlier when I said we have the experience of others to
fall back on. That includes the example of Canada and Britain whose
metrication's were stalled somewhere in the middle and as a result are
experiencing confusion that has to be extremely costly. Maybe this is part
of the reason why the Canadian dollar is weak.
Metrication does not have to be unpopular. It is unpopular because no one
of importance has spoken up for it. If someone in industry or government
would go on national TV and say that not being metric is hurting out
competitiveness, productivity, profits and employment in high paying jobs,
etc. metric would become very popular over night. If someone would explain
the hidden costs of not being metric, such as industrial mistakes, lost
orders, shut out of some foreign markets, medical mistakes, etc. the public
might be persuaded.
Basically the public needs to hear that they are paying more for everything
to compensate for these costs. If the public thinks keeping FFU is worth
the costs, then they can choose to the status quo. And we will keep paying
a hefty. But at least this way when people lose their jobs, go to bed
hungry, lose their homes, they can be happy knowing they at least kept the
metric monster from ruining their lives.
John
----- Original Message -----
From: "James-Jason Wentworth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, 2002-12-25 01:50
Subject: [USMA:24230] Re: Megagram, shmegagram!!!
A millimeter/meter convention is the ideal that I would like to see
implemented in the US, but unfortunately it would never "fly" here.
A parliamentary government like that in Australia has much more
latitude to act without direct public participation at every step.
("They elected our party, we've selected our Prime Minister, and we
will proceed with these programs. If the public doesn't like it, they
can change parties in the next election.") In the US congressional
system, the two parties share power and the President is elected
separately. Because of this power sharing and the constant deference
that Congress and the President give to public opinion, unpopular
things like metrication are seldom implemented at the federal level. I
do wish our leaders would actually lead more based on what would be
good for the country rather than just consult poll results to formulate
policy, but that is the nature of the US system. -- Jason
----- Original Message -----
From: Pat Naughtin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tuesday, December 24, 2002 7:05 pm
Subject: Re: [USMA:24218] Re: Megagram, shmegagram!!!
> Dear Jason and All,
>
> I have interspersed some remarks.
>
> on 2002-12-25 10.59, James Wentworth at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >> From my experience, plumbers and carpenters in the US *really*
> dislike large
> > items measured in millimeters.
>
> That's what they said here too, before they had ever used any metric
> measures. In short, the Australian plumbers and carpenters were
> using the
> same conjecture but without any experience.
>
> > Millimeter-sized screws and drill bits are
> > fine with them,
>
> Same here. They claimed that small measures would be OK in
> millimetres.However, some then claimed that centimetres might be
> better for bolt, screw,
> and nail lengths. Again, Australian plumbers and carpenters were using
> conjecture without experience.
>
> > but not things like 2400 mm sheets of plywood.
>
> Australian architects, bricklayers, carpenters, and plumbers now
> happily use
> millimetres to measure the whole job. I have seen drawings for a
> house set
> on land that was 151 340 x 20 160 and the only reference to any
> measurementunits was the statement in the block of information in
> one corner that read,
> "All dimensions in mm".
>
> I reckon (again from my direct experience) that it took Australian
> tradesmenabout a month to master these kinds of large numbers. And
> the simple
> statement, "All dimensions in mm" meant that they would never have
> to use a
> fraction ever again, nor would they have to convert between units
> of any
> kind. For this sort of simplicity, they quickly learned to accept
> largenumbers.
>
> > Tradesmen
> > here just don't like dealing with large numbers. Any US
> metrication effort
> > that does not have the support (or at least no opposition) from
> these "Joe
> > Sixpacks" is doomed to failure. -- Jason
>
> In 1970, I could have written that sentence referring to Australian
> tradesmen; they proved me wrong!
>
> Cheers,
>
> Pat Naughtin LCAMS
> Geelong Australia
>
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Pat Naughtin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: U.S. Metric Association <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Tuesday, December 24, 2002 2:14 PM
> > Subject: [USMA:24215] Re: Megagram, shmegagram!!!
> >
> >
> > on 2002-12-22 00.42, James Wentworth at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > <snip>
> >> [4] The decimeter should be included in any program to
> popularize the
> >> metric system in America. The most common complaint I've heard
> and read
> >> from tradesmen is that "the meter is too big and the centimeter
> is too
> >> small." Like Baby Bear's porridge, the decimeter would be
> "just right."
> > It
> >> is close enough to the inch in size that carpenters and
> plumbers (more of
> >> those "Joe Sixpacks") would more readily accept metric rulers
> if they had
> >> three unit sizes to choose from (dm, cm, and mm). Even the USMA's
> >> Swiss-made metric tapes are demarcated in decimeters by
> printing each
> >> decimeter in a different background color, so the decimeter
> must be used
> > at
> >> least somewhat in Europe.
> > <snip>
> >
> > My direct experiences are in direct contradiction to the
> suggestions that
> > you make in this paragraph.
> >
> > In Australia, the industries that chose to use millimetres made
> a smooth and
> > rapid conversion to metric measures, and the industries that
> chose to use
> > centimetres are still struggling with the conversion more than
> thirty years
> > later.
> >
> > No Australian industry chose decimetres for their metric conversion.
> > Worldwide experience has shown that decimetres have never been used
> > successfully during the change to metric. Their use around the
> world is
> > still quite limited.
> >
> > I have no idea why it is simpler and easier to convert to metric
> using> millimetres and so much more difficult using centimetres. I
> only know that
> > my experience in working with the agricultural, architectural,
> building,> carpentry, clothing, footwear, furniture, leather,
> plumbing, textiles,
> > timber, and welding industries tells me that this is so.
> >
> > Personally, I have no gripe with the units centimetre and
> decimetre. I can
> > slither decimal markers backwards and forwards quite readily
> (and I �
> > sometimes � assume that others can do the same)
> >
> > The fact is that the choice of units has little to do with Baby
> Bear's> porridge and to assume it does is simply conjecture. If
> you are looking for
> > a model of metric conversion that works, then look for it in
> those places
> > where metric conversion has been done successfully. Conjecture
> serves no
> > useful purpose here.
> >
> > If you want a smooth and rapid conversion to metric measures, I
> strongly> recommend that you choose millimetres for your small unit.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Pat Naughtin LCAMS
> > Geelong, Australia
> >
>
>
