Dear John,
Well said. Your first three paragraphs are exactly my understanding of the
process in Australia.
Cheers,
Pat Naughtin LCAMS
Geelong, Australia
on 2002-12-26 04.29, kilopascal at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 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
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
