Dear Howard and All, I have just updated my computer system and as I went through the old files, I found this.
I thought it might refresh your memory, so that I could ask, how are the DOTs travelling after a further three years? Cheers, Pat Naughtin LCAMS Geelong, Australia -- From: Pat Naughtin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on 22-08-2000 01:17:20 Dear Howard and All, > From: Howard Ressel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 08:05:00 -0400 > To: U.S. Metric Association <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: [USMA:6900] RE: Field notes from Ohio -Reply > I think your response to 'Field Notes from Ohio' raises some truly fascinating points when we consider your remarks in the light of how people (and perhaps more importantly groups) convert to new methods - in this case SI. I have interspersed some notes. > Don't kid yourself. There are plenty of people in my office who, if given > the opportunity, would take the path of least resistance and design in > English. Why is this the easy path? Anyone, especially engineers who have spent as much as 10 minutes doing their calculations in SI know where the easy path lies - and its not in using old measures. I suspect that your allusion to an easy path is not to an easy technical path but to an easy social path. If you say 'I was three metres from the corner', you may need to confront associates who will not accept this unit on the grounds of social acceptance or morals, rather than strict technical grounds. If they argued from a technical position they know they haven't got a leg to stand on. > Although most don't object to metric and many embrace it, > humans being humans will take the easy road. I know of many who embrace SI in their work environment and then use old units for sports, clothing, fishing, and household use. All of these people fully know the benefits of SI, but they are unprepared to confront the social (and moral) issues that accompany it. > It will take a long time > before we become truly conversant in metric (but I believe it will happen). > I am constantly hounding Consultants to use metric in reports, meeting > minutes etc. We "talk" English all the time even though the actual designs > are in metric. You don't know how it thrills me when an field engineer > calls up and discusses how long something is in meters. More often > though general conversations revert to English. In my opinion some of the reasons for this are social and moral, and others are due to the user's mindset, where I define mindset partly in terms of how a particular person estimates quantities. For example if I look at a housing lot of land I 'automatically' estimate its dimensions in metres - this is my mindset. > This will change as we become more comfortable with metric but units all > of the industry goes metric and our Constants, Contractors, Suppliers > etc. are using one language it will be difficult. What you are referring to here are social and moral changes - not mindset changes or technical changes. > More likely projects in many metric states are being designed in English > and soft (or hard depending on the situation) converted in the end. > Somehow I don't think the opposite is happening in Ohio. What will that > clerk say in Ohio after a 5 year reversion period has ended and all > projects are back to English? I do hope im wrong but..... The hard-soft question is really a technical question that will, in the end, be resolved on technical grounds, to do with accuracy and precision for instance. I suspect that John is right and that in well under five years all the Ohio engineers will have discovered the ease of SI and they'll do their calculations in SI and then convert these to ifp if politically necessary. > Howard Ressel, Metric Manager > New York State Department of Transportation, Region 4 Howard, Thanks for this opportunity. I have had these thoughts for some time - in a muddled way - and it wasn't until your reply to 'Field Notes from Ohio' that I crystallised the three major impediments to metric conversion as quite separate and distinct issues: 1 Technical issues. Easiest to solve and predominant topic of this list 2 Social and moral issues. Most difficult and require social methods 3 Mindset issues. Middling difficulty and require individual practice Cheers, Pat Naughtin CAMS Geelong, Australia >>>> "kilopascal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 08/18/00 10:25pm >>> > 2000-08-18 > > ..... Then she told me that they now stock a lot more metric templates and > scales in the engineering section because Ohio DOT had been > purchasing large > quantities of such items from the bookstore. > > > I find this EXTREMELY interesting. Why would ODOT Engineers buy > metric > templates and scales if Ohio is one of the "reverted" states? This has me > thinking. Now, somewhere back in time, I heard that the cost to convert > operations from FFU to SI was about 5 M$. To avoid such a cost and to > back > down from the complaints of contractors, I figured, states like Ohio in the > open said they were progressing, but secretly were pressuring > congress to > repeal the requirement and make conversion optional. > > But, what if states like Ohio really did lay out the cash and convert? > Spending millions on conversion, just to spend millions more to revert > because a few contractors whined, without putting up a fight doesn't > make > sense. What are the chances that states who said they reverted are in > fact > designing in metric and only providing inch drawings to contractors, but > are > keeping the SI ones in the files, so it only appears on the surface they > reverted? > > Engineers aren't that dumb. Knowing the issue isn't settled, especially > with half of the country working in SI, including the FHWA, which they > have > to work with, in SI. And the possibility the government can mandate > another > reversion to SI at anytime, would mean millions more spent and wasted. > So, > maybe for the time being, they have come to a "compromise", where they > design in metric and provide soft-converted inch drawings to > contractors. > > Any thoughts on this?
