Phil Chernack writes: > This is why changing the FPLA is so important. It is one way to > push metrication forward with virtually no imposed cost on > business. > Businesses > may voluntarily change their labeling > and decide when their business and customer base is ready. All > the amendment does is remove an impediment to that. There is > the key. We need to turn our attention to removing barriers > to metrication rather then forcing it.
I could not agree more. > ... My > idea was to use a hybrid where metric speed limit signs would be > placed within 10 to 50 m of current signs. After a period of time, > the non-metric signs would be removed. Guide and warning signs > would be gradually replaced as they wore out, perhaps on an > accelerated schedule. Mile-based exit number signs would > be grandfathered for a period of time in certain states as they just > recently converted from consecutive numbering. To put a change in > so soon will only lead to confusion and resentment. While there > would be some overlap for a few years, if people are educated > properly and understand that there is no turning back, it will work. I pretty much agree with this, excepting only that I did not realize signs "wear out." I would presume that aside from obsolescense and damage (getting hit by a car), they would last for two decades or more. Jim Elwell
