Anecdotally I do not believe the US Civil Engineering profession opposes metric at all. Of course common practice, working in the US today, requires use of units that our clients prefer (for most Civil works in the US that means English). Although the New York State Department of Transportation is SI (with the distinct possibly of reconversion to English in the near future) most of our Engineers are quite comfortable with SI and not opposed to it's use. The bigger problem is our Contractors and suppliers. I think tough that relates more to the inconstancy in the industry. No one wants to be first but suppliers and fabricators really object when they have to work SI for the NYSDOT and English for a County or private developer.
Of course Civil firms that work internationally design in SI for those countries. I don't think that is a big deal. Howard Ressel Project Design Engineer, Region 4 (585) 272-3372 >>> "Martin Vlietstra" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 04/02/06 1:28 AM >>> To what extent does the US civil engineering profession and the oil industry oppose metrication? The civil engineers have a vested interest as it prevents foreign companies from competing on US soil while, for projects in developing countries, it is not unknown for contractors to be selected on grounds other than "best tender". The oil industry is US dominated. The United Kingdom has a body set up by Parliament called The Engineering Council. This is an umbrella organisation for all the engineering organisations in the UK. Members include the Institution of Civil Engineers, Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers, Institution of Mechanical Engineers, The British Computer Society (of which I am a member) and many others. It is noteworthy that although there are 34 members, none is specifically connected with the oil industry. While working in the oil industry, I looked at publications of the Society of Petroleum Engineers which is a US organisations that has a chapter in the UK. Given this and the way in which the oil industry uses imperial units tells me that the US oil industry is blocking metrication in order to preserve is control of the industry. It has also been suggested to me that certain US politicians (who shall be nameless) have received considerable assistance from t! he oil industry, particularly from Texas. ----- Original Message ----- From: Phil Chernack To: U.S. Metric Association Sent: Sunday, April 02, 2006 12:58 AM Subject: [USMA:36434] Re: April 1 I disagree. I think it all comes down to marketing and sales. Metrication has to be marketed correctly. Through education and thorough explanation of the need to metricate and making sure the message is indeed received by the masses, we could shorten the time from 20 or 50 years to 5 to 10. What sounds better: the Metric Conversion act or the Keep America Competitive act? People have to be convinced metrication is fairly painless and that their world won't change drastically. We've stated it before here, people don't fear metric, they fear change. It's not the conversion per se, but the cost, both financially and mentally people fear. With the proper sales and marketing, people need to be convinced that metrication necessary for us to retain and grow our edge in a global marketplace, not only in terms of economy, but also in terms of education. We all know the benefits, we just now have to get the right cheerleaders (salespeople) on board. Some politicians and bu! sinesspeople can sell ice cubes to Eskimos; they should be able to sell metrication to Americans. Phil ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Millet Sent: Saturday, April 01, 2006 5:54 PM To: U.S. Metric Association Subject: [USMA:36431] Re: April 1 Judging from the angry volume of responses they got I don't think any state would dare EVER switch anything :). They'd have the mob going for their blood. It makes me wonder if the only way we'll go fully metric is if we continue the gradual transition over the next 20 years or so. Phase it in rather than announcing it and pushing for a quick transition as we should have done. Mike -- "The boy is dangerous, they all sense it why can't you?"
