Dear Ezra,
The situation in Australia is that many (probably most) industries
adopted a
measurement policy as part of their move to 'go metric' in the 1970s.
These
were, I stress, measurement policies set by individual industries < the
policies, the implementation dates, and the individual practices were set
by
the particular industry metrication committees.
Most of these worked and worked extremely well and metrication was more
or
less all over within a year or two. So much so that most people don't
even
remember the process, and in particular, they don't remember any pain
that
was associated with 'going metric'.
Let me be clear: there was no directive.
There were no government directives and there were no industry
directives.
An industry advisory panel simply devised a metrication policy for the
industry and the people in that industry were free to follow that policy
or
not as they saw fit in the interests of their own businesses. I
personally
saw some sad cases where individual business owners tried to keep their
old
imperial measures in an increasingly metric world < they have now all
gone
broke or they have changed their ways to metric.
Notable successes were those where the industry leaders chose a policy
based
on millimetres.
Some industries did not devise a clear metrication policy so the people
in
that industry had to either devise their own measurement policy or to try
to
operate without a measurement policy. These industries often ended up
with a
truly garbled collection of units from all around the world, particularly
from other English speaking countries especially the UK and the USA.
Notable failures were those that chose a measurement policy based on
centimetres < they are still struggling with metric conversions if they
are
still in business.
Most people were unaware that metrication was an issue. They went along
with
the metric policies of their industry leaders and got with it; got over
it;
and then got on with it!
You will still hear old pre-metric words to describe metric items. For
example 12 mm copper tubing is often called '1/2 inch' even though it has
been a ling time since this tubing was made in inches.
Similarly, the mass of newborn babies is back translated to lbs and ozs
to
make comparisons with grandma's babies < I believe that about 10 000
babies
die each year from medical errors that are based on this conversion
practice.
On 2007 02 15 9:17 AM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> To clarify: what I'm curious about is what most people in Australia in
> the
> absence of a particular directive (like the one to use mm in
> engineering
> drawings or cm in the textile industry) "chose" to use in their daily
> lives
> when describing lengths that often are expressed with cm in other
> metric
> countries.
>
> Ezra
>
> -------------- Original message ----------------------
>> >
>> >
>> > On 2/13/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> > >
>> wrote:
>> > I'm wondering if our Australian folks can tell us what people
>> > Down
>> Under
>> > prefer to use when talking about the height cleared by a high jumper
>> > or the
>> > length of skis.
>> >
>> > Ezra
>> >
>> > -------------- Original message ----------------------
>> > From: "Harry Wyeth" < [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> > > I cast my vote for continued use of cm. mm is useful, of
>>> > course,
>> > depending on
>>> > > the size involved. It's easy to say that a sliver in your
>>> > finger is
3 mm
>> > long,
>>> > > but much more convenient to say your skis are 180 cm in
>>> > length or
>>> that the
>> > down
>>> > > tube on your bike is 46 cm or that the high jumper cleared
>>> > 195 cm.
My
>> > height is
>>> > > 176 cm, or "one seventy six". People understand the
>>> > differences >>>
between
>> > mm and
>>> > > cm, and I don't really think there is danger of confusion.
>>> > Using cm
a lot
>> > will
>>> > > not delay whatever progress we may make in metrication in
>>> > this >>>
country.
>>> > >
>>> > > HARRY WYETH
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> > From: "Harry Wyeth" < [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> > To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]>
>> > Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 04:06:17 +0000
>> > Subject: [USMA:37956] mm vs. cm
>> >
>> > I cast my vote for continued use of cm. mm is useful, of
>> > course,
>> depending
>> > on the size involved. It's easy to say that a sliver in your finger
>> > is 3
>> mm
>> > long, but much more convenient to say your skis are 180 cm in length
>> > or
>> that the
>> > down tube on your bike is 46 cm or that the high jumper cleared 195
>> > cm. My
>> > height is 176 cm, or "one seventy six". People understand the
>> > differences
>> > between mm and cm, and I don't really think there is danger of
>> > confusion.
>> Using
>> > cm a lot will not delay whatever progress we may make in metrication
>> > in
>> this
>> > country.
>> >
>> > HARRY WYETH
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > "The boy is dangerous, they all sense it why can't you?"
>
>
