And Ireland, in changing its road signs recently, probably enjoyed symbolically sticking it to the Brits and Northern Ireland.
I still think, however, that the central reason for the success of metrication of those countries vs. the US is that the US system of government is more susceptible to the influence of special interests than are parliamentary democracies. Every reasonably educated person knows that metrication would serve the broad public and economic interests of the US, so pointing that out isn't really accomplishing much. Then why is the US not actively converting? The answer can only be that that other more narrow interests are of greater concern to our elected officials (short-term profits for food retailers, short-term grumbling from some constituents, etc.). The challenge facing USMA, as I see it, is to acknowledge this reality and work within that system, or to remain politically invisible. Working within the system means registering as a lobby, actively fund raising, building coalitions to pressure key businesses, etc. Salaried political strategists and organizers, not part-time amateurs (like me) should be leading these efforts. Task one should be finding the funds to hire such people. From: Martin Vlietstra Sent: 10/20/2008 11:46 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; 'U.S. Metric Association' Subject: RE: [USMA:41871] Re: metrication is accomplished by assent Part of the success of metrication in South Africa (where I lived in the 1970's) was an unspoken attitude that the country was asserting its independence by adopting the metric system. I believe that the same was true in Australia and probably Canada. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Victor Jockin Sent: 20 October 2008 22:52 To: U.S. Metric Association Subject: [USMA:41871] Re: metrication is accomplished by assent That's interesting that Australia succeeded in that way, and I'm also not sure what the best way is to bring around the UK's metric martyrs. However, I'm convinced that the US won't convert so long as conversion remains voluntary. There was a window for voluntary conversion in the US to succeed, had a relatively tiny number of people made different decisions (most notably, the head of the DOT). Maybe Australia had more competent leaders in those positions. Metric road signs in the US would likely have dragged the rest of measurement along with it. I'm reminded again of the blurb on DOT's website, where they describe what sounds like one or a few people scuttling the entire national road sign conversion process based on little more than their own personal whim. So clearly the head of DOT was to blame, in one sense. In a more important and fundamental sense, the blame lies with having given him the option. From: Paul Trusten Sent: 10/19/2008 11:30 PM To: U.S. Metric Association Subject: [USMA:41870] metrication is accomplished by assent I don't know if I'm going out on a limb or just expressing common sense. Maybe I am about to go on the UKMA's list of the officially accursed, but I don't think that people should be prosecuted simply because they violate measurement standards. There has to be some other kind of action or sanction taken in these cases short of the steel tip of the law. Look at the public relations carnage this attitude has produced! We now have the phrase "metric martyrs" in the UK press, and indeed, the original one, Steve Thoburn, died at a young age, and whether or not his heart attack was hastened by the metric controversy will never be known, but now, in death, he looks like a literal martyr. To me, the spectacle of a British metrological Torquemada going around and trouncing people over measurement doesn't seem to give much chance of winning people over to the metric side. I wonder how much more success the officials would have had at getting out of the "very British mess" had they simply ignored these few people who weighed tomatoes in pounds, and put that same energy into finishing the changeover nationally. Also, the anti-metric forces in the U.S. will continue to point to what looks like fiery British public opposition to metric, and retard our progress here. To me, the Australians succeeded at metrication so spectacularly because they did it by assent. The following excerpt from the Australian Department of Industry, Technology & Commerce's Metrication In Australia so testifies: Early in the program the term "voluntary conversion" began to be used in this context, yet clearly, the Metric Conversion Act would be law for all Australians and the stated objects of this Act were that, progressively, all Australians would change to the sole use of the metric system. The term "voluntary" was, therefore, taken to mean that, through industry-appointed sector committees, each industry would have both the right and the responsibility to plan and implement conversion in its own way and to its own schedule. At no stage would any industry or group be asked to implement a program designed other than by the fullest consultation and voluntary cooperation with the [Metric Conversion] Board. In addition the term "voluntary" meant that the Metric Conversion Act 1970 contained no penal clauses and that no new legislation would be enacted specifically to enforce metrication. Instead, the force of law would be achieved by amendment of existing State or Federal legislation to incorporate metric measurements whenever the measurements to be used in particular activities are specifically indicated. Paul Trusten, R.Ph. Public Relations Director U.S. Metric Association, Inc. www.metric.org 3609 Caldera Blvd. Apt. 122 Midland TX 79707-2872 US +1(432)528-7724 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
