I agree that such a coordinated national plan would be ideal. However, I
think the strategies that USMA advocates and pursues need to frankly
recognize that the "total backing of federal, state, and local governments
and industry leaders" will never materialize. Given this reality, how might
we prevail? The relatively quick-strike executive order scenario for
changing road signs that I'm outlining is one scenario, because it bypasses
the inevitable gridlock, infighting, and special-interest sabotage that
derailed this effort in prior decades. State DOTs, car manufacturers, etc.
shouldn't necessarily be blindsided overnight. But neither should they be
consulted.
About the people needing to be metricated first, if all road signs were
changed tomorrow, it would be about as disconcerting for Americans as taking
a trip up to Canada (or vice versa). That seems to work out fine, without
special lessons or seminars. The car manufacturers and state DOTs would
also adapt quickly, and that doesn't need to happen instantly anyway.
My main point is that this one change is nearly the whole battle for us, so
we should focus on it. If road signs changed, many of the details we gripe
about today in this group would simply resolve on their own. Road signs
give the public its most frequent and important exposure to measurement, and
public language and thinking would change along with them.
--------------------------------------------------
From: "Paul Trusten" <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2009 9:31 AM
To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]>
Subject: [USMA:42333] highway metrication is metrication in microcosm
If U.S. road signs are to be metricated, then, a coordinated, national
plan must be followed, such as in the following order:
1)the American PEOPLE must be metricated; that is, children must learn
metric in school, and adults must learn metric by a variety of methods:
classes, seminars, public service announcements, all with the total
backing of federal, state, and local governments and industry leaders. We
can't go metric in a vacuum.
2) vehicle odometers and speedometers must be manufactured to be metric
or metric-capable, and these changes recognized by law and regulation (the
status of older, WOMBAT cars needs to be factored in); all state DOTs are
by necessity involved in this, e.g.., motor vehicle measurement standards
must become metric, such as vehicle titles recording odometer readings in
kilometers; vehicle weight must be recorded in, and legally based upon,
kilograms).
3) metric road signs are prepared and erected, but covered over until
"m-Day" (perhaps President Obama will include the erection of these new
metric road signs as part of his national work program)
4) "m-Day" is set (the single day of unveiling metric road sign on the
highways nationwide)
5) "m-only Day" - date must be established beyond which the automakers
will manufacture vehicles with metric measuring equipment only, so future
vehicles could not be accidentally switched back to the old unit readout
----- Original Message -----
From: "Victor Jockin" <[email protected]>
To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]>
Sent: 13 January, 2009 00:32
Subject: [USMA:42329] Re: Change-over period to the metric system & the
aviation industry.
Re: pipes and plywood, I would rate the relative importance of areas to
switch in the following way:
Road Signs: 85%
Consumer Products: 7%
Temperatures: 7%
Industrial, Construction, Manufacturing, Engineering, Architecture, etc.:
1%
If road signs were converted, it would tip the scales and everything else
that matters would, eventually but surely, fall into place. For example,
I'm trying to get NY Times science reporters to not convert NASAs metric
distances to US measures. Would they even think about doing that were
the road signs in metric? Would USGS keep showing elevations and
distances in feet and miles? Road signs are the cornerstone of US
traditional measures in this country, and if we knock that out, we win
the war.
On the other hand, would anyone who's not an aviation engineer even know
what units Boeing uses to specify parts? If everything the public saw
was metric, would or should the public even care? (Yes, there may be a
business case for one way or the other, but a lot of business decisions
are dealt with out of public view, as this one should be, as far as I'm
concerned).
To me our cause for hope is this: Provided a clause can be slipped into
some bill negating the ban on using public funds for metric signs, the
whole battle (i.e., road signs, and the full conversion it would
engender) can be won through the actions of one enlightened President,
who could simply direct the DOT to change the signs (here we can blame
Ford and Carter). All Congress would need to do is decline to block such
an action.
--------------------------------------------------
From: "Pierre Abbat" <[email protected]>
Sent: 01/12/2009 9:39 PM
To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]>
Subject: [USMA:42328] Re: Change-over period to the metric system & the
aviation industry.
On Monday 12 January 2009 15:58:06 Bill Hooper wrote:
Some things would take longer because of durable goods that it are too
expensive just to throw out because it is not metric; think "my
house". You're not going to tear down your house that was built to
olde English standards just because you can only get metric sized
sheets of wallboard or plywood. Manufacturers will need to make, and
suppliers will need to sell, some olde English sizes of building
materials for some years so that old, pre-metric homes can be kept in
good repair. The critical part of this is to persuade the builders and
suppliers of NEW construction to begin using metric sizes.
Another example, which I thought about during my hydrology class, is
storm
sewer drainpipes. I think the correct solution for that is to designate
one
pipe company (there are few) to make only Renard number sized pipes in
metric, require all new pipe runs to be done in such sizes, and let the
other
companies metricate when they decide to. Existing pipe runs may be
repaired
with inch-sized pipes.
Pierre
