I think stealth will simply increase resistance. In some cases, it will be dangerous as well. Public "buy-in" isn't a requirement (although Congresscritters would have to show a lot of backbone to pass something the public doesn't approve of), but on some things prior notification, planning and education is essential.
Relative to speed limits, FMVSS101 needs to be modified to require, not just permit, km/h marking and have legibility standards for it. My car has virtually unreadable km/h markings, and some cars have none as it is currently optional. Second the public would need to understand change is coming, when it is coming, and the relationship between MPH and km/h. Some Americans who regularly visit Canada and Mexico have some familiarity with it, many don't. Clearance heights for bridges are also extremely important (mostly to truckers, as we have few of the VERY low clearances common in the UK). For these, I would support mandatory dual marking for a few years. Some road signs, if not understood, only inconvenience the driver, e.g. distance to a (fairly distant) city. Others can make the driver who doesn't understand be a hazard to others, such as speed limits, clearance heights, load limits. Changing these without adequate education is irresponsible and dangerous. --- On Mon, 3/2/09, Victor Jockin <[email protected]> wrote: > From: Victor Jockin <[email protected]> > Subject: [USMA:43324] Re: true metrification is systemic > To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected] > Date: Monday, March 2, 2009, 12:38 AM > I agree with Alan's central point that stealth measures, > done without fanfare or extensive public education, are the > mostly likely ways to succeed in the US today. I disagree > that road signs can't also be switched in an executive > quick-strike, without waiting for a public buy in that will > never come (they'll buy in a few weeks post switch), but > that's perhaps a secondary point. >
