I don't disagree with any of what you said. I guess what I mean by stealth
is, for example, if conventional units started to disappear from packaging,
and if store unit pricing labels started to use metric units, would it even
make the local news? Most people would scarcely notice. But still, metric
units would increasing creep into public language and thought as a result.
For that kind of change, a big public education initiative would be
counterproductive and needlessly create resistance.
For road signs, of course you're right about truckers and clearance, that's
critical, and we don't want to completely blind side the public. But
neither do you want to give them a big public education initiative and a 10
year conversion window. Just think of Americans who drive to Canada and
vice versa. Is there chaos and confusion? That tells you right there how
much notice and how much public education would be necessary ... virtually
none. It's the protracted discussion of conversion, and dual unit signage,
that helped sink road sign conversion in the 70s.
--------------------------------------------------
From: "John M. Steele" <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 02, 2009 5:50 AM
To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]>
Subject: [USMA:43325] Re: true metrification is systemic
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.
