I think if you are going to go through the bother of putting up metric signs, then the English signs should come down. No one is going to learn the metric if the English is still up there. They will only learn the metric when the English is taken away.
Truckers can learn the metric simply by there being a requirement that the height of their vehicle be displayed in the truck where the driver can see it in meters only. When they come to a bridge they can compare the two numbers and if the bridge height is greater then the height displayed in their cab, then it is safe to pass under. Eventually they won't have to refer to the internal sign as they will have memorized it after a few glimpses. I remember a decade ago when our area code changed. There was an overlay period where both coses worked and it was meant to get people to adjust to the new code by using it.. The day the old code stopped working the phone company was flooded with complaints and there were people despite the publicity who claimed they didn't know the number had changed. The adjustment period was a waste of time. Jerry ________________________________ From: John M. Steele <[email protected]> To: U.S. Metric Association <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, March 2, 2009 8:50:27 AM 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. >
