Dear John,
Well said. It is interesting to note that changing all road signs in
an entire nation can be done in a day – that's right – in a single day.
It all depends on the method you choose. Australia, New Zealand,
India, South Africa, and Ireland chose successful methods largely by
copying each others successes. They all chose to change to metric only
signs and the job done in a day was the result.
Others have chosen other methods based on simple conjectures or
prejudices. The UK chose two methods that proved to be unsuccessful so
far:
1 Design, build, and repair roads all in metric measures while you
provide the public with signs based on the metric inch, the metric
foot, the metric yard, and the metric mile that were all defined in
metric terms in 1959. This truth was hidden from the UK people by an
arbitrary decision made at the time of the Thatcher government – it
was based on a simple political prejudice that was encapsulated in the
phrase (as I recall Margaret Thatcher's words), 'WE have saved the
pint and the mile for Britain'.
2 'Dual signs are good for educating the public' is an interesting
conjecture that, as far as I can find, has no basis in fact and no
precedent in history. It is simply a false conjecture that has always
proved to be false wherever its application has been attempted.
These two thought have led to the current situation in the UK. They
began to use this prejudice and this conjecture in about 1965 and
there are many who still support them even despite their obvious
failure after 44 years – so far – and with many more years still to
come!
Remember that the alternative is to look at a nation that has made the
upgrade in a single day and copy the successful methods that they
chose to use.
Cheers,
Pat Naughtin
Author of the ebook, Metrication Leaders Guide, that you can obtain
from http://metricationmatters.com/MetricationLeadersGuideInfo.html
PO Box 305 Belmont 3216,
Geelong, Australia
Phone: 61 3 5241 2008
Metric system consultant, writer, and speaker, Pat Naughtin, has
helped thousands of people and hundreds of companies upgrade to the
modern metric system smoothly, quickly, and so economically that they
now save thousands each year when buying, processing, or selling for
their businesses. Pat provides services and resources for many
different trades, crafts, and professions for commercial, industrial
and government metrication leaders in Asia, Europe, and in the USA.
Pat's clients include the Australian Government, Google, NASA, NIST,
and the metric associations of Canada, the UK, and the USA. See http://www.metricationmatters.com
for more metrication information, contact Pat at [email protected]
or to get the free 'Metrication matters' newsletter go to: http://www.metricationmatters.com/newsletter
to subscribe.
On 2009/10/20, at 22:58 , John M. Steele wrote:
I hear you, but I think I have to disagree. The 10' tent doesn't
really make them "anti-metric," but it does perpetuate the status
quo of "duality is fine."
We have been stuck in stasis since 1866 when "duality is fine" first
became the law of the land. In 143 years, progress has been limited
to:
*The 1893 Mendenhall order, and 1959 adjustment of the foot and pound.
*In 1994, requiring most consumer goods to have both metric and
Customary net contents, under FPLA. (But meat, deli, produce, and
beer remain Customary only). I suppose I should note a few things
are metric-only like wine, spirits.
We have backpedalled or failed to complete:
*Metric in Federally-funded highways and Federal buildings.
*Enforcing EO12770, making Federal agencies metric (look at NASA).
*Completing permissive-metric-only for either FPLA (stalled at NIST)
or UPLR (stalled by 2 States).
Unless we are more agressive, it could take another kiloyear.
An activity planned for a 3 m x 3 m tent would fit fine in a 10' x
10' tent AND send a message. A message that scientists and
engineers should be trying to send. (there are other groups that I
probably wouldn't berate for not using metric, but scientists,
engineers, USMA, and a few other groups need to set the example)
--- On Tue, 10/20/09, Stephen Humphreys <[email protected]>
wrote:
From: Stephen Humphreys <[email protected]>
Subject: [USMA:46039] Re: Fwd: USA Science Festival tents
To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]>
Date: Tuesday, October 20, 2009, 4:24 AM
Sometimes the things I read here make me very surprised. There's
almost a paranoia involved. Please can you believe me when I say,
quoting a *tent* as 10 x 10 foot does not make the USA Science
Festival anti-metric. Not even slightly.
Ordinary people - far from also not equating a tent to anti-
metricness - could be scared off or at least perplexed by such
pseudo-warlike polarity on how people measure things. At best
telling someone that quoting a tent that way is not pro-metric will
make them think that people who want metrication are quirky and
odd. At worst it would scare people off.
I'd be less concerned about some blurb which took the size of a tent
off the packet it came in in feet and be more concerned with what
gets discussed INSIDE that tent. Isn't that what matters?
CC: [email protected]
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: [USMA:46035] Re: Fwd: USA Science Festival
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2009 07:26:21 +1100
Dear Paul,
Thanks for passing on the reference to the USA Science Festival
information.
Sadly, I guess from their reference to '10x 10 foot' Festival tent,
that this is not to be a fundamentally pro-metric event.
I am reminded that 'Scientists and Engineers for America and fifteen
other science organizations' united to ask seven questions of the
2008 congressional candidates in preparation for the presidential
elections in the USA last year. I was stunned that 16 science and
engineering organisations were able to raise such significant
questions without mentioning the resistance to the metric system in
the USA at all. It reminded me of the line, 'There is an elephant in
the room', but no-one wants to admit that it's there!
See the article, 'A metrication elephant':
Did you know you can get Messenger on your mobile? Learn more.
