Canada converted all its speed limit signs in one night.  Went to bed, signs 
were in mph.  Woke up next morning, all were in km/h.  The stick on solution 
was used - very cheap, very fast, and very effective.  Most lasted until they 
needed to be replaced for other reasons.

When you consider Canada's vastness, and the fact that every road has speed 
limit signs by the million (roads 60 km/h and under by law have to have signs 
every 500 m [exception - blanket '50 km/h unless signed otherwise' signs when 
entering a metropolis], while those roads over 60 km/h had to be signed every 1 
km, including freeways), this was quite some achievement.

John F-L
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Pat Naughtin 
  To: U.S. Metric Association 
  Cc: UKMA Metric Association 
  Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2009 2:08 AM
  Subject: [USMA:46042] Re: Fwd: USA Science Festival tents


  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 pat.naugh...@metricationmatters.com 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 <barkatf...@hotmail.com> 
wrote:


            From: Stephen Humphreys <barkatf...@hotmail.com>
            Subject: [USMA:46039] Re: Fwd: USA Science Festival tents
            To: "U.S. Metric Association" <usma@colostate.edu>
            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: usma@colostate.edu
            From: pat.naugh...@metricationmatters.com
            To: usma@colostate.edu
            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. 


Reply via email to