The Head of a major consumer group in Northern Virginia USA thirty years ago
found that shoppers in grocery stores visually look at the size of the product
first and not the label before purchasing. so it has been known for decades
that dual unit labeling is not needed except for perhaps measurements of
ingredients for recipes.
Stan Doore
----- Original Message -----
From: [email protected]
To: U.S. Metric Association
Cc: UKMA Metric Association ; U.S. Metric Association
Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2009 10:59 AM
Subject: [USMA:46047] Re: Fwd: USA Science Festival tents
I was driving on the 103 in Nova Scotia from Lunenburg to Halifax ten years
ago. Part was a limited-access road. The highway signs showed evidence of
once having said miles, but it was scraped off with the new distances shown.
Carleton
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Frewen-Lord" <[email protected]>
To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]>
Cc: "UKMA Metric Association" <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2009 3:28:39 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: [USMA:46043] Re: Fwd: USA Science Festival tents
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 [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.
