"I think in the US, to be pro-metric and successfully advocate it, you also have to be somewhat anti-Customary Choice, ie, indifference as to which measurement is used, is part of the problem and causes errors to be made by increasing complexity (Mars Climate orbiter, Gimli glider, assorted medical errors, etc)."
That's a good point, John. No, it certainly wouldn't do your cause any good if you were spouting vitriol about customary units...that would be probably self-defeating. However, being too cautious and polite so as not to offend customary users is, I believe, self-defeating also. The UK is mostly metric, but due to the spineless nature of successive governments, we have been left with strange mixes of measurements. Our roads are practically 100% imperial but on the odd occasion, you will find signs giving height readings in metres. Beer from the pump has to be served in a pint glass, yet all spirits have to be served in metric measurements. As I've said before, ask many in the UK how many yards in a mile or even how many ounces in a pound and quite a few will have absolutely no idea. So much for keeping hold of the system we all "know". And unfortunately, the EU and Britain still allows market traders to advertise loose goods for sale in pounds and ounces (alongside more prominent metric measurements) even though the scales these goods are weighed on are metric and the selling of non-loose, packaged foodstuffs have been sold in mothing but metric measurements for decades. Your comment that, in the US, you would not want to expunge customary from literary works or from historical references is rather apt because, in the main at any rate, that's exactly where most customary and imperial belong. In the history books! :-) ----- Original Message ----- From: John M. Steele To: U.S. Metric Association Sent: Sunday, March 07, 2010 11:30 PM Subject: [USMA:46871] RE: Replacement of metric signs on I-19 (Arizona) deferred Pro-metric, and anti-Customary actually. We don't use Imperial here, so I can be more indifferent to it. Although the UK has some of the same problems as we do. Different in the details, but conceptually choice and mixed laws have similarly delayed effective metrication. I think in the US, to be pro-metric and successfully advocate it, you also have to be somewhat anti-Customary Choice, ie, indifference as to which measurement is used, is part of the problem and causes errors to be made by increasing complexity (Mars Climate orbiter, Gimli glider, assorted medical errors, etc). Supposedly, metric is our preferred system, but almost no one uses it because they are more used to Customary, Congress won't force anyone (or let anyone be forced) to use metric. Metric would be a lot less painful if we just made people do it and get it over with. The present situation is like slowly removing a band-aid (plaster??) vs just giving it a good tug. Those who have voluntarily gone metric find that the US world isn't entirely metric and you have to be a little Customary too. Some food is dual-labeled, others are only labeled in Customary (beer, random weight packages, and meat in standardized packages). You need a mix of metric and Customary tools. Most local building codes don't accept metric construction standards, etc. So you can't be forced to be metric, but if you volunteer, you find you are sometimes forced to be Customary. Does it make sense to be forced to use the non=preferred system? Congress lies, metric is NOT our preferred measurement system, and if it were, it would have to push Customary aside. Choice (measurment indifference) just won't work, or none of the benefit of being metric will accrue. Hopefully, it is not necessary to be irrationally anti-Customary. I don't want to expunge it from literary works, from historical references, or where we actually need (and need to convert) the old data. I don't, for example, believe we should throw out all the old data and re-measure. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From: Stephen Humphreys <[email protected]> To: U.S. Metric Association <[email protected]> Sent: Sun, March 7, 2010 4:52:30 PM Subject: [USMA:46870] RE: Replacement of metric signs on I-19 (Arizona) deferred A couple of things are worth responding to. 1) You'll have to ask Mr Steele whether he was being anti-imperial or pro-metric. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Subject: [USMA:46869] RE: Replacement of metric signs on I-19 (Arizona) deferred Date: Sun, 7 Mar 2010 20:52:10 +0000 " "Stephen, you don't have to be 'anti' the opposite to what you are 'pro-' to, if that makes sense. In fact that position (IMHO) is more honourable, realistic and mature. And it makes the argument less personal - again all IMHO."
