I also read it (I'm not done with chapter 9). For me, the key was that the government had an overall vision of the end point and mandated it by law:"Clause 5 of the Act stated that:The object of this Act is to bring about progressively the use of the metric system of measurement in Australia as the sole system of measurement of physical quantities." Voluntary meant that each industry was responsible to develop and implement its own metrication plan, not that going metric was optional or debatable. This is quite different from the US guidance recently received, "Be metric if you want to. It's OK, really." Also, individual actions like FPLA, metric traffic signs, etc, don't finish the job if there is no overall vision. Also, the Australians are quite convinced (and probably correct) that dual marking is a false crutch. It doesn't help people learn metric, it just allows them to ignore the metric. FPLA as presently written is a false crutch that hasn't done much for metric education in the 19 years it has been a requirement. We are still aren't "ready" for metric-only, The Australians completed metrication in less time than we have farbled with dual. Given the lack of US leadership, vision, and mandate on the issue of metrication, we will NEVER get there.
________________________________ From: Edward Schlesinger <[email protected]> To: U.S. Metric Association <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2013 11:22 PM Subject: [USMA:53000] Lessons I have learned so far from “Metrication in Australia”. Hi all: Lessons I have learned so far from “Metrication in Australia”. I read some of the PDF after downloading “Metrication in Australia” from http://themetricmaven.com/. I noted one difference to the approach towards Metrication page 6 was the avoidance of conversion factors in Education but have students pick 11 common things, measure them in SI units and use them for everyday comparison. This approach was also important for stores and the general public. Metric units were not permitted for legal trade in the state level and needed to be recognized on the federal level before the states changed their laws (page 9). The time 1967 countries that were trading partners were transitioning to the SI system. A Metric Conversion Board was created and invited people from industry and commerce to be part of sub-committees. “The term “voluntary” was, therefore, taken to mean that, through industry-appointed Sector committees, each industry would have both the right and the responsibility to plan and implement conversion in its own way and to its own schedule”. (page 15) Also “Metric Conversion Act 1970 contained no penal clauses and the force of law would be achieved by amendment of existing State or Federal legislation …whenever the measurements to be used in particular activities are specifically indicated”. (page 15) For Construction (p 35) Adoption of Modules in 100mm was adopted. The “minimum permissible ceiling height was 8 ft. or 2438 mm”. So “Having thus established … 2400 mm, it was clear that sheet sizes 2400 X 1200 would be modular and could be used vertically or horizontally to fill the space without the need to cut and fit”. This allowed Manufacturers and designers to work together on building projects. In Agriculture the change to recording millimeters of rain made irrigation calculation simpler for farmers “used in conjunction with the information that one hectare is exactly 10 000 square meter, 1 mm rain is easily seen to be 10 000 L”. (page 54) The Metric Conversion Board (page 58) “provided posters to retailers and leaflets for customers, assistance in training retail staff, and display materials in supermarkets and other suitable locations”. These gems of examples in this document makes me think of what proposals may be in new legislation for transition to the International System of Units for the United States. -- Sincerely, Edward B.
