Martcus wrote in USMA 13627:
>Unlike you may think, Jim. I actually have only two general comments to
>make here.
.........................................................................
>Therefore, please remember that the ultimate goal of all of us is to find
>means to make metrication happen, but happen fast, effectively and (why
>not?) even efficiently! The whole problem is that some, like you, are
>trying to 'reinvent the wheel', so to speak, and want to come up with
>strategies that would avoid government compulsory metrication. Well...
>Again, history seems to be unquestionably proving that (so far...) there
>is no other way. The closest effort to 'your way' that I can think of
>that was successful was the Australian experience. But even there, it had
>to have 'teeth' in it, otherwise, it, too, would have failed in time.
Quite right that the Australian experience was successful, and that it had
teeth in it. However, Australia had a very effective Metric Conversion
Board that coordinated metric conversion from 1970 to 1980. The following
are some of the steps taken in Australia:
'Standardized' goods after 1976 January 1 could only be marked in
prescribed metric quantities.
The South Australian Government legislated in 1975 August that:
*All* weighing and measuring instruments used for trade had to be converted.
*All* goods weighed or measured in the presence of the customer had to
be priced per metric unit
Imperial prices were permitted, provided that they were no more
prominent than the metric price,
Penalties up $100 might be applied for non-compliance .
Similar legislation followed in the other States.
Legislation provided cut-off dates after which only metric scales would be
reverified
Prosecutions were rare, but three were reported in South Australia within
the first year.
In Queensland the fine for first offence was $200, and for subsequent
offences $400. Fines in other states ranged from $40 to $200
The final report of the Metric Conversion Board said
"Whilst conversion involved the *voluntary participation* of those
concerned to the greatest extent possible, programs have been supported
where asppropriate and/or regulated by *mandatory legislation*."
The total sum of money expended by the Board in its eleven years of
operations was $5 955 000.
A report from the Metric Section of the Department of Science and
Technology of 1982 July 26 said:
"In review it seems almost axiomatic that any far reaching national
change, not only metrication, which is initiated by government can only be
achieved by voluntary acceptance if it is made a democratic obligation on
all by legislation."
"Throughout metrication the problem has been not so much one of public
opposition as of apathy and disinteresst. To many people it was an
academic exercise, related to mathematics and higher learning and of no
direct interest and importance to them.
"The Board's attitude was that metric conversion was a matter of
Government policy which was its responsibility to implement, not to debate
or to promote. Consequently, as a general principle pvblic debate on the
desirability or worth of metric conversion was avoided and efforts to
"sell" metrication were avoided as likely to lead to public debate and
likely to harden or polarise public views on the subject. From this arose
the concept of keeping a low profile - low key - avoid argument."
My conclusion from the Australian experience is that the important factor
in procuring a rapid and economical conversion is firm government
committment backed by a few penalties
.
Joseph B. Reid
17 Glebe Road West
Toronto M5P 1C8 Tel. 416 486-6071
