on 2004-06-29 10.11, David King at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > And why choose to go back to the stone age and ditch km? > > David > > MightyChimp wrote: > >> Here is the page the statement was taken from: >> >> http://www.harness.org.au/ahrc/annual/public/records/aus_distt.htm >> >> But, I'm confused. If they reverted to miles, why are the distances >> in the first two columns shown in metres? >> >> Euric
Dear David, Euric, and All, What you are seeing here is an excellent example of two different approaches to metrication, and both of them are happening inside a single individual's head at the same time. One approach is technical and the other has to do with changing mindsets and social attitudes. Let me explain. The trotting industry changed technically to metric in 1973. This was an easy and successful change that went smoothly and is now probably irreversible. However, this technical change did not recognise that closely related, and perhaps more important, mindset and social changes were also necessary. The mindset change was about comparing performances between different distances, and between present and past performances. Traditionally, although it is hard to calculate with old measures, this was done using a concept called 'mile rate' where the performance of each horse over each distance that it trotted, was compared to a theoretical rate for one mile. The social change that was necessary involved what is 'right' and what is 'wrong' in the language that it is acceptable to use in the member's stand at the trotting track. Will you be socially ostracised if you use 'kilometre rate' instead of 'mile rate'? This is a highly emotive social question that in this case has been the dominant force in the non-metrication of the expression, 'mile rate'. Interestingly, it was the technical metrication of the trotting industry that made the 'mile rate' calculations easier to do and, it can be argued that 'mile rates' became more popular after (technical) metrication, because they are easier to calculate using race distances in metres, because these can now be done on a decimal calculator. Sadly though, because the 'senior citizens' of the trotting industry have now ensconced the words 'mile rate' into their 'official' jargon, a neophyte in their industry might assume that the industry is yet to 'go metric' when in fact all that is left of old measures is that one, single, expression, 'mile rate'. Compare this with the optometry industry where they have been measuring, in all countries, fully in metric measures, since the 1880s. However, to hide the fact that when you sit in an optometrists chair and look at jumbled letters � exactly 6 metres away � you then allow the optometrist to tell you that you have 20/20 vision [20 feet/20 feet because 6 metres = 19 feet 8 7/32 inches]. In any planning for metrication, it is the technical conversions that are relatively easy; it is is the mindset and social issues that are harder and � if you get them wrong � will reappear to haunt you for many generations into the future. (In colloquial terms they will come back to bite you on the buttock.) This example in the Australian trotting industry is just one interesting (but obscure) example. Another is the decision of French plumbers to use a soft conversion of the pouce to metric in the 1790s; they are still having trouble with that � 200�yeas later, and it is far more widely spread than throughout Europe. Yet another is the decisions of paper makers (in Canada and the USA) to create their own standard paper sizes rather than use the international A-series. We will all suffer from the financial and time dis-efficiencies of these decisions for many many more generations. Thanks for alerting me to this issue. It is an interesting example of what can go wrong in a metrication program. Take care! Cheers, Pat Naughtin LCAMS Geelong, Australia Pat Naughtin is the editor of the free online newsletter, 'Metrication matters'. You can subscribe by sending an email containing the words subscribe Metrication matters to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --
