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" <j...@frewston.plus.com> To: "U.S. Metric Association" <usma@colostate.edu> Cc: "UKMA Metric Association" <secret...@metric.org.uk> 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. S ee http://www.metricationmatters.com for more metrication information, contact Pat at pat.naugh...@metricationmatters.com 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 < barkatf...@hotmail.com > wrote: From: Stephen Humphreys < barkatf...@hotmail.com > Subject: [USMA:46039] Re: Fwd: USA Science Festival tents To: "U.S. Metric Association" < usma@colostate.edu > 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: usma@colostate.edu From: pat.naugh...@metricationmatters.com To: usma@colostate.edu 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.
