The Head of a major consumer group in Northern Virginia USA thirty years
ago found that shoppers in grocery stores visually look at the size of
the product first and not the label before purchasing. so it has been
known for decades that dual unit labeling is not needed except for
perhaps measurements of ingredients for recipes.
Stan Doore
----- Original Message -----
*From:* carlet...@comcast.net <mailto:carlet...@comcast.net>
*To:* U.S. Metric Association <mailto:usma@colostate.edu>
*Cc:* UKMA Metric Association <mailto:secret...@metric.org.uk> ;
U.S. Metric Association <mailto:usma@colostate.edu>
*Sent:* Wednesday, October 21, 2009 10:59 AM
*Subject:* [USMA:46047] Re: Fwd: USA Science Festival tents
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
<mailto:j...@frewston.plus.com>>
To: "U.S. Metric Association" <usma@colostate.edu
<mailto:usma@colostate.edu>>
Cc: "UKMA Metric Association" <secret...@metric.org.uk
<mailto: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 <mailto:pat.naugh...@metricationmatters.com>
*To:* U.S. Metric Association <mailto:usma@colostate.edu>
*Cc:* UKMA Metric Association <mailto:secret...@metric.org.uk>
*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.
See http://www.metricationmatters.com
<http://www.metricationmatters.com/>for more metrication
information, contact Pat at pat.naugh...@metricationmatters.com
<mailto: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
<mailto:barkatf...@hotmail.com>>/* wrote:
From: Stephen Humphreys <barkatf...@hotmail.com
<mailto:barkatf...@hotmail.com>>
Subject: [USMA:46039] Re: Fwd: USA Science Festival tents
To: "U.S. Metric Association" <usma@colostate.edu
<mailto: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 <mailto:usma@colostate.edu>
From: pat.naugh...@metricationmatters.com
<mailto:pat.naugh...@metricationmatters.com>
To: usma@colostate.edu <mailto: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. <http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/174426567/direct/01/>
