It depends on the situation and law. In certain circumstances, Federal law
trumps State, but powers not explicitly granted to the Federal government are
reserved to the State. Usually, Federal laws which by design are trumping
State law explicitly say so in the text just so the Supreme Court knows the
issue was thought about. "State vs Federal" has been a BIG issue throughout
the development of the United States.
In the early 90's the FHWA thought it had the power to mandate both metric
construction and metric signage, at least on Federally sponsored roads (Want
Fed money? Meet our terms). State and contractor protests led Congress to
pass laws specifically saying FHWA couldn't do this. (Federal agencies are
normally pretty careful to stay within the bounds of their charter as set by
Congress. This rarely happens but is the recourse that exists.)
While they could attempt to encourage it, they couldn't force it. In the case
of metric construction of roads, all the States slowly reverted to USC
construction. The MUTCD offered the alternative of metric signage, but it was
rarely ("never" is only a slight error) used. Most of the existing metric
signage is really quite old and pre-dates Federal agency metrication efforts
initiated by EO12770. Specifically in MUTCD, States can chose, but normally
only within the alternatives offered within MUTCD. If they have a "better
idea", they can petition for special approval as an experiment; this is
generally how new ideas in traffic control start out and receive a trial.
It probably comes as no surprise that Congress speaks with forked tongue, as it
is filled with lying politicians. They call metric the preferred systyem, but
they pass laws that stymie any meaningful steps toward metrication.
________________________________
From: Stephen Humphreys <[email protected]>
To: U.S. Metric Association <[email protected]>
Sent: Fri, February 19, 2010 5:42:30 AM
Subject: [USMA:46699] RE: And, by the way......
I guess this is one of those 'Federal' versus local things.
I won't even attempt to understand how that all works!!! :-)
I know it's different from the EU/UK arrangement but I think I am right in
saying that the Federal rule on things like this (metric road signs) would
overrule any local concern? Is that the case?
------Footnote-----
By the way - word of warning - most people's posts here are being manipulated
by John P Schweisthall (Daniel, Ametrica, etc) and are being used out of
context or simply as a distraction on another forum (I thought it would be fair
to let you know).
________________________________
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 14:52:04 -0800
From: [email protected]
Subject: [USMA:46692] RE: And, by the way......
To: [email protected]
Yes, it seems most of the people along I-19 in Arizona want the metric signs to
stay (or think it is stupid to waste money replacing them.) Meanwhile the rest
of the country, who have USC signs, aren't clamoring for metric signs. I think
it just shows people resist change, whatever the change is.
Meanwhile, the forces of evil are changing the rules so it can't happen again.
The MUTCD is a pretty technical thing that most people are unaware of unless
they are in the "road business" (obvious exception for a few "metric nuts"
here.) The real defeat was around 1995 when Congress overturned plans from
FHWA to both require metric road construction and metric signage. That's when
we lost the battle, but I always felt good that the metric option existed (the
real usage was almost zero) in the MUTCD and was ready to go if the US ever
came to its senses and metricated. I think even the appendix will disappear,
it will all be forgotten and have to be reinvented at great expense if we ever
metricate. Worse, I didn't know they were consuidering the change. I
certainly would have written an indignant letter or two, but the whole Federal
Register request for comments didn't get any publicity here or in Metric
Today. Now it is published and a fait
accompli.
________________________________
From: Stephen Humphreys <[email protected]>
To: U.S. Metric Association <[email protected]>
Sent: Thu, February 18, 2010 5:02:11 PM
Subject: [USMA:46689] RE: And, by the way......
"but everyone was too excited by hidden kilometers on UK position signs" - LOL!
That speaks volumes! Thanks for a great quote!
Back to the US - Isn't there something going on with those metric signs you
have all mentioned before? ie - that some people have asked them to stay?
(locals). It might be 'deleted' in some rules but hasn't local opinion thrown
up a few proponents? This is what I like the most - when 'people power' steers
what happens (that's why I really don't like the attempted metrication of the
UK and would recommend the US not take the same route).
________________________________
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 12:21:00 -0800
From: [email protected]
Subject: [USMA:46684] RE: And, by the way......
To: [email protected]
Sadly, there is little there to discuss. The latest (2009) MUTCD has deleted
metric dimensioning of signs. Well it is "hiding" in an appendix, but you'd
have to do some work to dig it out.
Metric messages for the signs have been entirely deleted.
I suspect the few existing metric signs will revert to USC units when they are
up for replacement. I remarked on this in another message, but everyone was
too excited by hidden kilometers on UK position signs.
________________________________
From: Stephen Davis <[email protected]>
To: U.S. Metric Association <[email protected]>
Sent: Thu, February 18, 2010 2:29:06 PM
Subject: [USMA:46681] RE: And, by the way......
"Perhaps we could steer this more towards the use of imperial or metric on
roads in the USA which - after all - is what this listserver is meant to be
representing (even if the occasional glimpse of 'how others do it' adds some
interest to the debate)."
________________________________
Do you have a story that started on Hotmail? Tell us now
________________________________
Got a cool Hotmail story? Tell us now
