White House: Use Metric If You Want, We Don't Care 1145
Earlier this year we discussed a petition on the White House's 'We The People' site asking the administration to adopt the metric system as the standard system of measurement in the U.S. Today, the administration issued a disappointing response. Simply put: they're not going to do anything about it. They frame their response as a matter of preserving a citizen's choice to adopt whatever measurement system he wants. Quoting Patrick D. Gallagher of the National Institute of Standards and Technology:
"... contrary to what many people may think, the U.S. uses the metric system now to define all basic units used in commerce and trade. At the same time, if the metric system and U.S. customary system are languages of measurement, then the United States is truly a bilingual nation. ... Ultimately, the use of metric in this country is a choice and we would encourage Americans to continue to make the best choice for themselves and for the purpose at hand and to continue to learn how to move seamlessly between both systems. In our voluntary system, it is the consumers who have the power to make this choice. So if you like, "speak" metric at home by setting your digital scales to kilograms and your thermometers to Celsius. Cook in metric with liters and grams and set your GPS to kilometers. ... So choose to live your life in metric if you want, and thank you for signing on."
Re:Start here (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Sure beats jail time... (Score:2, Interesting)
The UK mandates that things being sold have to provide metric units - they can provide other units as well if they wish. This actually makes a lot of sense, as it protects customers from misleading labelling. I could create my own units that at a glance will look similar and use those instead, giving customers less product for their money.
Re:Missing the Point? (Score:5, Interesting)
The discrepancy between calculated and measured position, resulting in the discrepancy between desired and actual orbit insertion altitude, had been noticed earlier by at least two navigators, whose concerns were dismissed. A meeting of trajectory software engineers, trajectory software operators (navigators), propulsion engineers, and managers, was convened to consider the possibility of executing Trajectory Correction Maneuver-5, which was in the schedule. Attendees of the meeting recall an agreement to conduct TCM-5, but it was ultimately not done.
But "We mixed up feet and meters! Whoopsie!" while embarrassing, is not quite so embarrassing as "We canceled the scheduled maneuver that would have saved the ship, even though we knew something was very wrong." Plus, it was an easy headline for the media. There were a legion of problems with the Mars Climate Orbiter that had nothing to do with unit systems. NASA was just in full-on derp mode at that time. Likewise, the Mars Polar Lander [wikipedia.org], which did not have a similar unit-conversion error, also crashed a few months later.
Re:Start here (Score:5, Interesting)
Every time a state starts printing metric speed limits, it inevitably ends up rounding the limit DOWN.
I remember one failed experiment where FDOT (Florida) tried to be cute and put up signs declaring "44kph" to be the metric equivalent of 30mph (it's only 27mph). The signs were SO hated, most of them got vandalized beyond recognition within a month, and pretty much ALL of them had the "44" spray painted, X'ed (with black markers), or shot out (with BBs, paintball pellets, or real honest-to-god bullets) by the time FDOT took them down and replaced them with 30mph signs. FDOT later admitted that it was a mistake.
If you want the public to accept metric speed limits, roll them out with a big public campaign that emphasizes that the limits are being RAISED everywhere by up to 5mph. Instantly, metric speed limits will become popular and cool among drivers. Declare 115kph (71.45mph) to be the equivalent of 70mph, and drivers will like them. Round it up to 120kph (74.56mph), and drivers will LOVE them. Try pulling another FDOT stunt by putting up signs saying "70mph/111kph", and they'll get vandalized beyond recognition within days.
Re:Makes perfect sense to me (Score:4, Interesting)
Why bother to convert though? The natural way to "speak a language" such as metric is to use it as your first language; not convert between the two.
Most car manufacturers publish fuel consumption figures in metric and imperial, so the natural way would be to know what your litres per 100 would be, and what this actually means in reality.
We have a weird situation here in the UK. All fuel is sold by the litre - but no one knows what litres per 100km means or how the cost of a litre of gas will affect them. We all refer to MPG and we know that a gallon is about 4.5x the cost of a litre (yes, our gallons have more litres than yours).
US not ready for globalization (Score:3, Interesting)
I am european mechanical engineer who worked and lived on 3 continents. The metric system is way superior than the imperial system in many ways but the most important is that it is used everywhere and it is a consistent system*. A lot of companies here in the US have switched to metric (at least for this reason), but soon when asian industrial power will swamp the US market with metric product and parts (in the same way that IKEA did) a lot people in this forum will be lost and realize that a dual system is completly stupid.
* if your not convince ask yourself why in a imperial system electrical power unit is Watt and but heat power it is in Btu/h....
Re:Start here (Score:5, Interesting)
That would be the last place to start, as it would cost a fortune to replace all of the highway signs. Not only that, but also all of the mile markers, for which most states have every 1/10 of a mile. Moreover, contrary to what some people have implied, the numbers are generally not painted on, they're fabricated from other materials and overlaid. And for what? So we can convert the length of our commute into a multiple of our height, or something else of the sort? Yes, it's absolutely absurd that there are 12 inches in a foot, 3 feet in a yard, and I-don't-even-know-how-many yards in a mile (and yes, I've heard of Google/Wikipedia; but I just don't care). The truth is, I never need to convert inches into miles. You measure human-scale things in feet and inches, travelling distances in miles.
On the other hand, you know where we should start: volumetric measurements. I have frequently had a recipe that takes some number of teaspoons of a liquid, while having measuring cups measured in (naturally) cups, and nutritional information in ounces. Oh, and keep in mind that most tea spoons are significantly larger than a teaspoon. And then there's tablespoons, pints, quarts, gallons, barrels, and who knows what else. This is a lot harder to keep straight, and unlike miles to inches, sometimes you actually need to convert between these.
Add into the mix the problem that pints differ from place to place (either 16 or 20 oz), and "ounce" is both a volumetric measure and a weight measure. Obviously, if you have something that's clearly a solid or a liquid, it's clear which is which. But what about, say, frozen yogurt. When the self-serve froyo place sells by the ounce, and posts calories by the ounce, it would only be reasonable to think that these are the same ounces. It would also be wrong.
Moreover, in the case of volumetric measures, not only do you have a real problem, but an easier solution: most of the containers that hold liquids are disposable anyways, and constantly manufactured (i.e. food). All that would need to be done is to make containers that are metric-sized, and printed with metric labels, rather than Imperial. In fact, we're closer to that already. By law, all wine and distilled alcohol must be sold in one of several metric sizes (for distilled, it is 375 mL, 750 mL, 1L, 1.75 L, if I recall correctly). Soda is frequently sold in 2 L bottles.
Do that, let people see that metric actually saves time and hassle, and then go about changing other measurements. Weight would probably be the easiest to transition next, followed by lengths for things other than highway signs. (No one will care that they can't easily convert meters into miles, just as they don't care that they can't convert feet into miles). But please don't try to start with highway signs. Or bother with highway signs at all, for that matter. They are the death of metricfication in the US, and insistence on them is only counterproductive to the rest of your goals.
Re:Speak metric at home (Score:2, Interesting)
Easy, don't use imperial cookbooks, try use the republican cookbooks only :)
Little known fact: Many recipes are not directly transferrable between even Canada and the US, even if the proportions are kept correct. This is due to ingredient differences rather than measurement units (In fact, most Canadian cookbooks offer their recipes in both Metric and US). The biggest difference is flour. Canadian flour has a significantly higher gluten content than US "All Purpose" flour, and that can make a huge difference in bread, pastry, and other similar things.
Re:Start here (Score:5, Interesting)
So, we ended up with a foot being, well, the length of a foot. A mile ("mille passus") being 1000 paces, etc. The needs were to measure small units (foot), or large distances (mile), so the conversion wasn't often needed (who builds a mile long building, or steps toe-to-heal across Europe?)
Then you get a pound being equivalent to so many grains of wheat (or a different number of grains of barley), etc.
It made sense at the time, and worked well enough.
BTW, 16 oz in a lb is from binary powers, easily divisible. The history of temperature units is interesting and convoluted, but 32 for freezing is based on binary divisions (64 units) between that and human body temperature (96). 0 was ice+salt. So again, it was an attempt at units which could be duplicated independently.
Re:Start here (Score:5, Interesting)
Oh, and if you were to dig out your ruler and measure out two survey markers that are supposed to be ten miles apart, you'd find them to be 633601+1/4 inches apart, instead of the 633600 inches you'd expect, because again, the imperial system is broken. Survey miles are different than real miles.
Re:Start here (Score:2, Interesting)
Why in the world would you do that?
* Maps are usually still in miles
* Everything around those highways is measured in miles (or acres...)
* Road exits, sections, etc. are measured in miles (and can be predicted by such), usually in a grid system
* It would add yet another distraction to the roadways, particularly in busy areas where there are lots of signs as it is.
* You gain nothing.
In terms of relevancy, we might as well be using cubits or furlongs...
Re:Start here (Score:5, Interesting)
Moreover, in the case of volumetric measures, not only do you have a real problem, but an easier solution: most of the containers that hold liquids are disposable anyways, and constantly manufactured (i.e. food). All that would need to be done is to make containers that are metric-sized, and printed with metric labels, rather than Imperial.
FWIW, this became a legal requirement in the UK 20+(?) years ago when we joined the EU and we have just about assimilated metric measures of volume and weight when it comes to consumables.
Also noteworthy, the building industry also works in metric these days, although there are many builders who still think in ft/in a lot of the materials are sold in metric sizes, i.e the width of a standard sheet of plaster board (sheet rock) dictates how you space your studs.
However, street signs are still in MPH and most people still measure their body weight in Stones and their height in Feet and Inches.
It takes a while but the ability to trade with neighbouring countries makes it worth it...
costly and difficult to convert machine tools (Score:5, Interesting)
I have a machine shop in my garage, which includes a large mill and a lathe. Both have lead screws set to work in thousands of an inch, so one revolution of a handle is a certain subset of inches (.05) with individual tick marks at .001. It is essentially baked into the hardware, and you have to replace the feed wheel dials and lead screws to change it, among other things.
I purchase metal stock that comes in US units as well (1/2" bar stock for example) which corresponds to stock needed for drawings that give all their dimensions in inches. There is a cascading chain of things, all of which need to change.
You will not see me switching my shop to metric in my lifetime most likely.
Converting a large industrial economy over to metric has a lot of hidden costs that make it very difficult to do, because all valves, pipes, fittings, metal stock, screws etc. offerings have to be changed, and imperial parts need to be offered for many decades to come to service older equipment.
The idea itself is a good one as ultimately metric is a more scientifically advanced and clear set of standards than imperial. It's nice to work in a consistently matched base-10 for all scales.
In the case of smaller economies, it is easier to support the change due to much smaller scale and very small industrial base. New Zealand as a country switched over to metric in a single day, after much preparation.
Although the US auto industry has largely gone over to metric, I do not think that the rest of the US is currently in a position to swallow that pill easily. I believe that no matter how much ideologically it makes sense, that it is still political dynamite.
It would be nice if everyone taking up this topic had machine shop and fabrication experience so they would understand just how much it impacts the pipeline from raw stock to finished product. Politicians tend to think in abstracts and statistics and do not always consider all of the consequences. Most of the rest of the population is so far removed from it that they A. don't understand the entirety of the impact and B. as others have said would not benefit significantly from the change.
-PH
Re: Start here (Score:2, Interesting)
Here in the US, we have:
5 mph -- some private parking areas.
10 mph -- other private areas.
20 mph -- school zones.
25 mph -- some neighborhood streets.
30 mph -- other neighborhood streets
35 mph -- most city streets
40 mph -- boulevards/avenues.
45 mph -- larger streets.
50 mph -- some highways.
55 mph -- other limited access highways.
60 mph -- some interstates in town.
65 mph -- most interstates around a town.
70 mph -- rural roads.
75 mph -- rural highways.
80 mph -- Texas 130
85 mph -- Texas 130 between Seguin and San Antonio
Enforcement is random. In California, they use cameras that will go off at 1mph over (assuming they are kept in any calibration, which is unlikely.) Rural roads, they will pull over at 1mph over since it might mean a marijuana bust and a free seized vehicle. Most cities don't care, so there is a 10% margin unless there is a push for revenue, then that 10% can turn into any factor.
There are also plenty of speed traps. Marking a transition from 65 to 35 can be made optional, and some places will place school zones on 65mph roads which go to 20 mph. Don't see the sign, the city gets the cash for reckless child endangerment, felony charges.
Re:Start here (Score:2, Interesting)
Height is easier in feet an inches than meters and centimeters.
No... really, it is. When asked how tall I am, I can say, "i'm six two". Just that, 3 words.
With metric, I'd have to either say "i'm one point eight eight", or maybe drop the final eight and round up or down, and maybe drop the point.. but if I did all that, and said "i'm one eight", that's a pretty inaccurate statement about my height, as 1.8m isn't 6'2, it's actually shy of 5'11, and people would think I'm odd if I undersold my height to that degree (as it is, i'm closer to 6'3 and my everyday footwear is a pair of engineer boots -- once you add in the thick sole and the heel, i stand closer to 6'4 or 6'5).
Oh, and temperature's nicer in farenheit, at least for weather outside. Roughly every 10 degrees of farenheit is a different sort of clothing you'll want to wear -- but in celcius, that's only a 6 degree difference (whatever, it's actually 6.25). That one is a bit of a stretch even compared to the height thing, but it actually is a wonderful scale to use for just seeing what the weather is going to be like tomorrow.
Re:Start here (Score:4, Interesting)
Almost a decade ago, I was in a trip to the USA. I was very surprised to see Liter used for car engine sizes (here they usually use cubic centimeters, which are exactly 1/1000, so not a real problem).
I remember strolling through a supermarket, and looking at the soda bottles, which were bigger than the 1.5L bottles common here. I picked one up to see what size it was. I guess most readers know the answer - it was 2 liters. I remember wondering how come Americans are willing to use a metric unit.
So I asked a vendor. His answer was "This isn't a metric unit. It's liter".
So I asked him how much was a liter, and his answer was something along the lines of "33.8 ounces" (without blinking of stopping to think about it).
Which, of course, got me my answer. The reason Americans are using a metric unit is because they don't know it's metric.
The problem with your proposal is that, if implemented that way, means just adding another unit to the mix, without exposing people to the main advantage that the metric system has to offer. That does not bode well for a "migration path".
You should add to that the fact that volume realization is hard. I'll give a couple of examples. First, bear in mind that the two units people are, more or less, familiar with are a milliliter (1 cubic centimeter = 1/1000 of a liter) and a liter.
The first was when a company I worked for ordered a certain amount of boxes for their product. We were trying to figure out whether we have where to store them. I made the calculation, based on box size, and figured the entire bunch would require a little less than 2 cubic meters (around 1.8). We sort of made a hand gesture estimate and figured it was not that much. Boy, were we wrong. We ended up using up every spare cabinet and space in the office. Lesson learned: a cubic meter is a lot.
The happened just yesterday. I was telling my wife we will have to remove some soil from our garden to make space for extra flooring. She said "we'll be giving that to friends, right?". I told her it was about 500 liters of soil. I then made a quick mental calculation. We'll need about 12 squared meter of flooring, and the base is about half a meter deep. 6000 liters. Assuming soil is half as dense than water (it was while driving, so I couldn't look it up), you get 3 tons of soil. My instinct was off by a factor of 10, and her instinct was off by a factor of 1000.
This doesn't mean this is useless. Can you make this same calculation, off the top of your head, using imperial units? Metric does simplify things quite considerably. It's just that, specifically for volumes, that is a hard problem to solve.
Shachar
Re:Start here (Score:4, Interesting)
Unfortunately, in America, those without digital dashboards have the k/ph text in a much smaller font and on a much smaller scale making precision nearly impossible or, at best, difficult. Mandating the reverse would be a good idea but the number of old cars on the road means that's still a problem. It isn't an insurmountable problem but a problem nonetheless. I still, of course, support a complete switch to metric and (oddly enough, I am usually very opposed to any additional legislation with few exceptions, this being one of them) wouldn't mind it being federally mandated.
A part of me thinks it should be mandated just so I can hear the various sides howl like banshees at each other. Did I mention that I'm easily amused? My countrymen are straight up retarded for the most part and, unfortunately, that is bipartisan.
Anyhow, I think the simplest means of advocating the metric unit of measurement is this:
Using just your head, what is 16.2% of a meter?
Using just your head, what is 16.2% of a yard?
Simpler means fewer chances to have errors. As an American I can say, with complete certainty, that we need simplicity here.