The parallel I saw drawn to this was the self-organising nature of the open source movement, which I thought was a bit monomaniacal, but the idea is definitely interesting.
The problem that I see is that it increases the potential for finger-pointing - if there's a traffic accident, the temptation is going to be to say, "just one sign here would have prevented this". While it might lower overall accident rates, peoples' (not unreasonable) short-sightedness and personal bias mean that I think it'll take constant political vigilance to maintain.
In my admittedly utopian view, I have to say that this does seem like the way forward.
Perhaps deregulation is going to be the saviour of the nanny state? This would certainly give me hope for the social future of our species.
I think the point is that once you start down a path of regulation, people are keen to shed their personal responsibilities, leaving it to someone else to make and (ineffectively) enforce the rules. Going down the path of deregulation means changing the mindset too, such that finger-pointing and suggestions of reintroducing regulation would simply be counter-productive.
If regulatory bodies could show massive savings and reduce accidents and fatalities, this would be the way they could justify implementing a scheme that is currently so far against current thinking.
I have to agree that gradually it will change the mindset of drivers. However I'm personally of the opinion that boys shouldn't be allowed to drive until they're at least 20, probably 25. My point being that without lines and signs and rules and whatnot, they will go zoom! everywhere. We'll improve the average driver, but not all of the idiot ones. And they're the ones that get people killed, or just stressed... meh. xx
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2006-12-04 09:23 pm (UTC)The problem that I see is that it increases the potential for finger-pointing - if there's a traffic accident, the temptation is going to be to say, "just one sign here would have prevented this". While it might lower overall accident rates, peoples' (not unreasonable) short-sightedness and personal bias mean that I think it'll take constant political vigilance to maintain.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-12-05 09:46 am (UTC)Perhaps deregulation is going to be the saviour of the nanny state? This would certainly give me hope for the social future of our species.
I think the point is that once you start down a path of regulation, people are keen to shed their personal responsibilities, leaving it to someone else to make and (ineffectively) enforce the rules. Going down the path of deregulation means changing the mindset too, such that finger-pointing and suggestions of reintroducing regulation would simply be counter-productive.
If regulatory bodies could show massive savings and reduce accidents and fatalities, this would be the way they could justify implementing a scheme that is currently so far against current thinking.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-12-06 10:01 pm (UTC)meh.
xx