Random ideas on improving the world, part 1
[originally posted February 3, but mysteriously eaten by the interweb]
Just a few thoughts I've had recently, might as well put them down before they are lost to the world:
1. Why do people not obey the 12-items-or-less (or 9- or 15-items) limit in express lanes? One is that people cannot count, or they have no idea what constitutes an item... if there are more than one of something, and they are not in a container or bag or naturally connected somehow, you have more than one item. If you have more than 12 of these (or 9, 15, whatever it is), you are over. No express lane for you!
The other reason is that people know they are over, but cheat to save time. This annoys me. Not that spending an extra minute in line bothers me that much in itself (usually anyway), but the principle. People can be pretty selfish and don't mind incoveniencing others... there are more serious example of this, but i was thinking of this one because a solution exists! Here's the deal:
It is not hard to count to 12 manually. It is even less hard if you have a computer doing it. And almost all grocery stores big enough for an express lane have fancy computerised checkouts now, and I am certain it would be minimally complicated to add a feature that couints the ites and relates it to the limit on an express lane. So it should be easy to flag people who exceed the limit. Now, what do you do with this? Let the people check out using this line (making them go back and start again would just inconvenience another line). But charge for each item over. Maybe a dollar (maybe higher, depending on how much you want to discourage going over, maybe an ascending penalty for each item. I haven't figured out the specifics). Anyway that discourages breaking the limit, but some people wil anyway, some will just figure it's worth it. Is that still fair? I propose further that the people in line (maybe the next three customers) are compensated, say three people each get a quarter off per item over that person had, paid for out of the dollar per item penalty. The grocery store keeps a token amount, at least enough to pay for fixing their computer systems to accommodate this.
Would it work?
2. Had some thoughts on the city's snow clearing this week, since we had some substantial snowfall. First off, if the city is going to have an overnight parking ban on residential streets, it makes sense to plow them overnight, when all the cars are gone... not the next afternoon when cars are allowed to park onthe street and the plow needs to leave big gaps where the cars are. Yeesh. But that doesn't really have anything to do with my idea.
Here's the thing: When there's a substantial snowfall, and the streets have tons of slush or big snowy ruts in them, it really slows things down. You're lucky if you can get up to the speed limit on a major route. You get none of the benefits of speeding but really none of the safety benefits of not speeding, there are still plenty of accidents... usually many more. Better to have people going faster on dry pavement.
Now, if people can go faster due to better road conditions, not only do they benefit from getting places faster, but the City benefits too now, since their photo radar catch more people (12 km/h over the posted limit is the threshold I believe, and cameras don't take into account weather conditions). If the roads are crappy, the cameras take in very little. So... I figure if the City spends a bit more on clearing major routes faster, that means more days when they can be collecting lucrative photo radar revenues, so (depending on the cost-benefit ratio, I haven't figured that out) it may actually make them money to do so. Or at least cost less in net terms than the sheer outlay would suggest. This does not even take into account the externalities in time savings from driving, nor the savings from fewer accidents and insurance claims (aside: perhaps MPI could chip in for snow clearing too... they also have a vested interest). And it makes the voters happy.
As I said I haven't costed this one out or anything. But could I be onto something here?
Just a few thoughts I've had recently, might as well put them down before they are lost to the world:
1. Why do people not obey the 12-items-or-less (or 9- or 15-items) limit in express lanes? One is that people cannot count, or they have no idea what constitutes an item... if there are more than one of something, and they are not in a container or bag or naturally connected somehow, you have more than one item. If you have more than 12 of these (or 9, 15, whatever it is), you are over. No express lane for you!
The other reason is that people know they are over, but cheat to save time. This annoys me. Not that spending an extra minute in line bothers me that much in itself (usually anyway), but the principle. People can be pretty selfish and don't mind incoveniencing others... there are more serious example of this, but i was thinking of this one because a solution exists! Here's the deal:
It is not hard to count to 12 manually. It is even less hard if you have a computer doing it. And almost all grocery stores big enough for an express lane have fancy computerised checkouts now, and I am certain it would be minimally complicated to add a feature that couints the ites and relates it to the limit on an express lane. So it should be easy to flag people who exceed the limit. Now, what do you do with this? Let the people check out using this line (making them go back and start again would just inconvenience another line). But charge for each item over. Maybe a dollar (maybe higher, depending on how much you want to discourage going over, maybe an ascending penalty for each item. I haven't figured out the specifics). Anyway that discourages breaking the limit, but some people wil anyway, some will just figure it's worth it. Is that still fair? I propose further that the people in line (maybe the next three customers) are compensated, say three people each get a quarter off per item over that person had, paid for out of the dollar per item penalty. The grocery store keeps a token amount, at least enough to pay for fixing their computer systems to accommodate this.
Would it work?
2. Had some thoughts on the city's snow clearing this week, since we had some substantial snowfall. First off, if the city is going to have an overnight parking ban on residential streets, it makes sense to plow them overnight, when all the cars are gone... not the next afternoon when cars are allowed to park onthe street and the plow needs to leave big gaps where the cars are. Yeesh. But that doesn't really have anything to do with my idea.
Here's the thing: When there's a substantial snowfall, and the streets have tons of slush or big snowy ruts in them, it really slows things down. You're lucky if you can get up to the speed limit on a major route. You get none of the benefits of speeding but really none of the safety benefits of not speeding, there are still plenty of accidents... usually many more. Better to have people going faster on dry pavement.
Now, if people can go faster due to better road conditions, not only do they benefit from getting places faster, but the City benefits too now, since their photo radar catch more people (12 km/h over the posted limit is the threshold I believe, and cameras don't take into account weather conditions). If the roads are crappy, the cameras take in very little. So... I figure if the City spends a bit more on clearing major routes faster, that means more days when they can be collecting lucrative photo radar revenues, so (depending on the cost-benefit ratio, I haven't figured that out) it may actually make them money to do so. Or at least cost less in net terms than the sheer outlay would suggest. This does not even take into account the externalities in time savings from driving, nor the savings from fewer accidents and insurance claims (aside: perhaps MPI could chip in for snow clearing too... they also have a vested interest). And it makes the voters happy.
As I said I haven't costed this one out or anything. But could I be onto something here?
posted by Druski at 6:13 p.m.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home