Status: EXPLORING

Current Status: Live 

Project Stage(s): Concept

Live Trial Location(s): Pending > Onsite > Removed 

(What are the Project Stages?)
(Why are trials removed?)

CHALLENGE:

At the moment, we don't distinguish between legal (but expired) and illegal parking for clamping.

For example, someone who parks legally, but their parking ticket expires, is penalised in the same way as someone who is either endangering (eg parking on pavements, or in cycle lanes) or inconveniencing others (eg parking in clearways). Ie the current approach doesn't differentiate between a parking management tool (to try to encourage regular turnover of parking spaces to ensure people are able to get a space when they need one) and deterring people from endangering or greatly inconveniencing many others.

PROPOSITION:

Could we distinguish between the two types of issue with a different messaging for each type? For example, perhaps the legal (but expired) parking could be clamped with a yellow clamp, and the illegal parking could be clamped with a red clamp? Each could then be 'branded' differently - for example the red clamp could be branded as "selfish" and have a higher declamp cost to reflect the serious nature of the offence.

[Trial not yet designed.]

DESCRIPTION:

[Trial not yet designed.]

OUTCOMES:

[Trial not yet complete.]

DECISION:

[Trial not yet complete.]

NEXT STEPS:

[Trial not yet complete.]

RELATED PROJECTS:

WHAT DO YOU THINK?

Get involved in the conversation below.