Friday, 17 August 2012

Our letterboxes aren’t fit for purpose: so involve neighbours

Royal Mail today announced that it will be rolling out its ‘Delivery to Neighbour’ initiative which I’ve mentioned a few times. With Ofcom’s approval, they’re pre-empting the consultation, for which the deadline is a week today.

I’ve just been talking to Nikki Bedi on Radio London about some of the neighbourliness issues. I made the point that some people will have genuine good reason not to be taking-in a neighbour’s packages, and we need to avoid their being stigmatised by the opt-out sticker (‘Neighbours not trusted here’) on their doorway. Technology, as I’ve suggested before, can surely be used to advantage, for instance through QR-coded digital instructions on the package.

The scheme obviously implies a potential increase in neighbour interaction. The Ofcom consultation document reminds us that ‘in the trial areas there was a reduction of approximately 40% in the numbers of undeliverable items that were returned to delivery offices’ (emphasis added). That might be interpreted as a non-trivial increase in the number of neighbourly conversations that might not have happened before.

Hopefully we’ll hear of more neighbourhoods with an informally ‘designated’ older person who is at home most of the time and known to the postal worker – and in return for the neighbourly service the recipients readily stop for a chat and catch up when they go round to collect their package.

Online technology has helped to reduce the number of letters we get, but contributed to an increase in the number of packages being transported. We live in smaller households and there is less likely to be someone at home during the day, so there’s an increase in the proportion of packages not being delivered.

Our letterboxes aren’t fit for purpose. The market solution is the external security box or parcel pod, with the deliverer placing the package into the unlocked container and usually being expected to ensure it is locked afterwards. This is part of the ongoing not-entirely-tasteful extension of secured privacy beyond the home, and Kev's Automatic Door Principle (which I referred to here) applies - another example of technology confiscating tiny social interactions.

I’m sure the market for such boxes is set to expand, although our house-builders and architects might yet come up with alternative solutions. I much prefer the simple social alternative of the ‘Delivery to Neighbour’ scheme.

Previously:

Further footnote on taking in neighbours’ post

Footnote on taking in your neighbour’s post

Neighbours not trusted here

20 per cent of us don't want neighbours to handle our post

17 Aug 2012 12:45:38 | Informal support, Information and communication, Neighbourhood relations

2 Comments

Well, I think you have to choose a postbox or letterbox that will just suit or satisfy your needs. Considering a lock security for it is a must for you to be sure that every letter being dropped to your postbox is safe.

Posted by: Letterbox | Friday, 21 September 2012 at 05:20

This is a delight, and I want to share it - comment spam in my email from someone calling themselves 'Letterbox', on a blog post about postal delivery. Return to sender, or just leave it on the doorstep?

Posted by: Kevin Harris | Friday, 21 September 2012 at 08:11

The comments to this entry are closed.

NEXT POST
Hermes Street I must have passed this corner in north London many times before, but the irony only struck me today. This was a through street that at some point was converted into a no through road. If you glance down it, you see a wall forty metres away. (Hermes was the god of, among other things, communication, travel, and boundary-crossing. There is also an indirect link from his name to the etymology of 'hermetic').
PREVIOUS POST
Wealth inequality: the invisible quintile A couple of articles have been published lately (BBC, Atlantic) based on some fascinating 2011 research by Michael Norton and Dan Ariely which looked at Americans’ perceptions of wealth and inequality (pre-pub copy available here). They invited respondents on a ‘nationally representative online panel’ to say how much wealth they think is concentrated in each percentile from the poorest to the most wealthy. They found that respondents ‘dramatically underestimated the current level of wealth inequality.’ The average estimate was nine per cent for the bottom two quintiles combined, and 59 per cent for the top 20 per cent. This contrasts starkly with the reality which is that the bottom 40 per cent of the population holds 0.3 per cent of the wealth, while the top quintile holds 84 per cent of the wealth. This echoes UK findings. According to this Equality Trust paper, three quarters of us misperceive our economic position within British society. Norton and Ariely asked respondents how they would like to see wealth distributed ideally: ‘Respondents constructed ideal wealth distributions that were far more equitable than even their erroneously low estimates of the actual distribution.’ The black bars in this chart from the Atlantic show that people’s ‘ideal’ proportion of wealth for the highest quintile was only slightly more than half the estimated proportion, and much less than half the actual. (The 'actual' in the left hand columns is invisible because it is so small). The researchers then invented somewhere called 'Equalden' (modelled on Sweden) with a more equitable distribution of wealth, and asked people whether they preferred it to the US actual distribution. Yes indeed, 92 per cent of respondents did, and there was no significant difference in gender or income level among participants. Nor, strikingly, was there a significant difference between those who professed Republican sympathies and Democrats. Notoriously, both the US and the UK have been getting more unequal for a long time. If nothing else, the debate around this research has to give a boost to the equality movement, because it implies that even those whose behaviour suggests they think they benefit from inequality, would prefer a more equal society. But. As one commentator put it: 'Americans' ignorance about wealth (and, probably, income) distribution is encouraging in the sense that it offers hope that most voters might opt for government policies more conducive to equality if only they knew how unequal things were. But it's dismaying in the sense that people who occupy a position of relative privilege seem to go out of their way to avoid acknowledging it.' Maybe all it needs is for the right calibre of politicians to convert this knowledge into lasting change: is that too much to ask?

Kevin Harris

Search

My Other Accounts

Recent Comments