TOBZALP
Here here to all of that.
I am a long time advocate of ATC telling the lazy:
".VFR pop up calls for clearance.. call flight watch and submit details then get back to me. "
Why should those who bother and are not trying to rort the system and push undue priorities get delayed.
Further - let the market forces sort this out - If you absolutely intend to continue to fly VFR in E and forget to turn transponder on etc etc get in there and do some listening out on E and transmit regardless of NAS recommendations. Especially VFR high performance aircraft using mid-levels.
CTAF will only be worse so get used to talking now 'cause it isn't going to be pretty later. If instilling a subversive reporting culture is the answer by the folk who use the system, then do it. If you're IFR in non-radar E then I suggest R/T for G and take the added benefit of ATC. Who's going to hang you for chucking in an extra report? A quiet chat (with relevant counselling ) under the gum tree for transgressions may help. Extreme measures for extreme circumstances.
The discussion is hingeing on transponder success or failure due to one recent instance in ML but this ignores a significant hazard mitigator which is R/T.
Also, there are plenty of ATC who still separate/segregate VFR/VFR so why not VFR/IFR in E. Blame it on duty of care or whatever - offer the service and do the best with what you've got. Sure the inevitable will happen but you can rest easier knowing you have tried and be satisfied that you were always right when those couple of stupid people are locked up.
For me - the bottom line, at a personal level, is to do what must be done to prevent a collision. Lobbying by typing is obviously not making a difference - of blockheads and brickwalls!l