What a worthwhile debate.
Let me say where I am, having learnt a great deal more than I knew about how gliders operate.
WHAT WE CAN DO NOW
Radio
Luckily I have two radios. My own practise is to rarely use box 2. I flip flop to the ATIS on box 1 rather than change boxes or flip flop to a passing airfield rather than go to box 2. Perhaps not the recommended procedure - but I have always done it that way. Part of the reason is that with both frequencies active I don’t want a lot of chat going on in the background on box 2. However in some circumstances I will now have the glider frequency on box 2 and active. I suspect there will not be a lot of chatter on frequency on the days I elect to do so - I think it will suite me fine.
I accept the point that if you are a glider with a radio the conundrum is who do you talk to. We have all been in that situation. When en route you will be passing various smaller airfields - do you give them a courtesy call? Consider the area around Canterbury - you could being talk to Farnborough East, then again London info might suite, or Manston LARS, or even Rochester or Headcorn. Equally there are other occasions when there is a single very obvious frequency for local traffic. I think if you are in IMC it is a little simpler. The service provider that would give you a RIS is the obvious frequency to use. Granted there are some areas where there is more than one service providers - Farnborough East and Manston LARS is a possible example where there is some overlap. I therefore think that it would do no harm if gliders in IMC gave the service provider in question a call. Agreed the call would not give as specific information as a powered aircraft but in terms of altitude and route the information could still be useful. For example I am guessing a glider could probably indicate a block altitude in which they were working much as I do if I aeroing. They could also indicate a route, and a present position. AT would be able to establish immediately whether or not the glider was visible on radar and could also warn other traffic that gliders were routing from x to y within an expected block altitude of x. If I wished that would give me an opportunity to adjust my track to avoid.
Flarm / Pcas
I am disappointed the up take has so far been so poor. 5% is not a sufficient number for me to warrant investing in FLARM - I suspect the critical mass would be around 25% before I would consider it worth while.
I don’t accept some of the comments about PCAS. I have found the unit to be amazingly reliable. I also still believe I am correct that a glider does not need to have a transponder for PCAS to work within the glider. More to the point PCAS will not see any other gliders so combined with FLARM it will distinguish between your known buddies and everyone else. Moreover PCAS is light, cheap, easy to fit and does not require any power other than that from two AA batteries. Interestingly in the report about the recent collision between a commuter jet and a glider in the States the reporter comments - if only PCAS had been fitted in the glider it could have saved the day.
In short I think gliders would be very well advised to invest in PCAS.
THE FUTURE
The risk is incredibly small of a mid air, however the stakes are incredibly high. In the emotive world of aviation statistical chance is largely irrelevant - it only takes one accident for the pressure on the regulator to be insurmountable. I think we need to invest in ways to reduce the risk further and this means investing in technology since we know the mark 1 eyeball has evolved as far as it can (at least for the time being). I believe gliders will find it increasingly difficult to dissuade legislation being imposed on them in so far as IMC ops go outside CAS. ADS-B would seem to offer some real hope.