Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 582 posts

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#121

Post by superuser2 »

throw7 wrote: post #103
breischl wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But locals also know the area better, pretty much by definition. That usually makes them safer drivers. I know that the streets near my house are filled with kids because of the three schools nearby that use the park as a playground, that almost (not quite) every other intersection is a two-way stop instead of a four-way, and that even though the streets are wide the speed limit is 25. A flash mob of commuters is not…

It's the opposite... knowing an area well usually makes dangerous drivers. Most accidents happen within some miles from home, mainly because one "knows" the area so well one lets their guard down.

"Most accidents are close to home" is a Stat 101 Day 1 example of fallacious statistical reasoning.

Hint: what do nearly all routes driven have in common?

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#122

Post by arebop »

pjlegato wrote: post #42
astrodust wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a certain amount of irony here that people are complaining about cars clogging up their streets but think nothing of what they do when they're driving through other neighbourhoods, especially more urban ones. Suddenly they get a taste of why people living downtown are not too enthused about highways bringing in more people. A lot of this mess stems from the absurd designs of modern American subdivisions with…

Grids don't help much. Take a look at Google Maps' traffic report of Los Angeles' perfect grid layout during rush hour: the entire grid is usually solid red, almost every day. Like most other plans for ameliorating heavy traffic, it is somewhat effective for a short time, but it soon just causes that many more cars to try to drive through the area.

You think it would be better if it were a dendritic system? It's hard to believe that e.g., randomly walling off half of those grid links would make traffic better.

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#123

Post by SilasX »

throw7 wrote: post #103
breischl wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But locals also know the area better, pretty much by definition. That usually makes them safer drivers. I know that the streets near my house are filled with kids because of the three schools nearby that use the park as a playground, that almost (not quite) every other intersection is a two-way stop instead of a four-way, and that even though the streets are wide the speed limit is 25. A flash mob of commuters is not…

It's the opposite... knowing an area well usually makes dangerous drivers. Most accidents happen within some miles from home, mainly because one "knows" the area so well one lets their guard down.

Or, that result is just an artifact of how most driving happens within a few miles of the driver's home.

If 70% of one's driving is within 5 miles of one's home, but 55% of accidents occur in that radius, then people are indeed safer drivers near their homes -- probably because of familiarity.

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#124

Post by zo1 »

mseebach wrote: post #84
mikeash wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The use of traffic tickets as supplemental revenue is a time-honored tradition with many real-world examples. Some places fund their entire police department this way. I don't know why you'd think it couldn't be greater than the cost, either. It takes, what, five minutes to write a ticket, which might average $100? That's $1,200/hour of revenue. No way the officer costs that much, even including benefits and equipmen…

To get to 12 tickets an hour, you need at least 12 offenders an hour which is probably the bottleneck the GP alluded to. That said, 5 minutes per ticket pretty much requires offenders to present themselves in a nice, orderly line. A more normal scenario where the officer has to cruise around, pull someone over, get out, talk to the person ("no no, I'm not passing through, my sick uncle lives over there"), write the t…

Even with 15 minute per ticket, that's ~$400/hr. Assuming he spends two hours there, and gets an average of 8 tickets per day, that still accounts for almost $200,000 per year. That's a ridiculous amount. Of course, doesn't take into account individuals learning and adjusting their behaviour accordingly, instead of being repeat offenders on the same street.

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#125

Post by dap »

iamdave wrote: post #93
revelation wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I may own property on your street but that doesn't mean I can build a garbage incinerator on it. It's a zoning issue, and indeed there are already provisions that e.g. large trucks may not use some residential streets. Pouring more concrete is not the solution, it's a policy problem, particularly when rat runs are used to circumvent congestion charges. (That's not to say we shouldn't build more traffic calming for re…

I may own property on your street but that doesn't mean I can build a garbage incinerator on it. Maybe not, but I think the conceit here isn't about what you do on your property vs. utilization of public roads by...well...members of the public.

I think the counter is that the rights of various parties here are not black and white. Restrictions are put in place (in the incinerator case, on a private landowner; in the traffic case, on the public at large) in the common interests of local community members. You _do_ have a say in what happens on your street, even though you don't own it.

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#126

Post by beachstartup »

gjolund wrote: post #112
pjlegato wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Grids don't help much. Take a look at Google Maps' traffic report of Los Angeles' perfect grid layout during rush hour: the entire grid is usually solid red, almost every day. Like most other plans for ameliorating heavy traffic, it is somewhat effective for a short time, but it soon just causes that many more cars to try to drive through the area.

LA traffic defies reason. I've hit gridlock at 3am on the 101 before. The whole city feels like it was designed to be some elaborate torture device for commuters.

it actually works great with less people. the problem is hitting that threshold requires regulation, which is a political impossibility except for special events.

http://articles.latimes.com/1985-06-07/local/me-16088_1_traf...

as for the 3am traffic, that was probably night time caltrans work, or a drunk driving accident :(

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#127

Post by pja »

CWuestefeld wrote: post #70
djrogers wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A grid-based layout might mean more through traffic, but the traffic can filter through many, many different cross-routes rather than funnelling through the singular optimal route. That singular optimal route funnels traffic away from my kids riding bikes, playing street hockey, drawing chalk cities, or anything else their little minds can come up with. It's why houses on a 'quiet street' are coveted, and sell for…

About a year ago, a traffic accident caused Waze to route me through a residential area. I actually respected the speed limit as I went through, and at one point saw kids playing in the street just as I was making a turn, so I slowed further. That didn't stop some busybody dad from flagging me down. I opened my window and he told me I'd better slow down (I had) because there were kids playing. My response to him was…

Speed limits are not targets, they’re just legal limits. The reasonable speed to be driving along a given road might be much slower than the posted limit.

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#128

Post by mikeash »

throw7 wrote: post #103
breischl wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But locals also know the area better, pretty much by definition. That usually makes them safer drivers. I know that the streets near my house are filled with kids because of the three schools nearby that use the park as a playground, that almost (not quite) every other intersection is a two-way stop instead of a four-way, and that even though the streets are wide the speed limit is 25. A flash mob of commuters is not…

It's the opposite... knowing an area well usually makes dangerous drivers. Most accidents happen within some miles from home, mainly because one "knows" the area so well one lets their guard down.

Most accidents happen near home because most driving happens near home.

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#129

Post by dionidium »

jdblair wrote: post #17

The City of Berkeley, CA, fixed this problem a long time ago, before Waze or even widespread GPS. Every few blocks they block side streets to all vehicles except bicycles. The effect is to be forced to take right or left turns that guide you back to the main through street. Streets parallel to the through streets that are now impassible to cars are marked as "bicycle boulevards" and provide safer routes for cyclists.…

St. Louis did a similar thing, basically as a crime prevention measure, but a side effect is that it's nearly impossible to use side streets to cut through many neighborhoods in the city.
Post reply on HN