Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war • Hacker News Board

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#141

Post by forrestthewoods » Mon, Jun 06, 2016, 5:05 PM UTC

underwater wrote: post #135

rhinoceraptor wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I got a ticket for one of these types of things, some local ordinance prohibiting through traffic during rush hour. It's a great revenue generator for the local PDs. Lots of one-off traffic laws that people passing through won't (and really, can't) know about.

"No Thru Traffic" signs are enforceable!? What law does that fall under?

A law that says "no thru traffic"? The real question would be "what law prevents that from being written into law". To which the answer is probably nothing.

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#142

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Jun 06, 2016, 5:06 PM UTC

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…

[deleted]

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#143

Post by jrockway » Mon, Jun 06, 2016, 5:06 PM UTC

jbmorgado wrote: post #66

Perhaps we could be more positive and instead of spending so much time trying to get his street off Waze instead help change the public opinion and city official to improve the public transit system or get more people to use bicycles, or both.

No doubt the subject of this article drives a car to work, probably annoying someone with the traffic he is a part of.

"You're not stuck in traffic, you are traffic."

A more realistic way of solving the traffic problem is not to get people out of their cars (that is going to be super-expensive), but the eliminate rush hours where everyone goes to work at the same time. "No income tax if you work from 12-8," or something would probably kill traffic dead.

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#144

Post by CPLX » Mon, Jun 06, 2016, 5:06 PM UTC

I think those of us who live in the central business districts of major urban ares should organize a once a month event to take 500-1000 cars to a specific suburban neighborhood, where we will take up all the legal on street parking and cause a traffic jam, to prove a minor but important point.

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#145

Post by enjo » Mon, Jun 06, 2016, 5:07 PM UTC

warcher wrote: post #90

I have gotten in not one, but several, extremely heated discussions over the years after parking on a public street in front of somebody's house. I'm not a big defender of, say, Airbnb running gypsy hotels in secret defiance of leasing and HOA agreements, but people have a lot of funny ideas about ownership of things that aren't theirs to own .

It seems to me that you see this problem mostly in suburbs. People didn't buy a house, they bought a lifestyle. A particular lifestyle that has no room for even the slightest inconvenience from others. During my suburban days I was always sort of amazed by the entitlement people had around me.

I saw near fistfights over people parking in front of other peoples houses. Or a particularly memorable argument in which people shouted out of their kitchen window at a group of kids who were doing nothing but sitting on a deck talking at 8:00 PM. My HOA sued the town I lived in because someone wanted to build an apartment building about 1/4 mile from the front entrance of the subdivision (don't want "those" people living nearby after all).

The HOA also was part of a larger group opposing the extension of a light rail line that would connect our town to the larger metroplex. The same argument was used in that case, "those people" would be able to come up and cause crime in our neighborhood.

I'm not surprised that the people in the article believe that they have a right to a quiet street.

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#146

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Jun 06, 2016, 5:07 PM UTC

[deleted]

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#147

Post by zo1 » Mon, Jun 06, 2016, 5:10 PM UTC

dagss wrote: post #14

JoshTriplett wrote: post #5

This quote seems very telling: > It used to be that only locals knew all the cut-through routes, but Google Maps and Waze are letting everyone know So they don't have a problem with people cutting through as long as they're "locals"; it's when the outgroup starts doing the same thing that people get up in arms. If the through traffic is breaking traffic laws, that's a solvable problem. If the street has insufficient…

I would think the problem is the volume of traffic faced by pedestrians and neighbors, not specifically who drives. Many roads are simply suitable for moderate traffic. "Solving the problem" in this case often involves a roadblock in the middle so that you cannot drive through. Compared to changing Waze, this is "fair". But are you really happier then?

In my part of the world, a lot of "quiet neighbourhoods" have put up boom gates at strategic entrances. Some are manned by security guards that open for you. In others, you have to swipe your hand over a sensor to make it open for you.

It's used mostly for security, but no doubt it helps with keeping traffic-avoiding individuals from going through.

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#148

Post by Piskvorrr » Mon, Jun 06, 2016, 5:11 PM UTC

breischl wrote: post #140

Piskvorrr wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Got a crystal ball, eh? Don't worry, I'm acutely aware what a PITA any sort of street change is - just changing the designation of a 1-block residential street to a living street is Impossible (TM), and physically, that's just signage. I'm not saying that street planning is easy, not at all. In my opinion, you seem to be saying "I understand street development, but I don't do software; therefore if the former is hard…

Actually I'm a software developer by day. Polish up that crystal ball. I'm suggesting fixing the problem in the software because that's where the problem was created and where it stands a chance of being fixed. Street infrastructure cannot be changed fast enough to deal with temporary traffic problems. Attempting to do so would be ineffective.

And that's the error, right there: software didn't create the problem of a closed/restricted road; trying to address the issue in-app means shooting the messenger.

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#149

Post by astral303 » Mon, Jun 06, 2016, 5:14 PM UTC

FroshKiller wrote: post #2

I'm a homeowner and an active Waze user. The street I live on is not "my" street. It's a public street that any licensed driver may use. I did have an issue with drivers coming around a blind curve too quickly to be safe, though, so I did what these homeowners ought to be doing and contacted my local government about getting my street assessed for a traffic calming project. The city created a three-way stop before th…

Traffic calming hurts emergency service response. Ambulances have to slow down to a crawl thru this "calming." Buyer beware.

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#150

Post by ctdonath » Mon, Jun 06, 2016, 5:15 PM UTC

forrestthewoods wrote: post #141

underwater wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"No Thru Traffic" signs are enforceable!? What law does that fall under?

A law that says "no thru traffic"? The real question would be "what law prevents that from being written into law". To which the answer is probably nothing.

Even having such a law preventing certain laws does little. There's a well-known top-level law stating a particular right "shall not be infringed". Infringing laws abound nonetheless, with most judges disinclined to invalidate them.