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

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#161

Post by zippergz » Mon, Jun 06, 2016, 5:25 PM UTC

sib wrote: post #151

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 .

While I hear you, and in many ways agree, I will say that, when I was a homeowner, I had a next-door neighbor who always parked his cars in front of my house instead of his own (he filled his garage with stuff.) Yes, it was a public street and yes, he had the legal right to do so, but it was pretty annoying to have to look at his cars when he had clearly wanted to avoid looking at them himself. After a while, I began…

Yes, this is when I've had a problem with it as well. A neighbor has the option of parking in front of his own house, or mine. He chooses mine, which results in a longer walk for him. Why would he do this? Because he doesn't like having a car parked in front of his house. Implicitly acknowledging that he sees having a car parked in front of the house is a bad thing, and by relieving himself of that bad thing, he's imposing it on me.

Yes, in the scheme of things, this is SUPER minor. No, I've never complained to anyone about it. But I do think it's a little bit disingenuous to just say "it's a public street, anyone can park there" without acknowledging that if there were no negative, they'd be parking in front of their own house instead of mine.

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#162

Post by TulliusCicero » Mon, Jun 06, 2016, 5:26 PM UTC

PaulHoule wrote: post #39

Ithaca had this problem arise spontaneously about a decade ago. If you're driving to the Wegmans supermarket from east of town, the official routes you are supposed to use are badly congested, and drivers "in the know" have long been aware you can save a few minutes sitting in traffic by going through a certain residential neighborhood. When they put traffic calming in place and made it illegal to drive through the n…

If a certain route like that is overtaxed, the solution should be to either expand the road, or improve other options (likely transit), not just accept tons of through traffic in residential neighborhoods.

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#163

Post by oftenwrong » Mon, Jun 06, 2016, 5:26 PM UTC

_delirium wrote: post #54

jdblair wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You misunderstand - its not the bikes that are reducing traffic, the bike access is a side-effect of the traffic calming barriers. The same barriers with no bike pass-through would be just as effective at stopping through traffic in a neighborhood. The point is to block routes through a neighborhood and force car traffic back to the main roads, stopping through traffic in a residential neighborhood.

Fwiw many newer residential developments (from roughly the 1990s) are built like this in the first place, which is why there are so many back-to-back cul-de-sacs, and rarely through streets that go more than a few blocks. It's mainly older neighborhoods that have the traffic cut-through problem, because they were built before developers started laying out neighborhood streets with the explicit goal of preventing thro…

The Berkeley solution has the advantage that it doesn't hurt the utility of walking and cycling.

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#164

Post by honkhonkpants » Mon, Jun 06, 2016, 5:28 PM UTC

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.…

I still see lots of people who are willing to disregard these signs, though. For example on Channing at Roosevelt I see people cut through daily.

https://www.google.com/maps/@37.8647438,-122.2756017,3a,75y,...

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#165

Post by Overtonwindow » Mon, Jun 06, 2016, 5:28 PM UTC

Waze is providing a solution for poorly constructed and ignored infrastructure. I am a homeowner and a Waze user. I think if you have a problem with traffic through your neighborhood, blame the city Council, and push them to action. Don't blame the solution to bad infrastructure.

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#166

Post by rm_-rf_slash » Mon, Jun 06, 2016, 5:29 PM UTC

TulliusCicero wrote: post #153

rm_-rf_slash wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maryland has snow. Berkeley does not. Bikes only reduce traffic when people can ride them. Applying a Berkeley solution to a Maryland problem could only worsen congestion and quality of life.

Oulu, Finland has eight months of winter, yet they have a bike mode share triple that of Portland. Snow is not a barrier if a city actually cares about cycling: https://wintercyclingblog.org/2014/10/17/oulu-finland-winter...

European cities are also extremely dense compared to American sprawl.

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#167

Post by rplst8 » Mon, Jun 06, 2016, 5:31 PM UTC

xenadu02 wrote: post #137

superuser2 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

10mph is blazingly, exceptionally fast for an interstate in a major city during commute hours. Building bigger highways sparks further-flung suburbs and the new traffic brings everyone else's commute times back to equilibrium.

Indeed, you can see this in the Dallas area. The major roads have run out of room to expand and according to the old timers traffic is no better than it was in 1990. All the road expansion did was let people move to ever more distant suburbs.

Yes, but eventually, if the roads are big enough, time itself is the deterrent to commuting a long distance. We've never gotten to that point since highway traffic never moves at speed during rush hour. The other driving factor would be wear and tear on the car - and the costs associated with maintaining a vehicle, but since Maryland doesn't have a yearly vehicle inspection, people are free to drive around on bald tires in a car with no brakes.

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#168

Post by dsfyu404ed » Mon, Jun 06, 2016, 5:32 PM UTC

HillaryBriss wrote: post #116

gjolund wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 was designed for a smaller number of single car drivers than it has today. And it was not designed for quick/cheap expansion. I guess any system of transportation would feel like torture for commuters if that system is overloaded and operating beyond its reasonable capacity.

So every major city in the US and Europe?

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#169

Post by holograham » Mon, Jun 06, 2016, 5:34 PM UTC

street wrote: post #74

CWuestefeld wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Why can't kids play on a street designed only for traffic to houses on that street? I played on the street all the time as a child. Of course, my streets weren't flooded with drivers trying to save a few minutes by driving through residential areas.

The fallacy in your logic is that the streets were not designed for kids to play in. They are designed for cars to drive on.

Furthermore, like was mentioned by previous posters and the article, there are further legal traffic laws that can be implemented to protect side streets from incurring unreasonable or unsafe traffic (e.g. no thru traffic, rush hour restrictions, lower speed limits, additional stop signs or even speed bumps, etc). By all means, local governments should be using these laws and regulations to ensure neighborhood streets are as safe as possible. However, even with minimal traffic, kids playing in a street will always be a risk. If the street does not have adequate safety measures AND enforcement then as a parent you should not allow your child to play in or near the street without accepting the risk.

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#170

Post by cortesoft » Mon, Jun 06, 2016, 5:34 PM UTC

incongruity wrote: post #132

throw7 wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Source? It seems much more likely that most accidents happen within some smallish radius from home because one is much much more likely to be driving there as home is the presumably, on aggregate, most frequent starting or ending point for a person (besides, possibly work or a transit hub, etc.) – the other end points are much more dispersed, but home definitely biases the distribution of driving location and therefo…

Two people have made contradicting claims, neither with a source.

Unless there is evidence stating otherwise, I am going to go with the null hypothesis that people drive the same no matter where they are.