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

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#181

Post by oftenwrong » Mon, Jun 06, 2016, 5:45 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…

Streets are not just paths for cars to pass-through on. They are a part of the places we live. They should be safe even for playing children. Cars can pass through cautiously, allowing children to move out of the way. It's not hard to share the space.

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#182

Post by massysett » Mon, Jun 06, 2016, 5:46 PM UTC

yAak wrote: post #160

Google Maps is routing me down these 1-lane residential roads, too, and I'd generally rather it didn't. These 1-lane roads are already a headache for those living there, with cars parked on both sides, making dealing with ANY traffic a pain. Traffic is terrible where I live, but I'd rather spend another 1-5 minutes on a major thoroughfare than drive through someone's neighborhood. I don't live on a street that has th…

Google Maps is doing this to me in Washington DC. I probably wouldn't mind if it actually saved time. The problem is that drivers before me tried it, so the city has made many of the streets one way during rush hour only, or particular turns are banned. Google should program in more of these details before it routes people down what its maps already know are tiny, non-through streets. Usually I consult Google for traffic but when it picks these circuitous routes I ignore it because I can't trust it.

In the same vein sometimes it is worth it to stay on a main road even if a perfectly valid side route would save just a few minutes. Driving the side route can be less safe, more stressful, and it's easier to miss a turn, which wipes out the savings anyway. I wish the map software would account for this.

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#183

Post by sandworm101 » Mon, Jun 06, 2016, 5:46 PM UTC

e40 wrote: post #175

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…

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. I hope what happened in my neighborhood doesn't happen in yours. One person vetoed a stop sign that would have made our street much, much safer due to the blind curve and how fast…

One trick that I discovered was to hang not a sign, but simply something that looks like a high-visibility jacket. Drivers for a half second think it's might be a cop doing speed enforcement and slow down. I remember while at university seeing people slow because of an orange garbage garbage caught in a hedge 400m away. That bag was better at enforcing the speed limit than photo radar.

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#184

Post by bunderbunder » Mon, Jun 06, 2016, 5:46 PM UTC

honkhonkpants wrote: post #164

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,...

In Chicago they solve that problem neatly by installing planters across the street at these points, thereby making it impossible for cars to disregard. There are a lot fewer of these, though - usually just in the immediate proximity of schools.

Clever use of one-way streets and stop signs also helps, and effectively reduces the load of cars moving through the neighborhood at high speed to just the white ones with blue lights on top.

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#185

Post by pixl97 » Mon, Jun 06, 2016, 5:46 PM UTC

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…

I think you underestimate the average cost of a ticket. Our city sets the minimum ticket price close to the maximum price set by the state. It is hard to get away from less than a $250 ticket. The means of writing a ticket are automated. The second they type in your plate it looks up your record, which they cross check your ID. The cop verifies it and sees if you have any warrants or are committing any other crimes. It prints out on a handheld unit the officer carries. Most of the time you are in and out in less than 5 minutes. If you are not, it is very likely you are paying much higher fines.

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#186

Post by mikeash » Mon, Jun 06, 2016, 5:47 PM UTC

GVIrish wrote: post #176

mseebach wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> That said, 5 minutes per ticket pretty much requires offenders to present themselves in a nice, orderly line. Officers get exactly that when they set up shop in a place where they know there are going to be plenty of violators. Highway 66 inside of the DC beltway is HOV during rush hour. The police will just sit at the end of the on ramp and write tickets for everyone trying to cheat HOV or with expired tags or ins…

And court stuff is minimal for that one because there is absolutely zero room for discretion on the part of the judge if the violation is established. If it's shown that you did violate the HOV rules, then you must be fined the given amount, doesn't matter what your reasons were. If you got a ticket, it's pretty much a given that they can show that the violation occurred.

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#187

Post by drauh » Mon, Jun 06, 2016, 5:47 PM UTC

e40 wrote: post #175

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…

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. I hope what happened in my neighborhood doesn't happen in yours. One person vetoed a stop sign that would have made our street much, much safer due to the blind curve and how fast…

I've seen one instance where homeowners in the neighborhood vetoed a proposal to have a centerline painted on a broad street through the neighborhood. Total width was probably about 3 lanes, and many people used it as a "cut through", and going pretty fast. However, painting a centerline would have made property values go down, the homeowners argued, as that would have meant that the street was no longer a residential low-traffic street.

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#188

Post by taco_emoji » Mon, Jun 06, 2016, 5:48 PM UTC

morninj wrote: post #13

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.

There's no way that the trickle of revenue is greater than the cost of enforcement. Officer salary and benefits, equipment maintenance, and all the costs associated with the court system...

Many tickets are generated through automated camera systems.

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#189

Post by neves » Mon, Jun 06, 2016, 5:48 PM UTC

Here in my third world country, I know people who live near dangerous areas that love the traffic increase that Waze created. Sure it there is a little more noise, but they also fell more secure.

Maybe it is just a different point of view.

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#190

Post by mikeash » Mon, Jun 06, 2016, 5:49 PM UTC

coldpie wrote: post #174

mikeash wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my experience, they're usually posted fairly prominently (like, at the same height as other signs, next to the road, looking like a street sign) and people are just oblivious.

I once got a no parking ticket on a huge, wide open residential street with no posted signs. Turns out the city population sign at the city limit, half covered with cattails, had a small "no parking 2 AM - 5 AM within city limits" sign. Pure revenue generation from non-citizens.

There certainly are cases like this. There's one little town I drive through sometimes which for a long time dropped the speed limit directly from 55MPH to 35MPH coming into town, and where the 35MPH limit sign was hidden behind a tree until you were about 3ft away from it. In what I am sure is a complete coincidence, this town has a $200 fine for speeding above the state penalty. Thankfully I never got hit with it, and they finally trimmed the tree after many years.

But most places display it prominently, and people just don't care. For every case like yours, there are a hundred places with obvious signs like "No turn on red" where people still turn on red.