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

211–220 of 582 posts

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#211

Post by Spooky23 »

I have to agree with the homeowners here. This isn't a NIMBY issue.

Google in particular has the data to know what streets are primary routes and what streets are not. Road design and traffic engineering are engineering problems, and shunting high volumes of traffic at roads not engineered appropriately is a bad thing.

By doing this, Waze is creating situations where adequate flow controls (traffic lights, lane markings, crosswalks, signage) are not present and create serious safety problems.

If someone I cared about was injured in this type of situation, I would sue Google, because they have the data to know this is wrong.

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#212

Post by jimktrains2 »

potatolicious wrote: post #40
theseatoms wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> However, it was still a problem: there were frequently people way over the speed limit when we'd hardly expect it... Sounds like recourse should be attainable via law enforcement.

You can't ticket your way out of this problem - nor can you afford to over long periods of time. Stationing cops in enough places to actually discourage speeding is not practicable. There are fortunately lots of ways to fix this without stationing a cop every few blocks. Speed bumps are common, but imperfect. In my hometown on smaller residential streets struggling with too much through-traffic they've put traffic ci…

> Another major issue is that suburban streets are simply too wide, many neighborhoods give more than the 12-foot standard width to a lane (itself a specification that is way too generous),

While I 100% agree with this, the other side is that often these streets have parking for the houses that is more utilized at night than during the day. So, while children are out in the summer, say, the streets are ~24' wide, but in the evening, with cars parked, become only 8'- 10'.

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#213

Post by dragonwriter »

joesmo wrote: post #47
morninj wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Actually there is one way: civil asset forfeiture. Then it also pays for things your PD absolutely needs to do its job like margarita machines, etc.

Most states don't allow local PDs to keep forfeiture proceeds from state-law forfeitures; the federal government allowed local jurisdictions involved in federal-law forfeitures to keep a large portion (80%) of the assets, but the standards for that program were made more restrictive a few years back, and it was suspended entirely last December (notionally, at least, as a cost saving measure), so right now there's really no way for a local PD to raise funds by way of forfeiture.

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#214

Post by danielweber »

oftenwrong wrote: post #181
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…

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.

We played in the street all the time growing up. Dead-end street. Any kid calls out "car" and we know to get out of the road for a minute.

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#215

Post by baddox »

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...

Officers are paid by tax revenue, as far as I know. Any revenue they generate through tickets is still extra revenue.

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#216

Post by zippergz »

gooseus wrote: post #196

As a Waze user, this has actually been a source of increasing frustration for me. I do not want to save 1-3 minutes on a commute by cutting through unfamiliar residential areas where deaf kids play and homeowners give me dirty looks as I go over their oversized speed bumps. I use Waze not so much as a super-optimal routing tool, but as an aggravation-avoidance tool. Traffic and speed-traps aggravate me, sure... but n…

I've had this problem as well. Another one I've run into is that Waze doesn't seem great at taking into account things like stop signs and traffic lights in my area. So it will re-route me down some street that has little traffic, but requires me to stop every block. Even if this doesn't actually take more time, it is certainly more aggravating.

At this point I ignore Waze re-routes unless I have a good indication that the backup is severe, and I have some reason to believe that the alternate route is reasonable. This means that I have gotten stuck in traffic a couple of times unnecessarily, but it has also saved me the trouble of numerous dubious "shortcuts."

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#217

Post by danielweber »

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…

I've been put through neighborhoods far from me a few times, and I've always been thinking "is this really worth it? Am I making my life better by enough to justify this?"

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#218

Post by jdh »

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,...

I am sure you are right, but as a long time resident, I think this is the trees not the forest -- I would estimate these barriers reduce 95-99% of the car traffic through them, even if someone cutting through is indeed a daily occurrence. Most are quite intimidating, many are totally impassable or require significant ground clearance.

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#219

Post by jdh »

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,...

I am sure you are right, but as a long time resident, I think this is the trees not the forest -- I would estimate these barriers reduce 95-99% of the car traffic through them, even if someone cutting through is indeed a daily occurrence. Most are quite intimidating, many are totally impassable or require significant ground clearance.

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#220

Post by jdh »

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,...

I am sure you are right, but as a long time resident, I think this is the trees not the forest -- I would estimate these barriers reduce 95-99% of the car traffic through them, even if someone cutting through is indeed a daily occurrence. Most are quite intimidating, many are totally impassable or require significant ground clearance.
Post reply on HN