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

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#221

Post by Viper007Bond » Mon, Jun 06, 2016, 6:22 PM UTC

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…

Google Maps seems less aggressive about that so I run both. Google Maps for directions (tells me what lane to be in, etc.) and Waze for road hazards, cops, etc.

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#222

Post by danielweber » Mon, Jun 06, 2016, 6:24 PM UTC

tbyehl wrote: post #133

danra wrote: post #73

I simply hate it when Waze navigates me through a dozen small streets I'm not familiar with, just to save one minute vs. taking a main road. The multiple suggested routes often don't mitigate this enough. Wish for a feature to turn a preference for main roads in general.

IME, Waze's journeys down non-primary roads probably aren't making my driving experience less frustrating and probably don't save any time. Invariably it sends me down a series of side streets with stops signs and dumps me back at a busy primary road where I have to make a left across traffic without the aid of a signal. If I was "up" any time by then I'll probably give it all back and then some waiting to make that…

"Left turn onto main thoroughfare with no signal." I've encountered this twice from Google Maps. I wouldn't want this even if it was saving me a few minutes.

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#223

Post by mcguire » Mon, Jun 06, 2016, 6:26 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…

One of my neighbors is known for yelling at people driving fast down our road.

His son was hit and killed while crossing the street a few years ago.

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#224

Post by sbardle » Mon, Jun 06, 2016, 6:28 PM UTC

TulliusCicero wrote: post #158

mmoche wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if they had the power, or will, governments in ostensibly free nations shouldn't be forcing their population into a form of transport, just as they shouldn't be forcing their population into specific jobs, specific homes, or specific religions.

Force? No. But planning, incentives, market-oriented policies like congestion charges? Sure. The reason traffic gets so bad during rush hour is a simple case of supply and demand: limited supply road of space, lots of demand, and most importantly, the space is effectively free . If cities charged something approaching market rate for the space, traffic gridlock would disappear. Of course, this is impractical to do in…

We have the congestion charge in London. Initially the traffic did drop, but now the traffic is just as busy, and the gridlock lasts all day. Cities like London, NYC and SF are expanding very quickly in terms of population size and density, so in transport terms, the solution will have to be something like automated self driving cars integrated into a conveyor belt like system, which incentivise ride-sharing.

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#225

Post by JoshTriplett » Mon, Jun 06, 2016, 6:28 PM UTC

danielweber wrote: post #214

oftenwrong wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's a lot more reasonable in a dead-end or cul-de-sac, where any car is either going to one of the houses there or got lost, and where no vehicle should be moving at more than walking speed.

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#226

Post by kqr2 » Mon, Jun 06, 2016, 6:32 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…

Palo Alto has a lot of these traffic calming measures and roadblocks to prevent traffic through local neighborhoods.

Sometimes it can get out of hand. From http://infolab.stanford.edu/~ullman/pub/nimby.html

  Just a few months ago, in Palo Alto, residents near 
  downtown put up a vicious collection of roadblocks to get 
  cars off their streets. The folly was exposed when a 
  thief escaped because the police chasing him were unable 
  to figure out how to navigate through the warren of 
  closed streets.

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#227

Post by jchrisa » Mon, Jun 06, 2016, 6:33 PM UTC

drauh wrote: post #187

e40 wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 residentia…

Centerlines encourage faster driving, so lately the fashion is to remove them where possible.

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#228

Post by xraystyle » Mon, Jun 06, 2016, 6:34 PM UTC

HillaryBriss wrote: post #34

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…

In LA, for example, most of the driving infractions are violations of the California vehicle code, not city-specific vehicle codes. And so it turns out that a very substantial portion of ticket revenues go to the state, not the city. California even has a law preventing cities from creating these kinds of local vehicle code laws that could generate local revenue.

In Los Angeles the policy is just to parking-ticket the hell out of drivers at every opportunity.

The 'unofficial' policy of parking enforcement here is to ticket everything you see, regardless of whether or not the car is actually in violation of something.

They know it's far cheaper for drivers to just pay the fines than it is to fight the tickets. Arguing a parking ticket can literally take several entire days. Forget just contesting them in writing, the written appeals are automatically denied every single time. I don't even think anyone reads them, there's probably just some flunky at a desk who opens them and immediately sends them back with a pre-printed denial letter.

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#229

Post by cmurf » Mon, Jun 06, 2016, 6:35 PM UTC

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 stopped using Waze because of its nutty directions: deep dives into neighborhoods, stop signs every two blocks, piles of turns, circuitous routes, etc. I do not like coming to a complete stop every two blocks, I'll take 5mph continuous over that. I do not like dumping my traffic annoyances onto neighborhoods who didn't voluntarily agree to increased traffic just to make my commute shorter, this is free loading and their roads are for them to get to and from their home, not for me to cut through to avoid bad infra elsehwere. And I don't like going even 20mph in neighborhoods with children where parked cars hide kids and pets.

All of that grief for 3 minutes of savings. It's just nonsense. So I deleted the app after a week of annoyance.

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#230

Post by edward » Mon, Jun 06, 2016, 6:35 PM UTC

Tragedy of the commons. Waze could let people pay drivers to not use their road. The price can be determined by the market. Start at $0.50, only valid once per day in each direction.