Live data from Hacker News

Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

washingtonpost.com

251–260 of 582 posts

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#251
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 .

I don't have a problem when people park in front of my house. I do have a problem when they block my driveway, though, as has happened before. Sure the street is public, but I have to be able to get in and out.

Isn't it illegal to park in front of a driveway in the US? At least, most of the places I've lived it's illegal.

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#252
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.

I view it a bit differently. Trading freedom for efficiency sometimes makes sense. I have to admit that governments force us to do all kinds of things, and I accept that, mostly. For me the debate is about which things the government can mandate. If turning three out of four lanes on LA's stretch of the 405 freeway into HOV lanes meant that commute times from the Valley to Culver City became a reliable 20 minutes, I…

If wishes were horses, we'd all ride; in reality, such broad changes tend to have various side effects, which are often unpleasant enough to obliterate the intended positive effect.

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At the municipal level, plenty of governments are still using papyrus or cuneiform tablets. Not going to happen.

Sounds like an opportunity for a disruptive startup deploying the latest in OCR (Optical Cuneiform Recognition) technology.

I have nothing but pity for the startup that tries to give that stuff away, and train the users on it...

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#254
post #229

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…

> 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

It's nothing against you but is this a common opinion in the US? People in neighborhoods "own" the streets? As a Frenchman saying this is astonishing as I would naturally consider that I do own the street just as much as they do and it's my right to use it to cut traffic as I see fit.

I would go so far as saying they're abusing the system by having unwarranted traffic stops and outsized speed bumps placed around their property. It's like having their cake (single-family home with a parking space) and eating it too (avoiding traffic nuisance which they impose on others).

Just a cultural difference that I had not spotted before

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

I've obeyed dozens of "No turn on red" signs in my life, but I rarely see "No thru traffic" signs and until this thread, didn't really understand what the point of them was. I'm surely not hyper-vigilant about spotting and obeying them.

You could blame me for this, or we could ponder the implications of the different probabilities of various sign types being obeyed, and whether high rates of disobedience might indicate fairness issues that should be carefully managed.

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the "No Through Traffic" was approved by the local government, it would carry the same weight of law as any other traffic sign. It sounds like this is the case, since their councilman is on their side. The wording does make it sound like the neighbors had an arts and crafts party and decided to create some signs though.

But if it's a road paid for with public money, how can use like this be restricted?

The roads are administered by the local governments. A lot of the time it is not the local residents who are using these shortcuts.

Either way, the town I grew up in had a number of "No through traffic" signs. Generally in areas where people would cut through a neighborhood for a right hand turn instead of going through a light-controlled intersection.

There is a moving violation in many jurisdictions called "Avoiding a traffic control device" that allows officers to ticket people who cut through parking lots and alleys to avoid traffic lights, etc. Laws that restrict the use of smaller roads are consistent with this philosophy.

Regardless of who pays for the road, residential streets are not designed to handle the larger traffic volumes of major streets. The road surfaces are not as durable as major roads, and traffic control devices that are safe for a residential area are not safe for higher traffic loads.

People are not entitled to use things just because their taxes paid for some proportion of that thing. You can't show up at an armory and ask to borrow a gun to shoot some squirrels. Without rules and incentives regulating the use of public goods, public goods are abused, leading to the tragedy of the commons.

This might seem like a design issue, but you can design residential streets to be poor shortcuts by making them curve all over the place and installing traffic calming measures, except these measures also typically make neighborhoods less bike-and-pedestrian friendly when compared to normal gridded streets. One-way streets and traffic restrictions work just as well though. You also avoid the issue of entitled drivers honking every time they go over a speed bump or are obstructed by a pedestrian they think is taking too long, or a USPS truck that blocks one lane every day at the same time.

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#258

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.

I believe that ambulances and especially fire trucks have a wider wheelbase than cars and vans do, so what I've seen in a number of places is speed humps that don't cover the entire road. They're wide enough that you can't avoid them with a car, but narrow enough that an ambulance or fire truck won't notice them.

Or possibly it's for buses.

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#259
post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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 It's nothing against you but is this a common opinion in the US? People in neighborhoods "own" the streets? As a Frenchman saying this is astonishing as I would naturally consider that I do own the street just as much as they do and it's my…

> It's nothing against you but is this a common opinion in the US?

Not by anyone who understands how roads are paid for.

Post reply on HN