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

351–360 of 582 posts

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#351

Post by mikeash »

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 wonder how much time it really saves you, too. My experience with all sorts of apps like this (including Waze, although I haven't used it in a couple of years) is that they tend to underestimate the speed of heavy traffic, and overestimate speeds of small streets. They especially seem to discount or even completely ignore the potentially large time costs that come from stoplights, stop signs, and left turns.

These days, if my system has me get off the main road, take small streets for a while, then get back on the main road, I'll ignore it unless the traffic it shows is really, really bad. Occasionally I regret this, but I regret it less often than I regretted obeying the machine before.

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#352

Post by enoch_r »

e40 wrote: post #178
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.…

It's an interesting story about Berkeley. The barriers they use were deemed illegal in a court case, but Berkeley didn't remove them. The truth about the barriers in Berkeley: they increase the values of some homes at the expense of others. If you live on a street with barriers that restrict traffic, then your house is worth more than one on the "approved" through streets.

Is it true that this increased the value of some homes at the expense of others? At least in Portland, where similar measures (though less widespread) have diverted auto traffic away from certain streets, they haven't diverted auto traffic away from one neighborhood street onto another--rather, the goal is to push auto traffic onto particular streets designed to carry high traffic volumes. People don't rent an apartment on a commercial street to avoid traffic, so I doubt that affects property values there very much--plus, since these are higher volume roads to begin with, it's a relatively small increase in traffic.

Not to mention that proximity to these streets is a valuable amenity, even if you don't live directly on them--after all, if you'd like to ride or walk around town with your kids, it will be very nice to have a bike/pedestrian-friendly street nearby.

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#353

Post by mikeash »

pilsetnieks wrote: post #316
balls187 wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's nothing against you but is this a common opinion in the US? People in neighborhoods "own" the streets? Yes, but it's nuanced. Own the streets in order to control the environment of our mini-castles (our homes), but know that we don't have a legal basis to stand on. Neighborhood streets weren't organized in a manner to accommodate high traffic patterns, and it ends up being a real issue for local residents. It'…

France is much more than Paris, and even in Paris you cannot see the dog shit that has been cleaned up.

Everywhere else I've been, you can't see the dog shit at all, because it all gets cleaned up.

I lived in France for several years and overall it was great, but this part puzzled and somewhat annoyed me.

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#354

Post by jdbernard »

JoshTriplett wrote: post #225
danielweber wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The same logic applies to non-dead-ends if only people who live in the neighborhood use them. That's why people don't want "their" neighborhood streets used as cut-throughs.

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#355

Post by pouetpouet »

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.…

Barcelona is planing somthing similar. Some streets will allow through traffic while most only local traffic + through biking and walking. http://www.theguardian.com/cities/2016/may/17/superblocks-re...

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#356

Post by triangleman »

balls187 wrote: post #293
Jacqued wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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? People in neighborhoods "own" the streets? Yes, but it's nuanced. Own the streets in order to control the environment of our mini-castles (our homes), but know that we don't have a legal basis to stand on. Neighborhood streets weren't organized in a manner to accommodate high traffic patterns, and it ends up being a real issue for local residents. It'…

I heard from someone who visited Paris that cleaning crews would come around every night with water hoses, so that may be why you saw such a lax attitude to waste. Did you see any of that?

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#357

Post by Idontagree »

balls187 wrote: post #293
Jacqued wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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? People in neighborhoods "own" the streets? Yes, but it's nuanced. Own the streets in order to control the environment of our mini-castles (our homes), but know that we don't have a legal basis to stand on. Neighborhood streets weren't organized in a manner to accommodate high traffic patterns, and it ends up being a real issue for local residents. It'…

It's annoying, and possible a real problem if you neighborhood does have that much traffic, but it's something that should be solved at the city level, maybe don't do construction in multiple places that causes a major jam. Either way, I seriously doubt I'll ever stop driving on a street because it's bothering the residents.

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#358

Post by sokoloff »

twoodfin wrote: post #312
sokoloff wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Petition the town to do it and it's legal. Putting up bootleg signs? Probably not legal. It sounds like they may have had town cooperation. (In Cambridge, MA and surrounding towns, we have many "no turn onto this street between 7-9 AM and/or 4-7 PM" and the street I live on is two way for 99% of its length and one way for the last 20 feet or so [to prevent it being used as a cut-through.)

I may be mistaken, but from following along with my helpful city councilor's email list, I believe Cambridge actually has to get state approval for all of these. I think that's a good thing.

Could well be on the first point. I have no idea.

On the second point, I tend to disagree, believing that local government governs best and that travel/turn restrictions on residential side streets in Cambridge ought to be a city matter, not a state matter, IMO. (As a thought experiment, why shouldn't they need Federal approval for them? Why state exactly?)

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#359

Post by golergka »

balls187 wrote: post #347
Piskvorrr wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And its users?

Point taken. Should tobacco companies have any responsibility for the effects of it's products?

If they're used voluntary by adult people who were not misinformed by false advertising (as was actually the case historically)— why the hell?

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#360

Post by lliamander »

CWuestefeld wrote: post #267
mcguire wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I've been hit by cars twice while bicycling. The first time was my own fault, and resulted in a broken leg. The second time was of indeterminate fault, there being a question due to sun glare on a traffic light. Why is it that when it comes to driving safety, the first and paramount factor that people jump to is speed? To be sure, speed can make some accidents more likely, and probably worsen the results of many acci…

> Why doesn't society tell people "keep to the right lane" or "signal your turns"?

It's funny, because I live in California, and I find myself wanting to yell these things a people all the time.

Post reply on HN