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

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#361

Post by abelhabel » Mon, Jun 06, 2016, 8:39 PM UTC

greggman wrote: post #341

zippergz wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Portraying this as a sense of "owning" the street is unneccessarily perjorative, IMHO. I don't think that many people would argue with the idea that, all else being equal, having less traffic on the street in front of your house is a good thing. Less noise, less polution, less risk of pets and children getting hit by cars. So it shouldn't be surprising that people dislike it when traffic in front of their houses incr…

I was told in Sweden all yards are publically usable and if someone wants to use "yours" you have to let them. I only bring that up to point out a cultural difference that other cultures might see this differently https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20101116164518A...

I think you are referring to this type of law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam

However, it is common in Sweden to respect unwritten laws and social conventions. Many neighbourhoods also have neighbourhood watch and such things. I haven't lived there for over ten years but I'd imagine not taking shortcuts through neighbourhoods with children would be a convention most swedes will respect.

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#362

Post by Joky » Mon, Jun 06, 2016, 8:39 PM UTC

zippergz wrote: post #304

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…

Portraying this as a sense of "owning" the street is unneccessarily perjorative, IMHO. I don't think that many people would argue with the idea that, all else being equal, having less traffic on the street in front of your house is a good thing. Less noise, less polution, less risk of pets and children getting hit by cars. So it shouldn't be surprising that people dislike it when traffic in front of their houses incr…

> "Less noise, less polution, ... "

Well, isn't it what NIMBY is about?

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#363

Post by akamaka » Mon, Jun 06, 2016, 8:42 PM UTC

serge2k wrote: post #262

TulliusCicero wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. Bikes don't really depend on high density the way transit does. They don't do well in rural/exurban sprawl, true, but standard American suburbs are usually dense enough to make a good number of bike trips practical (the infrastructure is another matter entirely though). 2. Wikipedia says Oulu's urban density is 2300/sq mi, which is really not very dense at all. 3. In fact, apparently the suburb in the article (Tak…

The problem is people live 30 miles from work and come and go at the same time.

The average American commute by car is about 12 miles. In the Washington DC area mentioned in the article, it's 9.1 miles.

As this particular moment, a bike ride from Takoma Park to downtown DC is 41 minutes, versus 35 minutes by car.

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#364

Post by jimktrains2 » Mon, Jun 06, 2016, 8:42 PM UTC

justin66 wrote: post #248

jimktrains2 wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't get your comment. Yes they are. Often they're not federal interstate highways. Alternatively, there are private roads, paid for by the home owners, and usage can be restricted. Can you please stop trying to be witty and express yourself coherently?

The notion that because a road was paid for with "public money", that ought to guarantee unfettered access to that road is just a fundamentally juvenile, silly idea.

I didn't say unfettered access, I said access. Unless there are specific, justifiable reasons, public things should be publicly accessible. i.e. you can't rifle through your mayors paper's or freely walk in prison, though many are sickeningly privately owned. You should, however, be able to use a public park. Would it be wrong to limit the use of a park to only the people within a block of it?

Look, my street is used as a through street and I hate it, but at the same time unless cars begin to consistently pose safety problems, there isn't much that can be done, and arguably should be done about it. Some go to fast, but on the whole most follow the posted limits . Even if they didn't, traffic calming measures would be more appropriate than cutting off access.

Once again, please state your opinions rationally instead of once sentence quips. Everything is a "fundamentally juvenile, silly idea" when summarized into a few words.

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#365

Post by maxerickson » Mon, Jun 06, 2016, 8:42 PM UTC

lliamander wrote: post #360

CWuestefeld wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 .

"Keep Right Except to Pass" is a pretty common sign.

And in at least some states you can be ticketed for improper lane use and failure to signal.

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#366

Post by golergka » Mon, Jun 06, 2016, 8:44 PM UTC

Spooky23 wrote: post #211

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 marki…

The only thing Waze is doing is giving people information and suggestions. It does not control drivers. And if your traffic system requires drivers to not know information that by all means is public knowledge to work — it's one bad system.

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#367

Post by dyladan » Mon, Jun 06, 2016, 8:45 PM UTC

Jacqued wrote: post #254

cmurf wrote: 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…

I don't know how many neighborhoods are like mine but we recently had our roads redone and each house in the neighborhood was assessed based on the road frontage that they had. Our neighborhood does not own the street maybe but we have a financial incentive to keep them nice since the residents actually paid for a large part of the construction. An extra 45,000 cars per day would wear the roads much more quickly.

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#368

Post by blakeyrat » Mon, Jun 06, 2016, 8:45 PM UTC

Jacqued wrote: post #254

cmurf wrote: 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…

Nobody "owns" the street, I don't think that's the issue.

The issue is that the street was built for 10 cars an hour and now it's getting 300. Why is that important? It determines how wide the shoulders are, whether there's stop signs or roundabouts or traffic lights, whether there's on-street parking, whether there's just painted lines or botts dots' or physical lane barriers, etc.

It's not about ownership, it's about a street that was designed for X now being used for Y.

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#369

Post by golergka » Mon, Jun 06, 2016, 8:46 PM UTC

mathattack wrote: post #327

One thing that Waze misses (perhaps in the interest of simplicity?) is nudges. As in, "I prefer highways" and "I prefer no speedbumps". I don't know a clean way to map it against time (Don't go residential unless you save me 10 mins) but this could be a start. I like Waze for helping me survive Bay Area traffic. If there's an accident, I do like the roundabout directions.

It has "routing styles", "avoid toll roads" and "avoid freeways" in settings — sounds close enough.

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#370

Post by Dr_tldr » Mon, Jun 06, 2016, 8:47 PM UTC

niccaluim wrote: post #311

pnathan wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. This is the correct analysis. Unless it's a gated subdivision, the streets are operated by the government for the broad public benefit; not the local benefit of the homeowners.

It's the correct legal analysis, sure, but does it encourage considerate behavior? Does it help or hurt the goals behind zoning laws and traffic engineering? I think it's one-sided to write the whole problem off this way.

The implication that people who have more knowledge about a local area have more right to publicly maintained resources than those who don't is even more troubling. Maintaining unequal access to public resources is a form of corruption, discrimination, or both.

A traffic engineer whose designs are only effective when there's information asymmetry is either

A) dealing with impossible project restraints/requirements B) terrible at their job