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

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#451

Post by rwhitman » Mon, Jun 06, 2016, 10:55 PM UTC

It's fascinating to witness this byproduct of the ubiquity of Google Maps / Waze as it begins introducing traffic jams of it's own creation. So many people are directed to alternate routes en masse that Google has the power to direct the flow of traffic.

This is one of those AI-run-amok problems that everyone has been so worried about. A Google robot is algorithmically directing our traffic now, no self-driving cars necessary. A bot potentially throwing an enormous monkey wrench in billions of dollars worth of traffic planning done by city engineers all over the world. Going to be interesting to see how all this shakes out

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#452

Post by analog31 » Mon, Jun 06, 2016, 10:56 PM UTC

koolba wrote: post #23

> Connor and his neighbors put up “No Through Traffic” signs. And their city councilman, Tim Male, tried to get Google Maps to take note of the official detour, by calling the company and flagging it through the apps’ feedback feature. Assuming the road itself is a public road (not a driveway or gated community), is there any legality to this?

It doesn't have to be illegal. A fake "no through traffic" sign might be illegal. But there is nothing wrong with: "Donkey carts may make frequent stops," or "Enjoy our street festival and parade every morning from 6 to 8 AM."

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#453

Post by FireBeyond » Mon, Jun 06, 2016, 10:56 PM UTC

dyladan wrote: post #367

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…

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.

Let's not exaggerate, that's a car every 1.9 seconds, 24/7. There are major arterials that don't see 45,000 cars a day. Waze isn't doing this.

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#454

Post by kmonsen » Mon, Jun 06, 2016, 10:57 PM UTC

xraystyle wrote: post #228

HillaryBriss wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. Fo…

I visited LA once, and parked for less than two hours. Managed to get a ticket even though a studied the sign for a few min to try to establish it was a legal parking. It was really hard to figure out if it was legal or not.

Of course I just paid it.

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#455

Post by npsimons » Mon, Jun 06, 2016, 10:59 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…

Wouldn't it be interesting if there was an app like Waze, but it's primary focus was safety? People report intersections or roads with blind spots, bad lighting, lots of jaywalkers, etc.

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#456

Post by HillaryBriss » Mon, Jun 06, 2016, 11:00 PM UTC

Spooky23 wrote: post #236

HillaryBriss wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 New York, the hack around this is to plead down small speeding tickets to stiff zero-point parking tickets "in the interest of justice". The town gets the cash, and the speeder dodges the insurance impact.

seems a tad corrupt. also seems totally awesome. new yorkers are just smarter than us. sigh.

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#457

Post by Spooky23 » Mon, Jun 06, 2016, 11:05 PM UTC

golergka wrote: post #366

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.

If you give advice for a living, you have a responsibility to provide the best advice possible.

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#458

Post by HillaryBriss » Mon, Jun 06, 2016, 11:05 PM UTC

kmonsen wrote: post #454

xraystyle wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. Fo…

I visited LA once, and parked for less than two hours. Managed to get a ticket even though a studied the sign for a few min to try to establish it was a legal parking. It was really hard to figure out if it was legal or not. Of course I just paid it.

yeah. i've had the same problems in Santa Monica and LA.

i've heard about a couple of apps for this sort of thing, e.g. http://www.parksafela.com

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#459

Post by jonlucc » Mon, Jun 06, 2016, 11:07 PM UTC

devishard wrote: post #444

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 a bit odd that you brought up gated subdivisions; so you think that property taxes don't pay for the right to live on a quiet street? Only people who pay for a gated community get to live on quiet streets?

I'm not the parent, but yes... if you live on a shared street, you have to share it.

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#460

Post by jdbernard » Mon, Jun 06, 2016, 11:09 PM UTC

idbehold wrote: post #426

jdbernard wrote: post #354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Then those people should move to dead-end streets. Because again, it isn't "their" street. It's the public's street.

You are correct. It is not "their" street. However, it is not unreasonable for people to expect that neighborhood streets not be flooded with traffic beyond what they were designed to handle nor put to purposes for which they were not designed.

It is a public street that was designed to service the neighborhood and the traffic traveling to the neighborhood. It is not a highway.