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

481–490 of 582 posts

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#481

Post by ThrustVectoring »

Justsignedup wrote: post #473
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…

Speed bumps help a lot. These are barriers made especially for making sure people are not speeding down these usually quiet streets. If people are speeding, surprise surprise cops are helpful. Towns need to work WITH waze not against it. I can imagine towns REALLY cranking up fines to use speeders on usually quiet streets (where kids may be playing) to ensure that the money flows into creating appropriate barriers.

Speed bumps usually kill more people by slowing down ambulances than they save by reducing vehicle speeds.

The best way to keep a street quiet is to remove the cues that tell drivers that they can drive quickly. Narrow the street, remove the sidewalks, add trees and other visual noise to the margins, and remove lane markings. Replacing asphalt with gravel can also help (and is cheaper to maintain).

You don't need to fine people to get them to slow down if the road is terrifying to drive on at more than 20 MPH.

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#482

Post by superuser2 »

jimktrains2 wrote: post #200
Declanomous wrote: post #56

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 same way the doors of public schools can be locked at night, and a property tax receipt does not get you a set of master keys.

I think this is something a local government should not do, but it's certainly within its authority (assuming it is the sole funding source - federal or state money may - and IMO should - come with overriding strings attached).

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#483

Post by lliamander »

hx87 wrote: post #421
lliamander wrote: post #376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Anything else just feels like NIMBY entitlement. I disagree. I also think there is a sense that our urban/suburban planning should serve more that just the interests of motorists, and should support activities other than just driving to/from work. My wife and I used to drive 45 minutes just to park on the outside of a nice residential neighborhood so we could take a walk. Now we can get to family, friends, parks, b…

The problem in your case is that the sidewalks were inadequate or nonexistent; the solution then would be to widen them at the expense of the streets, perhaps install more crosswalks, not preventing nonresident drivers from coming through.

There were a number of issues involved, but you point out a major one. However, the street was already quite narrow; sidewalks only could have been added at the expense of private property (and in some cases, the houses were too close to the street for that to be feasible).

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#484

Post by dsfyu404ed »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #432
corndoge wrote: post #419

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That escalation from stop signs to funding terrorists was entertaining to say the least

Pretty much anything that requires vehicles to use their brakes funds terrorism because every stop requires subsequent acceleration. Sure, the net effect from adding one stop sign is negligible, but it's tragedy of the commons. If everybody does it then it adds up. And it's not just wasted fuel, it's wear on the vehicles (which harms used car reliability and negatively impacts the poor), stress on the vehicle occupan…

As automation comes about detroit and the EPA will lean on the people who write laws to do things like make 4 way stops into 2 way stops, make it legal to rolling stop at a right turn, get rid of red arrows at dedicated left turn lanes that don't cross 3 lanes of traffic, etc etc in order to save fuel.

There will be a lot more flashing yellows in a few years.

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#485

Post by lliamander »

jonathankoren wrote: post #410
lliamander wrote: post #376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Anything else just feels like NIMBY entitlement. I disagree. I also think there is a sense that our urban/suburban planning should serve more that just the interests of motorists, and should support activities other than just driving to/from work. My wife and I used to drive 45 minutes just to park on the outside of a nice residential neighborhood so we could take a walk. Now we can get to family, friends, parks, b…

It's infrastructure. Why shouldn't it be maximally employed? If it's not used, it's waste. Don't like fast traffic, do what the OP said, and have the city install stop signs or reduce lane width. The amount of traffic in the street is immaterial if you're walking on the sidewalks like you should be.

I also said this in response to another post, but I thought it would be good to highlight here:

You don't generally want your infrastructure at max load all the time. You pathways that aren't heavily used so that, if the heavily trafficked area becomes blocked, traffic can redirect to the alternate path without becoming a complete mess.

Besides, just because it is not being employed to serve commuter traffic does not mean it is not being employed. As other people have pointed out: kids often play in the streets. I think this is a good thing, and I think making it safe to be out in your street makes it easier to connect with your neighbors helps foster a sense of community.

Putting houses on courts/circles helps with this, because then it eliminates through traffic, but it isn't always possible.

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#486

Post by shivsta »

HillaryBriss wrote: post #344
dsfyu404ed wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So every major city in the US and Europe?

Don't know. Haven't visited every major city in the US and Europe. One data point: As bad as it can be at times, especially on/near The Strip, Las Vegas still seems less congested than LA.

Great thing about Vegas is that there's not really any rush hour during the day. Only party-rush-hour at night.

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#487

Post by lutorm »

sandworm101 wrote: post #287
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…

>>> All the aggregated minutes of driving it has saved me over the last couple years would not have been worth it if yesterday's single poor routing decision had ended with me in the hospital/dead and/or my car totaled. I don;t think you need even go that far. All those extra corners, braking and such aren't great for the car. They have a cost in terms of maintenance. Lots of "city miles" driving is why cop and taxi…

If the alternative is sitting in stop and go traffic, it's not obvious to me that one is worse than the other...

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#488

Post by ThrustVectoring »

danielweber wrote: post #222
tbyehl wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Even a right onto a main thoroughfare isn't worth saving a few minutes. Re-joining the main flow of traffic is stressful and dangerous.

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#489

Post by bostonvaulter2 »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #423
24gttghh wrote: post #393

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Conversely, painting lines, and narrowing the "american standard" lane width will slow drivers down, as the more narrow lane makes drivers feel like they are going faster. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14668160 http://nacto.org/publication/urban-street-design-guide/stree...

Of course it also makes collisions more likely at a given speed because there is less margin for error in estimating how much space you need on either side of your vehicle. I still can't understand this logic of "let's make the roads safer by making them more dangerous" as if the only factor is how fast people are going. Wouldn't it be better to make roads that are safe at the speeds people want to drive? Build sidew…

Have you looked at any studies, many point to wider lanes being more dangerous because people drive faster on them. Don't just assume that 'wider == safer' without any data.

http://usa.streetsblog.org/2015/05/27/compelling-evidence-th...

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#490

Post by twblalock »

CaptSpify wrote: post #251
JustSomeNobody wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

In San Francisco, you can park in front of your own driveway.
Post reply on HN