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

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#551

Post by JoeAltmaier » Tue, Jun 07, 2016, 2:02 PM UTC

FroshKiller wrote: post #549

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #415

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The city created a three-way stop before the curve that has slowed traffic on the street and seems to have reduced non-local traffic. How is this not the same NIMBY entitlement? "There are too many people using this public road, let's make it more arduous to use and let someone else suffer the traffic." That doesn't actually reduce traffic, it only redirects it. And if the people now receiving the traffic respond i…

It's pretty simple. NIMBY stands for "not in my backyard." The NIMBY bit of the complaint is "I don't want people driving down my street." My concern about the traffic isn't NIMBY in nature because I don't care whether anyone drives down the street as long as they do it safely. So rather than "not in my backyard," it's "in my backyard is fine as long as you do it safely." It isn't arduous to use the road, any redirec…

Maybe the main streets were 'meant to handle it', but sometimes they don't. To blithely redirect everybody back there is the NIMBY part? The part where its just assumed that the public doesn't need to inconvenience me; isn't somebody taking care of all that stuff?

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#552

Post by goatforce5 » Tue, Jun 07, 2016, 2:12 PM UTC

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.

A speed bump was put in on a hillside residential street near where I grew up, coincidentally right near the house of a councillor.

It was taken out a few months later because of noise complaints. Turns out the locals preferred the people going a bit too fast to the people downshifting, breaking, clanging over the speed bump and then accelerating away.

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#553

Post by potatolicious » Tue, Jun 07, 2016, 2:33 PM UTC

jimktrains2 wrote: post #212

potatolicious wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't ticket your way out of this problem - nor can you afford to over long periods of time. Stationing cops in enough places to actually discourage speeding is not practicable. There are fortunately lots of ways to fix this without stationing a cop every few blocks. Speed bumps are common, but imperfect. In my hometown on smaller residential streets struggling with too much through-traffic they've put traffic ci…

> Another major issue is that suburban streets are simply too wide, many neighborhoods give more than the 12-foot standard width to a lane (itself a specification that is way too generous), While I 100% agree with this, the other side is that often these streets have parking for the houses that is more utilized at night than during the day. So, while children are out in the summer, say, the streets are ~24' wide, but…

There are proven solutions to this, too.

Firstly, parking lanes need to be marked - it's as simple as painting a line on the ground. Simply marking parking lanes will prevent the vast majority of drivers from attempting to drive in it.

Which goes back to the original point - you don't need to physically alter the street to modify driver behavior. People stay within the lines they've been assigned, but most suburban streets have an informal layout where parking and movement are mixed.

Secondly, curb extensions at intersections. This is where sidewalks jut "into" the street and are tremendously beneficial. It makes the the parking lanes useless for movement because you have to merge into the movement lanes at the intersection anyways. The narrowing of the street also has a proven awareness-increasing and speed-reducing effect. Even more, it shortens the distance for pedestrians to cross and dramatically reduces car-pedestrian collision rates - and also places people crossing the streets closer to the center of driver vision rather than peripherally.

Curb extensions are kind of magical

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#554

Post by 24gttghh » Tue, Jun 07, 2016, 2:41 PM UTC

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #509

bostonvaulter2 wrote: post #489

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

The flaw is thinking that the improvement comes for free. You're basically gaming human behavior. The narrower lanes eat most of the safety improvement of people driving slower. You only get the tiny bit that was left over by mistake because people slightly overcompensate for the danger you put them in. But to get that tiny bit you're still paying the entire cost of slowing vehicles down. It takes longer to get where…

Making the lane more narrow does not have to equal putting two lanes of opposing traffic closer together. We can make the dividing line(s) wider to compensate. To wit, this conversation revolves around residential neighborhoods, where cars frequently park on the street, where the speed limit is likely not 40MPH. Making the lanes narrow is meant to get people to follow the speed limits, I'd say at 30MPH or less.

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#555

Post by speby » Tue, Jun 07, 2016, 2:47 PM UTC

Dr_tldr wrote: post #370

niccaluim wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)…

Not entirely sure I agree with that. Roads are not paid for by "everyone's taxes." Many roads are paved/maintained using funds provided by a local municipality. Thus, by that definition, in many instances, a "local road" is indeed paid for and, in a sense, "owned" by the residents who pay taxes to the local municipality that uses their tax dollars to improve said roads.

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#556

Post by mcguire » Tue, Jun 07, 2016, 3:08 PM UTC

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…

There are a surprising number of blind corners and vision blocking hills in the world (especially around here). Further, increased speed results in increased distance to stop and increased energy in any interaction. There are very few accidents that cannot be avoided or mitigated by reducing the initial velocities.

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#557

Post by djrogers » Tue, Jun 07, 2016, 3:29 PM UTC

pnathan wrote: post #249

djrogers wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A grid-based layout might mean more through traffic, but the traffic can filter through many, many different cross-routes rather than funnelling through the singular optimal route. That singular optimal route funnels traffic away from my kids riding bikes, playing street hockey, drawing chalk cities, or anything else their little minds can come up with. It's why houses on a 'quiet street' are coveted, and sell for…

> That singular optimal route funnels traffic away from my kids riding bikes, playing street hockey, drawing chalk cities, or anything else their little minds can come up with. It's why houses on a 'quiet street' are coveted, and sell for more than the same house on a busy street. Those things are all done safely on grids. Your example does not work to the logical end you want it to.

Seems like everyone buying houses in these areas disagrees with you, and logic agrees with me - a bunch of long, straight, easy to navigate streets leads to more and faster traffic. If the winding streets weren't a navigation/driving problem to begin with, why complain about them?

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#558

Post by balls187 » Tue, Jun 07, 2016, 3:34 PM UTC

golergka wrote: post #359

balls187 wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

If the costs associated with tobacco products was born 100% by it's users, I'd agree.

However, those costs are subsidized by the public.

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#559

Post by CamperBob2 » Tue, Jun 07, 2016, 3:53 PM UTC

Piskvorrr wrote: post #539

CamperBob2 wrote: post #462

Earlier quoted context omitted.

+1, that's a big pet peeve of mine with respect to all turn-by-turn apps I've ever used. Most of them provide check boxes to avoid toll roads, highways, ferries and drawbridges, and the like. Why in the world don't they offer an option to avoid left turns?

Significantly harder to implement, simple as that. Would be useful though.

Yep. Left turns in San Francisco at rush hour are also "significantly harder to implement."

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#560

Post by AnthonyMouse » Tue, Jun 07, 2016, 4:37 PM UTC

24gttghh wrote: post #554

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #509

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The flaw is thinking that the improvement comes for free. You're basically gaming human behavior. The narrower lanes eat most of the safety improvement of people driving slower. You only get the tiny bit that was left over by mistake because people slightly overcompensate for the danger you put them in. But to get that tiny bit you're still paying the entire cost of slowing vehicles down. It takes longer to get where…

Making the lane more narrow does not have to equal putting two lanes of opposing traffic closer together. We can make the dividing line(s) wider to compensate. To wit, this conversation revolves around residential neighborhoods, where cars frequently park on the street, where the speed limit is likely not 40MPH. Making the lanes narrow is meant to get people to follow the speed limits, I'd say at 30MPH or less.

> Making the lane more narrow does not have to equal putting two lanes of opposing traffic closer together. We can make the dividing line(s) wider to compensate.

And now you're doing something different than the data and will plausibly get a different outcome. If the opposing traffic is not closer together then maybe people don't slow down as much or at all anymore. And you're pushing the cars closer to the pedestrians.

> To wit, this conversation revolves around residential neighborhoods, where cars frequently park on the street, where the speed limit is likely not 40MPH.

Yet that may nonetheless be the prevailing traffic speed, and the speed that emergency vehicles can reasonably travel when not impeded by "traffic calming" measures. That you didn't expect people to get the efficiency you're taking away from them doesn't mean you aren't taking it away. Moreover, fuel efficiency is a curve with an inflection point somewhere above 40MPH. That means 40 is better than 30, but it also means 35 is better than 25 and 30 is better than 20.

> Making the lanes narrow is meant to get people to follow the speed limits, I'd say at 30MPH or less.

Except that the speed limit is generally supposed to be set at the 85th percentile traffic speed (and is generally set ~10MPH below that for reasons of politics and revenue generation), so slowing down traffic will lead to a reduction in the speed limit.