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

571–580 of 582 posts

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#571

Post by astrodust »

mikeash wrote: post #46
astrodust wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a certain amount of irony here that people are complaining about cars clogging up their streets but think nothing of what they do when they're driving through other neighbourhoods, especially more urban ones. Suddenly they get a taste of why people living downtown are not too enthused about highways bringing in more people. A lot of this mess stems from the absurd designs of modern American subdivisions with…

I don't think there's much irony here. It's a matter of what came first. If you move to a busy downtown then you should know full well that dealing with heavy traffic on your streets is going to be a fact of life. If you move to a quiet suburban street which then years later transforms into a busy artery, that's a completely different situation. I also completely disagree with your evaluation of pointlessly twisty ro…

There's even more irony here because most new suburbs are built on appropriated farmland and I'm sure the farmers in the area are upset at all the new residential traffic and the incessant complaints about their use of natural fertilizer which produces unpleasant odors.

Then one day they build more subdivisions around your subdivision and suddenly your street becomes a convenient way to get to this newer subdivision just as you were driving down roads that were quiet before until your subdivision got built.

Increasing traffic on your street is going to be a fact of life if we insist on building out and out rather than up. Densifying existing areas doesn't create the same problems as with increased density comes other transit options, especially public transit, as well as the reduced need to travel so far since everything's packed into a smaller area.

Instead of grocery stores being a mile apart, you might have two or three within a single square mile because of demand.

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#572

Post by dragonwriter »

astrodust wrote: post #571
mikeash wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think there's much irony here. It's a matter of what came first. If you move to a busy downtown then you should know full well that dealing with heavy traffic on your streets is going to be a fact of life. If you move to a quiet suburban street which then years later transforms into a busy artery, that's a completely different situation. I also completely disagree with your evaluation of pointlessly twisty ro…

There's even more irony here because most new suburbs are built on appropriated farmland and I'm sure the farmers in the area are upset at all the new residential traffic and the incessant complaints about their use of natural fertilizer which produces unpleasant odors. Then one day they build more subdivisions around your subdivision and suddenly your street becomes a convenient way to get to this newer subdivision…

> Increasing traffic on your street is going to be a fact of life if we insist on building out and out rather than up.

Its also a fact of life if we insist on building up. I've never seen a suburb that could compete with NYC on traffic snarls.

> Densifying existing areas doesn't create the same problems

Yes, it does, though it tends to be limited (at about the level where traffic is frequently slower than walking) by lack of parking spaces limiting the number of cars.

> as with increased density comes other transit options

Other transit options are necessary to allow densifying existing areas, because of the point above; you rapidly hit the point where you can't get more people in and out with existing infrastructure. That doesn't mean you don't cause the same traffic problems with density as with sprawl -- you do, and in fact you maximize them that way.

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#573

Post by nickbauman »

threatofrain wrote: post #508
nickbauman wrote: post #431

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Broad public benefit is not the same as optimal traffic utilization. There's more to life than what can be quantified / sold / made to go faster. I think this goes to the heart of the idea of what humans are for. People in the tech world tend to think humans are machines in a cosmic factory used to maximize economic output.

He did not even slightly mention the frame of optimal traffic distribution. He's talking about whether roads belong to homeowners. Optimal traffic is your frame of discussion, and then you go off talking about how tech people model human systems as factories. It is worth framing this homeowners Waze sabotage as a NIMBY problem, because if the cars aren't being routed through their neighborhood, then it's being routed…

I think it's an solid albeit tacit frame: "broad" and "traffic" is the key terms here. You're either on the side of a street being most useful for the people directly connected to it (residents) or you're on the side of people far away who need to get somewhere else (commuters, et al). This is a case where "compromise" means both people don't get anything like what they want.

And what brought us here? Treating people as abstractions. Something we in the tech industry do all too much. Myself included.

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#575

Post by jimmywanger »

knodi123 wrote: post #570
jimmywanger wrote: post #564

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There you go again. "Emotional kneejerk comment". "Popular on reddit". (Focusing on what you actually typed which are attacks devoid of facts.) We're not placing responsibility on the children, we're placing responsibility on the parents. If your parents are not good at being parents, then you'll have a higher probability of bad events happening to you. Nothing we can do will change that, unless we want to put everyb…

> We're not placing responsibility on the children, we're placing responsibility on the parents Here's the quote that I replied to, the ONLY quote that I replied to, the ONLY thing that I was discussing: "(Shrug) When I was a child, I was taught not to play in the street" And that quote kinda sounds like placing responsibility on the children. "Here's the solution: Simply have parents who teach you responsiblity. Tha…

Sure, don't reply to the comments about your personal attacks re: "Emotional kneejerk comment". "Popular on reddit". Both of which smack of smugness.

You're putting words in the other person's mouth, which is what you're accusing us of. "kinda sounds". Then you put in quotes a sentence you made up hoping to add legitmacy to your remarks.

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#576

Post by knodi123 »

jimmywanger wrote: post #575
knodi123 wrote: post #570

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We're not placing responsibility on the children, we're placing responsibility on the parents Here's the quote that I replied to, the ONLY quote that I replied to, the ONLY thing that I was discussing: "(Shrug) When I was a child, I was taught not to play in the street" And that quote kinda sounds like placing responsibility on the children. "Here's the solution: Simply have parents who teach you responsiblity. Tha…

Sure, don't reply to the comments about your personal attacks re: "Emotional kneejerk comment". "Popular on reddit". Both of which smack of smugness. You're putting words in the other person's mouth, which is what you're accusing us of. "kinda sounds". Then you put in quotes a sentence you made up hoping to add legitmacy to your remarks.

> Sure, don't reply to the comments about your personal attacks

Thanks. I prefer to avoid meta-discussions based on emotional content that has nothing to do with the topic of conversation.

> You're putting words in the other person's mouth, which is what you're accusing us of. "kinda sounds". Then you put in quotes a sentence you made up hoping to add legitmacy to your remarks.

I accused someone of putting words in my mouth when they said "childproofed to the extent you probably have in mind". I do not want to childproof the world, and he has no idea what I have in mind.

But what I was doing by rewording the quote I've been attempting to discuss, is a standard tool for achieving understanding. You reword someone else's argument, and then they can either point out how you were inaccurate, or agree with your characterization, either one of which allows the conversation to proceed.

If you don't care to do either of those things, then I guess you're done discussing the actual topic that this whole thread is about. In which case I think I'm done here.

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#577

Post by knodi123 »

SolarNet wrote: post #449
knodi123 wrote: post #438

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, all children should be taught not to play in the street. But we should not have a death penalty for children whose parents don't do that correctly...

Except in this case it's the parents arguing for these traffic abatements, how about instead of faffing around with taxpayer money they be better parents.

Perhaps the parents are arguing for traffic abatements in order to protect children other than their own? I would be brokenhearted if the child down the street was killed by a fast car right in front of his porch, even if it was his own parents' fault for not teaching him properly.

Or perhaps these parents understand that even the best parent can make mistakes. Kids are crazy. My 3.5 year old was out of sight for about a minute while her mom went to the bathroom, and she managed to move a potty chair over to the front door, undo the deadbolt (which she had never even attempted to do before), opened the front door, and went walking down the street. Shit happens. Kids are dumb. It's nice to have more than one layer of protection.

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#578

Post by pixl97 »

oftenwrong wrote: post #336
pixl97 wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It's not hard to share the space. It is easy to share a pie between two people. It is very hard to share a pie between 400 people. In the US roads ARE NOT designed as a shared space between people and cars. If you play in the road you could very well die due to one person on a phone when they shouldn't be. Stay alive, keep off the road.

>In the US roads ARE NOT designed as a shared space between people and cars. That's the problem. Kids cannot safely play in the street in many "safe" neighborhoods in the US. They should be able to, but they can't. Americans practically worship cars. The roads are treated like sacred land. Safety and happiness are set aside for the sake of motoring.

>They should be able to, but they can't.

Why should they be able to? Mass + velocity = splat. You can't deny the physics.

The Americans worshiping cars boat sailed like 70 years ago, it is too late to do anything significant about that in a short period of time without spending trillions. Unless you think replacing most of our infrastructure and moving massive numbers of people is a good idea.

And the roads are treated like scared land. They are the arteries and veins of our economy and life.

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#579

Post by jimmywanger »

knodi123 wrote: post #576
jimmywanger wrote: post #575

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, don't reply to the comments about your personal attacks re: "Emotional kneejerk comment". "Popular on reddit". Both of which smack of smugness. You're putting words in the other person's mouth, which is what you're accusing us of. "kinda sounds". Then you put in quotes a sentence you made up hoping to add legitmacy to your remarks.

> Sure, don't reply to the comments about your personal attacks Thanks. I prefer to avoid meta-discussions based on emotional content that has nothing to do with the topic of conversation. > You're putting words in the other person's mouth, which is what you're accusing us of. "kinda sounds". Then you put in quotes a sentence you made up hoping to add legitmacy to your remarks. I accused someone of putting words in m…

How's this? The world is full of dangerous things, and no amount of legislation or regulations can make it safe.

If you were not taught correctly OR did not absorb information, nothing will prevent you from dying a messy, easily preventible death.

That's the main point which you're dancing around.

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#580

Post by neves »

CodeCube wrote: post #319
neves wrote: post #189

Here in my third world country, I know people who live near dangerous areas that love the traffic increase that Waze created. Sure it there is a little more noise, but they also fell more secure. Maybe it is just a different point of view.

Interesting, are you saying that the increased traffic is welcome because there are now more people around to dissuade crime from occurring?

Yes
Post reply on HN