Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Waze Hijacked L.A. in the Name of Convenience

lamag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 61 posts

Re: Waze Hijacked L.A. in the Name of Convenience

#51

Post by scarejunba »

nullc wrote: post #49
scarejunba wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, I am comfortable with the state legislature making law like this because that reflects the will of the people of the entire state. It's only when locals decide they can segregate their streets that I'm annoyed because they violate the social contract we agreed upon. I'm also super comfortable with closing roads to cars entirely.

Fixing the issue with blunt closures in order to close off neighborhoods is frequently bad for everyone: it increases load at the remaining ingress. The neighborhood gets saved the through traffic, but congestion is increased outside of it. Is that something you think is actually preferable to simply avoiding sending large amounts of through traffic on roads which were not designed nor are able to handle the traffic?…

If it's bad for everyone, then let's not do it. The current situation is equitable. I will not have government place one man above another any more than it already does.

I'm more comfortable with solutions that are even. If you want to install metering lights so be it. All will be equal under the law.

Re: Waze Hijacked L.A. in the Name of Convenience

#52

Post by ageitgey »

This is a well-researched traffic problem called induced demand [1] - building more roads in a congested city always makes traffic worse, not better, in the long term. Waze is giving people more roads to use, so they are in effect 'building more roads', which causes more total people to drive, which makes traffic even worse for everyone. There is no possible outcome here other than everything being worse for everyone involved, despite whatever libertarian views you might hold. Waze can only be a net loss for everyone for LA in the long term despite whatever benefits the early users got for a few years.

But banning Waze is just a band-aid. The real problem is that the only way to get around LA is to drive. The real solution for LA is to re-think itself as a walkable about city with real public transit options. There isn't enough physical space for everyone in LA to get to where they want to go in a giant, personal automobile while still leaving room for dense housing.

If you are interested in exactly how to redesign a city to make all transit more effective, check out the book 'Walkable City Rules' by Jeff Speck.

[1] https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2018/09/citylab-unive...

Re: Waze Hijacked L.A. in the Name of Convenience

#53

Post by nullc »

scarejunba wrote: post #51
nullc wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fixing the issue with blunt closures in order to close off neighborhoods is frequently bad for everyone: it increases load at the remaining ingress. The neighborhood gets saved the through traffic, but congestion is increased outside of it. Is that something you think is actually preferable to simply avoiding sending large amounts of through traffic on roads which were not designed nor are able to handle the traffic?…

If it's bad for everyone, then let's not do it. The current situation is equitable. I will not have government place one man above another any more than it already does. I'm more comfortable with solutions that are even. If you want to install metering lights so be it. All will be equal under the law.

Cutting connectivity to a neighborhood to prevent through traffic is good for the neighborhood on the net, bad for everyone else... and the law is quite permissive at allowing it.

Our roads are designed so that some are arterial, some are access. The designs of these different kinds of roads are strikingly different, the costs to construct them are strikingly different, as is its durability to traffic. The impact on the surrounding properties are strikingly different as well.

Treating each kind of road according to its designed purpose is not a failure to treat the public equally.

Would you also argue that prohibiting drivers from traveling southbound in the northbound lanes is not treating them equally under the law? -- I suppose not.

But then why do you consider directing transit traffic via non-arterial roads, causing unplanned wear to the road, risk the the surrounding properties, and congestion at interconnection points to be materially different than driving the wrong way? The road is designed to be used a particular way, using in a manner contrary to the design can cause serious problems.

The law does not currently have carveouts for prohibiting transit traffic on public roads, as they weren't generally needed in the past and no doubt their enforcement would have their own costs (e.g. police stopping people to ask where they are going)... but such laws could certainly be created, and will be created if mapping companies continue to insist that they can ignore the harms they are creating by directing drivers to drive in ways contrary to the design of the road network so long as the law doesn't outright prohibit them from doing so.

With automatic plate number recognition cameras it would be relatively straight forward to automate ticketing of through traffic in posted no-through roadways...

Re: Waze Hijacked L.A. in the Name of Convenience

#54

Post by scarejunba »

nullc wrote: post #53
scarejunba wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it's bad for everyone, then let's not do it. The current situation is equitable. I will not have government place one man above another any more than it already does. I'm more comfortable with solutions that are even. If you want to install metering lights so be it. All will be equal under the law.

Cutting connectivity to a neighborhood to prevent through traffic is good for the neighborhood on the net, bad for everyone else... and the law is quite permissive at allowing it. Our roads are designed so that some are arterial, some are access. The designs of these different kinds of roads are strikingly different, the costs to construct them are strikingly different, as is its durability to traffic. The impact on…

So far municipalities cannot do this for good reasons: all the rich ones will block access to keep the poor folks out.

I'll see you at the ballot box for this one.

Re: Waze Hijacked L.A. in the Name of Convenience

#55

Post by enoch_r »

WWLink wrote: post #37
enoch_r wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Streets have many purposes. They allow people to access their homes. They provide parking. They are bike routes, walking routes, scooter routes, running routes, skateboard routes, and driving routes. They are sometimes even places kids can play, or at least where parents can feel safe biking with their kids, or where one can easily and safely cross the street as a pedestrian. Not letting vehicles cut through a neighb…

It's also a good way to prohibit driving through neighborhoods to explore them. Whooo! Keepin the riff raff out! /s

Where I live, the primary goal of blocking vehicle traffic from cutting through is to protect "neighborhood greenways" from getting inundated with car traffic. These are specially designated bike routes on neighborhood streets that are some of the best, low stress, popular pieces of bike infrastructure I've ever used.

So here, at least, these efforts are a terrible way to keep riff raff out, as they make your street far too attractive to riff raff using non-motorized transportation.

Re: Waze Hijacked L.A. in the Name of Convenience

#56

Post by koboll »

jcranmer wrote: post #9
koboll wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I fail to understand how merely directing people toward a certain street amounts to encouraging reckless driving.

For one thing, Waze is using the actual speed of drivers instead of the legal speed limit to determine the travel time of a route. If drivers are speeding, Waze is basing its time savings on drivers violating the law. In some of the conditions that are brought up in these stories, it's not even really safe to travel the legal speed limit. (And reckless driving includes travelling too fast for conditions). Given the r…

>For one thing, Waze is using the actual speed of drivers instead of the legal speed limit to determine the travel time of a route.

So what should Waze do? Lie about how long a route will actually take, and pretend like the person is going the speed limit?

Here's a thought experiment. What do you think someone running late who's speeding and being shown a longer-than-actual ETA is going to do? Stands to reason they're going to speed up even more.

Re: Waze Hijacked L.A. in the Name of Convenience

#57

Post by prepend »

Doxin wrote: post #50
scarejunba wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your property value isn't my problem. I have a right to that street that is no less than yours.

Sure, But people have a right to not unexpectedly live next to a highway as well. There's a balance here that needs to be struck and that balance is not doing whatever you like with disregard of if that bothers anyone else.

Not if they live next to a public road. As long as folks follow the speed limit there’s nothing you should do.

I mapped out the roads around my house before buying. If you live on a shortcut public road you’ll get lots of traffic.

Re: Waze Hijacked L.A. in the Name of Convenience

#58

Post by Doxin »

prepend wrote: post #57
Doxin wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, But people have a right to not unexpectedly live next to a highway as well. There's a balance here that needs to be struck and that balance is not doing whatever you like with disregard of if that bothers anyone else.

Not if they live next to a public road. As long as folks follow the speed limit there’s nothing you should do. I mapped out the roads around my house before buying. If you live on a shortcut public road you’ll get lots of traffic.

> As long as folks follow the speed limit

Right but isn't that the entire point? People following these shortcuts don't follow the speed limit. They don't drive carefully, and even if they did the increase in exhaust fumes will cause premature deaths of the people living in these streets.

Just because the infrastructure is built poorly to the point where driving through someones neighbourhood is faster than using the appointed thoroughfares doesn't mean the solution here is to just saddle those people with the problem. The solution is improving infrastructure to where people don't feel the need to follow shortcuts, or at the very least to make sure there are no shortcuts that disadvantage some random part of the population.

To me at least it doesn't seem fair that waze et al individually get to decide to make some streets unlivable. That's not freedom, that's a tyranny of those with power over those without.

Re: Waze Hijacked L.A. in the Name of Convenience

#59

Post by prepend »

Doxin wrote: post #58
prepend wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not if they live next to a public road. As long as folks follow the speed limit there’s nothing you should do. I mapped out the roads around my house before buying. If you live on a shortcut public road you’ll get lots of traffic.

> As long as folks follow the speed limit Right but isn't that the entire point? People following these shortcuts don't follow the speed limit. They don't drive carefully, and even if they did the increase in exhaust fumes will cause premature deaths of the people living in these streets. Just because the infrastructure is built poorly to the point where driving through someones neighbourhood is faster than using the…

Then the issue is the speeders. Problem solved. Ticket them.

The complaint in my neighborhood that I hear is that the speed limit is 25 and 35 and it’s followed. They just don’t like the traffic.

Re: Waze Hijacked L.A. in the Name of Convenience

#60

Post by Doxin »

prepend wrote: post #59
Doxin wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As long as folks follow the speed limit Right but isn't that the entire point? People following these shortcuts don't follow the speed limit. They don't drive carefully, and even if they did the increase in exhaust fumes will cause premature deaths of the people living in these streets. Just because the infrastructure is built poorly to the point where driving through someones neighbourhood is faster than using the…

Then the issue is the speeders. Problem solved. Ticket them. The complaint in my neighborhood that I hear is that the speed limit is 25 and 35 and it’s followed. They just don’t like the traffic.

The issue is speeders. And noise pollution. And air pollution. And risk of getting hit. Driving a car on a street has externalities that need accounting for.
Post reply on HN