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

Google Maps and Waze

googleblog.blogspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 114 posts

Re: Google Maps and Waze

#91

Post by PebblesRox »

Peaker wrote: post #84
a-priori wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's already illegal to use a cell phone while driving in Ontario, Canada. Hands-free devices are still okay, however (I disagree with that part). http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/safety/distracted-driving/

Why do you disagree with hands-free devices? What do you think about conversing with a passenger during driving?

One reason I've heard is that when you're on the phone with someone, they don't know what's going on in the car whereas if you're talking with the person next to you and you suddenly need to focus all of your attention on the road, they can stop talking rather than adding to your distraction. Plus they provide a second set of eyes. I don't know how accurate and reliable that theory is, but it makes sense to me.

I also wonder if the mental effort of listening to a voice coming through on a speaker would make it harder to focus. I tend to have trouble hearing people when I'm talking on the phone; but that might just be me.

Re: Google Maps and Waze

#92

Post by jordanthoms »

michaelw wrote: post #56

Waze uses Bing maps on the backend. Wanna bet that "look forward to working with them in our ongoing effort to make a comprehensive, accurate and useful map of the world." means converting to use Google maps?

Well, duh. Can't see anybody being upset about that though, except perhaps Microsoft

Re: Google Maps and Waze

#93

Post by mikeleeorg »

mike-cardwell wrote: post #37

FWIW, I used Waze for a few weeks but went back to using Google Navigation. I found that the traffic data on Google Navigation was much more accurate and up to date than that provided by Waze, and that Google Nav's display is much easier on the eyes. Waze showed more information, but most of it was irrelevant noise or just plain wrong. All of the social stuff was also very distracting. This was when I was commuting d…

I did the same, but for slightly different reasons. In the Silicon Valley area, the data from Waze seems more up-to-date. But I found the UI very difficult and frustrating, so much so that I switched back to Google Maps.

I'm looking forward to the Google Maps UI with the Waze data.

Re: Google Maps and Waze

#94

Post by dakimov »

uwnav wrote: post #39

I'm confused, very confused. There's talk about this acquisition being in the $1 Billion range. Can anyone break down how this company can be worth that much money? Revenue - no idea if or how much money they made? IP - Patents on using location to perform traffic analytics? Talent - 100+ employees? Userbase - ~50 million users? Technology - Isn't the app easily replicable? It's really confusing for entrepreneurs to…

Of course, that company is clearly not worth that amount of money even closely. It was a startup running exlusively on investors' money with no model of generating revenue whatsoever. Without the acquisition their perspective would be to run out of money and fade away. Yes, they have an impressive userbase, but even that userbase is hardly worth $1B.

The price paid obviously has nothing to do with the real value of the company. I guess Google managers have their motives. On the Google's scale usual business rationales do not work.

Obviously, the giants pay billions mainly because they can.

Speaking of the motivation, this deal looks pretty much like shutting down a competitor, though I do not know what Google will actually do.

Re: Google Maps and Waze

#95

Post by mililani »

mikeash wrote: post #85
mililani wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Definitely. I was using Waze just the other day on a trip with my wife down to Los Angeles. Fortunately, I was the passenger and guiding my wife through traffic. Two things struck me about Waze: 1) It requires a lot of attention to use. 2) It's not that accurate. I mean, I figured it would be collecting data from Waze users and marking the roads with heavy traffic. But, that wasn't really the case. It DID mark some r…

What about it requires a lot of attention to use? I use it daily and it's set-and-forget for the most part.

Are you serious? You don't think fumbling around trying to tell people where hazards, traffic, police, bla blah is an attention getting process? What about the whole reward nonsense like giving people the thumbs up. Or, what about when you're warned of a hazard and then asked to verify if it's still there or not. I honestly can't see how a driver can do all that and not have their attention to the road/driving impeded.

Re: Google Maps and Waze

#96

Post by bengoodger »

bostonpete wrote: post #51
bengoodger wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IMO only when this is treated like DUI will it be taken more seriously. It sounds radical, but the activity is easily avoidable, seriously diminishes your focus and can have horrible consequences.

DUI can be accurately tested with a breathalyzer. How would you expect these stiffer penalties to be enforced? I believe the current laws essentially require the offense to be directly observed by police or for the driver to inadvertently admit to it.

Observation by police officers? I already see plenty of people texting while driving. The first hint is that they're driving like they're not paying attention. When you pull up alongside them you see them glancing down repetitively.

Also, the penalty fines are a joke. I think in CA at least they were very low, especially considering IMO distracted driving is way more dangerous than other simpler measures like speeding.

Re: Google Maps and Waze

#97

Post by arkades »

lkrubner wrote: post #82
amalcon wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

sometimes I text or check email while driving, which I know I should not do I don't mean to pick on you here. You are clearly aware, but it still needs to be said: Please do not email, text, or even talk on a cell phone while driving. Driving is the most dangerous task that is socially acceptable for nonprofessionals to perform. It is very irresponsible to make such a task any more difficult than it needs to be.

"Please do not email, text, or even talk on a cell phone while driving." I knew of a woman whose husband was killed while driving to work. In the opposite lane, on a narrow road, was a young woman who, while driving, was trying to put cream cheese onto her bagel, so she could enjoy eating it while driving. She unknowingly veered across the center line and the 2 cars collided, almost directly head on. The guy was kill…

I'm fairly confident his point wasn't that cell phones were the most dangerous possible toy while driving. I think he was trying to convey that driving was the most dangerous possible task people regularly undertake, and any distraction during its performance is recklessly dangerous. The phone-based wording was probably just contextual, given the original post.

Re: Google Maps and Waze

#98

Post by arkades »

bbatchelder wrote: post #65
amalcon wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

sometimes I text or check email while driving, which I know I should not do I don't mean to pick on you here. You are clearly aware, but it still needs to be said: Please do not email, text, or even talk on a cell phone while driving. Driving is the most dangerous task that is socially acceptable for nonprofessionals to perform. It is very irresponsible to make such a task any more difficult than it needs to be.

What about listening to the radio, talking to a passenger, or just zoning out and daydreaming? These can all be just as dangerous as using a phone while driving.

New York didn't make texting while driving illegal - it made driving while distracted illegal, so as to encompass all smartphone-related and unrelated issues that make the road dangerous.

Re: Google Maps and Waze

#99

Post by lttlrck »

mililani wrote: post #95
mikeash wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about it requires a lot of attention to use? I use it daily and it's set-and-forget for the most part.

Are you serious? You don't think fumbling around trying to tell people where hazards, traffic, police, bla blah is an attention getting process? What about the whole reward nonsense like giving people the thumbs up. Or, what about when you're warned of a hazard and then asked to verify if it's still there or not. I honestly can't see how a driver can do all that and not have their attention to the road/driving impede…

Exactly. If Google jerk up Maps on IOS with that noise I'll be back to Apple Maps in no time.

Re: Google Maps and Waze

#100

Post by TomatoTomato »

PebblesRox wrote: post #91
Peaker wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you disagree with hands-free devices? What do you think about conversing with a passenger during driving?

One reason I've heard is that when you're on the phone with someone, they don't know what's going on in the car whereas if you're talking with the person next to you and you suddenly need to focus all of your attention on the road, they can stop talking rather than adding to your distraction. Plus they provide a second set of eyes. I don't know how accurate and reliable that theory is, but it makes sense to me. I als…

It's no more distracting than talk radio or some blaring annoying commercial which doesn't stop talking if I need to focus. When you have a handsfree device, just say "Hold on" and do what you need to do. You can always ask them to repeat themselves I you don't hear.
Post reply on HN