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

261–270 of 582 posts

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#261

Post by CWuestefeld »

pja wrote: post #127
CWuestefeld wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

About a year ago, a traffic accident caused Waze to route me through a residential area. I actually respected the speed limit as I went through, and at one point saw kids playing in the street just as I was making a turn, so I slowed further. That didn't stop some busybody dad from flagging me down. I opened my window and he told me I'd better slow down (I had) because there were kids playing. My response to him was…

Speed limits are not targets, they’re just legal limits. The reasonable speed to be driving along a given road might be much slower than the posted limit.

It looks like you're only responding to my initial statement "I actually respected the speed limit as I went through". If you read farther, you'll see something completely in accord with your statement: "I was able to verify that at no point was I going more that 5mph below the posted limit, and from the point where those kids were visible, I was going far slower than that."

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#262

Post by serge2k »

TulliusCicero wrote: post #177
rm_-rf_slash wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

European cities are also extremely dense compared to American sprawl.

1. Bikes don't really depend on high density the way transit does. They don't do well in rural/exurban sprawl, true, but standard American suburbs are usually dense enough to make a good number of bike trips practical (the infrastructure is another matter entirely though). 2. Wikipedia says Oulu's urban density is 2300/sq mi, which is really not very dense at all. 3. In fact, apparently the suburb in the article (Tak…

The problem is people live 30 miles from work and come and go at the same time.

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#263

Post by mywittyname »

CWuestefeld wrote: post #70
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…

About a year ago, a traffic accident caused Waze to route me through a residential area. I actually respected the speed limit as I went through, and at one point saw kids playing in the street just as I was making a turn, so I slowed further. That didn't stop some busybody dad from flagging me down. I opened my window and he told me I'd better slow down (I had) because there were kids playing. My response to him was…

> "SLOW DOWN YOU ASSHOLE!!".

I hate these people. They never have any idea how fast you're actually driving. In my experience, the person complaining is deflecting blame. The only times this has happened to me is the result of someone's dog running in front of my car because they couldn't be bothered to control it (or let their kids walk a 100lb dog next to a road).

Speed on residential roads is definitely a problem, but yelling at the people who aren't speeding isn't going to solve the problem.

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#264

Post by nir »

Jacqued wrote: post #254
cmurf wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I stopped using Waze because of its nutty directions: deep dives into neighborhoods, stop signs every two blocks, piles of turns, circuitous routes, etc. I do not like coming to a complete stop every two blocks, I'll take 5mph continuous over that. I do not like dumping my traffic annoyances onto neighborhoods who didn't voluntarily agree to increased traffic just to make my commute shorter, this is free loading and…

> neighborhoods who didn't voluntarily agree to increased traffic just to make my commute shorter, this is free loading and their roads are for them to get to and from their home It's nothing against you but is this a common opinion in the US? People in neighborhoods "own" the streets? As a Frenchman saying this is astonishing as I would naturally consider that I do own the street just as much as they do and it's my…

I'm neither American nor European, but have lived in both for a while, so at the risk of appearing like I'm trolling - the likely explanation IMHO is just that people in the US are nice and don't want to feel like they're being a nuisance to someone, even if legally they're in the right :)

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#266

Post by serge2k »

takno wrote: post #111
omginternets wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>London, Paris, Rome - all have a gasp workable public transport (can't speak for Shanghai or MC), dwarfing the vehicular traffic Yet they still have crippling rush-hour gridlocks.

The approach in the UK is increasingly to regard the gridlock as an educational opportunity, whereby drivers learn to leave their cars at home and take public transport. combined with decent public transport investment, heavy road calming on non-main roads and progressive removal of parking spaces in town centres it's really having a very positive impact for everybody except the people who bizarrely still choose to s…

This type of attitude is part of what drives people to take residential streets.

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#267

Post by CWuestefeld »

mcguire wrote: post #223
CWuestefeld wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

About a year ago, a traffic accident caused Waze to route me through a residential area. I actually respected the speed limit as I went through, and at one point saw kids playing in the street just as I was making a turn, so I slowed further. That didn't stop some busybody dad from flagging me down. I opened my window and he told me I'd better slow down (I had) because there were kids playing. My response to him was…

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 accidents. But I don't see that it's a more important factor than inattention, failure to respect traffic signs or lane discipline, failure to signal properly, poor training, poor automobile maintenance. Of these, inattention (viz cell phone usage, but not other contributors such as interacting with passengers) is the only other one I ever see addressed.

Why doesn't society tell people "keep to the right lane" or "signal your turns"? I'm willing to bet that your neighbor never yells at motorists "stop arguing with the kids in the backseat".

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#268

Post by davidw »

Jacqued wrote: post #254
cmurf wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I stopped using Waze because of its nutty directions: deep dives into neighborhoods, stop signs every two blocks, piles of turns, circuitous routes, etc. I do not like coming to a complete stop every two blocks, I'll take 5mph continuous over that. I do not like dumping my traffic annoyances onto neighborhoods who didn't voluntarily agree to increased traffic just to make my commute shorter, this is free loading and…

> neighborhoods who didn't voluntarily agree to increased traffic just to make my commute shorter, this is free loading and their roads are for them to get to and from their home It's nothing against you but is this a common opinion in the US? People in neighborhoods "own" the streets? As a Frenchman saying this is astonishing as I would naturally consider that I do own the street just as much as they do and it's my…

The NIMBYism is very strong in the US.

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#269

Post by HarryHirsch »

CWuestefeld wrote: post #78
street wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why can't kids play on a street designed only for traffic to houses on that street? I played on the street all the time as a child. Of course, my streets weren't flooded with drivers trying to save a few minutes by driving through residential areas.

I think you answered your own question: "a street designed only for traffic ".

There's something wrong with a street designed only for traffic in a residential neighbourhood.

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#270

Post by ghaff »

yAak wrote: post #160

Google Maps is routing me down these 1-lane residential roads, too, and I'd generally rather it didn't. These 1-lane roads are already a headache for those living there, with cars parked on both sides, making dealing with ANY traffic a pain. Traffic is terrible where I live, but I'd rather spend another 1-5 minutes on a major thoroughfare than drive through someone's neighborhood. I don't live on a street that has th…

Every now and then Google Maps seems determined to take a scenic drive through the country which often ends up taking longer because the weather is bad or I make a wrong turn.

I had a new one the other day though when Google Maps took me through an office park prominently sign-posted as private property to avoid the regular traffic backup at a particular traffic light. I can't imagine having an issue as a one-pff thing but I probably wouldn't want to make a practice of it.

Post reply on HN