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

41–50 of 61 posts

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

#41

Post by paggle »

thrower123 wrote: post #38
paggle wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you feel about government setting up speed cameras at all of these side streets and issuing citations to all speeders, even those 1mph over the limit, through dragnet surveillance?

They'd have to collect a lot of tickets to justify the cost. Are there really not more important things the legal system could be using it's resources to combat? There are child molesters and drug dealers out there.

The government is big and can do multiple things at once. Ensuring safe streets is an important responsibility. Vehicles kill many more people than child molesters and drug dealers combined.

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

#42

Post by thrower123 »

paggle wrote: post #41
thrower123 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They'd have to collect a lot of tickets to justify the cost. Are there really not more important things the legal system could be using it's resources to combat? There are child molesters and drug dealers out there.

The government is big and can do multiple things at once. Ensuring safe streets is an important responsibility. Vehicles kill many more people than child molesters and drug dealers combined.

Opiods are giving car fatalities a run for their money.

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

#43

Post by solveit »

paggle wrote: post #36
solveit wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I strenuously object to the idea that the government should be able to stop the spreading of publicly available truths in the name of public safety, especially over a justification as flimsy as "encourages reckless driving". I would be willing to revisit this debate when somebody figures out how to build nuclear weapons in their garage, not so much before that.

How do you feel about government setting up speed cameras at all of these side streets and issuing citations to all speeders, even those 1mph over the limit, through dragnet surveillance?

I don't see anything fundamentally wrong with enforcing the speed limit in such a way. Perhaps one could question its efficiency, or the fact that many laws and regulations are enforced inconsistently based on the whims of whoever happens to be in charge. But those seem like small evils, relatively speaking.

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

#44

Post by scarejunba »

nullc wrote: post #34
scarejunba wrote: post #2

Everyone wants to drive through other people's streets and wants no one to drive on theirs. Waze made it so this was evenly distributed. Of course the erstwhile privileged fear loss of privilege.

This isn't a fair read on the situation, the tension isn't between my streets and your streets, it's between major arterials and light residential streets. In many cases the arterials don't have anyone directly on them (or only commercial/industrial property)... specifically as part of their intended purpose. In fact, if the situation isn't addressed in a fair and intentional manner a my vs your issue will be created…

They cannot privatize by California law unless there is no current or prospective public use. Existing roads will remain. They can build new roads and keep them private. So be it. This is a trade-off I am willing to accept.

The navigation apps have no incentive to give you a worse experience by sending you down narrow roads.

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

#45

Post by scarejunba »

wcarron wrote: post #23
nostromo wrote: post #4

> No street, certainly not your residential 25-mph variety, is safe from being Wazed into a makeshift freeway or thoroughfare. ... These thousands of homeowners and renters have arguably been injured by Waze’s and Google’s successful privatization of formerly public streets. This is exactly backwards. The streets were effectively privatized before, via obscurity. It is Waze that has made formerly private streets publ…

That's complete BS. The roads have always been there, fulfilling their designated purpose; which is to handle the small amount of traffic the neighborhood residents generate in a safe manner. They were never meant to handle massive amounts of traffic, which actually does damage property values when potential buyers are scared off by unsafe streets.

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

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

#46

Post by scarejunba »

nullc wrote: post #33
PeterisP wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would consider that any driver who's following all the rules of the road and posted signs (which would and should be different for these small, narrow side streets) should be freely able to use that road if it gets them where they want to be faster or more conveniently, and that them using these streets in that way should NOT be considered abuse. If there's a mismatch between the planners' intent and the posted str…

> I would consider that any driver who's following all the rules of the road and posted signs (which would and should be different for these small, narrow side streets) Sweet. So you agree that adjusting the traffic laws and/or posting signs that say "No through traffic, transit to or from neighborhood properties only" would be sufficient to then permit enforcement actions? Those signs don't exist yet because prior t…

They can put up the signs if they want. I'll beat them in court because City of Lafayette vs Contra Costa County makes such selective prevention except for temporary construction work not enforceable.

Simply put: California has recognized our fair and even freedoms. You want to take them away? Molon labe.

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

#47

Post by nullc »

scarejunba wrote: post #46
nullc wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I would consider that any driver who's following all the rules of the road and posted signs (which would and should be different for these small, narrow side streets) Sweet. So you agree that adjusting the traffic laws and/or posting signs that say "No through traffic, transit to or from neighborhood properties only" would be sufficient to then permit enforcement actions? Those signs don't exist yet because prior t…

They can put up the signs if they want. I'll beat them in court because City of Lafayette vs Contra Costa County makes such selective prevention except for temporary construction work not enforceable. Simply put: California has recognized our fair and even freedoms. You want to take them away? Molon labe.

You misunderstand the case law there-- it establishes no such right, only that such actions must follow from acts of the legislature, rather than allowing municipal authorities to override the legislature.

[And in particular, the case law in California appears to be very liberal in allowing cities to close roads to cars entirely.]

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

#48

Post by scarejunba »

nullc wrote: post #47
scarejunba wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They can put up the signs if they want. I'll beat them in court because City of Lafayette vs Contra Costa County makes such selective prevention except for temporary construction work not enforceable. Simply put: California has recognized our fair and even freedoms. You want to take them away? Molon labe.

You misunderstand the case law there-- it establishes no such right, only that such actions must follow from acts of the legislature, rather than allowing municipal authorities to override the legislature. [And in particular, the case law in California appears to be very liberal in allowing cities to close roads to cars entirely.]

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.

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

#49

Post by nullc »

scarejunba wrote: post #48
nullc wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You misunderstand the case law there-- it establishes no such right, only that such actions must follow from acts of the legislature, rather than allowing municipal authorities to override the legislature. [And in particular, the case law in California appears to be very liberal in allowing cities to close roads to cars entirely.]

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?

That seems like a cutting off ones nose to spite one's face. I don't live in LA, nor do I personally suffer from waze traffic (in fact, I have the good fortune of having been able to select my location so that such things will never be a problem for me) ... but I've lived in Florida where it's the norm for communities to be constructed with single outlets, and its clearly a bad design that leads to more roadway congestion. Yes, it keeps neighborhoods free from being speedways, but it makes driving and the community less enjoyable for everyone else.

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

#50

Post by Doxin »

scarejunba wrote: post #45
wcarron wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's complete BS. The roads have always been there, fulfilling their designated purpose; which is to handle the small amount of traffic the neighborhood residents generate in a safe manner. They were never meant to handle massive amounts of traffic, which actually does damage property values when potential buyers are scared off by unsafe streets.

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.
Post reply on HN