Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war • Hacker News Board

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#441

Post by massysett » Mon, Jun 06, 2016, 10:27 PM UTC

Spooky23 wrote: post #239

sandworm101 wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One trick that I discovered was to hang not a sign, but simply something that looks like a high-visibility jacket. Drivers for a half second think it's might be a cop doing speed enforcement and slow down. I remember while at university seeing people slow because of an orange garbage garbage caught in a hedge 400m away. That bag was better at enforcing the speed limit than photo radar.

One of my parents neighbors took this a step further -- he bought a surplus blue Crown Vic, put a yellow day glow strip on one side and parked it on his land near the curb. At a glance, it looked like a state police cruiser.

I once saw a full-size, flat plastic dummy that looked like a police car from the side. Slowed everybody down too. It was only clear it was a dummy as you passed it.

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#442

Post by massysett » Mon, Jun 06, 2016, 10:33 PM UTC

pavel_lishin wrote: post #391

zippergz wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, this is when I've had a problem with it as well. A neighbor has the option of parking in front of his own house, or mine. He chooses mine, which results in a longer walk for him. Why would he do this? Because he doesn't like having a car parked in front of his house. Implicitly acknowledging that he sees having a car parked in front of the house is a bad thing, and by relieving himself of that bad thing, he's im…

Not a home-owner here, so I don't understand: why is having a car parked in front of your house a bad thing?

It just irritates people to look out there and see someone else's car. Most folks know anyone can park on the street, but they still get annoyed.

What's strange here is the guy is parking in front of someone else's house rather than his own. Never heard of that. I would think most people feel a false sense of possession over the street in front of their house, in part so they can park their own cars there and keep an eye on them.

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#443

Post by zippergz » Mon, Jun 06, 2016, 10:38 PM UTC

tormeh wrote: post #335

zippergz wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Portraying this as a sense of "owning" the street is unneccessarily perjorative, IMHO. I don't think that many people would argue with the idea that, all else being equal, having less traffic on the street in front of your house is a good thing. Less noise, less polution, less risk of pets and children getting hit by cars. So it shouldn't be surprising that people dislike it when traffic in front of their houses incr…

I think the point was more along the lines of "you don't get to appropriate the road that I helped fund with tax money and that belongs to everyone". I support that, actually. If it's a public road and I drive legally and responsibly then there's no problem. Just because your house is big doesn't mean that it's a farm where all surrounding land belongs to you.

> If it's a public road and I drive legally and responsibly then there's no problem

I guess you and I have a different definition of "problem." No, you're not breaking any law. And no, I don't have any standing to make you change what you're doing. But you ARE increasing traffic in front of my house, which is a problem for me. I believe that voluntarily avoiding creating problems for other people is part of living in a civilized society. Especially when the benefit I get from creating those problems is relatively small, as it almost always is when I take a shortcut through a neighborhood.

I think it’s important to acknowledge that the decisions we make do have impacts on other people. Legality shouldn’t be the only factor in our decision making.

And yes, I agree with chrisbennet that people are probably less likely to drive responsibly when they’re not in their own neighborhood (i.e. where they don’t feel the direct effect).

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#444

Post by devishard » Mon, Jun 06, 2016, 10:46 PM UTC

pnathan wrote: post #246

FroshKiller wrote: post #2

I'm a homeowner and an active Waze user. The street I live on is not "my" street. It's a public street that any licensed driver may use. I did have an issue with drivers coming around a blind curve too quickly to be safe, though, so I did what these homeowners ought to be doing and contacted my local government about getting my street assessed for a traffic calming project. The city created a three-way stop before th…

> I'm a homeowner and an active Waze user. The street I live on is not "my" street. It's a public street that any licensed driver may use. This is the correct analysis. Unless it's a gated subdivision, the streets are operated by the government for the broad public benefit; not the local benefit of the homeowners.

It's a bit odd that you brought up gated subdivisions; so you think that property taxes don't pay for the right to live on a quiet street? Only people who pay for a gated community get to live on quiet streets?

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#445

Post by jimmywanger » Mon, Jun 06, 2016, 10:48 PM UTC

knodi123 wrote: post #438

CamperBob2 wrote: post #412

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(Shrug) When I was a child, I was taught not to play in the street. Meanwhile, access for emergency vehicles can be pretty important for the rest of us.

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...

You're conflating two notions. One of a "penalty" which is something that is inflicted, and one of "consequences" which just happen.

Children who aren't taught money management and nutrition will end up having shorter and worse lives on the average. Is that a consequence or a penalty?

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#446

Post by e40 » Mon, Jun 06, 2016, 10:49 PM UTC

enoch_r wrote: post #352

e40 wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's an interesting story about Berkeley. The barriers they use were deemed illegal in a court case, but Berkeley didn't remove them. The truth about the barriers in Berkeley: they increase the values of some homes at the expense of others. If you live on a street with barriers that restrict traffic, then your house is worth more than one on the "approved" through streets.

Is it true that this increased the value of some homes at the expense of others? At least in Portland, where similar measures (though less widespread) have diverted auto traffic away from certain streets, they haven't diverted auto traffic away from one neighborhood street onto another--rather, the goal is to push auto traffic onto particular streets designed to carry high traffic volumes. People don't rent an apartm…

Is it true that this increased the value of some homes at the expense of others?

Yes, it did. When the barriers were put up, they made some streets more desirable and some less. More desirable == worth more. Less desirable == worth less.

You see, before barriers, all streets were mostly equal. Clearly some streets, like College Ave, Telegraph, etc. were not. But streets like Dwight and Haste (on the hill side) became much worse after the barriers went up.

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#447

Post by tomphoolery » Mon, Jun 06, 2016, 10:50 PM UTC

lliamander wrote: post #376

FroshKiller wrote: post #2

I'm a homeowner and an active Waze user. The street I live on is not "my" street. It's a public street that any licensed driver may use. I did have an issue with drivers coming around a blind curve too quickly to be safe, though, so I did what these homeowners ought to be doing and contacted my local government about getting my street assessed for a traffic calming project. The city created a three-way stop before th…

> Anything else just feels like NIMBY entitlement. I disagree. I also think there is a sense that our urban/suburban planning should serve more that just the interests of motorists, and should support activities other than just driving to/from work. My wife and I used to drive 45 minutes just to park on the outside of a nice residential neighborhood so we could take a walk. Now we can get to family, friends, parks, b…

> that doesn't mean that all streets should be maximally employed to reduce that congestion.

It does, actually, because all streets are connected and part of the same network. No matter what philosophy you subscribe to as to what the "goal" of suburban neighborhood planning is, the fact remains that since (almost) all streets are (eventually) connected, and thus the problem of lots of cars being able to drive on streets that you don't want lots of cars on is always going to be prevalent.

A better solution, IMHO, is to borrow an idea from the EPCOT[1] Concept that Walt Disney created...separating what it means to be a "street" into streets/walkways that only pedestrians may travel on, and streets that only cars may travel on. The way EPCOT would have been designed would have limited your ability to park your car very close to where things were congested. Instead, you'd park further away and take the free public transit or walk/bike where you want to go. Cars and supply trucks would always travel underground in a vast network of highways, leaving basically the entire surface of the city looking more like a massive park than a metropolis.

It would have been an incredible leap forward. Sadly, Disney died before his company turned it into "Epcot", just another Disney World theme park.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPCOT_(concept)

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#448

Post by c0nducktr » Mon, Jun 06, 2016, 10:54 PM UTC

jimktrains2 wrote: post #200

Declanomous wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the "No Through Traffic" was approved by the local government, it would carry the same weight of law as any other traffic sign. It sounds like this is the case, since their councilman is on their side. The wording does make it sound like the neighbors had an arts and crafts party and decided to create some signs though.

But if it's a road paid for with public money, how can use like this be restricted?

Tons of things are paid for with public money and still restricted.

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#449

Post by SolarNet » Mon, Jun 06, 2016, 10:54 PM UTC

knodi123 wrote: post #438

CamperBob2 wrote: post #412

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(Shrug) When I was a child, I was taught not to play in the street. Meanwhile, access for emergency vehicles can be pretty important for the rest of us.

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.

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#450

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Jun 06, 2016, 10:54 PM UTC

knodi123 wrote: post #438

CamperBob2 wrote: post #412

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(Shrug) When I was a child, I was taught not to play in the street. Meanwhile, access for emergency vehicles can be pretty important for the rest of us.

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...

[deleted]