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

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#61

Post by infecto » Mon, Jun 06, 2016, 3:27 PM UTC

jdblair wrote: post #17

The City of Berkeley, CA, fixed this problem a long time ago, before Waze or even widespread GPS. Every few blocks they block side streets to all vehicles except bicycles. The effect is to be forced to take right or left turns that guide you back to the main through street. Streets parallel to the through streets that are now impassible to cars are marked as "bicycle boulevards" and provide safer routes for cyclists.…

I love this solution so much. I wish SF would do something similar in outer richmond, one of my biggest concerns is driving down Fulton towards Ocean Beach and having cars pull out from residential stop signs, turning the opposite direction.

If I was dictator I would force all traffic to enter and exit the residential areas at the red lights and block the majority of other roads. I am sure it would be next to impossible though as the houses on those roads with lights would block it.

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#62

Post by djrogers » Mon, Jun 06, 2016, 3:27 PM UTC

Piskvorrr wrote: post #57

jschwartzi wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Welcome to rush hour in every major city.

...in America (where cities are actually built for cars and people are just annoying, barely tolerated parasites).

Or London, or Paris, or Rome, or Shanghai, or Mexico City, or.... I'm sure there are shining paragons of traffic efficiency and urban design somewhere in the world, but you're not exactly doing a good ob of pointing them out here.

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#63

Post by theseatoms » Mon, Jun 06, 2016, 3:29 PM UTC

potatolicious wrote: post #40

theseatoms wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> However, it was still a problem: there were frequently people way over the speed limit when we'd hardly expect it... Sounds like recourse should be attainable via law enforcement.

You can't ticket your way out of this problem - nor can you afford to over long periods of time. Stationing cops in enough places to actually discourage speeding is not practicable. There are fortunately lots of ways to fix this without stationing a cop every few blocks. Speed bumps are common, but imperfect. In my hometown on smaller residential streets struggling with too much through-traffic they've put traffic ci…

I totally agree with the approach you've described.

Ticketing is only the first step, a temporary solution that highlights unacceptable (to local residents) traffic patterns to the local government.

Waze and its user are surfacing inefficiencies in how traffic patterns have been engineered. Though it'll take time for communities to plan and implement solutions, these are definitely solvable problems.

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#64

Post by HillaryBriss » Mon, Jun 06, 2016, 3:29 PM UTC

mmoche wrote: post #44

HillaryBriss wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There seems to be a new reality, a new problem with population growth and GDP fetishism: GDP rises with the number of people participating in the economy, true. But GDP and accompanying tax revenues don't rise enough . Infrastructure becomes overloaded and the government fails to expand capacity sufficiently. Tax revenues rise somewhat, but, again, not enough to pay for the necessary expansion. Traffic gets worse. On…

Even if they had the power, or will, governments in ostensibly free nations shouldn't be forcing their population into a form of transport, just as they shouldn't be forcing their population into specific jobs, specific homes, or specific religions.

I view it a bit differently. Trading freedom for efficiency sometimes makes sense.

I have to admit that governments force us to do all kinds of things, and I accept that, mostly. For me the debate is about which things the government can mandate.

If turning three out of four lanes on LA's stretch of the 405 freeway into HOV lanes meant that commute times from the Valley to Culver City became a reliable 20 minutes, I think I might be happier.

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#65

Post by djrogers » Mon, Jun 06, 2016, 3:29 PM UTC

sandworm101 wrote: post #55

>>> Tim Connor stands by a sign his neighbor purchased to thwart commuters from cutting through their quiet residential street in Takoma Park, Md. So who here is the one really flouting the law? You are not allowed to simply erect traffic signs, nor are you allowed to restrict access to a neighbourhood. So it's no surprise that this guy then goes rogue on the app, a presumed violation of the eula/tos agreements.

That's more than a bit of a straw man there - the article never accused any of the drivers or the app companies of 'flouting the law'.

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#66

Post by jbmorgado » Mon, Jun 06, 2016, 3:29 PM UTC

Perhaps we could be more positive and instead of spending so much time trying to get his street off Waze instead help change the public opinion and city official to improve the public transit system or get more people to use bicycles, or both.

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#67

Post by wernercd » Mon, Jun 06, 2016, 3:29 PM UTC

paulddraper wrote: post #4

If it's faster to take a neighborhood street than the interstate , there's a problem. It's not normal. It sounds like residents are at war with transportation infrastructure instead.

Well the story mentions roadwork starts, traffic increasing... roadwork ends, traffic stays increased as some drivers now use that route as matter of habit...

I know I use a more varied bunch of routes thanks to Google Maps and Waze, some of which become preferred back-roads.

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#68

Post by Piskvorrr » Mon, Jun 06, 2016, 3:30 PM UTC

vidoc wrote: post #60

jdblair wrote: post #17

The City of Berkeley, CA, fixed this problem a long time ago, before Waze or even widespread GPS. Every few blocks they block side streets to all vehicles except bicycles. The effect is to be forced to take right or left turns that guide you back to the main through street. Streets parallel to the through streets that are now impassible to cars are marked as "bicycle boulevards" and provide safer routes for cyclists.…

They totally did! I don't count the times I forgot about this while I was stuck on the eastbound traffic on university ave, attempting to outsmart the traffic by cutting through the blocks on the south side. Most of those blocks are barricaded nimby style, and you end up having to drive several extra miles, worsening your carbon footprint!

"I was trying to outsmart traffic and ended up outsmarting myself, what injustice!"

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#69

Post by sandworm101 » Mon, Jun 06, 2016, 3:32 PM UTC

djrogers wrote: post #65

sandworm101 wrote: post #55

>>> Tim Connor stands by a sign his neighbor purchased to thwart commuters from cutting through their quiet residential street in Takoma Park, Md. So who here is the one really flouting the law? You are not allowed to simply erect traffic signs, nor are you allowed to restrict access to a neighbourhood. So it's no surprise that this guy then goes rogue on the app, a presumed violation of the eula/tos agreements.

That's more than a bit of a straw man there - the article never accused any of the drivers or the app companies of 'flouting the law'.

It accuses them of being focused on their cellphones, with the implication that this is impacting their driving. That's generally a traffic offence, either distracted driving or cellphone use depending on the local laws.

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#70

Post by CWuestefeld » Mon, Jun 06, 2016, 3:33 PM UTC

djrogers wrote: post #51

astrodust wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a certain amount of irony here that people are complaining about cars clogging up their streets but think nothing of what they do when they're driving through other neighbourhoods, especially more urban ones. Suddenly they get a taste of why people living downtown are not too enthused about highways bringing in more people. A lot of this mess stems from the absurd designs of modern American subdivisions with…

> 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 that he oughtn't let his kids play in the street. He started ranting, so I pulled away, and he shouted after me "SLOW DOWN YOU ASSHOLE!!".

When I got home, upset by this, I went back and looked at my logs. I also use an app called Torque that logs all the data from my car's OBDII port, and GPS data as well. So 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.

My conclusion from just one datapoint is that people are irrational about what they allow their kids to do (play in the road) while expecting other people to accept and mitigate the potential risk; and also that people have little ability to estimate vehicle speed accurately.