Weary Homeowners Wage War On Waze

HughPickens.com writes: For many drivers, the app Waze is a godsend, providing real-time, crowdsourced traffic tips to motorists desperate for alternatives to congested thoroughfares but to some residents of the formerly quiet neighborhoods through which Waze has rerouted countless commuters, the app has destroyed their quality of life. Steve Hendrix writes at the Washington Post that when traffic on Timothy Connor's quiet Maryland street in Tamoka Park, MD suddenly jumped by several hundred cars an hour, he knew that Waze was to blame for routing cars around a months-long road repair through his neighborhood. "I could see them looking down at their phones," says Connor. "We had traffic jams, people were honking. It was pretty harrowing." So Connor became a Waze Warrior. Every rush hour, he went on the Google-owned social-media app and posted false reports of a wreck, speed trap or other blockage on his street, hoping to deflect some of the flow. Neighbors filed false reports of blockages, sometimes with multiple users reporting the same issue to boost their credibility. "It used to be that only locals knew all the cut-through routes, but Google Maps and Waze are letting everyone know," says Bates Mattison. "In some extreme cases, we have to address it to preserve the sanctity of a residential neighborhood." But Waze was way ahead of them. It's not possible to fool the system for long, according to Waze officials. For one thing, the system knows if you're not actually in motion. More importantly, it constantly self-corrects, based on data from other drivers. "The nature of crowdsourcing is that if you put in a fake accident, the next 10 people are going to report that it's not there," says Julie Mossler, Waze's head of communications. The company will suspend users they suspect of "tampering with the map."

Comments

Slow them with real traffic

[borcharc]

The neighborhood associations need to hire someone to drive back and forward on the route at 2.5 mph during peek hours.

Re:Slow them with real traffic

[Ichijo]

A residential street...is almost always 25 miles per hour or even less. Not many peopple who are trying to avoid traffic eve drive that speed.

This is why they need to put back in the roadside trees, the ones they remove with great enthusiasm because motorists keep hitting them. Roadside trees give motorists a greater sense of speed so they will drive more slowly.

These neighborhoods only need to convince their local traffic "engineers" (I use this word in the most optimistic sense possible) that a few airbag-equipped cars hitting trees is a much better outcome than neighborhood children getting mowed down.

Re:Slow them with real traffic

[DarkOx]

You joke but the bedroom community I used to live in does in fact hire "traffic calmers" to essentially drive around during the rush hours 7a-10a, 11:30a-1:30a, 4:30p-6p along the main roots at exactly the speed limit (or slightly less).

You could always spot them because they were older obviously retirees who could have and would have reasonably avoided going out at those times otherwise.

I can't say I am in favor of it, but I can say a few things for it.

1) It did not cost the city much. They paid basically minimum wage + the federal mileage rate. Much cheaper than paying police officers overtime to do more traffic enforcement or hiring more officers.

2) It probably did improve safety and reduce noise somewhat

3) As irritating as sitting behind someone doing exactly 25MPH might be, its less irritating than a traffic citation.

Re: Slow them with real traffic

[Ogive17]

I would like to add something to your excellent post.

In theory, the roads to belong to all of us. However depending on your municipality, how the funds for road maintenance are distributed often coincide with how much tax the residents on that road pay.

When you take a quiet residential street and suddenly increase the volume 100 fold, do you think they are going to take away highway maintenance funds to repair that, especially when it was not meant to be a detour around construction?

I feel the residents have a very legitimate reason to be upset. Now, who they should be upset with is more easily debated. Patience in our society is gone, everyone looking for a shortcut.

Re: Slow them with real traffic

[dcooper_db9]

I have lived in both China and Japan, where they set up giant illumination lights, and work around the clock in a bustle of activity until the project is done.

In and around DC road construction is done just as you describe. We also have a mobile factory that can pave a lane of the highway at about 10 miles per hour. It's actually pretty impressive.

Re:That's just too damn bad.

[Anonymous Coward]

You missed the problem of listening to braking and accelerating at all hours as people slow down for and then speed up over the bumps.

Lived out the front of one for years. A few neighbours and I conspired together and got out there with pickaxes one night. It was never put back.

Re: That's just too damn bad.

[TroII]

The second amendment specifically states the right to bear arms is for use in a militia.

No it doesn't, it uses the necessity of a militia as a reason justify why the people (not "the militia") have the right to bear arms. Take the following hypothetical statement:

"Proper sanitation, being necessary to the preparation of healthy food, the right of the people to wash their hands, shall not be infringed."

Would you interpret that statement to say that only people who prepare food are allowed to wash their hands?

Re:Mod parent up

[uncqual]

And, in exchange for excluding "outsiders" who didn't pay a special assessment for your street maintenance, you will agree to stay off all streets which others, but not you, have paid a special assessment for the maintenance of?

Probably a pretty good trade off for all of us because you likely be unable to go much of anywhere and that will reduce congestion for the rest of us.

(It will be a damned shame when the homeowners a couple blocks over refuse to let the fire trucks through to your house because the fire trucks are acting on your behalf and you didn't contribute to the special assessment for their road maintenance - but, again, the world might be better off as a result of your demands for exclusive use of "your" roads.)

Re:We paid enough taxes

[Solandri]

That seems like a lot of work. The city I lived in just put up signs closing those streets to anyone except residents during rush hour, and passed a law allowing police to ticket people attempting to cut through those streets. Every rush hour, there'd be at least one police car who'd follow one random car turning into the residential street, to see if they went to a house or if they were using it to bypass traffic.

Re:That's just too damn bad.

[serviscope_minor]

It will also frustrate the drivers who live on the street. Speed bumps probably cause more suspension damage than all the other problems with our road system put together, not to mention being annoying. I'm firmly of the opinion that they should be banned nationwide.

Here's a clue:

Don't go too fast and your suspension will be fine.

Damaged your suspension? Well, you went too fast. Now excuse me while I go and play the world's tiniest violin.

As a pedestrian I find douchebag entitled drivers going too fast far more annoying than I find speed bumps as a driver. Perhaps that's because I don't believe I ought to be able to hammer it down whatever streets I like regardledss of how appropriate.

Oddly enough, I never damaged any suspension on a road hump.

Re:Mod parent up

[dfghjk]

"Besides, our roads weren't engineered to handle thousands of vehicles a day..."

I wonder how you know these things? These aren't even your roads at all, they are city property.

I'm confident the roads you talk about weren't "engineered" to handle traffic in any way, they were simply built to accommodate the developers plans and to meet city codes.

And then there's the "kids playing in the street" excuse. Keep the kids out of traffic. Streets aren't a playground for children, they are for cars driving places.

If you don't want public access to local streets, you should live somewhere where local roads are privately owned and you should pay extra for the privilege. As is, all you demonstrate is entitlement.