Slashdot Mirror


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."

445 of 767 comments (clear)

  1. Slow them with real traffic by borcharc · · Score: 5, Interesting

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

    1. Re:Slow them with real traffic by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 5, Funny

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

      But what about the poke hours?

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    2. Re:Slow them with real traffic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

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

      Have everyone on the block park as far off the curb in the street as is legal to slow down the traffic.

      Or just find out where Julie Mossler lives and report faster traffic through her neighborhood.

    3. Re:Slow them with real traffic by msauve · · Score: 1

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

      Hire peeping toms?

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    4. Re:Slow them with real traffic by 50000BTU_barbecue · · Score: 2

      You've peaked my interest with your comment.

      --
      Mostly random stuff.
    5. Re:Slow them with real traffic by inode_buddha · · Score: 1

      I think you mean "piqued"
      https://www.google.com/search?...

      --
      C|N>K
    6. Re:Slow them with real traffic by TheAngryArmadillo · · Score: 3, Funny

      -----> The Joke You -----

    7. Re:Slow them with real traffic by 50000BTU_barbecue · · Score: 2

      Way to poke fun at me.

      --
      Mostly random stuff.
    8. Re:Slow them with real traffic by eth1 · · Score: 1

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

      Except that many places have laws about "obstructing traffic."

      If it's really heavy traffic, what they really need to do is get residents to legally park along both sides of the street during rush hour, so there's only room for one lane of traffic between them. Then several others drive down the street opposing the flow of traffic, get to the bottleneck, and simply refuse to back up (there's really no clear right-of-way), with other residents coming in behind them. Once it backs up from the other direction, and they can't back up either, it will create a lovely snarl that people will learn to avoid.

      Or if you have front driveways, have the neighbors park all around yours, and get "stuck" trying back a trailer in or out, make a u-turn with it, or something.

    9. Re:Slow them with real traffic by Desler · · Score: 5, Funny

      Thanks for explaining the joke, Admiral Aspergers. *golf clap*

    10. Re:Slow them with real traffic by geggam · · Score: 1

      Damn Sprites peeking and poking each other

    11. Re:Slow them with real traffic by hackwrench · · Score: 1

      Bsck in the day, they'd AND, OR, and XOR each other, too... and occasionally they might do it with tiles... so I've heard.

    12. Re: Slow them with real traffic by saloomy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Are you all fucking nuts?

      Those roads do not belong to property owners, residents, or communities (unless hey are private and gated). They belong to the tax-paying public, the owners are those users driving down the road!

      Those cars are getting better gas mileage not sitting in bumper to bumper traffic.

      Those users can get home faster to their families, and so can you since you can drive through some other neighborhoods when traffic backs up.

      The big roads will be a bit clearer if emergency personnel need to get through traffic to save a life.

      If you want the "sanctity" of your own neighborhood, go buy property in a gated community with HOA fees, so you own a part of the street you and your fucking neighbors are demand exclusive rights to. Now get off my lawn!

    13. Re:Slow them with real traffic by Petfish · · Score: 1

      Once it backs up from the other direction, and they can't back up either, it will create a lovely snarl that people will learn to avoid.

      Apparently your suggestion to this "foreign" traffic causing congestion in your sainted neighborhoods is to create congestion in your neighborhoods.

    14. Re:Slow them with real traffic by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      You didn't build that.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    15. Re:Slow them with real traffic by TheReaperD · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Neither did the property owners.

      --
      "Be particularly skeptical when presented with evidence confirming what you already believe." -
    16. Re:Slow them with real traffic by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Once it backs up from the other direction, and they can't back up either, it will create a lovely snarl that people will learn to avoid.

      Apparently your suggestion to this "foreign" traffic causing congestion in your sainted neighborhoods is to create congestion in your neighborhoods.

      Much safer congestion by the way. The problem with sending traffic in a hurry to avoid traffic congestion on the main highways onto local streets, is that the local streets are simply not designed for the traffic. A residential street has vehicles parked on both sides, and is almost always 25 miles per hour or even less. Not many peopple who are trying to avoid traffic eve drive that speed. It isn't safe for children playing in their yards - hey, a child chasing a ball onto the road should not be punisible by death.

      We have had a little bit of trouble, not much. we just contact the local police, and people like yourself get hammered. You might consider some folks driving slowly at rush hours, and impeding your trip home to be the least of the problems you will have. We'll even know about you before you get here. We have the app as well.

      You want to drive in my neighborhood, you are most welcome, it's a beautiful place. . But not as a pack of people speeding to get someplace else in hurry, on a road never designed for that traffic level.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    17. Re:Slow them with real traffic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      More to the point, hire some bikini models and have them do yard-work, and the toms will slow traffic down on their own accord.

    18. Re: Slow them with real traffic by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The drivers are going through the neighborhood to route around construction. The root problem is that the construction is taking months to complete. Americans may be surprised, but in many other countries major road repairs are completed in days. 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 America, you just see idle equipment, and occasionally a couple guys in hard hats chatting while drinking coffee. America has the world's most expensive and dysfunctional processes for repairing infrastructure.

    19. Re: Slow them with real traffic by saloomy · · Score: 2

      What are you talking about? Using an app while driving = becoming Darwinized? If you can't seriously drive 35MPh while getting directions from waze that help you on your journey, I'm sorry you must be terribly handicapped. Most humans are capable of managing to wait for the upcoming turn direction while operating a motor vehicle at residential speeds, FYI.

    20. Re:Slow them with real traffic by antdude · · Score: 1

      Wooooooosh! :P

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    21. Re: Slow them with real traffic by saloomy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Irrespective. Construction or not, it's still a right-of-access issue. And the public have a right of access down a publicly funded road.

    22. Re: Slow them with real traffic by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      Not really. It's very common for city traffic engineers to block selected streets in neighborhoods to prevent thru traffic. Essentially creating many artificial cul-de-sac's. Many neighborhoods have only one entry and exit point so there is no ability to cut thru.

      This is another example of design pre- technology which will be done differently now that the technology exists.

      It's sort of like turning lanes that were a good idea until traffic exceeded their capacity and more importantly driving "manners" changed and drivers started turning into and out everywhere and even driving against traffic to get to the middle lane. So now we have concrete medians again and restricted entry and exit points which can't be reached by cutting across from the opposite side of the street.

      The easiest fix is to close one side of the neighborhood for a few months so there is no thru traffic there.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    23. Re:Slow them with real traffic by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 3, Funny

      Damn Sprites peeking and poking each other

      Stop using BASIC!

      Assign to and from unsigned char * like a proper programmer.
       

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    24. Re:Slow them with real traffic by Z00L00K · · Score: 2

      Just park trucks on the incoming ends of the streets in question combined with some road work signs.

      The main problem though is the lack of alternate routes for traffic.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    25. Re: Slow them with real traffic by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

      In some cases it's true, in others not. Some road work is hard to complete in a short time, but scheduling the work on some tasks to night time when the traffic is low can improve things a lot.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    26. Re:Slow them with real traffic by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      Usually, roads are built by the company that puts in new housing divisions. After all, it is hard to sell a house that has no road in front of it.

      The cost of the road is part of the house list price. So the property owners didn't wield the shovels, but they own the road more so than some dope following a phone app does.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    27. Re:Slow them with real traffic by Ichijo · · Score: 1

      The main problem though is the lack of alternate routes for traffic.

      Actually, the main problem is that the main routes are priced below market equilibrium. This is why traffic congestion exists in the first place, by definition.

      Freeway traffic congestion is a problem that has already been solved by variable tolling. And local traffic congestion is caused by too many places to park ("induced demand"), just as surely as mosquitoes are caused by standing water. Once we stop expecting to get everything for free, we can start to make real progress in permanently eliminating traffic congestion.

      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    28. Re: Slow them with real traffic by Aereus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      To be fair, I doubt these residential roads were built with such traffic in mind. Speed limits, intersections, shoulder/easement types, etc. are designed with a certain number of cars per hour in mind. I can see how it could be a safety issue, especially if children are involved (wanting to play outside, but now its a solid line of traffic and the parents don't want to risk their ball going into the road or something)

    29. Re:Slow them with real traffic by Ichijo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    30. Re:Slow them with real traffic by queBurro · · Score: 1

      I think you got wooshed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      --
      sag
    31. Re: Slow them with real traffic by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Those roads do not belong to property owners, residents, or communities (unless hey are private and gated). They belong to the tax-paying public, the owners are those users driving down the road!

      Irrelevant -- it is a road with a specific intended purpose, and that purpose is not as a main thoroughfare. In the UK we call residential areas co-opted into mainstream use this way "rat runs", and they are a significant public safety problem. The turn-of-the-century approach to rat runs here was "traffic calming measures" (everything from blocking off one end of the road to speed bumps, cobblestones and choke-points where only one car can pass at a time, with priority given to cars leaving the area) and that was usually only required on fairly straight sections. The only real hazard that it let through was cavalier motorcycle couriers with an intimate local knowledge of backstreets (but even that wasn't much of a problem, as motorcyclists are allowed to "filter" through traffic jams anyway, so are happy to stay on major thoroughfares). Waze and similar speed-aware services now offer every user the knowledge of those motorcycle couriers, and direct people down roads that are not designed for that sort of traffic.

      Your argument is "the roads belong to all of us, so we can do what we like with them", which seems fair enough. But you wouldn't accept that I can dig up a road and melt down the bitumen for resale. Why not? Because that's not what it's there for. The town hall may "belong" to me, but I can't just set up a woodworking studio in it, because that's not what it's there for..

      Now simplistically a road is for "driving on", so this is a controversial case, but if you go to City Hall and check the documents, you'll be able to see what the road's intended usage was, and you'll see that "rat run" is not part of the planned spec.

      --
      Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
    32. Re:Slow them with real traffic by some+old+guy · · Score: 1

      I like your thinking.

      --
      Scruting the inscrutable for over 50 years.
    33. Re: Slow them with real traffic by Bert64 · · Score: 2

      It's not as simple as that...

      By increasing congestion on the minor roads, now others (ie those who need to use those minor roads) will take longer to get anywhere and their cars will get worse mileage.

      Taking a minor road to avoid congestion elsewhere only works if not many people are doing it, once you get a significant number of cars on a minor road it will become even more congested than the highway. Highways are designed to carry large numbers of cars, residential streets are not.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    34. Re:Slow them with real traffic by DarkOx · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    35. Re: Slow them with real traffic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Residential roads are usually built during a new residential construction for the purpose of providing access to those houses, with the assumption that they will not be used routinely for through traffic, and maintained accordingly by the local government.

      This is one of those social contract things that libertarians of low intelligence don't seem to understand. Most of the world works because people choose not to act like cunts, not because there are laws against acting like a cunt. If you promote rule-based society rather than value-based society, most people will end up fucked.

    36. Re: Slow them with real traffic by orlanz · · Score: 1

      Perfect, the solution is to keep the poor and lower class stuck in their poor neighborhoods. They can find all their education and employment needs in their ghettos. If they have a problem with that, well they can use the roads to move to richer neighborhoods in the middle of the night.

      Problem solved! Good day sir. I said GOOD DAY SIR!

    37. Re: Slow them with real traffic by ntshma · · Score: 1

      Part of the reason the home owners have a problem with the through traffic is that most often the traffic is traveling well above the speed limit in neighborhoods where children play.

    38. Re: Slow them with real traffic by Sir+Holo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Are you all fucking nuts?

      Those cars are getting better gas mileage not sitting in bumper to bumper traffic... Those users can get home faster to their families, and so can you since you can drive through some other neighborhoods when traffic backs up... Now get off my lawn!

      Those cars you mention are hitting pedestrians in my residential neighborhood with increasing frequency. Some of the pedestrians don't get home to their families. EMTs cannot get to them quickly because these side-roads, not intended for dual-lane or heavy traffic, become clotted with traffic when someone gets hit.

      Go piss on your lawn.

    39. Re: Slow them with real traffic by Gussington · · Score: 1

      Those roads do not belong to property owners...

      All power is assumed. You assume the right to drive down my street, I assume I have the right to try and prevent you. Let the games begin!

    40. Re:Slow them with real traffic by Gussington · · Score: 1

      Even easier, go buy some bricks.
      Leave bricks randomly scattered on your street.
      Rinse and repeat.

    41. Re: Slow them with real traffic by nucrash · · Score: 1

      First world problems.

      These people can go pay for more expensive property elsewhere.

      --
      Place something witty here
    42. Re: Slow them with real traffic by dfghjk · · Score: 1

      "The easiest fix..."

      Fix? That alone shows you're on the wrong side of the problem.

    43. Re: Slow them with real traffic by Ogive17 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

      --
      "Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
    44. Re: Slow them with real traffic by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      It's the same in the UK, except our guys tend to be drinking really bad tea.

      In Japan I saw they have these road making machines. Basically two big trucks. The one at the front rips up the old road surface and deposits it in a bucket on the back. The one at the back lays a new road surface from a tank of tarmac or whatever they use these days. The two roll along at less than walking speed, with a team of workers cleaning up after them and finishing any imperfections. The new road surface is ready to use by the morning so they do sections overnight.

      I think maybe the key to this high level of efficiency is not allowing utility pits in the middle of the road. If there are man-hole covers everywhere you have to manually dig up and surface the road every time.

      The other trick they do is to make the road surface out of pre-fabricated slabs. Like concrete roads, but with a better surface that they fill and melt to cover the gaps, and which doesn't make so much noise. I've seen the water company dig a huge trench, fix a leak and cover it again in a single night thanks to this.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    45. Re:Slow them with real traffic by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      We fixed it by bothering the city until they installed some 4 way stops. we had 4 people at every single local govt meeting demanding the addition of 2 stop signs. it only took 3 months of bothering them to get it done.

      This made traffic congestion far higher when it was used for a bypass and waze stopped recommending it. Plus it had the advantage of slowing down the asshats that think 45mph in a 25mph residential street is acceptable.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    46. Re: Slow them with real traffic by onepoint · · Score: 1

      Everything you said is correct. Most of the road's are public unless in a gated community. The possible problem is not really Waze, it's the drivers. What this problem is pointing out is the lack of a mass transit solution and driver education, Now public communities can gate off roads or just outright block roads with street gardens. A problem for some property owners but makes the community back into a low traffic volume community.

      --
      if you see me, smile and say hello.
    47. Re: Slow them with real traffic by onepoint · · Score: 1

      While your idea makes perfect sense, the only issue might be road level between slabs. otherwise, that's a great idea.

      --
      if you see me, smile and say hello.
    48. Re: Slow them with real traffic by TheCastro1689 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Kids aren't allowed to play outside in Maryland, neighbors call the cops on them for "free ranging their kids". http://www.usatoday.com/story/... Enjoy, I think a judge finally tossed it, but this is MD in a nutshell.

    49. Re: Slow them with real traffic by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      "Now simplistically a road is for "driving on", so this is a controversial case, but if you go to City Hall and check the documents, you'll be able to see what the road's intended usage was, and you'll see that "rat run" is not part of the planned spec."

      This is not in the UK. Construction is going the main road so traffic is flowing onto other roads. This is a temporary situation and once construction is done traffic will return to the normal flow. So yes too bad for the people on the street and yes if they really don't like it they can go to city hall and see if they can get traffic calming put in on their streets.
      Personally I would just wait for the construction to finish than spend the next 20 years dealing with speed bumbs on my road.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    50. Re: Slow them with real traffic by JackieBrown · · Score: 1

      I know I'm safer using Waze r Google Maps then how I drove before (printing out directions and trying to read them while driving and before that using an Atlas.)

    51. Re:Slow them with real traffic by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      The problem with this is that presumably the neighbors need to use the road too, and need to use it at rush hour. Indeed, that's almost certainly half the complaint.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    52. Re:Slow them with real traffic by Drethon · · Score: 1

      This isn't exactly a new thing though. My city thought boulevarding streets was a grand idea. The result was the one or two residential streets you can use to get into the area have nearly everyone driving 35+ and often people driving over 50 on a cramped street with cars parked on either side.

    53. Re: Slow them with real traffic by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      You've just invented a consequence that has no basis in reality. Reality is opposite to what you describe.

      "Free" parking still ends up getting paid for, in higher prices. It also makes transit accessible communities virtually impossible to build. It massively raises the cost of living, forcing people to own cars due to lack of alternatives, and forcing up costs for businesses.

      An environment in which you're forced to use a car to look for work or buy groceries isn't low income friendly (it's not anyone friendly, to be honest.)

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    54. Re:Slow them with real traffic by jabberw0k · · Score: 1

      Five of us riding our bicycles on the street is a perfectly legitimate thing, and we are riding correctly by each occupying the full width of our lane. You car drivers can wait. If you don't like this, we will switch to riding horse-and-buggy instead.

    55. Re:Slow them with real traffic by tigersha · · Score: 1

      I am sure your little friend called "Interest" has peaked but your change to poke tonight would be better if you learn to spell "piqued" correctly

      PS. Curious name you have for the little fella!

      --
      The dangers of excessive individualism are nothing compared to the oppressiveness of excessive collectivism
    56. Re:Slow them with real traffic by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      This is why they need to put back in the roadside trees, the ones they remove with great enthusiasm because motorists keep hitting them.

      I love the logic of those folks - hit a tree, and it is the tree's fault.

      I wonder if these Einsteins ever consider that perhaps the tree is keeping the driver from hitting something else, like a house, or a person.

      I'm fortunate that my neighborhood hasn't joined in that idiocy. We have a lot of trees, and they line the roadways with beauty.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    57. Re: Slow them with real traffic by dcooper_db9 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

      --
      I do not block ads. I do block third party scripts.
    58. Re: Slow them with real traffic by CWCheese · · Score: 1

      True, very true. when I move to a new city I always bought maps or went to the AAA to obtain free ones to map out routes from my new home to work and other places I wanted to go, and searched out numerous alternate routes - HORROR of HORRORS - through residential side streets to give me options in the event of traffic congestion. Waze, Google, Garmin, etc. didn't exist in the primitive past, just my understanding of NESW and lines on colored paper. Public throughways are not private driveways for the entitled few.

      --
      Have a Day!
    59. Re: Slow them with real traffic by wicka_wicka · · Score: 1

      "But you wouldn't accept that I can dig up a road and melt down the bitumen for resale."

      Get out with such childish and obvious strawman arguments. He only suggested that he has the right to drive on public roads, which he unquestionably does. If you cannot provide a rebuttal to that argument, and that argument alone, your post is utterly meaningless. Seriously, this is a textbook example of a strawman.

      "but if you go to City Hall and check the documents, you'll be able to see what the road's intended usage was, and you'll see that "rat run" is not part of the planned spec." No you won't. "Rat run" is a colloquial concept, it's not a real thing. City hall does not have regulate usage of public roads in that matter. Your entire post is literal nonsense. Meaningless drivel. I cannot stand you.

      --
      hi
    60. Re:Slow them with real traffic by CWCheese · · Score: 1

      that's only useful for the guys using C=64 powered GPS

      --
      Have a Day!
    61. Re: Slow them with real traffic by wicka_wicka · · Score: 1

      The difference is that 18-wheelers tend to be explicitly banned from such streets. Regular car traffic is not. You people boggle the mind. There is no legal justification whatsoever for suggesting that residential streets cannot be driven on - period.

      --
      hi
    62. Re: Slow them with real traffic by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Depends on the purpose of the road. If the purpose of the road is to provide access to the property owners in the area rather than provide a thoroughfare for commuters then I disagree. Just because your taxes paid for it doesn't magically make it yours for the same reason I can't drive a hummer down the footpath.

      Many other countries take this approach. In some cities I've lived in you're split into zones. You're not allowed to travel between these zones even if there are roads that allow you to without going onto the highway for the express purpose of reducing traffic, and increasing safety. Incidentally this was also advertised as an inconvenience measure, and that city now has the highest of bicycle to car ratio in the world.

      Back closer to home there were thousands of streets with signs that said "local traffic only". Driving into the street without the express purpose of stopping somewhere therein was a "$200" fine. Or a street I used to live in had a no right turn between 7am and 9am sign on it which prevented people from the busy road using it as a shortcut.

      Those signs were paid for by taxes :)

    63. Re: Slow them with real traffic by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      Kids aren't allowed to play outside in Maryland, neighbors call the cops on them for "free ranging their kids"

      WoW!!

      Seriously?

      Geez, I guess my parents if I were a kid today would have been tar'ed and feathered for letting me run wild. Heck they both worked and I stayed at home during the summers when older, but when young, I either Mom was home or I stayed with my cousins at my Aunts house, but even then, I'd get up early int he morning and unless I came home for lunch I was all over the neighborhood or in the woods near our home all day having fun....I'd just usually call from a neighbors house to check in every 2-3 hours when I was younger.

      I feel for kids today if they don't have this type of freedom.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    64. Re: Slow them with real traffic by Gramie2 · · Score: 1

      Funny, when I lived in Japan I remember construction on some roads that had started before I arrived and was still going on when I left, seven years later.

      Japan may be a model of efficiency in some (limited) ways, but this certainly wasn't one, in my experience.

    65. Re: Slow them with real traffic by tsqr · · Score: 1

      Those roads do not belong to property owners, residents, or communities (unless hey are private and gated). They belong to the tax-paying public, the owners are those users driving down the road!

      So, if you're in my state and you're commuting from Town A to Town C, you should stay the hell off the residential streets in Town B. Residential roads are built and maintained by the town in which they are located. Non-resident commuters passing through the town don't pay anything for the construction or maintenance of these roads.

    66. Re: Slow them with real traffic by b0bby · · Score: 1

      Those cars are getting better gas mileage not sitting in bumper to bumper traffic.

       

      It's funny that this story is about Takoma Park, which is noted for its passive aggressive hippies. You would think that they'd want to save some gas, but they are the biggest bunch of NIMBYs around....

    67. Re:Slow them with real traffic by Cederic · · Score: 2

      Great. Your solution really is to create a shitty stupid fucked up junction.

      Four way stop signs are just fucking idiotic. There are pretty much no circumstances in which they're an optimal solution.

    68. Re: Slow them with real traffic by RKThoadan · · Score: 1

      Whether there is a legal justification or not depends on the laws where you are. In some places "local traffic only" is legally enforceable. If that is not the case the laws can be changed.

    69. Re: Slow them with real traffic by spacepimp · · Score: 1

      In China they do not have unions and or nearly the same set of safety guidelines protecting the workers.

    70. Re: Slow them with real traffic by mi · · Score: 1

      Depends on the purpose of the road.

      Actually, no it does not.

      Just because your taxes paid for it doesn't magically make it yours

      Nobody else claimed it to be theirs for this reason — nor for any other reason. Except for the locals — even if they still want the others to help them remove snow from there.

      It is public — which means, any member of the public can drive on it.

      "Ah, but child likes to play there!!!" — too bad, teach him not to play, where the cars and other heavy machinery operate. "Slow children" grow up into slow adults...

      Bad enough, that locals can put a policeman to exact tolls from outsiders — by giving them citations while letting locals off with a warning. For the local residents to sabotage even lawful access to the public street is utterly unethical.

      Screw them — with rusty and dirty exhaust pipes.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    71. Re: Slow them with real traffic by c5402dc53929211e1efb · · Score: 1

      enjoy jail then I guess?

    72. Re: Slow them with real traffic by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 2

      It is not the UK, no, but unless US law mandates that all public roads are constructed at highway grade, the same underlying principles should apply. I understand this a temporary situation due to ongoing works, but I suspect that in the US you have the same concept of "diversion" as here -- an official alternative route to get you where you wanted to go. Much of these alternative routes are planned in advance, and roads are specifically built to withstand the extra load of functioning as a diverted route.

      People straying off the diverted route is becoming a serious issue in the GPS age, as people follow their computers off-track and break the flow of traffic. Edinburgh Council had to block off loads of side streets during the recent city centre works to keep people on the path. Diversions are never as quick as the route they replace, but sticking to them is the fair and equitable thing to do. Greedily picking your own most convenient route leads to a tragedy-of-the-commons situation.

      --
      Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
    73. Re:Slow them with real traffic by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 2

      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).

      Did that include the branches and the trunk routes as well?

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    74. Re: Slow them with real traffic by hey! · · Score: 1

      Well, the streets may not belong to the homeowners, but the whole system is a tradeoff between competing and somewhat different mutually exclusive uses of streets: moving non-local traffic through an area vs. living on.

      So what planners and engineers do is to try to segregate uses to achieve a reasonable tradoff. This application doesn't necessarily make a better trade-off; it simply exploits an assumption made by traffic planners: that circuitous routes through local street networks are impractical for through-traffic drivers to plot. This makes things better for the app users with no costs to them, but this is not necessarily a better overall tradeoff because that discounts the other system users. Fighting the app by posting false data is essentially the same thing: taking unilateral steps to force de facto changes in the tradeoff.

      It would be better for the community which regulates the street network to make a policy decision about how it wants to tradeoff those applications, and then use traffic engineering to enforce that policy. This could be as simple as making some streets one way; setting lower speed limits; and using traffic-limiting measures like alternating side head-in parking; or even outright banning non-local traffic on some streets.

      Yes, it's within the rights of any driver to use any street in any manner which isn't forbidden by law; but it's within the rights of municipalities to discourage that or even ban it.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    75. Re: Slow them with real traffic by Jack_of_Shadow · · Score: 1

      Exactly. These homeowners all probably drive down other neighborhood streets to save time, but when it comes to their own, GOD, Heaven forbid someone else do it. If the oncoming traffic disobeys traffic laws, that is one thing, but you as a homeowner on a public street, do not own the street.

      --
      My not responding to your flame is in no way indicative of my submission to your statement, it just means I don't have t
    76. Re: Slow them with real traffic by Holi · · Score: 1

      Funny, I thought a similar thing about Private land when the logging company sued for right of way access across my property, then made sure to be assholes every time they drove through (speeding, forcing me off my own driveway, threatening me when I confronted them, and the police do nothing). Public property does not mean it's use cannot be regulated (ie no thru-traffic, local access only).

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    77. Re: Slow them with real traffic by anjrober · · Score: 1

      while i agree with you, just last week i got pulled over on a "locals only" street. they are trying to prevent people from cutting thru the neighborhood.
      i think its total BS. that said, even though i lied to the cop twice, and he caught me twice, he only gave me a warning
      still BS.

    78. Re: Slow them with real traffic by The-Ixian · · Score: 1

      Apparently there are noise laws too but it seems to be an American past time to gun the throttle as much as possible when traveling down residential roads.

      That's the main issue I have with people coming through residential roads... the utter lack of respect. I mean, just think for a minute how you would like it if people with "modified" exhaust systems floored the gas pedal in front of your house all day long...

      --
      My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
    79. Re:Slow them with real traffic by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      For a shithead like you that speeds through the neighborhood because you are too stupid to understand that 25mph means you go that speed or slower? yep.

          It made life for everyone in the neighborhood a lot better.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    80. Re: Slow them with real traffic by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      THIS!

      I remember after an earthquake in LA that part of the I10 freeway had collapsed, and was a major disruption. The contractor that won the bid, put in a clause that he would be paid a sum of money per day it was completed ahead of the schedule put forth in the RFP for the repairs. He completed the project 74 days ahead of schedule.

      You can read about it here. http://articles.latimes.com/19...

      Here is the most interesting quote: "Caltrans Director James van Loben Sels estimated that without the accelerated effort the project would probably have taken two years to complete."

      And people say that Government bureaucracy isn't expensive. It is HUGELY expensive, in time, effort and money, and often (as in this case) causes as many (or more) problems as it actually solves. All those licenses, permits, fees, approvals ..... have a cost, and they are often unquantified and unknown.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    81. Re:Slow them with real traffic by The-Ixian · · Score: 1

      Sounds like you are doing a pretty good job of wrecking you car all by yourself.

      Speed bumps don't wreck a car if you drive slowly over it but accelerating and braking hard will definitely put undue wear and tear on your car.

      --
      My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
    82. Re:Slow them with real traffic by The-Ixian · · Score: 1

      Or, more likely, the trees were cut down to curb the spread of disease...

      --
      My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
    83. Re: Slow them with real traffic by dj245 · · Score: 1

      Funny, when I lived in Japan I remember construction on some roads that had started before I arrived and was still going on when I left, seven years later.

      Japan may be a model of efficiency in some (limited) ways, but this certainly wasn't one, in my experience.

      That sounds like a difference between a major new-building project and maintenance.

      I worked in Kawasaki for about 6 months total several years back. On one 3-months stay, I would walk to work in the morning and be confused that several areas on my commute seemed to have different (new) pavement compared to the night before. This happened enough times that I was certain I was not imagining things. Finally one day I had to stay out late and didn't get back home until 11PM. I was surprised by the flurry of activity- the street was half dug up, trucks were arriving and departing with materials and equipment, and crews were quickly working on piping/cables buried under the street. The next morning when I walked to the train station, it was as if it had never happened. The dug-up areas were all covered with fresh asphalt patches and there was barely a trace of recent construction. No equipment, no cones, no nothing. This happened every night the entire time I was there and I hardly noticed.

      Some projects can be done like this, and some can't. In Houston, they routinely shut down highway flyover ramps from 10PM to 5AM for periodic maintenance and inspection. A different ramp gets shut down just about every weekend, but if you're like most people, you are home between 10PM and 5AM, and may never be affected. On the other hand, Houston has other projects which do linger and disrupt traffic for years. It depends on the type of work needed to be done.

      --
      Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
    84. Re:Slow them with real traffic by The-Ixian · · Score: 1

      We have a real issue in our neighborhood with people who love to accelerate hard in order to make as much noise as possible.

      I always make sure to take my full lane allotment when riding my bicycle around the neighborhood. It really does help cut down the noise.

      --
      My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
    85. Re:Slow them with real traffic by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      It's all about you, isn't it?

      The funny part is when you grow up a little more, you will have the exact opposite viewpoint when it comes to these things.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    86. Re: Slow them with real traffic by dywolf · · Score: 1

      they may not be private roads, but they also were not intended or designed as public thoroughfares.
      these kind of streets typically have cars parked on one or both sides, as well the chance of children playing.
      residential streets are not intended for this kind of usage.
      this kind of usage is exceeding a design that was intended solely for getting local residents from their home to the actual main road.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    87. Re: Slow them with real traffic by wicka_wicka · · Score: 1

      Yes, and those signs are obviously posted. Were that the case here, it would surely have been mentioned. In this situation there is absolutely no legal justification for preventing anyone using these roads as a detour, assuming they are obeying all traffic laws as they drive through.

      --
      hi
    88. Re: Slow them with real traffic by deadweight · · Score: 1

      I live on an island with a bridge. When the bridge back up the tourists fan out in the neighborhoods and pretty much bring the entire island to a halt. Our sheriff refuses to try and stop this because the roads are public and not only for residents. He is correct.

    89. Re:Slow them with real traffic by ausekilis · · Score: 1

      They must have done the same thing for Austin and surrounding area. From 6:30 to 9:00 each morning and 4:00 to 7:00 each afternoon the whole city slows to 25 mph.

    90. Re: Slow them with real traffic by dywolf · · Score: 1

      we have resurfacing machines in the US too. very common actually, but only usable when the existing road is still in sufficient condition that recycling it makes sense. IE, the rock aggregate is still in good shape as well as present (if the top layers are missing or excessively pitted, then you need to add more material, but it needs to be similar in classification to the existing aggregate, or else it will introduce weak points in the resulting surface, quickly leading to new cracks and potholes). the existing road bed (underlying layers beneath the driving surface) also need to be in good shape. if its not you still need to pull everything up and put down a new foundation.

      the system I typically saw in use was a 3 vehicle design for asphalt resurfacing. front one scrapes up the old surface, deposits in #2. #2 lightly grinds and washes the aggregate to remove and clean the old binder from the rock (otherwise the new asphalt wont stick very well to it), dump it into #3. #3 is typically your normal in place mobile asphalt layer (as opposed to asphalt mixed elsewhere and trucked in while still hot), mixing binder and freshly cleaned rock, cooking it, and laying it down. there's usually a 4th vehicle in the procession as well, but it's independent of the 3 machines working together, being just a generic steamroller following behind to press it down and ensure smooth and level.

      using this system I saw several mile stretches of interstate through Atlanta be resurfaced in a single night, one lane per night. very economical (dont need to to bring in truckloads of material other than the asphalt binder itself) and quick, and because it's asphalt it's drivable in time for rush hour next morning.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    91. Re:Slow them with real traffic by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Or, more likely, the trees were cut down to curb the spread of disease...

      When it's pollen season, the trees give me sniffleous.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    92. Re: Slow them with real traffic by dywolf · · Score: 1

      they probably had to redo the entire road bed in those cases.
      the recycling/resurfacing machines only get used when the underlying layers are still suitable for use.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    93. Re:Slow them with real traffic by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Interesting that you've made some false assumptions about me, and chosen personal attacks instead of addressing the point I made.

      It's a fucking stupid junction design, and the speed of travel is totally fucking irrelevant to that.

    94. Re: Slow them with real traffic by dywolf · · Score: 1

      this also wouldn't be the first time technology increased the scale of something from inconsequential to undesirable.
      in this case, from a handful of people who know a shortcut, to hundreds of people turning a residential road into a thoroughfare.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    95. Re:Slow them with real traffic by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Yes, it's all about me. I am the centre of my universe. I devote my life and resources to improving my life (and resources, so that I can further use them to.. this gets recursive).

      At least I admit it.

      Out of curiousity, given I'm already over halfway dead, just how much more should I grow up? Just that I've stopped growing up, I mostly grow out at the moment, although that'll probably reverse when I get cancer.

    96. Re: Slow them with real traffic by barc0001 · · Score: 2

      > Those cars you mention are hitting pedestrians in my residential neighborhood with increasing frequency

      So what you're saying is you have shitty drivers in your city who shouldn't be on the roads at all. Sounds like a bigger problem that needs addressing than just making sure they don't run over *your* neighbors.

    97. Re: Slow them with real traffic by orgelspieler · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but only if they're actually going the speed limit and paying attention to the road. If they are zipping through a neighborhood at 45MPH while staring at their precious Waze, that's probably the real reason the homeowners are pissed. Hell, in my neighborhood, you will get stuff thrown at your car if you go more than 20.

    98. Re: Slow them with real traffic by barc0001 · · Score: 1

      How exactly do you plan on doing that without breaking the law?

    99. Re:Slow them with real traffic by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      To match the void in their soul.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    100. Re: Slow them with real traffic by omnichad · · Score: 1

      the one at the front rips up the old road surface and deposits it in a bucket on the back. The one at the back lays a new road surface from a tank of tarmac or whatever they use these days. The two roll along at less than walking speed,

      This is typically how 4-lane divided Interstate highways (and similar sized roads) are resurfaced in the US. However, the roads still aren't ready very quickly. First, they seem to repair any cracks or missing chunks before destroying the road (not sure if that's to ensure there's enough material for the second machine or not). After the new road is laid down, there is a heavy roller truck to smooth it out. Then temporary stripes are painted. Sometime just before that temporary paint completely wears off, the final paint is put down. Somehow it takes a few weeks to do what should only take a few days. However, that's usually many miles long being done at approximately the same time.

    101. Re:Slow them with real traffic by omnichad · · Score: 1

      no circumstances in which they're an optimal solution.

      Depends on what parameters you're optimizing for. If your goal is to slow down traffic, it sounds like it would work pretty well.

    102. Re: Slow them with real traffic by russotto · · Score: 1

      Yes, there are official alternatives to long-running construction projects, but in the US there is no legal requirement to stick to them. Streets are legal to use for through automobile traffic except where explicitly designated otherwise. In the pre-GPS days, straying from the official detour was often a big win because pretty much no one knows how to read a map (or navigate by the seat of their pants) so you could bypass the horrific traffic on the detour that way. Now, with GPS, all routes fill up.

      Heavy trucks and/or commercial vehicles are often restricted to the official detour, because the other roads might disallow such traffic (as might the streets on the detour when it's not a detour), but that doesn't apply to car commuters.

    103. Re:Slow them with real traffic by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Make that "volatile unsigned char *" or the compiler will optimize the operations out.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    104. Re: Slow them with real traffic by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Someone in the business said several years ago that, given a planned obstruction with an official detour, about a third of the drivers would use the official detour, about a third would take other alternative routes, and about a third of the traffic would just disappear. He had no idea where it went.

      Nowadays, I'd expect more people to be on the other alternative routes, given the availability of GPS units and route planning software.

      The official detour is not always the right thing to do. Quite a few years ago, two high-capacity routes that were fairly close to each other, one interstate and one county highway, and each was under construction and gave the other as the official detour. I didn't follow up what actually resulted, since I very rarely went that way.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    105. Re: Slow them with real traffic by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      In the US any driver is allowed to use any public road with exceptions made for large trucks that the road can no support. Some towns do put up signs saying no thru traffic but it is very questionable that they are enforceable.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    106. Re: Slow them with real traffic by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      It might be impressive if there wasn't constant road construction somewhere on *95, 66, 50, 29, and/or the Metro actually worked.

    107. Re:Slow them with real traffic by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      Or post "No Through Traffic" signs and enforce them.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    108. Re: Slow them with real traffic by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      ... unless it's signed otherwise with "No Through Traffic" by the local traffic engineers and local law enforcement.

      Thus, there is already a solution on the books that just needs to be applied.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    109. Re:Slow them with real traffic by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      All you really need is some very attractive women to walk up and down the street and occasionally bend over during those "peek" hours and I can guarrantee there will be a minor bingle in only a few minutes.

      This is called social engineering and I'm sure the waze stats will be suitabley fucked up enough to give local residence some releif.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    110. Re: Slow them with real traffic by TheoMurpse · · Score: 1

      For what it's worth, in Japan almost all road construction is done by the mob.

    111. Re: Slow them with real traffic by orlanz · · Score: 1

      Mass transit doesn't work for most of the US. Few places have the public funds to build out a viable transit system like New York or Washington DC. Both of which have severe cost of living issues. Extending out of the city just creates pockets of segregated living communities at each of the stops. A person without a car has limited their spending and earning area to the walking limits of the transit system. Which slowly become ghetto. You will have poor communities that can't improve as no external business comes to them and their poorer folks can't get out of. Their only source of income becomes the city they commute to by rail.

      The richer folks will get cars and move out anyway. They will have opportunities to move up the social ladder as their options are wide and far reaching. Reality is that the US is a big place. A car affords you the flexibility to change jobs easily, be mobile, and earn a living in an area that is hundreds of square miles across.

      True, all this public road infrastructure costs more than if the individuals who need it, pay for it. But that cost is spread across everyone; those who need it and those who don't. In general the poor will benefit more from it at the cost to the rich. But the objective of public infrastructure should be to provide equal access to all members of society and not end up limiting it to a privileged few.

    112. Re: Slow them with real traffic by Gussington · · Score: 1

      enjoy jail then I guess?

      Yeah ok, if that make you feel better...

    113. Re: Slow them with real traffic by Gussington · · Score: 1

      How exactly do you plan on doing that without breaking the law?

      There's plenty of methods available to calm traffic.
      One was to lobby the local council to put speed humps in our street because there's a school nearby and "think of the children". (see that stuff can be used in your favour if you use your brain)
      Another is to have you neighbour park off the kerb a bit and you do the same on the other side of the road, instant bottle neck.
      Traffic Cones also have a remarkable effect on restricting flow, and everyone just accepts that they are there for a legitimate reason.
      There's other tricks that I'm not going to disclose here, but ultimately if you want something to happen, you can't always wait for someone else to do it for you.
      The world is shaped by unreasonable people. You have a choice if you want to do the shaping, or be shaped by others.

    114. Re:Slow them with real traffic by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 1

      Five of us riding our bicycles on the street is a perfectly legitimate thing, and we are riding correctly by each occupying the full width of our lane. You car drivers can wait.

      You would be riding correctly only so long as you are not obstructing traffic. In most jurisdictions slower vehicles (including cyclists) are required to pull off to the shoulder, as needed and where practical, to allow faster traffic to pass. For a bicycle, that means pretty much any time there is a car waiting behind you.

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
    115. Re: Slow them with real traffic by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      You are completely right Half-Pint HAL.

      Here's from a typical major american city

      Neighborhood Traffic Management Program (NTMP)

      The Neighborhood Traffic Management Program is overseen by Senior Staff Analyst Gary Drabek at 611 Walker. NTMP address traffic related problems in residential neighborhoods, including excessive vehicular speed and cut-through traffic. The Neighborhood Traffic Management Program implements "traffic calming" measures, such as speed cushions, traffic circles, median islands, curb extensions, diversion techniques, etc. aimed at enhancing safety for pedestrians and cyclists. Applications for NTMP intervention may be made by one or more residents/ property owners and are reviewed by the Department to determine eligibility. Final plans require City Council approval. There's a long list of NTMP applications; we will contact you as soon as we are able to begin working on your application.

      Population 192,294 (2013)
      http://grcity.us/enterprise-se...
      Program Overview

      Traffic calming, as defined by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, is the combination of mainly physical measures that reduce the negative effects of motor vehicle use, alter driver behavior and improve conditions for non-motorized street users.
      Traffic Calming Goals include:

              increasing the quality of life;
              incorporating the preferences and requirements of the residents;
              creating safer and more attractive streets;
              reducing the negative impacts of motor vehicles; and
              promoting alternative transportation modes.

      Traffic Calming Objectives include:

              achieving slower speeds for motor vehicles in residential areas;
              increasing safety for non-motorized users of the street system;
              enhancing the street environment;
              increasing access for all modes of transportation, and
              reducing/elminating cut-through motor vehicle traffic.

      Here's an article typical of tiny american cities (population 128,429 in 2013)
      http://www.thegazette.com/subj...

      At the same time, council members Monica Vernon, Pat Shey and Scott Olson said the council has talked extensively about converting some one-way streets to two-ways. Shey said street conversions are designed for âoetraffic calming,â and said most residential neighborhoods such as those in Wellington Heights have two-way streets, not one-ways.

      Summary- it is standard practice for cities with 100,000 or more residents (and possibly much lower) to have traffic calming targeted at reducing or eliminating cut thru motor vehicle traffic.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    116. Re: Slow them with real traffic by barc0001 · · Score: 1

      > Another is to have you neighbour park off the kerb a bit and you do the same on the other side of the road, instant bottle neck.

      And a quick call to 311 would see you and your neighbor receive parking tickets within the hour, at least where I live, for pulling that.

      > Traffic Cones also have a remarkable effect on restricting flow, and everyone just accepts that they are there for a legitimate reason.

      Similar deal, the city has bylaw enforcement that doesn't look fondly upon cowboy traffic enforcement and if they manage to find out who you are they will make things unpleasant for you.

      > The world is shaped by unreasonable people. You have a choice if you want to do the shaping, or be shaped by others.

      Are you including yourself in that category?

    117. Re: Slow them with real traffic by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      Isn't there a guy following them tossing flower petals at the very end?

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    118. Re: Slow them with real traffic by 0111+1110 · · Score: 1

      America has the world's most expensive and dysfunctional processes for repairing infrastructure.

      I see you've never been to the Philippines. A road construction project that takes 2-3 years in the US would probably take 15 years or more in the Philippines. Or it may never finish at all.

      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
    119. Re: Slow them with real traffic by 0111+1110 · · Score: 1

      Most of the world works because people choose not to act like cunts

      Yes and the homeowners are the ones acting like anti-social cunts in this instance even going so far as to intentionally sabotage an excellent pro-efficiency system that makes society as a whole work better just because they can. They are selfish fucks who are only thinking of themselves. They should just move to a gated community and choose their roads more carefully next time.

      BTW have you ever been to a country where many or even most of the people choose not to not act like cunts most of the time? It is interesting, and it's true that pretty much nothing works. All systems break down nearly all of the time. Almost nothing gets done. Ever.

      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
    120. Re:Slow them with real traffic by kevmeister · · Score: 1

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

      At least in California, this will get tickets for obstructing traffic.

      The law requires that if you have 5or more cars behind you and yo9u have no cars in front of you that you pull over and allow them to pass. This even applies when you drive the speed limit, but is open and shut at 2.5 MPH. Better check on the laws where you live.

      --
      Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer, Retired
    121. Re: Slow them with real traffic by Gussington · · Score: 1

      And a quick call to 311 would see you and your neighbor receive parking tickets within the hour, at least where I live, for pulling that.

      You have a law that prevents you from parking on the street? Don't you live in the land of the free?

      Similar deal, the city has bylaw enforcement that doesn't look fondly upon cowboy traffic enforcement and if they manage to find out who you are they will make things unpleasant for you.

      Sounds quite authoritarian. Glad I don't live there.

      Are you including yourself in that category?

      I don't have people rat running down my street, so you tell me who's winning.

    122. Re: Slow them with real traffic by Sir+Holo · · Score: 1

      Hyperbole much?
      Maybe we should ban all cars, or maybe pedestrians.

      The world is not SimCity. Different roadways are designed by civil engineers for specific purposes and capacities.

      For example:
      * Pedestrians are banned on certain roadways.

      * Mountain roads have "passing pull-offs", and many also have crash zones for semis that have lost their brakes – usually just before a sharp turn, after a straight or steep grade, consisting of about 100 m of pea gravel and an impact absorber at the end.

      * Many roads have dedicated "bus and emergency vehicle lanes".

      * Most interstates have accident pulloff zones, especially where they run through cities.

      * Interstates and highways have guardrails for some reason or other. By your logic, maybe we should install guardrails on all roads.

    123. Re: Slow them with real traffic by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Last I checked, most people use GPS navigation nowadays. Are you going to claim that there has been a significant uptick in accidents since GPS for cars was invented?

      You should sue all the car companies that sell GPS units with their cars, they are increasing accidents according to you!

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    124. Re: Slow them with real traffic by beastofburdon · · Score: 1

      They have the same type of equipment here in the US, they just rarely use it. As you said, having utility access in the roads prevents them from using such, but they also rarely use such on highways which do not have such. I have seen a crew of 15-20 people completely resurface miles of road in a single night, but for some reason the majority of paving happens during the day and takes weeks to months with more people on the job.
      I'm not sure why this is, but I highly suspect long term exclusive contracts and massive corruption are to blame.

    125. Re: Slow them with real traffic by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      I read a book about this once, there was always this single yard you could cut through at top speed and cut 15 minutes off your trip. It came in quite handy for this pizza delivery driver until he used the wrong yard in a hurry and impacted an empty pool. Luckily a cheeky skateboard courier was able to complete the pizza delivery for him.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    126. Re: Slow them with real traffic by Sir+Holo · · Score: 1

      Those cars you mention are hitting pedestrians in my residential neighborhood with increasing frequency.

      Do you have stats that show Waze is increasing pedestrian involved accidents, or are you just making that up? 'Cause it sounds like you are just making that up.

      Nope. Correlation is not causation, of course, but all roads within a mile or two of my neighborhood have been fully built-out for years. That is, the traffic patterns had been stable. There is a correlation with Waze usage and traffic density on our streets—I have observed them for eight years, and have discussed the issue with 20-year residents.

      Also, it is not MY neighborhood's drivers. It is people who choose to have long commutes. Highways and Interstates are built for them. These highways pass by neighborhoods (or through) for the express purpose of avoiding commuter traffic flowing through long-time built-out neighborhoods with bike lanes, moms with strollers, and numerous pedestrians. My specific neighborhood is built with many small but dispersed commercial-zoned properties. We can walk to most any place where we need sundries or services.

      Waze is routing the commuters around the purpose-built commuter roadways. They drive like commuters on a highway, although they are actually in a 30 mph zone. They do not give a shit about whose neighborhood they are recing through. And when I say "recing through", I mean it literally. They barely slow for STOP signs, drive at about 50+ mph, and so on.

      People that live in my neighborhood drive with pedestrians and cyclists in mind as the priority vehicles, and slow or stop for them as a routine behavior. Commuters do not give a fuck, and race through, as if a marked cross-walk with a STOP sign means nothing, and that they have the right-of-way. It is easy to spot commuters taking alternate routes, versus local drivers.

      Waze is partially to blame. Another large part of the blame lies on local law enforcement, who don't bother to do their jobs – at least not here. I am speaking of the Santa Monica Police Department who, despite there being easy ticket-traps, usually don't bother. SMPD do not do their job.

      As for data, I am collecting speed data via survey-calibrated video recording the speed of drivers just 150 feet after a STOP sign, which can often be highway speeds. Yes, the City could put in one of those radar monitors that tells you your speed, but they won't. So, I will collect the data, and light a fire under the City Council's ass. (I am a PhD imaging expert, and data does not lie. I might even publish a methods paper in some civil engineering journal, or an industry trade magazine, just to provide even more credibility.)

      If I forgot to mention my answer to you: There is a direct correlation in time with the rise of Waze and the number of non-law-abiding drivers in my own neighborhood. Call it strongly qualitative right now, but I will go through the City's own data on pedestrian accidents, plotting the numbers through time, and plot that in comparison to Waze usage-data.

      I don't want to create a speed trap. I just want the law followed and enforced.

    127. Re: Slow them with real traffic by wallsg · · Score: 1

      This is one reason why there are curvy-ass streets instead of nice straight ones in many places, or streets that T and require you to zig-zag through neighborhoods (especially in the Phoenix suburbs where the flat land lends itself nicely to a regular grid). There are also speed bumps put on the half-mile street I live near to keep the speed at 25 mph (actually people just slow down to 20 to go over them and then it's just back up to 35 to 40). These are attempts to make the roads undesirable to through traffic.

      Yes, I live in an HOA area (hard to find new housing NOT in one in the Phoenix suburbs) but it is NOT gated and has public roads. You may be surprised to note that a community does NOT have to have gates to have private roads, at least here. The roads just have to be owned and maintained by the HOA and has to be posted as private.

    128. Re: Slow them with real traffic by jetkins · · Score: 1

      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.

      I remember seeing a documentary about it when I was a kid: https://youtu.be/LWcvEB6NYpA?t...

    129. Re: Slow them with real traffic by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      Traffic calming exists in almost every city with a population over 100,000.

      Responsible adults running government know it's required.

      We can't build every residential to highway standards.
      Residential streets are not intended for cut-thru traffic.

      People may cut thru for a while but cities quickly add speed bumps, gate streets, close streets, raise intersections, lower speed limits (and enforce them strictly) to calm the traffic to intended levels.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    130. Re:Slow them with real traffic by martinfb · · Score: 1

      Traffic is tolerable then.

      --


      Self-importance and self-indulgence is the root of ALL evil.
    131. Re: Slow them with real traffic by Speck'sBacon · · Score: 1

      That's because of the various construction workers' unions...

    132. Re: Slow them with real traffic by barc0001 · · Score: 1

      > You have a law that prevents you from parking on the street? Don't you live in the land of the free?

      No, I live in a place that has laws about how far away from the curb your car can be when it's parked on the street. You were implying that you and your neighbor would park "off the kerb a bit" - in other words enough that your cars would impede traffic. That's a ticket where I live, and probably where you live too. You should look into it. I think in most of FreedomLand it's 12 to 18 inches and your "front and back wheels must be parallel to the curb"
      Examples. Chicago is 12 inches, California is 18:

      http://www.cityofchicago.org/city/en/depts/fin/supp_info/revenue/tips_for_avoidingparkingtickets.html

      https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/pubs/hdbk/parking

      > Sounds quite authoritarian. Glad I don't live there.

      Just because you've gotten away with what you are doing doesn't mean it's legal where you live. Better check. And of course if you really annoy someone they might just key your car or slash your tires... lack of authoritarianism and cowboy "justice" swings both ways.

    133. Re:Slow them with real traffic by minstrelmike · · Score: 1

      You could hire teenagers and retirees to stage accidents. Then WAZE reports will be accurate.

    134. Re: Slow them with real traffic by Gussington · · Score: 1

      Just because you've gotten away with what you are doing doesn't mean it's legal where you live. Better check.

      Nah, you see because outside of USA-land, most roads aren't 100 feet wide. Mine, and most residential neighbourhood streets here, are wide enough for about 3 1/2 cars. So park one car on each side and you automatically get a one lane street. Park your allowed 12-18 inches off the kerb and you automatically force most people to reduce their speed to about 20mph too. Win win.

      And of course if you really annoy someone they might just key your car or slash your tires... lack of authoritarianism and cowboy "justice" swings both ways.

      Most civilised people don't resort to violence when they don't get their own way. And even should an American visit my street, I have insurance that covers that.

    135. Re:Slow them with real traffic by toddestan · · Score: 1

      The nice thing about trees alongside the road in a residential area is that anyone driving residential area speeds that goes off the road and hits one probably won't be seriously hurt. But Mr. Asshat in his F150 going 50 MPH won't be so lucky. So it's kind of self-solving problem, though it may take a while.

    136. Re:Slow them with real traffic by toddestan · · Score: 1

      In the case of some homeowner's associations, the road is a private drive that is owned (and maintained) by the association. So in that sense we (as the homeowners) really do own the road in front of our houses. Luckily for us that while our road is a through street, it really doesn't go anywhere on the other side so through traffic is minimal.

      Currently it's the trash trucks that end up tearing up the road the most. The snowplows also scrape them up a bit but that damage is mostly cosmetic.

    137. Re: Slow them with real traffic by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 1

      Your argument is "the roads belong to all of us, so we can do what we like with them", which seems fair enough. But you wouldn't accept that I can dig up a road and melt down the bitumen for resale.

      False analogy asshole, and not even a nice try, just complete bullshit.

      It's not a false analogy. You want me to justify that? Justify your comment first.

      --
      Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
    138. Re: Slow them with real traffic by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 1

      I cannot stand

      See what happens when you quote someone out of context...? My argument wasn't strawman, I was trying to demonstrate that the argument isn't clear-cut. This is a border case. On one side of the border is the nonsensical "it's my road, I can do whatever I want with it" and on the other side the perfectly reasonable "it's my road, I can drive on it". Getting closer to the border: clearly untrue "it's my road, so I can choose the speed I drive at" vs the clearly true "I can drive on it, but I have to respect the speed limit."

      What we have here is a case where by the letter of the law, yes, this sort of activity is legal. However, the people who drafted traffic laws didn't expect there would come a day when technology would dynamically ignore signposted routes. So it's technically legal, but subverts the intended use of public infrastructure. Both arguments here are legitimate -- no-one can definitively declare either position right or wrong.

      --
      Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
    139. Re: Slow them with real traffic by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 1

      Yes, there are official alternatives to long-running construction projects, but in the US there is no legal requirement to stick to them.

      I doubt there's anywhere outside of military zones where signposted routes are legally mandated. But before dynamic routing technology, there wasn't a need for such regulation.

      --
      Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
    140. Re: Slow them with real traffic by Holi · · Score: 1

      If you remember my posts over the years you would not call me a conservative. Anti-social? sure, but I am about as liberal as they come.

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
  2. That's just too damn bad. by thedarb · · Score: 4, Insightful

    We are all paying the taxes necessary for you to have a road to your home. So get over it. If it was a private road, that you alone bared the burden of paying for, then Waze wouldn't use it.

    --
    This sig intentionally left blank.
    1. Re: That's just too damn bad. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Actually you didnt. Im my neighborhood, the homeowners were assessed for the cost of the street via fees paid by the contractor passed on to the buyer.

      So fuck off, dick.

    2. Re:That's just too damn bad. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Chances are you don't pay for the roads in suburban residential zones. Townhouse and condo associations actually buy the roads and handle the maintenance thereafter. While there is an easement to accommodate "reasonable travel", we'll call the city if we start seeing commuters and (especially) freight trucks backing up our streets.

      In other words, you're driving on a road you probably DON'T pay for and are passing the costs of maintenance to the people who ACTUALLY live there.

    3. Re:That's just too damn bad. by thedarb · · Score: 5, Informative

      Whoa whoa whoa. Easy man. Don't need to go with the pay with your life stuff.

      It's simple. If it's a public road, owned and maintained by the city / town... it's fair game. If it's not, and it's a privately owned and maintained road, we should stay off of it, and so should Waze.

      Now if someone purposely causes an accident to re-route traffic, the law can already handle them. What they should do, is lobby and petition their local government to add stop signs at every intersection, and step up policing. That works pretty well, and when the cop shows up on Waze, people will avoid it, anyway. But short of that, if it's a public road, and people are driving legally on it, obeying the signs, you're just going to have to take it.

      --
      This sig intentionally left blank.
    4. Re:That's just too damn bad. by unimacs · · Score: 1

      It depends. Sometimes road repairs are partially covered by local residents through special assessments. A fair amount comes from property taxes. Depending on where the drivers actually live, they may not be paying into the pool of funding for those streets.

    5. Re:That's just too damn bad. by AK+Marc · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yet most places have some rules around preventing cut-throughs. Almost everywhere has some rules that prevent cutting through private property to avoid a traffic control device. Some (but much fewer) have rules preventing cutting through public streets. Yes, they are paid for, but they are also not sized or safe for being used as mass through-ways.

    6. Re:That's just too damn bad. by hackwrench · · Score: 1

      But only for certain types of use. What I want to know is, how is that guy able to see people looking down at their phones. My guess is that he's just an idiot who is guessing at what someone would have to do to use Waze, and then just claiming he saw people looking down at their phone. It's my understanding that Google bought Waze and if I recall correctly I as a passenger saw an indication of an accident on Google Maps that read "reported by Waze".

    7. Re:That's just too damn bad. by FudRucker · · Score: 1

      it dont have to be an a collision just a stalled car out of gas or breakdown or flat tire, just buy some cheap junk car for a few hundred and break down at the right time & place, i would hate to see my quiet street flooded with hundreds of cars per hour too

      --
      Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
    8. Re:That's just too damn bad. by msauve · · Score: 2

      Are you speaking with knowledge of this particular location in Maryland, or your own area? Because, local road funding varies between different states in the US. In my area, much of the funding for road maintenance comes from state gas taxes and vehicle registration fees. Gas taxes are paid even by out-of-state drivers, so they end up paying a share.

      Looking at it another way, the neighborhood is seeing more traffic only because a larger road is temporarily under repair. Without that road, they'd be seeing a higher level of traffic all the time. So, they need to put up with some temporary inconvenience to gain a longer term benefit. It's no big deal, they should stop whining and live with it. They're not the special, precious jewels their mothers told them they were.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    9. Re:That's just too damn bad. by WarJolt · · Score: 2

      If someone uses your road continuously for several years they have very good grounds for an easement. You should protect yourself by posting signs stating permission to pass is revocable.

    10. Re:That's just too damn bad. by WarJolt · · Score: 1

      It's not illegal everywhere. Hands free is typically ok.

    11. Re:That's just too damn bad. by WarJolt · · Score: 1

      Autonomous cars could potentially navigate with waze. A driver can be a jerk. Can a car be a jerk? I guarantee an uproar when cars are driving themselves through neighborhoods.

    12. Re:That's just too damn bad. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Every issue, doesn't matter what the issue is, someone like you has to come in with your two dimensional black and white point of view and poisonous attitude. Yes, in simplest terms you are correct, if the road is paid for by the taxpayers then all taxpayers have a right to drive on it. HOWEVER, and this is where your myopic view refuses to go further, there is a big fucking difference between normal road use, heavy road use and peak level traffic which has been re-routed from a main fucking road down a quiet residential street which was never meant to handle it.
      Aside from wrecking peoples quality of life there are safety concerns with children, not to mention emergency vehicle access down much narrower side streets.

      So, no, try and be a little more understanding and intelligent before slapping your crap onto something you don't understand.

    13. Re:That's just too damn bad. by guruevi · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Then they can be gated and wouldn't show up on government databases which GPS manufacturers use. More often, these roads, utilities, right of ways and even entire neighborhoods are paid for by tax payers and later annexed by private home owner associations. We have plenty of those around here, the government gives great incentives on properties, taxes, supplies utilities, roads and police. If you want a fully private consortium to maintain your area, then pay for the damn utilities and security yourself.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    14. Re:That's just too damn bad. by guruevi · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I lived in one of those for a while. The corporation buys it for dimes on the dollar from the city, you get to pay full price for it but when it comes to actually fixing anything, they tell you to call the city to come and fix it.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    15. Re:That's just too damn bad. by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      > ... petition their local government to add stop signs at every intersection ..

      Agreed. That or speed bumps every block. That will frustrate the majority of drivers and indirectly force the problem elsewhere.

    16. Re:That's just too damn bad. by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      it dont have to be an a collision just a stalled car out of gas or breakdown or flat tire, just buy some cheap junk car for a few hundred and break down at the right time & place, i would hate to see my quiet street flooded with hundreds of cars per hour too

      1) People who complain about this are probably the sort of people who enforce neighborhood covenants - that car wouldn't be allowed.

      2) A broken down car on a public road will get towed within 24 hours, in all likelihood.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    17. Re:That's just too damn bad. by hackwrench · · Score: 1

      Well... That happened.

    18. Re:That's just too damn bad. by Cramer · · Score: 1

      Bull. It'll send you over any accessible road -- i.e. any road that doesn't have barrier to stop you from using it.

    19. Re:That's just too damn bad. by dgatwood · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    20. Re:That's just too damn bad. by unimacs · · Score: 1

      I specifically said "It depends" and "sometimes", so no I don't know for sure what the mix of funding sources for road maintenance is in that area. I seriously doubt the poster I was responding to does either when he claimed that "we are all paying the taxes necessary for you to have a road to your home". You said "much of" but your neighborhood would be unusual if most of the road funding comes state gas taxes and registration fees. There was a time when user fees paid for close to 70% of the road maintenance and construction in the US but it's barely over 50% now and is probably much less when we're talking about residential streets as opposed to freeways or highways.

      The people in that neighborhood aren't seeing a significant increase in traffic levels because of that road closure. They are seeing an increased level of traffic because Waze is directing people to use streets that were never intended to handle that much traffic. Without the road that is under construction that level of traffic would be on some major arterial road somewhere else, not on their streets.

      On the block I live on there is a busy arterial street on one side. We knew that when we moved in. On the other end is a quiet street that abuts a park. We knew that too. The value of the homes on our block are set accordingly. When our kids take off on their bikes, they know to go to the quiet end of the block. My son rode his bike to school until he started high school in a different part of the city. To suddenly have hundreds more cars coming down our street during rush hour isn't just an annoyance, it would be a safety issue.

    21. Re:That's just too damn bad. by Pikoro · · Score: 1

      That almost hurt to read.

      --
      "Freedom in the USA is not the ability to do what you want. It is the ability to stop others from doing what THEY want"
    22. Re:That's just too damn bad. by Desler · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Just because its a public road doesn't mean it was designed with heavy traffic flow in mind. So, no, you aren't as entitled as you think you are just becaus a fraction of a cent of your tax money might have gone to building some neighborhood's road.

    23. Re:That's just too damn bad. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'm from the area. There is a large number of residential (non-private) roads with signs preventing cut through traffic. You can even get a $500 fine for attempting a left turn out of a residential area (at all hours of the day). I can't image that is easy to get one of these signs put up, but again these are ass rich neighborhoods. I stopped using Waze near the city because I would much rather spend an extra 60 seconds going in a straight line, then save 10 seconds by driving through a parking lot. It's almost unsafe in some sense, swerving through kids playing in the street to save 10 seconds on your commute.

    24. Re:That's just too damn bad. by Desler · · Score: 1

      Yeah they likely paid a fraction of a cent to the road that they are causing an increased maintainance burden on that likely weren't designed for the increased flow of traffic that it is now supporting.

    25. Re:That's just too damn bad. by Gojira+Shipi-Taro · · Score: 1

      If you're not a government representative, and your signs are not grounded in law, you should do time for interfering with traffic.

      --
      "Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked."; ~ Donald J. Trump
    26. Re:That's just too damn bad. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Thanks for demonstrating why our rights under the Constitution need to be vigorously defended. We don't need wannabe-Diane Feinsteins like you running around taking them all away.

    27. Re:That's just too damn bad. by Gojira+Shipi-Taro · · Score: 1

      And at that point the city should tell you to go fuck yourself. Taxpayers don't own it? Taxpayers shouldn't be paying to fix it.

      --
      "Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked."; ~ Donald J. Trump
    28. Re:That's just too damn bad. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      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.

    29. Re: That's just too damn bad. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      A giant bump on the road designed to damage suspension, and you blame car models and owners. Fuck you. Ban speedbumps ASAP.

    30. Re:That's just too damn bad. by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      If the people living there park or drive on it legally and that interferes with your wanting an easy passage, tuff, you have no foot to stand your attitude on. That's not even debatable. Or do you still stand by your other comment about using whatever force necessary to ensure your ease?

    31. Re:That's just too damn bad. by dcooper_db9 · · Score: 1

      To correct the original summary, it's the City of Takoma Park, MD. For the most part the road network dates from before the Civil War. Until sometime around WWII the area was served by a streetcar network, passenger rail, and bus service. The roads were paved with brick and were designed to handle pedestrian and equestrian traffic. Today the city is served by a metro station and most residents do not commute by car. Maintenance of the road network is paid for with city taxes. Commuters passing through the city contribute nothing to the maintenance of infrastructure.

      I tend to agree that people shouldn't be allowed to close off public roads but sometimes it's not so simple. We have people driving in to work in DC from their homes in Frederick and even West Virginia. These old communities are being destroyed so that people can have their 3 bedroom townhouse in the suburbs. People are leaving for work at 5 am in Gaithersburg to get downtown by 8. If you wait until 5:10 you won't get to work before 9. If I'm not mistaken the average commuter in the DC area now spends nearly 4 hours a day driving.

      As someone whose roots in DC pre-date the Revolutionary War these are sad changes. My extended family used to own a house two doors down from Thomas Jefferson's in Georgetown. It was lost to fire during the crack epidemic. One of the cornerstones of DC was on a property owned by my family. It was the first property registered after Montgomery County was carved out of Frederick County. In fact at one time our family owned a tract of land that extended from the state line to the north border of Rockville. It was called Valentine's Folly and it didn't stay in the family for very long. :-) We lived through the civil war, the riots in the 1960's and then the crack war. The Capitol City is finally starting to recover and many of the old neighbourhoods have become liveable again. But for my family the traffic was just too much. Over the last ten years almost every one of us has moved away.

      --
      I do not block ads. I do block third party scripts.
    32. Re:That's just too damn bad. by Dog-Cow · · Score: 1

      Having a right is not the same as being right. If you want to drive on such roads to avoid traffic, it's perfectly fine for me to park a garbage truck in the middle of the road and have my buddy bring his up behind you. It's a public road, after all, and there's nothing you can do about it.

    33. Re: That's just too damn bad. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Hardly. I live on a residential street in a shitty neighborhood. The issue is not one of entitlement, it a matter that these streets were not designed to carry that amount of traffic and furthermore that amount of traffic creates an unnecessary hazard to neighborhood children, inconsiderate fuckhead.

    34. Re:That's just too damn bad. by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      And if a toddler kicks a ball out onto the street, who has the right of way?

    35. Re:That's just too damn bad. by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      People who live on the street tend to drive at or below the speed limit.

    36. Re:That's just too damn bad. by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      We are all paying the taxes necessary for you to have a road to your home. So get over it. If it was a private road, that you alone bared the burden of paying for, then Waze wouldn't use it.

      It isn't a highway however. Sending a lot of trffic down a relatively narrow street with cars parked on both sides, is an invitation to trouble. Especially so when a lot of impatient people are using it to circumvent the highways.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    37. Re:That's just too damn bad. by Darinbob · · Score: 2

      Even ignoring safety, the paving of the side roads is not intended for heavy use and will quickly lead to potholes and more money being spent on repairs.

      A big problem is that there's not a lot of traffic enforcement so the speed limits are ignored by the outsiders and a once safe neighborhood becomes dangerous.

    38. Re: That's just too damn bad. by TroII · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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?

    39. Re:That's just too damn bad. by GTRacer · · Score: 1

      It really depends on the design of the speed bump. They can be made with enough curvature and height to require reducing speed to say 15mph and then be driven over smoothly. There are others that are too "peaked" and must be crawled over to avoid a serious jarring.

      But that's beside the point unless your street is posted for a lower than standard 25/30 residential limit. Why should anyone expect speed bumps on a 30-limit outside of a school or pedestrian crossing?

      --
      Defending IP by destroying access to it? That makes sense, RIAA/MPAA. Go to the corner until you can play nice!
    40. Re:That's just too damn bad. by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Oh, right, shitty assholes go as far as making their neighborhood less desirable instead of working to make their roads better able to handle the new traffic.

      You think it's the job of people living on unlined and uncontrolled side-streets to improve their road to compensate for roadworks in the area? That's an insane assertion.

      That "most places have some rules around preventing cut-throughs". First, no.

      Reality not agreeing with your opinion doesn't change reality. No matter how much you want your opinion to be true.

      This is no different than ISP which throttle all streaming websites de facto without even considering if there's enough bandwidth to handle the traffic nor considering building out to handle increased traffic.

      The main road is unthorttled. Has been, will be. It's temporarily ill from construction. A permanent improvement to make the side streets more main street on the off chance main street is congested is silly.

    41. Re:That's just too damn bad. by advocate_one · · Score: 1

      and if you motons kept to the posted speed limits, speed bumps would not be necessary... slow the fsck down... kill your speed, not a child...

      --
      Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
    42. Re:That's just too damn bad. by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Whoa whoa whoa. Easy man. Don't need to go with the pay with your life stuff.

      That's the sort of thing that never goes away either. Amazing that this far along on the internet age, there are still people that have not learned the lesson of do not threaten people on the internet.

      It's simple. If it's a public road, owned and maintained by the city / town... it's fair game.

      Absolutely. And designed for a certain amount of traffic. It is pretty simple. You have limited access highways, highways, secondary roads and sub secondary. We'll skip the inimproved roads for a moment. Each designed for lesser amounts of traffic, and with different bases and widths. A sub-secondary road is two notches down from the highways, and is simply not designed nor capable of handling highway traffic. There are less tangible aspects as well, such as speed limits, but it is well within the realm of possibilities that the same people who do not want to be inconvenienced by slow traffic on highways will not want to be inconvenienced by neighborhood speed limits. Actually from what I've seen it is a dead lock that they will be speeding.

      If it's not, and it's a privately owned and maintained road, we should stay off of it, and so should Waze.

      And there just are not too many of those. MOst designed no not be a shortcut anyhow.

      Now if someone purposely causes an accident to re-route traffic, the law can already handle them.

      Which would be insane, of course.

      What they should do, is lobby and petition their local government to add stop signs at every intersection, and step up policing.

      We did. In our development, a student type apartment complex was built at the edge, and for a while we had some issues with apartment dwellers driving way too fast. like a few who were nabbed at 60 in a 25 zone. The township police eventually installed radar that indicated the speed people were going - not citing people, just telling them. Darned if it didn't help a lot. I suspect most were daydream driving, and they were nudged to the proper speed. But I digress

      That works pretty well, and when the cop shows up on Waze, people will avoid it, anyway. But short of that, if it's a public road, and people are driving legally on it, obeying the signs, you're just going to have to take it.

      I think what ends up being the problem is that unless traffic is slowed down to a standstill on the highways, you won't get much relief by driving through residential neighborhoods. It won't take long to become actual gridlock in most places.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    43. Re: That's just too damn bad. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It is a speed bump, designed to slow down fuckhead drivers who think that residential streets are their personal time trial course. If you don't want the speed bump to damage your suspension, then SLOW THE FUCK DOWN YOU STUPID CUNT.

    44. Re:That's just too damn bad. by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 2

      City streets are not built to handle highway traffic.

      6 inches of stone sub-base.
      3" of binder course - compacted to 2"
      2.5" of finish course - compacted to 1.5"

      Total thickness of the system would be 9.5, of which asphalt would make up only the last 3.5".

      A typical highway is 32" with 11" of concrete over 21" of aggregate.

      Residential streets are also expected to have street, bicycle, animal, and child traffic. It's unsafe to have heavy traffic at high speeds and it is damaging to the streets.

      As a result, city traffic engineers regularly take steps to prevent heavy usage of residential streets including

      Speed bumps.
      Directional restrictions
      Restricted entry and exit (most streets don't hook to a main road)..
      Completely restricted entry and exit (only 1 way in or out)

      Finally, there is the matter of changing manners (politeness). The streets were designed when lots of people didn't cut thru them. Once the load of people exceeds their design as people become more rude (like.. hey.. you), then the streets need to be designed in stone to prevent the rude behavior which often means roadblocks at the ends of streets that used to be thru streets.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    45. Re:That's just too damn bad. by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      It really only needs to be there for about 35 minutes of rush hour.

      I like the idea of people walking and bicycling with waze to show 3 to 15 mile an hour speeds.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    46. Re:That's just too damn bad. by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      We get the same thing around London, and I've a friend in Russia who report the same effect around Moscow. It's probably a factor for all large cities: Their economic power generates vast numbers of jobs in a small area, but also raises property values to the point that only the exceptionally wealthy can afford to live there, and this inevitably leads to the creation of a commuter belt. London has good rail connections, but even so it's commonplace for people working in the city to endure a two hour commute each way.

    47. Re: That's just too damn bad. by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Bobcats aren't really that expensive to rent.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    48. Re:That's just too damn bad. by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Chicanes are good drifty fun.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    49. Re:That's just too damn bad. by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      Almost every city planning commission in the country would laugh you out the door.

      The cities themselves don't want to be repairing these roads which are only 9.5 inches thick (3.5" of asphalt) as opposed to 32" thick (11" of concrete).

      When drivers start doing this, speed bumps and 20mph speed limits (with strict enforcement) are common first steps. After that blocking off most the streets on the sides of the neighborhood are a next step. And finally closing one side (e/w/n/s) to completely block thru traffic is a final option.

      No one has a problem with you cutting thru the neighborhood. But once it's you and your closest 2,000 waze/trapster/googlemap/etc. friends it becomes a problem.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    50. Re: That's just too damn bad. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Sounds like I should make it a moral imperative to take all my trips on residential streets then?

      Seriously though, fuck this slavish "property value" bullshit. It's already reprehensible how much subsidy property owners are granted in this country; your claim to exclusive access to a public good in the name of your private interest is beyond laughable.

    51. Re:That's just too damn bad. by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      There are, in fact, private roads that are closed once per year, just so no public easement is formed. One across a college campus springs to mind, though the college name escapes me. Boston College? I think Boston anyhow.

      If it's a private road, the government representative is the one with no right to put up a sign.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    52. Re:That's just too damn bad. by Megol · · Score: 1

      How about you just slow down when driving over them? That way they doesn't damage your suspension!

    53. Re: That's just too damn bad. by uncqual · · Score: 2

      And since the internet and phones and motorized printing presses didn't exist in 1791, the government can obviously ban any speech the desire via those mediums.

      See where that logic gets you?

      One purpose of the Second Amendment was to allow the people to defend themselves from the government. In the 1790's, the government and ordinary citizens had pretty much equal access to arms. To protect all the rights the Second Amendment was meant to protect, the people's right to keep and bear arms that are equivalent to those possessed by the government must not be infringed.

      --
      Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading /.
    54. Re: That's just too damn bad. by uncqual · · Score: 1

      There are very few automatic assault weapons in the hands of private citizens today and I don't recall one ever being used in a crime. They are so rare as to not even figure measurably in the current debate over private ownership of firearms.

      --
      Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading /.
    55. Re: That's just too damn bad. by camg188 · · Score: 1

      But traffic jams and honking a harrowing.

    56. Re:That's just too damn bad. by uncqual · · Score: 1

      I don't know where you live, but I live in one of the largest states in the country and the arrangement you describe doesn't happen here. Yes, there are private roads that wind through condominium complexes and the like that, for convenience, the HOA has not gated. The HOA is free to gate these roads at any time (subject to fire department access regulations etc) which would solve the Waze problem for those few situations where such roads actually get picked by Waze (which I'd bet is rare, these roads tend to be a very indirect way to get anywhere outside the area under the control of the HOA).

      --
      Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading /.
    57. Re:That's just too damn bad. by uncqual · · Score: 1

      That's certainly how it works everywhere I've ever lived. The city won't pave your driveway or your private road.

      --
      Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading /.
    58. Re:That's just too damn bad. by uncqual · · Score: 1

      Not where I live - if it's hands free, you can chat all day as you drive. You can also use the phone's map app for navigation freely just as you can use your Garmin unit or ask a passenger where to turn.

      --
      Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading /.
    59. Re:That's just too damn bad. by uncqual · · Score: 1

      Maybe that's the law in your state. Not in mine though.

      --
      Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading /.
    60. Re:That's just too damn bad. by Alumoi · · Score: 1

      Reported by Waze means the user who reported it didn't have enough mojo (or whatever waze calls it) to have his handle appear.

    61. Re:That's just too damn bad. by KozmoStevnNaut · · Score: 1

      We have speed bumps in my neighborhood where I have to slow down to less than 20kph to avoid a very jarring bump or even scraping the undercarriage, and I drive a comfortable car with adequate ground clearance and a stereotypical comfortable French suspension setup. I can imagine how a slightly lowered or less comfortably-sprung car (like say a stereotypical German sporty-type sedan) could be completely unable to traverse the bumps at any speed higher than 10kph.

      Not to mention how jarring the bumps must be for emergency vehicles. I am much more a fan of chicanes for speed control.

      --
      Eat the rich.
    62. Re:That's just too damn bad. by Freultwah · · Score: 2

      Agreed. That or speed bumps every block. That will frustrate the majority of drivers and indirectly force the problem elsewhere.

      In our corner of the world, it's possible to have traffic signs installed that indicate ‘Closed for traffic’ and then add exceptions, such as for the local residents, public transportation, and service vehicles. That should pretty much do the trick, as far as Waze is concerned. As long as the road has been paid for by the local government, they *should* have a say in who gets to use this or that road and for what purpose. Streets in residential areas should not be used as thoroughfares, they have not been designed for that and it's not safe for anybody.

    63. Re:That's just too damn bad. by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Speedbumps are dangerous and don't help much. Raised intersections work better, with less damage to cars and far less risk of causing accidents - and actually slow people down.

      Though I admit my only evidence of this is personal observation.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    64. Re:That's just too damn bad. by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      As a non-American, I've asked that question before... I got a lot of long diatribes about why gun rights are important but nobody has ever actually answered that yet. Apparently the line can be read to justify anybody have any amount of any weapon they want anywhere they want, but it sure can't be read as saying it's essential that this process be, in any way, regulated.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    65. Re: That's just too damn bad. by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      >To protect all the rights the Second Amendment was meant to protect, the people's right to keep and bear arms that are equivalent to those possessed by the government must not be infringed.

      So what exactly are you arguing for ? The right for citizens to own H-bombs or the right for citizens to dismantle the H-bombs owned by the government ?

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    66. Re:That's just too damn bad. by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      It's easy. Make frontal male nudity legal in the neighbourhood.

      In homophobic America nobody will want to drive down a road where every pedestrian shows you their schlong.

      And that will protect the kiddies from crazy traffic which, unlike the sight of a schlong, can actually hurt them.

      Won't somebody think of the children ?

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    67. Re:That's just too damn bad. by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Obviously: the ball.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    68. Re: That's just too damn bad. by dwillden · · Score: 1

      Actually history proves you wrong. The founding fathers were aware of early automatic/repeating weapons. The Puckle Gun, the Air rifle that Jefferson provided to Lewis and Clark, are a couple examples.

      By contemporary standards the "Arms" of the day were from single shot pistols up through ship caliber cannon. There were no limits on what citizens could own versus the government.

      And by your logic the 1st amendment protection of speech does not extend beyond quill pens and manually operated set-type presses.

      Also while legal to own, fully automatic weapons are strictly controlled, and are very expensive. And they are not used in criminal activities. When a basic automatic weapon starts at 20k, plus the paperwork, taxes, and open invitation to the ATF to come check on it. They just are not popular weapons for criminals to use. They prefer cheap guns.

      --
      I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
    69. Re:That's just too damn bad. by KozmoStevnNaut · · Score: 1

      For bus-friendly bumps, we generally use a design that's slim enough to let busses and other wide vehicles ride over them, but vehicles that are smaller will hit the bump.

      I like those because I can go by them without slowing down on my motorcycle (not that you really have to slow for bumps on a supermoto, but you understand), and in my car I can drive over them at the speed limit comfortably, by only hitting it with the wheels on the right side. It does make them kinda pointless, though.

      --
      Eat the rich.
    70. Re:That's just too damn bad. by dwillden · · Score: 1

      We are talking about Waze, gate it and within days the gate will be put into the map.

      --
      I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
    71. Re: That's just too damn bad. by danbert8 · · Score: 2

      Neither were the arterial roads. I live in the suburbs of Atlanta and I cut through neighborhoods to avoid the jam packed arterial streets. I don't do it because I want to, but because idiot developers created a huge development around a small lake with no through streets. The city then let them do it without requiring the upgrading of the arterial streets that go around it. So why would I take a 2 lane arterial street with a 35mph speed limit where traffic is bumper to bumper averaging less than 5mph? I would prefer not to blow by their unnecessary stop signs that don't many anything safer for anybody, but I would really prefer that people get over themselves and realize that the whole world can't be residential streets.

      --
      Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
    72. Re:That's just too damn bad. by danbert8 · · Score: 1

      And you are conveniently overlooking the fact that in most cases, main thoroughfares are also not designed for the traffic volumes or speeds that actually exist.

      --
      Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
    73. Re:That's just too damn bad. by serviscope_minor · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    74. Re:That's just too damn bad. by dwillden · · Score: 1

      Depends on the laws of the state you reside in. Many allow the use of Navigation software.

      --
      I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
    75. Re: That's just too damn bad. by dfghjk · · Score: 1, Insightful

      How is that different than the overloaded streets that motivate alternative routes in the first place? Oh yeah, your entitlement.

      Keep your children out of the streets.

    76. Re: That's just too damn bad. by dfghjk · · Score: 1

      Speed bumps ruin the utility of a road that was expressly paid for my the people using it and residential streets are every bit as much for "personal time trials" as they are for your private commuting needs. Public roads are for the public getting places, not for the individual's personal, selfish reasons.

    77. Re:That's just too damn bad. by dfghjk · · Score: 1

      You're not only an a-hole but a moron. It's "perfectly fine" for you to "park a garbage truck in the middle of the road"? Really? Apparently you have no idea what a road is for.

    78. Re:That's just too damn bad. by iris-n · · Score: 1

      Indeed. In Vienna they have what they call Wohnstraßen. It is illegal to cut through them, you can only use those streets if you are going to park there.

      --
      entropy happens
    79. Re:That's just too damn bad. by dfghjk · · Score: 1

      Not "many", and these roads should be marked as private. It is rare that such roads remain private since homeowners don't desire to carry the burden of maintenance costs.

      "Modern neighborhoods" commonly have roads built with private funding to public standards with the funding paid off through the sale of individual properties and with the roads turned over to the public as quickly as possible. This serves the needs of the developer without long term costs burdened on the homeowners.

    80. Re: That's just too damn bad. by halivar · · Score: 1

      Speed bumps ruin the utility of a road for and only for people driving too fucking fast.

    81. Re:That's just too damn bad. by dfghjk · · Score: 1

      It seems to me he understands completely. Roads are for shared use and are property of the government. The problem here is individuals thinking that they can lay claim to preferred use of public resources.

      Everyone understands that different roads support different usage patterns and it takes a complete idiot, or an anonymous coward, to suggest otherwise.

    82. Re:That's just too damn bad. by dfghjk · · Score: 1

      So what? Is the road that is shut down "designed with heavy traffic flow" in mind? The resources are what they are and if there weren't problems then people wouldn't seek out alternatives.

      Odds are that not one person using a residential road ever paid even a fraction of a "cent" to the construction of that road, including all the residents there. It's irrelevant. What matters is whether the road is public or not. Public roads are not reserved for the preferential use of certain citizens who deem their interests more important than others'.

    83. Re: That's just too damn bad. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You already try to tell me what i can and can't do with my own property because of your "property values". Now you want to tell me what public roads i can and can't drive on? Your rights should extend exactly as far as your property line.

    84. Re:That's just too damn bad. by dfghjk · · Score: 1

      "Almost everywhere has some rules that prevent cutting through private property to avoid a traffic control device."

      Public roads aren't private properly, they are the roads you are to take to avoid "cutting through" private property.

      "Some (but much fewer) have rules preventing cutting through public streets."

      Indeed, "much fewer". So "much fewer" that it could be difficult to even list an example. Regardless, they aren't the same because public roads aren't private property. It is illegal to use private property as a public throughway, public roads ARE for use as public throughways.

    85. Re:That's just too damn bad. by nava68 · · Score: 1

      That might be partly true for some countries but the problem with Waze ea. does also exist in other countries in Europe where the situation differs a bit, because:
      we (as house owners) paid up to 90% of the roads construction cost (for residential roads - others might be "free" of direct cost),
      we live often in a reduced traffic area with no through traffic (especially of lorries) allowed,
      we often have a significant speed limit of 30 km/h in residential areas.

      Modern traffic planning does actually divide streets up into different classes (aka functionalities) but most apps don't take modern planning into consideration - Eg. the street I'm living in is a low traffic residential area designed for some traffic going through because of an elementary school and a hospital in nearby areas. Whenever one of the larger motorways or state roads in the vicinity of our town is blocked the traffic rises exponentially ( also the speed) to cut through or bypass the traffic jam. If this happens in the morning quite a few school children will attempt to cross the roads or use the same roads by bicycle, which sometimes leads to dangerous situations.

      And you want to know whats really funny about that? Those detours won't save you much time, money or fuel - I was working with some traffic scientists in our geoscience department which calculated the time difference between staying on the congested road or using the detour suggested by apps - their finding was that it might save you time for short journeys, big jams or road closures but not for most other situations and you will need at least as much fuel.

    86. Re: That's just too damn bad. by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

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

      And who is defined by the Constitution and Acts of Congress to be in the militia?

      "The organized militia defined by the Militia Act of 1903, which repealed section two hundred thirty-two and sections 1625 - 1660 of title sixteen of the Revised Statutes, consists of State militia forces, notably the National Guard and the Naval Militia.[2] The National Guard, however, is not to be confused with the National Guard of the United States, which is a federally recognized reserve military force of the U.S. Army and the U.S. Air Force, although the two are linked.

              The reserve militia[3] are part of the unorganized militia defined by the Militia Act of 1903 as consisting of every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age who is not a member of the National Guard or Naval Militia.

              Former members of the armed forces are also considered part of the "unorganized militia" per Sec 313 Title 32 of the US Code.[2]"

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      And "well regulated" in the form of writing and language used at the time meant "in good working order, ready, prepared, fit for purpose".

      Look, if you believe so strongly that firearms should not be generally available to private citizens then make that case and amend the Constitution. It's been done many times, it's not impossible. It simply requires that a majority of citizens agree.

      But you would rather not go that route as you know most people disagree and you would not have enough votes.

      So you attempt to negate and disenfranchise the will of the majority of people by solipsistic reinterpretation of the words, definitions, meanings, and language to completely pervert the meaning and intent of the 2nd Amendment.

      Be VERY careful what you wish for, you might just get it!

      If subverting the 2nd Amendment in this manner becomes legitimate, how long do you think other amendments that you DO value will survive corrupt, power-seeking politicians, their cronies, and their political fellow-travelers and financial contributors?

      By weakening any *one* Constitutional Amendment in this manner, you weaken *all the others* in equal measure.

      Why would you want to hand over even more of your rights, privacy, security, and freedoms to the same people that created the NSA, FBI, FISA courts, NDAA, PATRIOT Act, civil forfeiture, War on (some) Drugs, etc etc, ad nauseam?

      Do you have a masochistic preference for the taste of jackboot leather, or what?

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    87. Re:That's just too damn bad. by PhoenixFlare · · Score: 1

      Perhaps i'm missing something, but I can see people looking down at their phones every day while i'm driving, just by glancing over for a second or two while they pass by. It's not that hard.

    88. Re:That's just too damn bad. by Beezlebub33 · · Score: 1

      Not to mention how jarring the bumps must be for emergency vehicles. I am much more a fan of chicanes for speed control.

      I asked my friend the firefighter, since our road is a snow emergency route and we were considering asking for speed bumps. He says that it doesn't matter to them (the fire trucks anyway). The vehicles are big enough and the suspensions are such that speed bumps are kind of irrelevant. They go over curbs fairly regularly. Perhaps ambulances are a different story though.

      --
      The more people I meet, the better I like my dog.
    89. Re: That's just too damn bad. by gnupun · · Score: 1

      Believe it ir not, people do want to live in a nice and quiet neighborhood thats off the main road... Because its off the main road.

      Good point. While the road in front of your house is public property, it's also not a freeway or a main road. Have the city legislators install speed bumps making for uncomfortable travel if dozens of cars simultaneously want to use the road.

      Alternatively, have the city legislators pass laws forbidding Waze to route more than X number of cars during a given time period through that road. So, say no more than 20 cars/hour for some street through Waze.

    90. Re:That's just too damn bad. by MikeMo · · Score: 1

      That is not necessarily true. In many cases, the smaller neighborhood roads (and lights and curbs and sidewalks and sewers) are paid for and maintained from special assessment taxes levied against the homes along the street.

    91. Re: That's just too damn bad. by undefinedreference · · Score: 1

      I used to live right next to a three-way stop sign. Can confirm that it's worse than simply letting them roll on through. There were an amazing number of cars and motorcycles that sounded like they had no mufflers taking off hard from that stop every night. The cops started watching for them due to noise complaints, so you'd sometimes hear that roar then sirens.

      I also hate speed bumps because they seriously ruin usability for everyone and they damage cars. Those cars also damage the bumps so they're even more difficult and dangerous to traverse...

    92. Re:That's just too damn bad. by guruevi · · Score: 1

      But that is exactly my point. If you don't want to pay the taxes and allow shared use of a public road, make it private and provide your own police and firemen and sewage and water supply and electricity generation. These kinds of people (and corporations) want us (the tax payers) to provide all that for them and then complain someone is walking/driving in "their" street.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    93. Re: That's just too damn bad. by Merk42 · · Score: 1

      The reserve militia[3] are part of the unorganized militia defined by the Militia Act of 1903 as consisting of every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age who is not a member of the National Guard or Naval Militia.

      So no guns for women, the handicapped, nor men over 45?

    94. Re:That's just too damn bad. by KozmoStevnNaut · · Score: 1

      I can imagine they are affected if the paramedics are trying to intubate or inject someone. Or if the patient has a back injury :-O

      --
      Eat the rich.
    95. Re: That's just too damn bad. by CWCheese · · Score: 1

      but those costs were likely also paid back to the developer's company via the infamous 20-50 year tax deferral so that the company effectively transfers the cost back to the city taxpayers in general, thus public does pay for your streets. so sorry that the realtor selling you the home didn't tell you about that little detail

      --
      Have a Day!
    96. Re: That's just too damn bad. by Quirkz · · Score: 1

      Yes, the speed bumps that make me slow down to 10 in a 25 zone are successfully keeping me from going 50% of the speed limit. Well done!

    97. Re:That's just too damn bad. by GTRacer · · Score: 1

      Riiiight... but how many speed bumps have you encountered that can be safely and comfortably taken at 30 mph?

      --
      Defending IP by destroying access to it? That makes sense, RIAA/MPAA. Go to the corner until you can play nice!
    98. Re: That's just too damn bad. by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

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

      No, it does not.

      The Bill of Rights was written right after we'd won a war to gain our freedom. To think that the 2nd Amendment was intended to mean that only organized militias were meant to have firearms shows a woeful ignorance.

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    99. Re: That's just too damn bad. by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

      Exactly, and very well said.

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    100. Re:That's just too damn bad. by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      If you try by actively endangering people, you can and probably should pay with your life.

      Dude, I hope you live in a country where you can carry a gun around with you ALL THE TIME. The right to keep and bear arms! 'Murica fuck yeah!

      Go shoot some people who are annoying you.

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    101. Re: That's just too damn bad. by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

      There are very few automatic assault weapons in the hands of private citizens today and I don't recall one ever being used in a crime. They are so rare as to not even figure measurably in the current debate over private ownership of firearms.

      Now don't be gettin' all "facty" and injecting truth into this conversation or we'll have to scold you.

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    102. Re:That's just too damn bad. by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      Every issue, doesn't matter what the issue is, someone like you has to come in with your two dimensional black and white point of view and poisonous attitude. Yes, in simplest terms you are correct, if the road is paid for by the taxpayers then all taxpayers have a right to drive on it. HOWEVER, and this is where your myopic view refuses to go further, there is a big fucking difference between normal road use, heavy road use and peak level traffic which has been re-routed from a main fucking road down a quiet residential street which was never meant to handle it.
      Aside from wrecking peoples quality of life there are safety concerns with children, not to mention emergency vehicle access down much narrower side streets.

      So, no, try and be a little more understanding and intelligent before slapping your crap onto something you don't understand.

      I completely agree. And you get this myopic world view in all kinds of areas like the whole transgender 'bathroom' issue where neither side can get past their myopia.

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    103. Re: That's just too damn bad. by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      So no guns for women, the handicapped, nor men over 45?

      Already addressed by equal rights and non-discrimination laws, Acts, Amendments, etc and the SCOTUS which ruled that owning firearms is the right of all citizens with very limited exceptions for felons, the dangerously mentally ill, etc.

      Why don't you address the issue of weakening all Constitutional Amendments by solipsistic redefining of the plain meaning of the 2nd Amendment instead of passing another Amendment, which I pointed out in the post you're replying to? Stop dancing around it and attempting to distract. You can't reasonably and logically defend it that's why, and that's one of the dirty little secrets that those who wish to weaken/destroy the 2nd Amendment will never bring up or address.

      Do you truly value all the other Amendments so little you'd be willing to see them abridged and/or rendered meaningless to satisfy some peoples' hoplophobia (and the nearly universal desire of those in power everywhere to make those over whom they rule more helpless to resist anything the powerful decide)?

      Again, if an overwhelming majority agreed then amending the Constitution would be no problem. Why do you wish to abrogate and disenfranchise the voices and civil rights (of which the individual right to own and bear arms is one) of the majority of citizens? What gives anyone the right to do that?

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    104. Re:That's just too damn bad. by NoImNotNineVolt · · Score: 1

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

      If going the speed limit results in damage to a vehicle's suspension, the speed limit is too high, or the road surface does not meet requirements. Going 25mph over speed bumps causes significant wear of a typical suspension, and I've never seen a posted speed limit under 25mph on a public road. Either your statement is false or you define travel at the speed limit to be "too fast".

      --
      Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
    105. Re:That's just too damn bad. by plague911 · · Score: 1

      Speed bumbs are designed to "save lives". Which is ironic because they cost far more than they save. What happens when an ambulance either needs to slow down or re-route because of speed bumps? People die. Or that was at least what I've been "told" by semi informed individuals

    106. Re:That's just too damn bad. by v1 · · Score: 1

      We've had that occur in a few places in town last year. They were rebuilding some intersections, and created a significant hump in one way. If the light was green and you didn't slow down, there was a good chance stuff in yout front seat would wind up in your back seat, or vice-versa. And you'd hit your head on the roof. And fully exercise every part of your suspension and shocks. And maybe bottom out or break a strut. It wasn't so much just a spee bunp type up-down, it was a downUUUUPDOWNup that could empty your shirt pocket, sort of like a whip cracking the car.

      After about a month, and I presume several suits filed due to vehicle damage, someone came out with a weird big grinder and actually ground down the hump several inches. It's still there, but is considerably shorter. You still want to slow down when you get to it, but it's not an "oops I forgot about that! and slam hard on your brakes" kind of event anymore. (I wouldn't be surprised if there were a few rear-enders at that light due to that rather than due to an inattentive driver behind a car stopped at the red)

      Drivers have enough to keep an eye on when using an intersection, you really don't want to move their focus away from pedestrians and traffic. This gives them tunnel vision with respect only to their own personal vehicle's safety.

      --
      I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    107. Re: That's just too damn bad. by dave420 · · Score: 1

      Apart from when they were used in the North Hollywood shootout to great effect, causing the cops to need to get some assault rifles to take the robbers on.

      You not knowing about something doesn't mean it didn't happen. Don't confuse hubris with knowledge.

    108. Re:That's just too damn bad. by AF_Cheddar_Head · · Score: 1

      Colorado Springs has taken to installing speed bumps on some of the streets that non-residents use as short-cuts, definitely slows down traffic. Other approaches are to design neighborhoods with single entrance/exit or have the streets wind about before exiting, thereby significantly increasing travel time and distance. The passive-aggressive approach to traffic control can be very effective.

    109. Re: That's just too damn bad. by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Best not to get caught.

      Don't do it at night, put up cones and hire people to stand around doing nothing, like you were an official work crew.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    110. Re:That's just too damn bad. by dywolf · · Score: 1

      except you didn't pay for it.
      in very few residential neighborhoods were the roads paid for by the public.

      the developer put the roads in when they made the subdivision.
      they then sell lots, which don't include a piece of the road, to buyers and include a portion of the road construction costs.
      the road itself is then signed over to the municipality (or sometimes to the HOA, making it a private road) for common access.
      maintenance for the road may come from the HOA fees, the municipality, or (quite often) from a "special tax district" that takes a portion of your property taxes and uses them for your neighborhood roads only.

      point is: you don't know what you're talking about.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    111. Re:That's just too damn bad. by serviscope_minor · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If going the speed limit results in damage to a vehicle's suspension, the speed limit is too high, or the road surface does not meet requirements.

      No: the speed limit is the maximum allowed speed above which you can be prosecuted simply for exceeding the speed and nothing else. It says *nothing* about what the maximum safe speed is. There are many, many things which limit the safe speed to below the speed limit. It is a very fundamental misunderstanding of road safety to assume that the speed limit is a safe speed.

      Here's an example where the speed limit is 60mph:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      However if you actually went at the speed limit, you'd be borderline suicidal and could probably be arrested for dangerous driving.

      Other examples of things lowering the safe speed to well below the speed limit are fog, obstructions, other vehicles ahead of you going below the speed limit, reduced visibility due to weather or visual obstructions, poor road surface (e.g. pot holes), road works, snow, ice, mud, water and of course traffic calming measures.

      You simply do not have a right to travel at the speed limit regardless of conditions. You absolutely have no right to exceed it. You only have a right to meet it IF you are driving safely.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    112. Re:That's just too damn bad. by LunaticTippy · · Score: 1

      People who live on the street tend to drive at or below the speed limit.

      Horseshit. I'm a career speeder and I never slow down in my neighborhood. I probably drive craziest there since I know where the cops like to hang out. All the other lunatics in Silicon Valley drive way worse than I do so it is not just me. I got rammed by a moron last year when I slowed down to 5 over the limit for a speed bump!

      --
      Man, you really need that seminar!
    113. Re: That's just too damn bad. by uncqual · · Score: 1

      I am familiar with that case. The weapons that the robbers had were illegally converted to allow full auto - they were not sold that way. Until we ban steel, there will always be people making illegal weapons out of steel. (Just as until we ban castor beans, and enforce the ban, we will always have people making Rican).

      In any event, even that episode does not figure measurably in the debate because of its rarity and the fact that no civilian died in that shootout whereas thousands die every year due to impaired driving yet we don't ban alcohol or very effectively enforce bans on illegal drugs.

      People who worry about "fully automatic weapons" in the hands of civilians are like people who, to avoid flying in a large commercial jet within the US on a domestic carrier because they recall plane crashes that get a lot of coverage, instead drive to their destination -- which is WAY more dangerous. Sensationalism != Effective Policy.

      --
      Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading /.
    114. Re: That's just too damn bad. by uncqual · · Score: 1

      No, that's not the argument I made - it appears to be one you may be making and I look forward to your defense of it.

      The nature of an H-bomb that you could carry (i.e., "bear" in the ordinary meaning of the word at the time the Second Amendment was drafted -- one did not refer, for example, to individuals "bearing" large cannons in that timeframe) is not effective for self defense - it tends to obliterate everything around it, including the person carrying it (making "self defense" a bit meaningless). Such weapons are also fairly useless to the government in suppressing their own people as a "scorched earth" policy doesn't make much sense as the government would be left with no one to lord over and exploit.

      Therefore, reading my entire comment including "allow the people to defend themselves from the government" would have been helpful to you in understanding. It wasn't a long comment, it wasn't complicated, it was in English. Read it instead of picking sentences out of context.

      --
      Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading /.
    115. Re: That's just too damn bad. by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      At least one Federal judge disagrees with you. And I respect his legal credentials far more than yours.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    116. Re:That's just too damn bad. by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      Here's the actual text:

      "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

      It mentions the militia, and then EXPLICITLY STATES the right is of the PEOPLE.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    117. Re:That's just too damn bad. by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      You actually can. Now shut up.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    118. Re: That's just too damn bad. by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      Yeah, because vigilante property damage is a fantastic cure for the issue. Especially when you get thrown in jail for actually doing something illegal, rather than just being pissed about people trying to get about their day through your overly-entitled shithead existence.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    119. Re: That's just too damn bad. by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      So replace H-Bomb with "Bazooka", "Sherman Tank", "Rocket Propelled Grenade" - the list goes on. There are hundreds of weapons now which the government has at it's disposal which would be utterly impractical for personal self defence and without which actually "defending yourselves against the government" would be an absolutely futile attempt.

      Not to mention, it seems rather unlikely the founding father ever actually intended this - despite how it is always claimed they did - considering that this is a mere amendment while right in the constitution proper the very action you are saying they wanted to ensure you could take is one of the few things explicitly prohibited to citizens. Specifically one of the few crimes defined in the constitution is the crime of treason - which is committed in one of several ways, the most important of which is: "to make war, or attempt to make war, on the government of the united states".
      Somebody should have told those idiots up in Oregon that sorry, no, the constitution explicitely prohibits people from doing what they did, they were not "defending" it, they were flagrantly violating it.
      The vast majority of the US constitution only prohibits the government from doing things, almost nothing in there constitutes a limitation on what citizens can do - hardly any citizen crimes are created in the constitution (quite unusual for a law) - this alone means that the few it DOES create were things the founding fathers considered ESPECIALLY egregious.
      And you can see the evidence of that all around. Hell Thomas Jefferson quite frankly felt that if somebody committed treason he gave up the right to due process - became an enemy combatant and as commander in chief of the armed forces the president was empowered to perform a summary execution of him. Doubt that ? The man actually did that once. He shot a man, with no trial, on the white house lawn for treason.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    120. Re:That's just too damn bad. by narcc · · Score: 1

      For clarity: It's the right of the people to keep and bear arms that shall not be infringed. Presumably to protect themselves against the earlier mentioned well-regulated militia...

    121. Re: That's just too damn bad. by russotto · · Score: 1

      This doesn't work on passenger cars because the suspension is too hard.

      It works on passenger cars, just not as well. That's how I used to go over speed bumps in my Miata. You still feel it but it's not as bad.

    122. Re:That's just too damn bad. by firewood · · Score: 1

      We are all paying the taxes necessary for you to have a road to your home. So get over it.

      Not necessarily. Several neighborhoods in several cities around my region have petitioned and gotten the city to actually complete block-off a smaller neighborhood street, or turn the street into one-way against the normal commute flow direction. "traffic-perverters". Make everyone have to go around a public-tax-paid-for blockage of a previous public-paid-for passageway.

    123. Re: That's just too damn bad. by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Define "too fucking fast". If I'm going to want to take a speed bump at no more than 5mph, and the road will reasonably support 20mph (speed limit is 30, but some roads look like I should go slower), I'm going to be ticked off. If this is just a diversion, I can avoid it, but I frequently want to drive into a neighborhood for a specific reason.

      Anything that will likely damage my car, or mess with my control, at 15-20mph should just go away.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    124. Re: That's just too damn bad. by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Alternatively, order an office chair on ebay.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    125. Re: That's just too damn bad. by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Until 1988, anyway, when it became illegal to buy a new infantry rifle. So much for getting the neighbors together and forming some sort of militia.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    126. Re: That's just too damn bad. by uncqual · · Score: 1

      No, a well armed populace does not need every weapon (such as nuclear bombs) to defend themselves against their own government if a significant percentage of the people believe such defense is called for.

      First, the soldiers will be vastly outnumbered.

      Second, if the people have the means to escalate the battle, the soldiers will have to kill many people who look like (and may be) their own parents, siblings and children -- the more ethical of them will soon switch sides (taking the government's, possibly more advanced, weapons with them). Without the ability to effectively escalate, the people will have little choice but to submit meekly and the inflection point will not be reached.

      Third, the people will know "the lay of the land" in their home territory better than government soldiers will (esp. since, due to the second point, the government would have to attempt to deploy soldiers who are least likely to identify with the people in a particular area). This gives the people, even if somewhat less well armed, a substantial defensive advantage. If 50% of the people in the Warsaw ghetto had firearms and ammunition (instead of about 0.1%), things might have turned out differently -- and as it was, with just a few real weapons, the defenders did make life difficult for Hitler's men.

      Fourth, while obviously the government could "nuke" every major city and kill the vast majority of the population in order to "control" the (now virtually nonexistent) population, that just wouldn't make any sense - and there is virtually no defense against such a case except removing the nut jobs before they have infiltrated deep into the upper levels of the government - esp. military. That may require a armed uprising earlier before it's too late.

      Also, it is NOT treason to protect yourself from a government which is not following the rule of law (including the Constitution). If government troops begin to systemically search houses without warrants and for no particular reason, Jefferson would not have labeled a defense against that as "treason" (he would have instead considered the soldiers and their leaders to be the tyrants committing treason).

      In fact, solely for economic (vs. psychical safety) reasons, America had recently committed what you call "treason" against the English -- and the English were even following the law. It's hard to believe that the Founding Fathers considered what they had done "treason" so its unlikely that they would have considered an armed uprising against a government which refused to follow the Constitution to be "treason".

      As Thomas Jefferson (who, presumably, understood the rational behind the Constitution) said: "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure." The goal is that, if needed, that blood is mostly that of the tyrants, not the patriots -- and that requires that there be some parity in arms.

      --
      Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading /.
    127. Re: That's just too damn bad. by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      And just who decides when peaceful democratic means of protest have been exhausted ? The revolutionaries were rising up against a monarchy whom they did not get to elect and who did not heed their protests. History has proven time and again that those who wish to rise up in protest can and *will* find weapons - no gun control laws have ever in the least reduced that (indeed - by definition those who are rising up against a government no longer respect it's laws, so why would they respect it's gun-control laws ?)
      Every story you heard to the contrary is a myth. Like the one Herman Cain told about how Hitler first disarmed the population. No, he didn't. The very premise of the story is false - Germany didn't have gun control under the NAZIs. Not to mention that it is extremely insulting to the Jewish people to claim they did not resist the NAZI forces and the holocaust. They did - there was a massive armed resistance movement by the Jews fighting the NAZIs inside Germany - and they were well armed, they were just outnumbered.

      You gave an interesting suggestion for a possible metric of when armed revolt may be justified - when the majority of people sincerely believes the government is no longer legitimate. I can live with that. I will also state that it is absolutely and abundantly clear that this is not the case in the USA. The armed-militia types and the oregon-rednecks are a fringe group that is regarded as insane by almost the entire population.

      Finally - even when armed revolt is justified, it is not always wise. Sometimes it is actually more effective to use other forms of resistance. Ghandi did it successfully against the British empire. Marthin Luther-King Junior did something very similar in the USA against extremely unjust laws that absolutely DID make the government illegitimate over him. He also didn't have a majority - and since only a minority were subject to these deligitimizing laws and the majority actually supported them, he wasn't going to get one. A peaceful resistance succeeded where armed revolt would have been guaranteed to fail.

      In South Africa the racist government actually offered to enter into negotiations 8 years before they started - but on condition of the ANC foreswearing further violence. The ANC did not believe that such negotiations would yield what they wanted - full and equal rights (especially voting rights) for all, and refused the offer. But it is at least theoretically possible that they were wrong - that, in fact, if they had accepted the offer and the condition - the scourge of apartheid could have been removed nearly a decade sooner.
      Oh - and the ANC was not only a banned organisation but every single one of their members was prohibited from owning weapons (a right preserved for white people at the time).

      That sure didn't stop them.

      So the entire argument is really a red herring - no gun control would ever stop legitimate revolt, which is not necessarily best approached violently in the first place. The only questions that are actually RELEVANT is whether guns are actually effective for self defence purposes (they are not) and whether an armed citizenry produces a more ordered, safe and peaceful society (it doesn't).

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    128. Re: That's just too damn bad. by uncqual · · Score: 1

      The only questions that are actually RELEVANT is whether guns are actually effective for self defence purposes (they are not) and whether an armed citizenry produces a more ordered, safe and peaceful society (it doesn't).

      In terms of defending oneself from attacks by private citizens, there's no question that firearms are effective. Yes, they can be (and sometimes are) misused just like baseball bats and kitchen knives (esp. pointed ones) but that is on those who misuse them and not a reason to ban their legitimate use. As you probably know, the courts have long held that the police (or government in general) has no specific obligation to protect you from anyone - that's your responsibility should you desire to maintain your safety.

      The US was not founded on the notion that an individual's safety and rights are secondary to that of a "ordered, safe and peaceful" society overall (if anything, the opposite is the case). If it was, the fourth amendment would not exist (and certainly not be interpreted as broadly as it is today). If the police could search anyone and their effects at any time for any (or no) reason, society would undoubtedly be safer and more ordered. However, we don't allow that because we are willing to sacrifice the overall safety and order of society to avoid inconvenient searches of individuals without specific cause. Preventing individuals from having an effective means of defending oneself is not a mere inconvenience (as a police search is), it puts the individual at substantial risk of life and limb. The Second Amendment is much more important than the Fourth Amendment for the safety of an individual (esp. since the latter is actually a hindrance to individual safety).

      --
      Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading /.
    129. Re:That's just too damn bad. by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      It is illegal to use private property as a public throughway,

      Nope. It's actually quite legal to do that. Cutting through a "private" parking lot is 100% legal, unless otherwise prohibited. If it weren't already legal, why would they need an explicit law to prohibit it? http://www.statutes.legis.stat... Sec. 545.423 But don't worry, we won't let reality interfere with your unsubstantiated opinion.

    130. Re:That's just too damn bad. by OutOnARock · · Score: 1

      You are in your house with your family and criminals start breaking down your front door.

      You and your family retreat to the master bedroom closet, lock the door,

      You hear the criminals break down the bedroom door.

      They start pounding on the closet door, saying we're coming in to get you and your cash.

      The closet door breaks apart.

      At that moment, who the fuck is anyone to tell you the level of technology you can use to defend your life.

      Sure, I'll give you that a sawed off shotgun would be your best choice at that moment,
      but if you wanted to use a fully automatic M-16 or AK-47, who is anyone to deny you the right to the best defense you can mount?

      This is the reason. Ice-T said it as well, and I parapharase, "I don't own a gun to hunt. I don't own a gun for target practice. I own a gun to protect myself from a crazed individual or government."

      That....right there......

    131. Re:That's just too damn bad. by hackwrench · · Score: 1

      While I do have perceptual problems, in this case we are talking about someone walking around their neighborhood, not a car going about the same speed as another car. Besides how often do you see someone looking down at their phone, and how do you distinguish it from them looking down at say, their speedometer. I ride with two different people now, and neither one of them look down at their phone. Having perceptual problems has resulted in my documenting better what my eyes pass my way because I have to navve many takes sometimes to figure out what's happening. Too slow for driving, but I get a better detailed result: Is this person looking down? What viewing angles catch what? There was this cop once that gave my mom a ticket that claimed he had his eyes on her car the whole time as he was turning his car around. Listening to different people and my own observations there were a number of different scenarios that fit what people thought happened. Nobody wants to believe that they just aren't that good an observer, despite studies showing that people are poor observers. I haven't heard any studies establishing how good "trained observers" are at observing, but I have my doubts.

    132. Re: That's just too damn bad. by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      And since the internet and phones and motorized printing presses didn't exist in 1791, the government can obviously ban any speech the desire via those mediums. See where that logic gets you?

      Yes, that was the obvious logical fallacy of the above AC. The fallacy I was obviously pointing out with the comparison.

      One purpose of the Second Amendment was to allow the people to defend themselves from the government.

      That's the slogan. Problems include reality, and that one "purpose" of the Constittuion was to make it harder for citizens to forcibly resist the government after Shay's Rebellion.

      In the 1790's, the government and ordinary citizens had pretty much equal access to arms. To protect all the rights the Second Amendment was meant to protect, the people's right to keep and bear arms that are equivalent to those possessed by the government must not be infringed.

      Ask Shay and the farmers in the Whiskey Rebellion how that worked out for them. Or the Confederates, who actually had an army and the best generals. Gun cultists overthrowing a fascist government is about as likely as Santa coming to deliver you that Lego set you wanted as a kid - and that's going back to the 19th Century when citizens might have arms as good as the Army.

      Today, when the NSA spies on your every phone call, the Army can meet your Bushmaster with an Abrams tank, and DHS can take out the Bundy compound with a drone, it's more delusional than a coked up, flat earthed antivaxxer.

    133. Re:That's just too damn bad. by dgatwood · · Score: 1

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

      Define "too fast".

      I have occasionally seen speed humps (several feet wide) that don't destroy your suspension, but they are by far the exception, rather than the rule. I'd be okay with keeping those legal, as they're only moderately annoying.

      Unfortunately, probably 99% of the speed bumps I've encountered are on roads with 25 MPH speed limits, with speed bumps that are painful at anything over 5 MPH. If you hit them at 25 (or even 15), you'll be lucky if you don't crack a rim, because they're almost like hitting a curb straight on. Even if you slow down to 5 MPH, you're still doing damage, just not as much (and you're wasting fuel having to speed back up).

      You could just as easily replace those speed bumps with stop signs, and they would have the same effect without abusing your car and your body. So why should these traditional speed bumps be legal?

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    134. Re: That's just too damn bad. by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      I also consider individual liberty to be primary and more important than the state of society, that's why I mentioned that first.

      In terms of self defense however - you are just plain wrong. It's a scientific fact. If anything, owning a gun makes you LESS likely to survive an attack by a criminal. By far the most likely result of owning a gun is that you use it to kill yourself, the second most likely outcome is that somebody else (perhaps a criminal, perhaps an accident) shoots you with your own gun. Shooting a criminal isn't even in the top-5 most likely results, and that's for guns specific bought to be able to do that with. It's simply a scientific fact that having a gun does not help you defend yourself, it mostly helps criminals kill you - and it also ensures they WILL kill you. You having a gun automatically escalates ANY encounter with a criminal to lethal force, while in fact the vast majority of crimes are not violent otherwise.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    135. Re:That's just too damn bad. by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Gun-nuts always brings up that argument... the worst one ever because
      1) Such events are so exceedingly rare in the real world that the continious risks just from having a gun outweigh them a million times over.
      2) Even when they do occur, a gun is generally the WORST thing to use to try and defend yourself with.

      So you're massively INCREASING your risk of dying from a gunshot, and you're not EVEN reducing the risk you have to be a tinfoil hat paranoid person to be afraid of in the first place but actually making that risk MORE likely.

      If you really want to protect yourself from that 'crazed individual or government' - scientifically there is one thing that will do far more than anything else to achieve that: disarm the cops.
      Disarming citizens is the second best thing one can do to achieve that.

      Crazy stranger crimes are virtually non-existent. They happen but not nearly enough to base any decisions on - ever. Nearly all violent crimes are committed by people you know, the vast majority by people you know intimately. Most women 4 out of 5 female murder victims are killed by husbands or boyfriends for example. In other words - the crazed indvidual most likely to attack you is ALSO among the people who know where you keep your gun and will use your own gun to do it with.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    136. Re: That's just too damn bad. by uncqual · · Score: 1

      If one decides to kill themselves, a gun is not required. Japan has a much higher suicide rate than the US does and guns are virtually unavailable to private citizens in Japan. As well, self defense has nothing to do with suicide (except, of course, that it could be considered suicidal to not have an effective means of defending yourself if attacked). The 60% of gun deaths in the US that are suicides are not relevant to the question of if guns are effective for self defense.

      Many, perhaps most, self defense uses of firearms never result in a shot being fired let alone the death of anyone -- the criminal often either retreats or is apprehended without incident when faced with a defensive threat. An effective self defense does not require killing or even injuring the attacker. When comparing whatever numbers you have about "less likely to survive an attack", one must include cases where no physical attack occurred because the potential victim was armed.

      It is obviously not the case that one having a gun "automatically escalates ANY encounter with a criminal to lethal force" (display of a gun is not, in common usage, "lethal force" - when a police officer pulls his gun but never even puts his finger inside the trigger guard, it is not considered a use of "lethal force"). Surely, even in your cocoon you have heard of at least ONE case where a gun was used to deter a threat and NO one was killed or the gun even fired? If not, here is a sampling (links to the underlying media reports are included) of self defense uses of firearms that often never result in a shot being fired. Note, of course, that this list is by necessity incomplete. It only includes cases that are actually reported to the police, then reported in the media, then noticed by someone and reported to the list maintainer, and that the list maintainer decides to include in the list. Note that many such instances wouldn't be reported on in the media in an urban area in part because they are not very unique and, hence, sensational enough to be newsworthy -- just as shoplifting violations are rarely reported in the media except maybe in "police blotter" listings that provide insufficient detail to make the list above.

      Since many defensive uses of a firearm are not reported to police if no one is injured just as many thefts are not reported to the police, it's not possible to come up with an accurate number of defensive uses of firearms for self defense. Although if you want to play "dueling estimates", many are available (ranging, as I recall, from around 100,000 per year to around 3,500,000 per year - both ends of which I'm sceptical of).

      Your statement of "It's simply a scientific fact that having a gun does not help you defend yourself, it mostly helps criminals kill you - and it also ensures they WILL kill you." can only true if there is a nationwide conspiracy with people reporting defensive uses of firearms to police (by your logic anyone who actually used a gun for self defense would be dead since you state that as an absolute outcome of such an encounter). To support this conspiracy some people actually are voluntarily shot (and sometimes die at the scene they are so devoted to the grand conspiracy). Some allow themselves to be arrested and put in prison for years for the crime that never happened but they agreed to allow themselves to be imprisoned for. I find this far fetched -- but of course I also believe that we landed on the moon and that man may have an impact on the climate and perhaps you don't.

      Although you don't cite any references so I can't find out where your data comes from, the way you phrase and use the data suggests that you are not understanding the full picture. It appears you have jumped to "scientific fact" a bit too early.

      --
      Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading /.
    137. Re: That's just too damn bad. by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      I didn't say the absense of a gun makes suicide less likely. It does make surviving the attempt more likely but that is an aside. The point was what impact does a gun have on your personal safety ? It absolutely and massively reduces it.
      A well educated and scientiffically minded society would be devoid of guns even if it did not have a single gun control law. Smart people makes decisions based on science. Science trumps common sense (which is, of course, neither). Science says guns only create danger and cannot mitigate it.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    138. Re: That's just too damn bad. by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      So your argument is that the science is wrong because it is hard to count the number of times people used a gun to threaten off an attacker without firing it ?

      Maybe. That would probably be significant if crime by strangers happened to a statistically significant degree. Since however the people most likely to attack anybody is their own family. The gun an attacker is most likely yo use is your own because almost every attacker in the real world has legitimate access to your guns.
      4 out of 5 women ever killed were shot by a husband or boyfriend... so frankly just about the most suicidal thing a woman can ever do is live with a man with a gun in the house. It does not much matter which one of them bought it.
      It does not matter if a gun is effective against an armed intruder because armed intruders are extremely rare. Deliberate and accidental shootings by family members however are exceedingly common.

      Ps. Japan's suicide rate is a lie. The Japanese police claim a near 100% case resolution rate for murder. That is statistically impossible. Its been investigated multiple times and consistently explained by simple corruption: only solve the easy ones. Any complicated murder without an instantly obvious suspect is ruled a suicide because there are no performance penalties for unsolved suicides.
      The actual murder rate is much higher than reported (though far lower than the US) and the actual suicide rate much lower (just slightly more than the US). Unless you think its likely that people commit suicide regularly with three bullets to the back of the skull...
      Excellent refference on specifically this Japanese situation and the incentives that led to it can be found in Stephen J. Levitt's book 'freakonomics'.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    139. Re:That's just too damn bad. by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      If you're damaging your suspension then you're going too fast. That's how I define it.

      If you hit them at 25 (or even 15), you'll be lucky if you don't crack a rim

      Then don't hit them at 25 or even 15.

      Even if you slow down to 5 MPH, you're still doing damage,

      No you're not. You won't get excessive travel at 5mph.

      The best solution is to spend the minimum time possible on such a road, and head to a bigger road by the shortest route. Which is entirely the point.

      You could just as easily replace those speed bumps with stop signs, and they would have the same effect without abusing your car and your body. So why should these traditional speed bumps be legal?

      Because they don't actually damage suspension if you go slow enough. So go slow. Which is the intent.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    140. Re: That's just too damn bad. by hucker75 · · Score: 1

      No, you fuck off. If you don't want cars going through your road, apply to make it a culdesac. Then moan again when you have to drive further to get home. Better yet, just stop moaning.

    141. Re:That's just too damn bad. by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      The minimum speed limit in the US is 25 mph (40 KMph), if a speed bump needs to be slowed more than that to go over, it is a danger to traffic and should not exist. Forcing people to go 5 mph to negotiate a speed bump on a 25 mph road is poor design. There are better traffic slowing measures that don't ruin car's suspension/tires.

      And before you respond personally about my driving, I will inform you that I own a large truck, I assure you, it can negotiate a speed bump at the legal speed limit without the slightest damage, but not all cars are designed like my truck. Also, as I drive a large vehichle, I frequently drive under the speed limit in residential areas, but that doesn't stop the complainers...

      Here is an example of a better traffic calming method:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    142. Re: That's just too damn bad. by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Bullshit.

      https://www.law.cornell.edu/su...

      The second amendment has always meant current military level arms. It even covers tanks and fighter jets if you can afford the stamp and the item.

      FYI, most of the weapons used in the revolutionary war were privately owned. Most of the cannon used were owned by private citizens, not the government.

      Also, the militia portion of the second amendment is A reason for the right to bear arms, not the only reason as you try to assert.

      If you want to change the second amendment, create an amendment and get the states to approve it, until you do so, the second amendment protects everyone's rights to own a firearm, even former felons and the mentally ill.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    143. Re: That's just too damn bad. by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      By the definition used, the regular citizens has better technology weapons than the government!

      The government handed out muskets, private citizens provided rifles and cannon.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    144. Re:That's just too damn bad. by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Clearly the ball. You don't slow down for flying object entering the street?

      The complaint is about the amount of traffic, not the speed of the traffic.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    145. Re:That's just too damn bad. by JustSomeProgrammer · · Score: 1

      I'd have no problem with this is roads were all built to the same specifications and funded by a large pool at federal or state level, but in reality they aren't. Residential roads are general funded by the residents in that city, town, borough, hamlet, possibly even neighborhood. So does your argument hold water if the only people paying for maintenance on that street are the residents who live on it? If 0 of your tax dollars paid for it why do you get to dictate that you should get to use it just because you paid taxes. Highways generally are funded at the state or federal level. You do pay for those. But if you're driving along highway 3.14 from City A to City Z and divert onto township C's local street that you didn't pay for with no intention of engaging with township C or helping its economy to make maintaining these roads possible what right do you really have to dictate how those streets are used?

    146. Re:That's just too damn bad. by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      > Speed bumps probably cause more suspension damage than all the other problems with our road system put together,

      Do you have actual hard data for this or just anecdotal evidence?

      Here's an option: Slow the fuck down.

      Since the majority of drivers aren't interested in that option, indirectly forcing them via Stop Signs or Speed Bumps seems to be the only practical solutions.

    147. Re: That's just too damn bad. by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Bullshit.

      If you're referring to your butthurt, delusional, irrelevant ammosexual delusions (as if a 1939 court case has Jack or shit to do with what the 2nd had "always" meant), then yes. You were so busy kneejerking that gun cult crap that you didn't bother to actually address the actual point:

      Gun cultists, always trying to have it both ways. Modern definition, when it suits you, 18th century definition that you pulled out of your ass, when it suits you.

      If you want to change the second amendment, create an amendment and get the states to approve it, until you do so, the second amendment protects everyone's rights to own a firearm, even former felons and the mentally ill.

      And you and all of your ammosexual friends can get together to start your own move to amend the Constitution, to take out the words "a well regulated militia". So you cultists can finally stop ignoring the first words in your Bible.

      It even covers tanks and fighter jets if you can afford the stamp and the item.

      You forgot nuclear weapons! Thanks for confirming the batshit insanity of your chosen cult. Now, why don't you go over to the story on Oklahoma troopers performing asset forfeiture on gift and credit cards, and tell everyone how you're going to singlehandedly stand up to these fascists with your dick extender, and live to tell the tale.

    148. Re: That's just too damn bad. by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      So, not a single response to the actual legally backed supreme court case, but instead accusing me of being an ammosexual? I own no firearms, but apparently because I choose to defend all rights guaranteed by the constitution, I am some kind of gun lover?

      Look, I get it, you are a pansy and are terrified of people owning guns, but you are the one in the minority. There are more firearms in the US than people. You have already lost the argument if you are trying to remove firearms from people's hands.

      And you and all of your ammosexual friends can get together to start your own move to amend the Constitution, to take out the words "a well regulated militia". So you cultists can finally stop ignoring the first words in your Bible.

      Perhaps you should go back to remedial English, since you seem to fail at grammar. "A well regulated militia" is not the only reason for the right to bear arms, it was just given as a reason, and any 5th grader could tell you by reading the sentence that it does not restrict the right to bear arms to a militia. Also, the militia was everyone, not some small subset of people who work for the government. You can keep flipping off the handle all you like, it doesn't change the actual meaning of the sentence.

      A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

      militia
      mliSH/Submit
      noun
      a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency.
      a military force that engages in rebel or terrorist activities, typically in opposition to a regular army.
      all able-bodied civilians eligible by law for military service.

      http://www.constitution.org/co...

      The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

      So please, link to legal definitions that change any piece of the amendment, I will wait for your response.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  3. Cause and Effect by lorenlal · · Score: 1

    I am incredibly sympathetic to increased traffic in a residential area, in most cases the drivers should be weary of that.

    But then I see Takoma Park as the location. I know this guy's pain. I'm surprised he's not experiencing worse. The "Maryland driver near DC" is why we can't have nice things.

  4. "I could see them looking down at their phones" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Tell a cop and they'll set up several speed traps for distracted driving. That will make drivers think twice about using your street.

    1. Re:"I could see them looking down at their phones" by hucker75 · · Score: 1

      If the phone is being used as a satnav, then it's not illegal. And by the way, why should Waze be blamed? Anyone with a satnav (that's most of us) already avoids heavy traffic.

  5. Long term solutions aren't easy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    In the short term, yeah, putting up obstacles and generally making it harder for traffic to come through the side streets will work.

    But in the long term, that's only going to - at best - shift the load to other side streets. In order to fix this problem properly, you need to make the major roads more useful. That means either widening them (which may not be possible, if the area in question is built up - exactly as you'd expect in a large city), or reducing the demand for the roads. Reducing the demand means either encouraging people to car pool (which doesn't work that well; there's a reason people like private vehicles), or introducing alternatives... like large-scale public transport. Heavy rail is best: up to thirty thousand passengers per hour per direction (500 per minute - try getting that volume of traffic on the road!), but is also the most expensive. Light rail is up to about a third of that, but has a number of issues (like, for example, sharing the same roads that are ridiculously congested, in the simplest designs.)

    Town planning is hard. Blaming these apps for these problems is simply blaming another symptom - they didn't create the problem, they're merely making it more obvious.

    1. Re:Long term solutions aren't easy by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      There are other, much less radical solutions that would help a great deal. For example, Texas Turnarounds (eliminating all left turns and most traffic lights) would make major roads a lot more useful.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    2. Re:Long term solutions aren't easy by kybred · · Score: 1

      In Texas we also have the Michigan left.

      The city of Plano was the first city in Texas to use a Michigan left. One was built in mid-2010 at the intersection of Preston Road and Legacy Drive. In January 2014, the city announced plans to revert the turn to a traditional intersection as a result of drivers' confusion.

      BTW, the Texas Turnaround definitely doesn't eliminate all left turns.

    3. Re:Long term solutions aren't easy by omnichad · · Score: 1

      The first time I saw a Double Crossover Diamond I was completely thrown off. But left turns essentially become like right turns and vice versa. It's a little weird driving on the left side of the road, but I think it does make a difference.

    4. Re:Long term solutions aren't easy by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      BTW, the Texas Turnaround [wikipedia.org] definitely doesn't eliminate all left turns.

      Sorry, I confused two related terms. I meant the Michigan left. Basically, the side streets are allowed to turn right onto the major streets, and you can turn right onto the side streets from the major streets. There are U-turns on the major streets every so often, with their own lanes on both sides. If you want to cross a major street on a side street, you turn right, make a U-turn, and then turn right again.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

  6. Sorry, Not Sorry by IonOtter · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If people are driving properly, and obeying the speed limit, then your complaints are groundless. You can kvetch all you want, as that's your right? But unless you buy the street and make it private, then you have to accept it as part and parcel of living in a civilized society.

    --
    [End Of Line]
    1. Re:Sorry, Not Sorry by Shados · · Score: 2, Insightful

      and obeying the speed limit

      If even 20% of cars going through the streets near my place did that, I'd probably be able to sleep an extra hour in the morning. Obeying the speed limits? Lol.

    2. Re:Sorry, Not Sorry by LQ · · Score: 1

      If people are driving properly, and obeying the speed limit, then your complaints are groundless. You can kvetch all you want, as that's your right? But unless you buy the street and make it private, then you have to accept it as part and parcel of living in a civilized society.

      In British cities, the local authorities often close off parts of roads to prevent "rat running" through residential areas. That's more civilized.

    3. Re:Sorry, Not Sorry by null+etc. · · Score: 1

      I'd be more than happy to accommodate extra traffic through my neighborhood, if the NYC commuters would stop blasting through my streets at 50 mph in a 25 mph residential zone. There are plenty of kids, pets, and elderly residents to worry about, and our streets don't have great visibility.

      Every morning, commuters hop off the turnpike, take a "shortcut" through my neighborhood at ridiculous speeds, and hop back on the turnpike, just to save 4 minutes. It's not worth the risk to our residents, and that's NOT what our streets were designed for.

    4. Re:Sorry, Not Sorry by Lendrick · · Score: 1

      Incidentally, if you're getting a lot of (illegally) fast through traffic on your residential street, it's possible that the city isn't even aware of it. If you call the police dispatcher and let them know that you're getting a lot of speeders in your neighborhood, they might actually send out a cop to enforce the speed limit.

      The city government isn't psychic. If you don't report problems, they probably aren't going to know about them.

  7. Barriers to entry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    We had something like this happen a few years ago.
    Neighborhood kid got flattened because google maps told a trucker the grocery store on the other side of the brickwall at the back of our neighborhood had an entrance running through our neighborhood.

    Solution turned out to be simple. We put up a big construction "road closed" sign at the front of the neighborhood and a signs warning things like "neighborhood traffic only, not a trough street, private road and unauthorized cars will be fined the maximum penalty allowed by law".

    Now days the street isn't even on google maps or waze. You visit us with google maps entire neighborhood is missing. Just a road closed sign.
    Keeps door to door solicitors out too.

    1. Re:Barriers to entry by Gojira+Shipi-Taro · · Score: 1, Troll

      And if those signs aren't real, someone should sue the fuck out of you. That street is not your property.

      --
      "Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked."; ~ Donald J. Trump
    2. Re:Barriers to entry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Don't worry, the OP is a liar. He's just pretending he actually carried out the "clever plan" he fantasizes about as he quietly seethes over his trivial bullshit "problem".

    3. Re:Barriers to entry by KozmoStevnNaut · · Score: 1

      If your neighborhood is closed at one end (a blind street/dead end), there really should be a sign at the entrance saying so.

      --
      Eat the rich.
    4. Re:Barriers to entry by phorm · · Score: 1

      This is NOT a problem with "Google Maps", but a problem with an idiot trucker who obviously wasn't watching the road properly and/or not driving for the conditions. It could just as easily have been some twit playing with a phone or diddling with a stereo.

  8. Needs municipal class action by wierd_w · · Score: 4, Informative

    The cities need to sue Waze.

    Residential streets are given lower roadway maintenance budgets because they are designed to handle significantly less traffic than a major roadway does.

    A significant number of Waze users will not be city residents.

    Major roadway maintenance is paid for, at least in part, by state traffic authority funds, extracted from fuel taxes. Residential roads are paid for mostly by taxes on local residents. It is very plausible that excessive redirection down residential streets will pose an undue burden on upkeep costs for the municipality that this happens to, especially with smaller towns.

    Waze is acting in a manner that precludes equitability. It is not being considerate of the consequences of routing large amounts of traffic through residential areas, and further, their public response to the issue has been openly hostile to being considerate in this fashion.

    This means that they need a court to tell them that they need to behave properly in respect to a public commons, or else.

    1. Re:Needs municipal class action by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Worse yet are those bastards that publish maps. Rand-McNally for instance needs to be sued out of existance.

    2. Re:Needs municipal class action by inode_buddha · · Score: 2

      +1 insightful (too bad I already commented) but this is spot on. When Waze pays the road maintenance taxes then they can bitch.

      --
      C|N>K
    3. Re:Needs municipal class action by thedarb · · Score: 1

      Waze is given the destination address before I start driving. Listening to it's direction, as with any GPS device, is not using my cell phone while driving. Please stop trying to re-define what we are doing to fit your rant.

      --
      This sig intentionally left blank.
    4. Re:Needs municipal class action by Vladus2000 · · Score: 1

      Where I live this is mostly a non-issue, the side roads are intentionally made so you cannot do this, believe me I have tried. There is no shortcut, the roads end for no reason or take a big curvy path with lots of stop signs. The one place I am aware of that people were using for a shortcut they just blocked the road mid-way through and made you go around a big block that made it not worth it. At first I thought the roads were just asinine,but the longer I live here the more beauty I see in it and the more I am annoyed during construction season.

    5. Re:Needs municipal class action by wierd_w · · Score: 1

      Residential road use already has centuries worth of precident linking it to law covering public commons.

      Similar arguments were made concerning such things as grazing rights on empty pastoral fields back in the dark ages. The standing decision that guides equity law, is that convenience is not just grounds for abusing the public commons.

      EG, "getting there faster" is not justification for causing excessive wear on a road not rated for that kind of traffic, any more than "It's convenient pasturage for my sheep!" was four hundred years ago.

      Unless you pony up for the additional upkeep costs, you are forcing other people to pay for your convenience, and that is an unequitable transaction.

      Forcing a municipal government to pony up will cause diversion of funds from other areas in the budget to cover the expense, which would mean reductions in public spending in such areas as food pantries, and other life sustaining services for the impoverished.

      These unintended consequences are the reason why equity laws were created.

      Just how much is your getting to your destination a little faster worth?

    6. Re:Needs municipal class action by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      The problem with that suggestion is, what is Waze doing that's illegal? All of the issues that you mention are ambiguous enough that a court probably won't be able to assess any damages.

      Of course, the nice thing about stuff being legal or illegal is that you can make changes. The simplest solution I can think of is for the city/town to post signs that prohibit through traffic during rush hours, and then have one or two police officers handing out tickets. That won't affect local residents at all, and it should pretty quickly eliminate all of the extra traffic.

    7. Re:Needs municipal class action by wierd_w · · Score: 1

      You might wish to familiarize yourself with the legal concept of Equity, which is in force in US courts.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      The class action suit against Waze would be unfair enrichment, a subset of US equity laws.

    8. Re: Needs municipal class action by wierd_w · · Score: 1

      Can we at least pretend to be civil in here?

      I realize that some people just dont comprehend Equity law, or why it exists, and have a hardon for anything that removes any perception of personal obstacle, (and as evidenced by all the "-1 troll" mods, which I might well point out is not a substitute for the purposefully missing "-1 disagree" moderation-- as well as the odd directive for people to kill themselves. Very classy.) and get personally emotional when confronted about the ethics of willfully violating it, that does not mean beligerance is the appropriate response.

      Ignorance of the law is not a defense. Personal convenience is not a protected class under equity law, no matter how much one may wish it to be. Shooting the messenger does not make the reality of the message go away, and being belligerant accomplishes nothing constructive.

      A class action civil suit brought by many municipalities under Equity law, or even by many enjoined private citizens who have recieved notifications by the city assayer that they will be levied an additional excise for road repair attributable to Waze's actions under equity law, would easily be able to demonstrate damages from Waze's actions, and would have the option of a court ordered compulsion to cease such redirection within the disputed area as injunctive relief.

      If enough such cases are brought against Waze, (and even a single defeat would expose liability in other venues of litigation) it would quickly become very costly for them to persist.

      Because Waze's actions will have impact on interstate commerce, (hah), there is even the potential for a federal level case instead of lots of local ones, but that's a stretch.

      Naturally, IANAL and all that.

    9. Re:Needs municipal class action by wierd_w · · Score: 1

      As a resident of NYC, you should be aware of what the taxi medallion thing is all about, and why NYC hates Uber with a firey passion.

    10. Re:Needs municipal class action by Hans+Lehmann · · Score: 1

      "A significant number of Waze users will not be city residents." So what? A significant number of Chevy drivers will also not be city residents. Should the city sue Chevrolet for building cars that violate the sanctity of this neighborhood? Waze doesn't create more traffic. For every car that moves onto a less traveled road there's one less car that's on the busier roads. The total wear & tear on pavement is the same, and the total roadway maintenance costs are the same. "This means that they need a court to tell them that they need to behave properly in respect to a public commons, or else." Or else what? Public commons? Here's the thing with these public commons; everyone has the right to choose their own route through them. Don't like them in your neighborhood, then maybe they won't allow you to drive through their neighborhood.

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    11. Re:Needs municipal class action by wierd_w · · Score: 1

      1) Major highway upkeep is paid for predominantly by the fuel tax. By buying gasoline, you pay for the upkeep of major highways. That was the equitable decision found by the US court system for their upkeep.

      2) Residential roads are not funded this way.

      3) appropriate use of residential streets by non-citizens of the municipality is expected-- Visiting someone, dropping off a package, etc. The residents are appropriately tasked with paying for the upkeep of roads for this purpose.

      4) Excessive through traffic that is not solicited by the residents of the city on residential roads is not an appropriate use.

      5) Road deterioration rate is measured by number of axles driving over it in a given timeframe. The city assayer will investigate premature deterioration, and issue notices of excise to residents in the impacted area so that the roads can be maintained at the higher rate of use. This is unfair to the residents of the community being abused, and is unfair enrichment on the part of Waze. IT DOES NOT GET DISTIBUTED ACROSS THE TAX BASE IN MOST MUNICIPALITIES.

      6) Waze has publicly demonstrated that it does not care that its actions cause undue burden to these citizens, demonstrating beligerance.

      Why do you support Waze in this?

    12. Re:Needs municipal class action by wierd_w · · Score: 1

      Your typical navigation app suggests major roadways with higher priority than residential areas.

      From the sounds of it, Waze does not. It suggests whichever road will result in the shortest commute time, as determined by GPS tracking of its users.

      Waze can avoid being douchebags by suggesting major roadways first, like they should be, as that is the ethical and equitable course of action.

    13. Re:Needs municipal class action by wierd_w · · Score: 1

      In the US, there was a drive to fuse equity with law courts, but the ways they are tried and the kinds of relief that can be obtained are still seperate classes. Equity is still alive and well in the US court system.

      As for your rebuttle: In many smaller municipalities, residential road maintenance outside of expected (budgeted) norms is frequently recouped by a direct levy against the residents who live on that street, with a defined dollar amount. This should meet the requirement for determining exactly how much Waze has unjustly profited from exploitation of the residential street.

    14. Re:Needs municipal class action by sectokia · · Score: 1

      Information is in the hands of the people.... lets sue who is giving out the information! Lets make it illegal to give out the information! Lets make it illigal to catalogue the information! If this is really a problem, there is a simple fix: Put a brick wall in the middle of the road to make it a no through road from both ends. Then only residents visiting residential areas will care. I bet he won't like that, because it will disadvantage him the same amount as he wants to disadvantage others. He lives near a major road and highway intersection, and his street cuts from one to the other allowing to avoid a large interchange and saving miles.

    15. Re:Needs municipal class action by iCEBaLM · · Score: 1

      Why do you support Waze in this?

      How far do you go? Is google maps also to blame because they show the residential roads that people can look up? How about paper map makers? All Waze is doing is making it easier to get the information.

      It's not Waze's fault how a city chooses to pay for road maintenance. The roads are there, they are open to the public. Waze has a first amendment right to be able to tell people that the roads exist. Done.

    16. Re: Needs municipal class action by msauve · · Score: 1

      " IANAL and all that."

      That's obvious, and you've also got the phrase "equity law" stuck in your head with no obvious understanding of what it actually means. Now look up "right of way."

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    17. Re:Needs municipal class action by weave · · Score: 1

      The cities need to sue Waze.

      No. The city needs to put up a sign that says no through traffic and us Waze editors will make it a private installation. https://wiki.waze.com/wiki/Pri...

    18. Re: Needs municipal class action by dwillden · · Score: 1

      It doesn't even need taps, a user can set it to motion and voice activated where they can wave their hand over the device without touching it, then dictate the report verbally.

      --
      I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
    19. Re:Needs municipal class action by dwillden · · Score: 1

      Or as you are driving along and you come upon a congested arear you pull out your atlas, spot that cutting through the neighborhood is a viable alternative and take that route. Guess what, the atlas just did what Waze does, just not as efficiently.

      --
      I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
    20. Re:Needs municipal class action by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      The cities need to sue Waze.

      Let me guess, you are a lawyer? Or perhaps you sell litigation insurance?

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    21. Re:Needs municipal class action by CWCheese · · Score: 1

      The cities need to sue Waze.

      Do the cities also need to sue AAA and Rand-McNally because they propagate maps to the unsuspecting public?

      --
      Have a Day!
    22. Re:Needs municipal class action by CWCheese · · Score: 1

      No, a road atlas or street map are designed to direct drivers along any road marked on the map. DUH! Every city I have moved into, one of my first tasks is to go to the local auto club and obtain the free maps or buy the Rand-McNally Thomas guide and learn the lay of the land, identifying all the routes accessible for me to get around to work, play, shop, eat, etc. This was decades before online map software, and nobody gave me approval to drive through the streets in any town that are open public roadways.

      --
      Have a Day!
    23. Re:Needs municipal class action by JustSomeProgrammer · · Score: 1

      You do know that local residential roads aren't always shown on state maps of roads that Rand-McNally produces, right? Those are usually only shown in city level maps. Some atlases have city level maps of major cities that are points of destination, but random borough? not really. I never saw a map of the roads in my home town until the internet. (Downtown area yes but not the whole town.)

  9. Break up the roads by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Sometimes traffic is not served by having too many routes to each destination. In areas where drivers are getting off of freeways and going onto side streets a lot, it might make sense to petition the town re-design the roads so that cut-through routes aren't possible. Local traffic might have longer drive times to previously connected locations, but overall improvement, due to having only local traffic on local roads.

    However, if you've got months-long road construction projects that aren't bridges over navigable bodies of water, that's a problem that also needs to be solved. Road construction companies bid on a ton of projects and work on them in parallel, which is great for the construction crew as they have steady work, but shitty for all the commuters, compared to taking the same total time for all the projects, but one-after-another.

    The bidding process needs to be adjusted to encourage companies to spend as little time as possible on each project. Perks like a crew being the automatic pothole filler and spot repairer for the section of road they're "working on" or letting them park their equipment "on site" (I presume rent-free?) for the duration of the project don't encourage projects to be individually short. Stuff shouldn't take months with no one on site for days at a time unless there is chemistry to wait on.

  10. Waitaminit! by freeze128 · · Score: 2

    Try this: In the summary above, replace "weary homeowner" with "millionaire recluse" and also replace "Timothy Connor" with "Reginald Bottomtooth". Now tell me if you feel bad for this guy.

  11. Speed Bumps or other traffic calming measures. by unimacs · · Score: 1

    At least where I live the city will put speed bumps in as along as most of the people living on the street are OK with it and are willing to pay for them. It's not great for the house living right next to the speed bumps as they have to listen to cars slowing and accelerating.

    There are other traffic calming measures such as making the streets narrower, - even if it's just at intersections. Sometimes you can get the city to post a lower speed limit.

  12. You can't fool the real driver, never mind the app by SuperKendall · · Score: 2

    I drive a number of days a week a route to get home where highway and residential streets are almost the same length of time, with less variability of time as traffic on the freeway is just one minor indecent away from an extra half hour delay.

    So, I take lots of residential streets. I try not to go too fast, respecting the neighborhoods I go through, just enjoying the houses and the lack of cars in front of me.

    But it's not like Waze is taking me on those routes. To the contrary, if I try to navigate home Waze is every so eager to whip me over to some major road or highway - even though the time estimate of when I might arrive never really varies much if I continue on neighborhood roads.

    Instead the way I find out which way to take is, simply looking at the map and seeing which road goes through to where I'm trying to go.

    So it's not like Waze is directing all of them, lots of people figure this out on their own especially with something like permeant construction - you look for the nearest through road and take it.

    If they really do not like it, speed bumps would probably work to deter most of the drivers, I know it keeps me off some roads I might otherwise go down. But not all of them, there are some roads I drive on every day that have speed bumps, which I tolerate because there simply is no other way through the area...

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  13. We paid enough taxes by rsilvergun · · Score: 2

    for the road to handle a certain amount of traffic. In theory if more traffic was expected more money would be spent. In practice we've been cutting infrastructure spending since Regan all in the name of eliminating waste and bureaucracy.

    The private roads are just fine, it's the public ones that are screwed up.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:We paid enough taxes by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 5, Informative

      for the road to handle a certain amount of traffic. In theory if more traffic was expected more money would be spent.

      Actually, if this continues, I imagine what will happen is what happened in my old neighborhood.

      I used to live in a large city that had a lot of residential neighborhoods, and traffic was terrible so people would be tempted to cut through them rather than taking major routes.

      What happened was -- the city adopted a series of rules to actively tie up traffic on residential streets, in an escalating chain of snarling effects.

      I forget what all the stages were, but it was something like:

      - put in more crosswalks, add warning signs, make lanes narrower
      - put in speed zones, create turning restrictions and commercial vehicle restrictions
      - create more one-way streets, have one-way streets terminate in consecutive blocks forcing traffic to wind around in a serpentine fashion
      - if there's still too much traffic, then the badness really started: deliberate choking points, raised intersections, speed humps, etc.
      - and finally the ultimate measures: turn streets into random cul-de-sacs by closing off ends of blocks, or in worst case scenarios institute mid-block street closures

      I know a number of municipalities do this sort of stuff deliberately already to keep traffic out of residential neighborhoods, but it tends mostly to be large cities. If Waze continues to route traffic this way, believe me -- more and more municipalities will catch on and start doing this stuff.

      And having lived in a neighborhood like this for several years, I can say it's a pain in the neck. I'd be required to drive a circuitous serpentine 7-block route just to get home within my neighborhood in an area where I would only have had to go about 2 blocks by walking.

      But it was still much better than having rush-hour traffic going by my front door every morning and evening. The money won't be spent to improve these streets -- it will be to set up barriers to make these streets so awful that people will rather sit in traffic on the highway.

    2. Re:We paid enough taxes by Solandri · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

    3. Re:We paid enough taxes by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 1

      I'd be required to drive a circuitous serpentine 7-block route just to get home within my neighborhood in an area where I would only have had to go about 2 blocks by walking

      I know it's against the national creed, but you know, you could just WALK instead !!!

      I don't think anyone "required" you to drive, did they?

      I know you're posting as AC, but you know, that doesn't mean you HAVE to be a moronic jerk.

      For the record, I DID walk mostly. Despite the fact that this city didn't have the best public transport to outlying residential areas and I had to walk about 20 minutes to get on to the nearest subway stop, I did mostly walk because traffic was so bad. (And I actually prefer walking.) In fact, at the time I had to walk about 3 miles one way to get to work by skipping the subway, and that's what I generally ended up doing (since it wasn't really faster to take the subway). Do you walk 6 miles every day just as part of your normal work routine?

      On the other hand, at some point I had a family, and for various logistical reasons I was forced to drive more (because I needed to take an infant or small child to places even further from public transport). So yeah, then I did need to drive a little more... But I still prefer walking and really hate that I can't really live in a place right now where I could primarily walk to most things.

    4. Re:We paid enough taxes by famebait · · Score: 1

      I'd be required to drive a circuitous serpentine 7-block route just to get home within my neighborhood in an area where I would only have had to go about 2 blocks by walking.

      Who exactly was requiring you to drive where you could easily walk?

      --
      sudo ergo sum
    5. Re:We paid enough taxes by dj245 · · Score: 1

      for the road to handle a certain amount of traffic. In theory if more traffic was expected more money would be spent.

      Actually, if this continues, I imagine what will happen is what happened in my old neighborhood.

      I used to live in a large city that had a lot of residential neighborhoods, and traffic was terrible so people would be tempted to cut through them rather than taking major routes.

      What happened was -- the city adopted a series of rules to actively tie up traffic on residential streets, in an escalating chain of snarling effects.

      I forget what all the stages were, but it was something like:

      - put in more crosswalks, add warning signs, make lanes narrower - put in speed zones, create turning restrictions and commercial vehicle restrictions - create more one-way streets, have one-way streets terminate in consecutive blocks forcing traffic to wind around in a serpentine fashion - if there's still too much traffic, then the badness really started: deliberate choking points, raised intersections, speed humps, etc. - and finally the ultimate measures: turn streets into random cul-de-sacs by closing off ends of blocks, or in worst case scenarios institute mid-block street closures

      I know a number of municipalities do this sort of stuff deliberately already to keep traffic out of residential neighborhoods, but it tends mostly to be large cities. If Waze continues to route traffic this way, believe me -- more and more municipalities will catch on and start doing this stuff.

      And having lived in a neighborhood like this for several years, I can say it's a pain in the neck. I'd be required to drive a circuitous serpentine 7-block route just to get home within my neighborhood in an area where I would only have had to go about 2 blocks by walking.

      But it was still much better than having rush-hour traffic going by my front door every morning and evening. The money won't be spent to improve these streets -- it will be to set up barriers to make these streets so awful that people will rather sit in traffic on the highway.

      We need to find a balance here. I've lived in both Milwaukee and Houston. The bulk of Milwaukee is a relatively old city (developed before 1950) and is dominated by the grid system. I had about 8 different commute routes available to me when I lived there, despite living only 4 miles away from work. Zoning was mostly a good thing and commercial properties were often located near or in residential areas.

      Houston outside of 610 is dominated by post-1970s city planning. Residential areas have a lot more disjointed roads, dead ends, cul-de-sacs, and entry on a limited number of sides of the area. I have about 4 different commutes available on my 15 mile commute, and they substantially overlap. I have no choice but to use certain highways or face enormous detours. Zoning seems completely out of control and developers seem to be able to do whatever they want, including building properties in the suburbs with completely inadequate parking, flood, traffic, or noise considerations.

      The big problem I see is that the Houston road transit system is not very linear from large to small, and the post-1970s planning style is far too car-dominant. We need big highways, small residential surface streets, and everything in between. Houston doesn't plan for that. It is problematic to design efficient junctions or access between big roads/highways and small residential streets. There should be a middle-size road between them so that the big road doesn't have a high-traffic driveway every 100ft. A somewhat linear progression from small->large roads is needed, but this is not considered in many parts of the US. Medium-size roads are too big for developers to be responsible, but too small for matching federal funds to be allocated, which seems to be the main consideration when building or improving roads these days. Maybe we should do the responsible thing and raise gas taxes while oil prices are still very low.

      --
      Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
  14. People like this guy are the problem by zerofoo · · Score: 2

    Taxpayers are driving on taxpayer funded roads, this guy doesn't like it, and Waze is to blame?

    What next? Blaming Amazon for the increase in UPS trucks in the neighborhood?

    If you don't want other people driving on your street, buy a house on a cul de sac.

    1. Re:People like this guy are the problem by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Congratulations, you've just oversimplified the problem so much that you've ignored all the salient points and so reached a silly conclusion.

      Are you really arguing that a street designed for residential use is just fine to use as a high capacity through route merely because it's not actually illegal to do so.

      Of course you are because MAH RIGHTS and fuck anyone else.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
  15. Simple solution by trout007 · · Score: 1

    But a couple of junk cars and park them on opposite sides of the street in the middle of the block. That will cause traffic to come to a stop if there is anything above a normal amount of traffic.

    --
    I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
    1. Re:Simple solution by guruevi · · Score: 1

      And you'll be responsible for their tow and get a fine for having a car without plates or registration parked in the road. Nice try.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    2. Re:Simple solution by Cramer · · Score: 1

      As someone who has to deal with this sort of BS from time to time, cops HATE cars with no tags or registration. In most cases, unless they're posing an immediate threat, they will not tow them. (paperwork is a pain in the ass) They'll kick it to DMV enforcement, and they'll put an orange sticker on it, and then maybe tow it a week (or more) later.

    3. Re:Simple solution by guruevi · · Score: 1

      Here too, the city loves those kinds of cars. They get to boot/tow them and collect $150 in fines. Then if you don't pay up it gets added with additional fines and accruals to your yearly taxes.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    4. Re:Simple solution by trout007 · · Score: 1

      Get an old enough car and get classic plates and registration cheap.

      --
      I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
    5. Re:Simple solution by toddestan · · Score: 1

      Even so, keeping an older car registered here is about $40 a year (where older is greater than 9 years). Unfortunately, you have to provide proof of insurance to register a car now, so while technically before you probably didn't have to insure it if you didn't drive it, now you'll have to carry some insurance. With that said, I've found the multiple car discount to be not much less than the cost of insuring a low-risk, low-value vehicle with the minimum insurance. So I could probably have my semi-mobile roadblock for a couple hundred a year plus the initial cost of buying the thing.

  16. In my neck of the woods by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    they post signs to bar non-local traffic during construction. A huge amount of extra traffic along roads not designed for it is dangerous. You'll get people driving too fast in places that are usually devoid of traffic (and therefore have lots of kids playing in the street). The correct solution to this is to build more high capacity roads, but after decades of hearing about all the money big gov't wastes nobody wants to talk about infrastructure spending...

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:In my neck of the woods by Mashiki · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The correct solution to this is to build more high capacity roads, but after decades of hearing about all the money big gov't wastes nobody wants to talk about infrastructure spending...

      That's a good plan, unfortunately you'll see stuff like this happening. Various pro-bicycle groups whining because they're building more roads but not including bike lanes(which the vast majority wouldn't use, or would break the laws while riding on aka running stops/traffic lights/cutting off cars). Environmentalists whining and crying over it, and demanding environmental impact studies for 10+ years. And homeowners who live no where near it, crying over the noise pollution and how it's causing their children to become autistic. I wish I was making all of those up, but I've seen all of those happen where I grew up here in Canada(South-western Ontario). So what happens? Road gets busier as the city grows, lane and traffic flow remain the same, and the city then starts experiencing traffic jams and peak flow periods. People complain, usual assholes come out of the woodwork and the cycle starts anew until the city has enough ignores all the BS, and starts building then they get slapped with a lawsuit by one of those groups and building stops.

      One of the roads I used to drive to work on went to a heavy industrial area of the city, it was standard 2-lane road, built back in the 50's when the city bought the land and expanded the town. In 1978 & 1981 they tried to widen the road to 4 lanes to handle the truck traffic and were hit with environmentalists(the area is mainly peat bogs and swamps), though the road wouldn't come anywhere near it. City gave up. Jump up to this year, the road is so busy that along the 4km stretch an average of 8,000 trucks drive down it every 12hrs, it's literally bumper to bumper when you add car traffic and the city now has such a huge problem that the roads can't be shut down because big companies have major part warehouses/manufacturing plants that produce food/machinery components/etc and several bigbox stores have only that way to access their supply docks. Now they're not sure what they can do. And that's all because environmentalists have also blocked them from building flow-off streets as well.

      The solution appears that they're going to build temporary roadways across the properties using gravel and steel plates while they tear up the entire roadway and deal with any fallout when the time comes and fuck every whiner over it. Also helps that they recently elected a new mayor and city council the previous ones were all thrown out in the previous municipal election in a crushing defeat. Police are also ordered to take a no-nonsense approach to any protesters trying to stop construction and will arrest them under the TPA(tresspass to property act).

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    2. Re:In my neck of the woods by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Actually, it's a bad plan:

      Nope. It's a good plan, unless you're suggesting instead of clustering industrial areas you just kinda put them all over the place like we did 90 years ago. I mean who doesn't want to live next door to a munitions factory, heavy plastics recycling plant or steel fab plant. FYI LA is a great example of poor urban planning coupled with a lack of area.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    3. Re:In my neck of the woods by CWCheese · · Score: 1

      seems like you're describing south-western CA aka California

      --
      Have a Day!
    4. Re:In my neck of the woods by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      While that is a valid complaint against cyclists who do that kind of thing, it's not a valid reason to avoid building the bike lanes in the first place. If anything, having the bike lane gives the bikes somewhere to stay out of the cars' way

      So you're for giving bikes the right to ride on roadways that have a posted speed limit of 50mph and is covered for heavy truck traffic? Trucks already have a big enough blindspot problem with cars, and you want to give them paths in areas which will give them a higher chance of being hit. Brilliant.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
  17. Map Editor by Dan+East · · Score: 1

    I wonder if they've used the Waze Map Editor to make sure their street is not marked as a "Primary Street". Waze isn't supposed to route to Streets, only Primary Streets.

    --
    Better known as 318230.
    1. Re:Map Editor by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      I did a map search for "Elm Avenue, Takoma Park, Maryland", expecting to see something other than the narrow, obviously residential street it is. If hundreds of cars are being detoured there by Waze, that needs to be corrected. But I'm still leery of drawing conclusions based on anecdote; and the reporter seems to be just taking the guys word for it. I'm wondering if it's just an extra car or two a minute, in which case that shouldn't be problematic except when you're trying to play basketball in the street.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    2. Re:Map Editor by dwillden · · Score: 1

      It depends, it will route to streets as a localized redirect around a traffic problem. It won't route on private streets, and it won't plot a long drive on streets (except as needed at beginning and end of route). But if there is traffic congestion that develops and it starts looking for alternates it will look at streets if there is not higher level alternate available.

      --
      I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
  18. PUBLIC STREETS belong to the public by gavron · · Score: 1

    It's really nice that some guy bought a house (or rents) and while his property ends at the property line, typically prior to the sidewalk if there is one, his sense of entitlement doesn't stop there, no it goes all the way to the other side of the street and then up and down the whole area.

    Public streets are built by taxpayer-funded public funds and they are for EVERYONE's good. That includes the self-entitled guy who lives in that little house that posts false reports on Waze, and it includes EVERYONE else who wants to drive through that neighborhood.

    I'm sure he'd be shocked if some people told him he couldn't drive on a particular segment of a particular freeway because they own a house nearby or something.

    These people are not waze-warriors, they are malware-spreading(put in false info) misanthropic scumbags.

    E

    1. Re:PUBLIC STREETS belong to the public by Shados · · Score: 1, Informative

      There's also long studies made to make sure the streets are safe with the given expected traffic, choke points, traffic, and the fire department has to check it out to make sure it's okay in case of an emergency. It's not an exact science, but shit like this can seriously fuck things up.

      Add that a lot of buildings and roads are built on pure corruption (things that really should not have been built gets built on "special" permits that skip normal rules, etc), and you end up with no one being happy.

      Then you have people in cities like SF and Boston bitching about skyrocketing rent and too few units being built. Why do you think that is? You're right: they can't stop you from using the roads. So they just vote to stop people from building at all instead. Then the rich get skyscrappers up and live at the top, away from the "peasants". And you increase the gap between rich and poor.

      This type of bullshit attitude is why everyone is so stressed, nobody's happy, and we have such a crappy society.

      Oh, and while people go "I have the right to use this street! My taxes paid for it!", they'll conveniently ignore the other laws they don't like, speeding, city noise rules, etc.

      In my particular case, the street in front of my house is actually a private way, with a compromise done with the city long before my time to give an easement right to connect 2 other street for locals. There's a bunch of (legally enforceable signs, since we own that street) signs up, as you're not allowed trucks, passthrough traffic, etc. People will happily ignore those, AND the street is on Waze to boot.

      If it went both ways and all rules were observed, there wouldn't be any problem.

    2. Re:PUBLIC STREETS belong to the public by guruevi · · Score: 1

      Property lines typically include the sidewalk and sometimes portions of the street - basically up until the main sewage line for me (the city doesn't want to be responsible for 'my' portion of the sewage line).

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    3. Re:PUBLIC STREETS belong to the public by unimacs · · Score: 1

      When you pick a place to live, is your decision based strictly on what's contained within the property lines of that specific location? Of course not. The neighborhood and everything about it plays into that decision. If part of the reason you bought a property there is because you wanted quiet streets that are safe for your kids to bike on, then you would be pissed too if some app is routing rush hour traffic through your neighborhood on streets that weren't designed for that amount of traffic.

    4. Re:PUBLIC STREETS belong to the public by eWarz · · Score: 1

      Yep, and for this reason, I live on a dead-end road near a cul-de-sac. The closest main road has two 4-way stops, so anyone trying to 'cut through' due to construction will find themselves in stop and go traffic for about 20 minutes. It's the perfect setup, I can get out easily (4-way stop) and I'm far enough away for traffic not to be a factor. In a city where 90 or so people move in every day, it's a godsend. Oh and did I mention there is a pool?

    5. Re:PUBLIC STREETS belong to the public by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Public streets are built by taxpayer-funded public funds and they are for EVERYONE's good.

      Well done! You've manage to grasp the salient point and come to completely the wrong conclusion. They are for everyone's GOOD, which does not including using residental roads as high capacity through routes.

      Public good doesn'e mean: "do what the fuck you want as long as it's not actually provably illegal and fuck the consequences" as many here seem to think.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    6. Re:PUBLIC STREETS belong to the public by E-Lad · · Score: 1

      Many residential streets in Takoma Park (I live just north of there; and have several friends who I visit in TP) are narrow; with cars parked on both sides and about 1.5 lanes worth of travel space down the middle. When these turn in to alternatives for primary roads because an app told people to go there, yes it becomes a problem, and more than just a quality of life problem.

      First off, these streets do not have the capacity of the primary roads that people are bleeding off of, and second, people who are directed to these more constricted alternate routes are probably more likely to disregard any control signage such as stop signs and just roll through them with the rest of the blob, as well as blocking the typically small intersections when said blob comes to a halt. Never underestimate the disregard for general safety or basic traffic laws that people can have when a herd of them are forced to move through an area not designed to handle them.

  19. Get some stop signs, speed breakers. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 2
    Lobby the municipality. Get some stop signs and speed breakers approved.

    In my commute I know a good short cut. But it has three speed breakers. I value my brake pads, and fuel too. I take the long way around, may be half a mile longer, but easy on the brakes and easy on the gas.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  20. Edit The Map by pgn674 · · Score: 5, Informative

    The article made no mention on whether the homeowner checked the Waze Map Editor to make sure his and the surrounding roads were marked correctly. For example, a road marked as a Primary Street type will be favored by the algorithms over a road marked as a Street type.
    If the information is wrong, then fix it yourself, and change the routes of thousands of people. This is the correct way to combat inappropriate Waze routes: Make sure Waze's map data match the quality and capacity of the carefully laid out roadways. If the roadway capacities are not laid out well, then your problem is not Waze.

    1. Re:Edit The Map by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      So... company screws over unconnected third parties for profit, and the onus is on them to put time into correcting Waze so they don't get quite so badly screwed over.

      You have it way back to front.

      If the roadway capacities are not laid out well, then your problem is not Waze.

      No, the problem is not *just* waze. If Waze is directing large numbers of people down inappropriate streets then they are entirely to blame for that.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    2. Re:Edit The Map by dfm3 · · Score: 1

      Disclaimer: I'm a rank 5 editor (state manager) on Waze.

      It is correct that there is a higher routing penalty for streets than for primary streets and highway road types, though it's generally a bad idea to start changing road types on Waze or to use the private road type in order to encourage/discourage routing. In most states, the road type used on the Waze map is derived from what's known as "functional classification" - which is determined by state and local governments. Editors convert the official classification to the most appropriate Waze one, so a road that the state classifies as an Arterial would be mapped as a Major Highway. If there's an official source that supports the assertion that the road classification is too high, by all means it should be updated through WME. But when users start lowering road types to discourage routing, or bump their favorite route home to minor highway, for example, this can actually make matters worse.

  21. Re: if the world is not flat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I can't see it from Australia

  22. The problem is not Waze by taustin · · Score: 2

    The problem is that Waze has a reason to exist. The problem is cities, counties and states that allow two day road repairs to take six months. If they'd make the construction crews do their job correctly, Waze would cease to exist within a few months, because the main thruways wouldn't be clogged up all the time and nobody would care.

    1. Re:The problem is not Waze by Tailhook · · Score: 1

      The problem is cities, counties and states that allow two day road repairs to take six months.

      Yep. They've got other prerogatives, usually involving kickbacks and special relationships. CO governor Hickenlooper got called out on this a couple years ago. Some state apparatchik signed a contract with an absurdly long completion deadline, so after securing the contract the contractor wandered off and did other jobs while lanes on a busy road were closed for most of a year.

      --
      Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
    2. Re:The problem is not Waze by taustin · · Score: 1

      The last time I was in Colorado, literally every single highway I drove on was torn up. As best I could tell, the plan was to tear up every highway in the state that year, let the winter trash the bedding, then beg the feds for money to tear it up some more the next year.

      On the other hand, given how Coloradans drive, maybe that's a good thing. I swear, diving down I-25, every single driver had to stop and check out every single orange cone. It was, BTW, well after quitting time (and after dark). The one thing they didn't stop and stare at was the pickup truck that was dripping fire that smelled like fireworks. That's apparently not a noteworthy sight on the side of the interstate in Colorado.

    3. Re:The problem is not Waze by PPH · · Score: 1

      two day road repairs to take six months

      Six months would be a dream. We have a road project that has been going on for about 5 years. And for most of that time, one lane has been blocked and is being used by the contractors for storage. Not a staging area for materials they will be using. Just a pile of (quite rusty by now) pipe.

      Here's my solution: Require that, for the duration of any project while traffic lanes are reconfigured or affected (like steel plates over trenches), the contractor shall maintain safety flaggers (the people with the SLOW/STOP signs) on site. 24x7x365, until it's finished.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    4. Re:The problem is not Waze by dj245 · · Score: 1

      The problem is that Waze has a reason to exist. The problem is cities, counties and states that allow two day road repairs to take six months. If they'd make the construction crews do their job correctly, Waze would cease to exist within a few months, because the main thruways wouldn't be clogged up all the time and nobody would care.

      It costs more money to do road repairs on a short schedule. All vendors involved need to commit to specific dates/times to make that happen. That tends to increase bids since vendors can't schedule their portion around other work. Someone needs to coordinate and manage the job more closely and actively compared with a "slow" repair. If vendors are to be held to deadlines, someone needs to coordinate between the vendors and keep track of delays. Delays often lead to disputes so lawyers and higher management often needs to get more involved. Those things cost money.

      Some places see the value in spending that money. Other places don't. Every project much bigger than a pothole fill should have a traffic analysis and the disruption to the public measured in man-hours wasted. If the (man-hours wasted * $5/hour) is greater than the cost of doing the project "fast", then the project should be done fast. That's the right way to determine this. I get the impression that this is rarely done.

      --
      Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
    5. Re:The problem is not Waze by LunaticTippy · · Score: 1

      I'm curious where you live that CO seems bad in comparison. I live in the bay area, where the post-apocalyptic road conditions make Colorado roads seem like they are paved with gold. People routinely total their cars on potholes, and the dept of transportation has to reimburse them for repairs/replacement.

      --
      Man, you really need that seminar!
  23. Re:local version of ezpass? by guruevi · · Score: 1

    It's called property taxes and living in a society. Everyone pays for maintaining "their" portion of street and sidewalk and in return you can use someone else's portion of street and sidewalk. How would I go about charging anyone that crosses my property line?

    --
    Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
  24. Yes, you can by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    I use Waze all the time and usually don't touch the screen while driving (sometimes I make an exception if there's something important to warn other drivers about). But that is optional, for most use I simply turn it on and watch for hazards on the map as I drive around.

    If I'm navigating I start the navigation before I leave somewhere.

    Although I don't use it, Waze also offers a voice control mode that is all microphone driven.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Yes, you can by Desler · · Score: 1

      Whoa guys! We've got a ceritified Internet badass in our midst! Oooh I'm quaking with fear!!

    2. Re:Yes, you can by Gojira+Shipi-Taro · · Score: 1

      OK there, Seven Digit ID.

      --
      "Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked."; ~ Donald J. Trump
    3. Re:Yes, you can by Vairon · · Score: 1

      Back in my day we had five digit IDs.

    4. Re:Yes, you can by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      I remember one digit ids, but by the time I got someone to look it had rolled over. Back then I didn't think slashdot would last the rest of the week.

    5. Re:Yes, you can by lowen · · Score: 1

      We still do. (I'm waiting on a four, three, or two digit ID to chime in.....

    6. Re:Yes, you can by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      Cite the specific statute that using hands-free is breaking. Or shut your fucking hole.

      TLDR: [Citation needed]

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
  25. Address the REAL problem... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    WAZE is not the real culprit here... they are trying to solve a real problem with congestion due to inadequate infrastructure or "montths-long" road closures. So now the drivers have intelligent tools that clue them in to using your street as a way around the problem. But the real issue is the closed road, the inadequate capacity. Don't petition your city for more stop signs... get them to fix the damned main road.

  26. Vienna Virginia solved this by schwit1 · · Score: 1
    Many streets have 'Do Not Enter' signs during commuter times and speed humps. You will get ticketed. They were being used similarly to bypass congested main routes. Get your traffic bureaucrats involved.

    https://www.viennava.gov/Docum...

    1. Re:Vienna Virginia solved this by Gojira+Shipi-Taro · · Score: 1

      ...And if I get ticketed for driving on a street my tax dollars payed for, I'm suing the city responsible into insolvency.

      A city near me in South Florida tried that for a bit. They got smacked down HARD. As they should have.

      --
      "Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked."; ~ Donald J. Trump
    2. Re:Vienna Virginia solved this by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      Which city? I'd like to look that up.

    3. Re:Vienna Virginia solved this by eWarz · · Score: 1

      He's lying, so you won't find anything anywhere.

    4. Re:Vienna Virginia solved this by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1

      ...And if I get ticketed for driving on a street my tax dollars payed for, I'm suing the city responsible into insolvency.

      Nice try. It's a public road, which means the public, as represented by the city, gets to decide whether or not this particular piece of public commons should remain common. Your tax dollars paid for the City Museum as well, but you don't get to have unscheduled and unannounced parties in there. Why would you assume that merely because your tax dollars paid for a road you can use it whenever you want to?

      Entitled much?

      A city near me in South Florida tried that for a bit. They got smacked down HARD. As they should have.

      Link?

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    5. Re:Vienna Virginia solved this by silas_moeckel · · Score: 1

      Hells I know a spot in Secaucus NJ that a physical gate closes during commuting times to stop through traffic. A bit north of the AT&T Datacenter actualy.

      --
      No sir I dont like it.
    6. Re:Vienna Virginia solved this by silas_moeckel · · Score: 1

      Have fun with that. Do you realy think no through traffic regs are not enforceable?

      --
      No sir I dont like it.
  27. Mod parent up by Pollux · · Score: 5, Insightful

    (Sorry, I don't have any mod points to share.)

    In most "public" neighborhoods, streets are maintained with special assessments. When I bought my home a few years back, I took over payment of $5,000 in specials for a road repaving project that was done in the neighborhood. I'd be pissed as hell to see a bunch of crazed drivers tearing up the road that my neighborhood had to pay for.

    Besides, our roads weren't engineered to handle thousands of vehicles a day, and our neighborhoods weren't engineered to help traffic navigate the parked cars, kids playing in the street, narrow turns, and unmarked intersections. I sure as hell wouldn't appreciate that kind of traffic next to my home and would organize whatever kind of neighborhood brigade possible to fight it.

    1. Re:Mod parent up by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      I bet it's real consistent blacktop, we need a new loop to drift on. Where is this?

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    2. Re:Mod parent up by uncqual · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.)

      --
      Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading /.
    3. Re:Mod parent up by phorm · · Score: 1

      Wow, that's f***ed up. I've never had a special assessment for anything other than a Strata (or HOA in the U.S.). Otherwise, road repairs are fully assessed and funded by city taxes. They don't do every street, every year, but rather designate spots on a yearly basis from the funding pool based on current condition, age, and various other factors.

    4. Re:Mod parent up by dfghjk · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "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.

    5. Re:Mod parent up by yodleboy · · Score: 1

      "As is, all you demonstrate is entitlement."

      the same way you seem to feel entitled to do whatever you want, regardless of whether you're a being a dick, because "there's no law against it".

      I wonder if any of the people expressing the same opinions as yourself are, or ever have been homeowners in a residential neighborhood. Nothing like having your quiet street used as a shortcut by asshats that can't bear the thought of an extra 5 minutes travel time.

    6. Re:Mod parent up by rgbscan · · Score: 1

      It probably varies by street and maybe even county, but in St Paul MN we were assessed for road repaving of our street, new l.e.d streetlamps, and sidewalk widening. $17k added to our own property tax, to be paid out over the next 20 years. No HOA, Not a gated community. Just a simple 900sq ft starter house in the city.

    7. Re:Mod parent up by omnichad · · Score: 1

      weren't "engineered"....simply....meet city codes

      And the codes were engineered. That's why you have codes. To take the planning work out of these things.

    8. Re:Mod parent up by phorm · · Score: 1

      This seems easily abused.
      "Sorry you had to leave your house because you couldn't pay taxes, but look at all the upgrades it got you!"

    9. Re:Mod parent up by hucker75 · · Score: 1

      The only person to blame is whoever isn't making the trunk routes big enough to take the traffic.

      And as for your stupid comment about kids playing in the street, perhaps you should be reporting the parents of them for letting them. Do not put kids in a fucking road you moron. Kids in the garden and on the pavement. Cars on the road.

  28. Re:That's just too damn bad. revisited by chromaexcursion · · Score: 1

    Actually. Waze has a failure with private roads that are visible to satellite. I have sent in several corrections, some of which they persist in ignoring. Fortunately some of the ones they have ignored are blocked by a fixed gate. They still won't block (during school hours) the street that's closed during school hours behind a local elementary school (also blocked by a gate).

  29. Re:You can't fool the real driver, never mind the by oic0 · · Score: 1

    Here its a case of tooooo many red lights with no timing or ill timing. I'm always better off turning off down a side road to avoid a light(s) . Even if I get a few stop signs in exchange. Some of the roads are third world quality, especially in poorer areas. Pitiful considering we dont get many freezes. Regardless, if its not raining I can take a motorcycle and only need a few inches of decent road surface.

  30. Re: if the world is not flat by arglebargle_xiv · · Score: 4, Funny

    where in australia?

    Salzburg.

  31. Custom Waze Faker by brian.stinar · · Score: 1

    I own a custom software development company, with a MS in CS, and a great deal of familiarity with graph theory. If anyone wants to build a Waze faker, send me a message. Faking GPS coordinates to look like motion won't be rough. I'd recommend starting on Android, and then moving to iOS.

    1. Re:Custom Waze Faker by famebait · · Score: 1

      Won't help: even with a real app and real moving car, your reports would quickly be outvoted by other users, and after a few times your account would be banned or ignored for posting trash data. As mentioned ITFS.

      --
      sudo ergo sum
    2. Re:Custom Waze Faker by will_die · · Score: 1

      On iOS it is rather hard, you have to jailbreak the phone. For Android it is really easy, under the developer options there is a mock option. You select that and then there are free apps that will allow you to change the location.

    3. Re:Custom Waze Faker by brian.stinar · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure you'd actually have to fake this at the GPS device level. Waze is reporting data via API calls, so as long as you could put a bump in the wire, and record the data that comes out, and deduce/reverse engineer their API protocol, you could write a bogus Waze client that submits whatever data you want. You wouldn't even have to run this as a mobile app if you didn't want to. Likely, you'd need an IP address that is somewhat geographically related to the area you're reporting on (I'd check that if I were Waze) but a Waze spoofing website, where the client is AJAXing up the data would likely work. You could even have a cool little draw the fake route tool!

      This would be a super fun project. I think you'd have to look into adding a certain amount of randomness to your GPS data to make it look realistic. Sort of like Bayesian poisoning...?

  32. Waze or not by invictusvoyd · · Score: 1

    Today's quite neighborhood is bound to become tomorrows busy suburb .

    1. Re:Waze or not by invictusvoyd · · Score: 2

      quiet ( auto spellcheck)

  33. People using a public road by allo · · Score: 1

    That's what the road is made for.
    Be glad it were quiet for a long time and may be quiet again when other ways are usable instead of complaining.

  34. Re:Homeowners should just get their guns by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    The cure sounds worse than the disease.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  35. And don't make it worse... by swb · · Score: 1

    The "too much traffic" complaint has been echoing in my neighborhood (not my immediate street, but the larger named "neighborhood").

    It was never an issue until the city rebuilt a major arterial street with all kinds of "traffic calming" features, like curb extensions that prevent people from queuing for right turns in the "right"/parking lane, reducing the flow capacity of intersections by making right turns wait for through traffic at red lights and at many intersections, for left turning traffic as well.

    They've also stripped a couple of large (3 lane) one-way streets with timed lights of an entire lane and converted it into a protected bike lane. This reduces capacity year-round even though with our harsh winters, only the most dedicated cyclists would bike November-March.

    IMHO, the anti-car biases of the urban planners have created a lot of the local situation with their new "features", making the arterial roads so frustrating that people naturally seek alternatives. Traffic is like water -- you can reduce its flow in one place, but it will just flow elsewhere.

    And I've been a longtime fan of the "back route" even before Waze (which I don't use). I've lived in the same city my whole life, so I have the advantage of decades of experience, but I do sometimes just put where I want to go as a destination and then just dive in to what I'm fairly sure will be a side route and then just ignore the directions until I actually need them, at which point it will route me through the side streets effectively.

    I don't think there is a fix for the side road phenomenon other than making arterial streets have more traffic flow. Even though I live in the largest city in the state, the residential neighborhoods are heavily car dependent. They're too vast for effective walking anywhere -- shops and services can be a couple of miles, which is OK in good summer weather, but totally impractical for groceries or in any inclement weather.

    About the only "fix" that would really help -- at least keep the locals out of their cars -- is a major overhaul of the zoning system to allow small shops and restaurants immediately in residential neighborhoods, but this would face huge opposition from immediate neighbors (although who wouldn't want a 25 seat pub a block and a half away) and probably economically non-viable due to regulations and low business volume.

  36. Re: if the world is not flat by DahGhostfacedFiddlah · · Score: 2

    No, an anti-scientific non-sequitor posted on a tech blog by an Anonymous Coward must be a troll.

  37. Re:There's a simple solution by Smask · · Score: 1

    And one mindless idiot that click "Thanks/Like" so that the alert stays active almost forever. I've been clicking "Not there" on a alert for at least four months now. The award hungry Peters (that scream "wolf!") likes to stack their alerts to places where you have keep your attention to the road and not click on the phone.

  38. Nothing new here... by speedlaw · · Score: 1

    I've used Waze in LA and NYC. Normally, it will only put you on local streets if the highway grid is fully locked up. I've crossed a few Queens neighborhoods, when the Cross Island is slammed and took some interesting canyon roads out west to avoid the 101. Back in the 80's I used to have a book called "no time for tie ups" which routed around most crux points in NYC. Waze does this dynamically. Luckily, I live on a dead end street !

  39. Re:You can't fool the real driver, never mind the by yes-but-no · · Score: 1

    I drive a number of days a week a route to get home where highway and residential streets are almost the same length of time, with less variability of time as traffic on the freeway is just one minor indecent away from an extra half hour delay.

    So, I take lots of residential streets.

    length of time is not the only criteria; side streets significantly increases your risk. In free-way if I'm absent minded and hit, it could be just a bumper. In side-street it could very well be a kid/pedestrian. So at times it's worth it just to sit in traffic in free-way than increase your exposure to unnecessary issues (legal?)

  40. Great by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    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

    Until they cause a real accident as they are updating Waze while fucking driving.

  41. Re:That's just too damn bad. revisited by dwillden · · Score: 1

    Have you tried signing up to make the edits yourself? There may not be a strong supply of volunteer editors in your area, which results in map error reports getting ignored. But the beauty of Waze is that you can make the edits yourself or go to their forums and request edits by the volunteer community.

    --
    I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
  42. Data is not perfect, grow a pair and make a change by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

    Actually, Waze is probably not to blame. Data on what is considered primary, secondary, and tertiary roads is given typically by the state department of transportation. While it's possible that there is an error in Waze due to an inaccurately coded street, it's just as likely that the original data was incorrect. At the OP suggested, just fix it and - even better - check with your DOT to see if they have the road identified incorrectly.

    Interestingly, this whole debate started not because of safety or road maintenance worries but because people who thought they bought on a quiet street now find out that they live on a busier street and are annoyed at the traffic. They're willing to actively mess with day-to-day traffic to try and push the traffic onto someone else's street rather that take the (nominally) one time action of learning WHY the reroute is happening and work to fix it. Fixing it may mean going to your state representative and asking to raise your taxes so that proper road maintenance and expansion can be done on the primary streets to avoid exactly the situation they are in. I guarantee that nobody who is re-routed through a neighborhood to avoid an hours-long backup due to undersized primary roads or construction traffic is any happier having to change their travel. This reaction is a typical NIMBY reaction.

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
  43. Waze has ways of dealing with this. by weave · · Score: 1

    Waze has methods of dealing with this. It's called a private installation...

    https://wiki.waze.com/wiki/Pri...

    But we don't just go putting them anywhere arbitrarily. We rely on local governments and DOTs to tell us where to put them. How? By determining if it's a private road or if there are regulatory signs prohibiting through traffic.

    So if the homeowners don't want traffic routed through their neighborhood they need to go to their local government and get that done. Then soon as that's legally accomplished, then us editors for Waze will take the steps to prevent through routing through the neighborhood.

  44. Takoma Park by jo7hs2 · · Score: 1

    Takoma Park, not Tamoka Park.

  45. Hmmm.... by MitchDev · · Score: 1

    I may need to re-install Waze....

    These subdivisions nowadays are a pain. I like the old grid streets that run in a straight line between major roads....

  46. lets replace stoplights with 1 lane roundabouts by Lord_Hastur · · Score: 1

    this would help reduce accidents and throughput of cars

  47. Routing around damage (Slow them with real traffic by mi · · Score: 1

    The root problem is that the construction is taking months to complete.

    It does not matter. The point remains — we have a network of public roads. If the Internet can, famously, "route around damage" why should other networks' attempts to do the same raise any controversy?

    If some pipe between two ISPs went down, would there even be an argument on /. over whether it is Ok for folks to sabotage rerouting by publishing bogus routing data? Would the posts with suggestions on how to best do it achieve "+5 Interesting"? What's wrong with you, people?

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  48. Oy.. by Patent+Lover · · Score: 1

    The neighborhood is Takoma Park, not Tamoka.

  49. Re:"the app has destroyed their quality of life" by CWCheese · · Score: 1

    sounds like the age old teenage girl whine: "you're RUINING MY LIFE!"

    --
    Have a Day!
  50. Brick Street by emil · · Score: 2

    I live in an older neighborhood with a brick street. Some sections don't have the best maintenance, and directly in front of my house are substantial uneven sections that nearly buckle.

    People who race past my house will loudly smack their undercarriage on the street. I have found car parts from time to time.

    • - A neighborhood could lobby to have pavement replaced with brick or cobblestone. It lasts longer, and is unfriendly to speeders
    • - Absent major street work, ask your city council for more stop signs and speed bumps.
    • - Cement is inexpensive, and easily available.
  51. Easy solution by eth1 · · Score: 1

    Residential streets aren't designed for this kind of traffic. I wonder if you could get the city to pass an ordnance prohibiting the usage of "live" traffic routing apps on residential streets. The local residents would probably almost unanimously support this, so would probably be easy to pass.

    Then, any time this happens, two cops show up. One blocks off the downstream end of the street, the other wanders up the line and starts writing tickets. Word would get out quickly.

  52. "Waze officials" by anarkhos · · Score: 1

    aka assholes.

    Officials? Really? Officer of the Waze, aka some douche who has some minion coders working in his galley-way, I mean cubicles, to make the world a worse place so he can afford a Ferrari. Give me a break.

    --
    >80 column hard wrapped e-mail is not a sign of intelligent
    >life
  53. Google needs some smarter geniuses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Before Waze: the main routes were jammed, but there were some useful shortcuts for people in the know.
    After Waze: the main routes are jammed, and now the shortcuts are also jammed.

    Nice job, geniuses!

    (FYI, this was a perfectly predictable and obvious outcome).

  54. Move over Klansmen by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

    Wait, wait.
    SANCTITY of neighborhoods
    Where have we heard this before?
    Oh, right, David Duke!

  55. Balancing interests by golodh · · Score: 1
    @Saloomy

    No, people who advocate bringing down traffic levels aren't nuts and there is a genuine conflict of interest to resolve here.

    From a transport planning point of view you have various types of roads: some types of road are planned and designed to provide high levels of service to road users whereas other roads (mainly in residential areas) can be designed (or even just designated) to provide residential areas with safe and bearable traffic conditions.

    It's basically the local council's job to balance these interests. What a local council is allowed to do is e.g. to limit the capacity of certain roads (through e.g. road closures, bends, througpasses, speed humps, traffic lights, or whatever) to the extent that such roads become unattractive to non-local traffic.

    Tax-paying non-local motorists have no greater "right" to pass through residential areas than tax-paying residents have to demand that roads in residential areas have traffic conditions appropriate for residential areas.

  56. Re:Routing around damage (Slow them with real traf by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

    Imagine if using the alternate routes actually burned out the wires and destroyed routers when this occurred.

    In this case, "routing around the damage" would be viewed differently.

    Traffic routing onto inappropriate roads damages the roads and kills people (esp children and bicyclists).

    --
    She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
  57. Re: if the world is not flat by DahGhostfacedFiddlah · · Score: 1

    Another clue: picking out a simple spelling mistake and ignoring the actual point, again as an AC. Well done.

  58. see tj rtri by apetkar · · Score: 1

    The article made no mention on whether the homeowner checked the Waze Map Editor [waze.com] to make sure his and the surrounding roads were marked correctly. For example, a road marked [waze.com] as a <a rel="nofollow" title="umbrellas" href="http://shadess.ucoz.net/">umbrellas</a>   Primary Street type will be favored by the algorithms over a road marked as a Street type.
    If the information is wrong, then fix it yourself, and change the routes of thousands of people. This is the correct way to combat inappropriate Waze routes: Make sure Waze's map data match the quality and capacity of the carefully laid out roadways. If the roadway capacities are not laid out well, then your problem is not Waze.

  59. [URL="http://shadess.ucoz.net"]http://shadess.ucoz by apetkar · · Score: 1

    [URL="http://shadess.ucoz.net"]http://shadess.ucoz.net[/URL]

  60. Police do the same thing - are they at fault too? by zerofoo · · Score: 1

    I work in an old neighborhood. The surrounding area is residential. For years this neighborhood has endured road repairs as a result of gas, water, and sewer repairs. Most of the trunk lines run right down the main street where my company is located.

    During road work the local police set up detours at either end of the work area. Naturally, since the surrounding community is residential, the traffic must flow into back roads and through residential neighborhoods.

    Since the infrastructure her is well over 100 years old, these projects go on for months. Therefore the detours and traffic diversions persist for months.

    The local police are diverting traffic the exact same way waze does. By your logic, the police are at fault for ruining the lives of the surrounding community.

    No sane person should come to that conclusion.

    What I see is a whiny guy who can't stand a little extra traffic on his street - caused by a TEMPORARY condition.

    Blame waze all you want, but it looks like a bunch of overly entitled people looking for someone or something to blame.

  61. Re:Routing around damage (Slow them with real traf by mi · · Score: 1

    Imagine if using the alternate routes actually burned out the wires and destroyed routers when this occurred.

    Nothing happens to the "alternative" wires, that does not happen to the normally-used ones.

    Traffic routing onto inappropriate roads

    Bzzz! Hold it right there! What makes them "inappropriate"? Are some public roads more public than others?

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  62. Re:Routing around damage (Slow them with real traf by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

    1) That's my point. Using residential streets for highway traffic destroys them which will require higher and sooner maintenance.
    Residential streets are 3.5" of asphalt over 6" of aggregate.
    Highways are 11" of cement over 21" packed base of aggregate.

    2) Yes, absolutely. Some roads are more public than others.If you google "traffic calming" you'll find that even cities as small 100,000 in many countries employ traffic calming measures such as speed bumps, gates, street closures, raised intersections to dissuade inappropriate traffic. Residential streets are intended to receive a low level of traffic going to and from the residences at low speeds. When people are civil, municipalities do not need to use traffic calming measures. When civility breaks down, municipalities deploy traffic calming measures fairly quickly.

    --
    She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
  63. This whole thing is ridiculous by ai4px · · Score: 1

    This whole thing is ridiculous.... the guy could have logged into the waze map editor and down graded the roads. Sheesh.

  64. No through traffic laws exist by rhyous · · Score: 1

    There are actually city laws that restrict through traffic in neighborhoods in many cities. Is Waze obeying these laws? If not, file a suit against them. Sending a driver into a neighborhood with a no through traffic law is just as against the law as suggesting a driver go down a one-way street.

    If you don't have such a law, and your government allows lobbying, then go to your city meetings/counsels and lobby for the law. If the law doesn't pass. Deal with it. If the law passes, then once the law is in place, contact Waze. If Waze stops. Great. If Waze doesn't stop routing traffic through the neighborhood, but continues to send drivers intended to be through traffic, file a lawsuit. The fact that you contacted them, asked them to obey the law and they didn't is not going to go well for them in court.

    My guess is that they are going to hit a lawsuit soon. And it is going to be a class action suit with thousands of neighborhoods joining in, so it will become a big deal.

  65. Gate it! by martinfb · · Score: 1

    I can sympathize with those residents. A little extra traffic is temporarily tolerable. Yet, heavy traffic is not reasonable. The Community needs to take action like gating the community, or having traffic-limiting signs. I have seen this in places: "Local traffic only", or "Do Not Enter (btwn 7-9am and 4-7pm)". Folks choose a residence for some peace and quiet. That needs to be respected.

    --


    Self-importance and self-indulgence is the root of ALL evil.
  66. Had to be waze? by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

    Construction companies never have detours. Radio stations never tell people about problems.
    Just because they were looking down doesn't mean waze. Could be they were texting or doing something else. Who knows.

    I use waze every day. I seldom have to actually look at it, especially in traffic. I just glance for police usually. Waze will verbally tell me of changes.

    File this one in the id-ten-t folder.