Hacker News Reader

Comment by Jacqued | Hacker News Reader

> neighborhoods who didn't voluntarily agree to increased traffic just to make my commute shorter, this is free loading and their roads are for them to get to and from their home

It's nothing against you but is this a common opinion in the US? People in neighborhoods "own" the streets? As a Frenchman saying this is astonishing as I would naturally consider that I do own the street just as much as they do and it's my right to use it to cut traffic as I see fit.

I would go so far as saying they're abusing the system by having unwarranted traffic stops and outsized speed bumps placed around their property. It's like having their cake (single-family home with a parking space) and eating it too (avoiding traffic nuisance which they impose on others).

Just a cultural difference that I had not spotted before

View on HN

Portraying this as a sense of "owning" the street is unneccessarily perjorative, IMHO. I don't think that many people would argue with the idea that, all else being equal, having less traffic on the street in front of your house is a good thing. Less noise, less polution, less risk of pets and children getting hit by cars. So it shouldn't be surprising that people dislike it when traffic in front of their houses increases, and I also think it's pretty uncharitable to assume that this is because they're NIMBYs or otherwise have bad motivations.

In the broader sense, I think this relates to the tragedy of the commons. There are certain societal conventions that tend to make life better on the whole. Keeping traffic to main streets is one of them. Yes, I might gain a minute or two by cutting through your neighborhood, and you might make up a little time cutting through mine. But I don't take that shortcut, because I know it's determintal to the neighborhood and my benefit will be very small. Part of that comes with the expectation that others will in turn do the same for me.

Maybe this is a USAian way of thinking, but I believe that if everyone behaves in the most selfish possible way ("you don't own the street, so you don't get to complain if I use it to save 15 seconds"), life becomes worse for everyone.

OTOH, an excessive feeling of ownership over neighborhood roads leads to the Tragedy of the Anticommons: everyone keeps the roads in their neighborhood off limits to outsiders, so everyone gets stuck in traffic longer, with all the entailing health and environmental costs, and thus a formerly public resource (roads) becomes underutilized.

OTOH, neighborhood roads aren't designed for the same amount of traffic as main roads -- maintenance happens less often, the roads are made of cheaper materials, there are no street lights, etc.

I don't believe that they are "underutilized" by being used solely as neighborhood roads -- that is, in fact, all they were designed for.

You're right that they are designed for lower loads. But perhaps they shouldn't be, and retrofitting them might be a good use of public money.

At that point, why not expand "public" roads?

Expand them how? Make them wider, and get rid of the sidewalk? Make them multi-level?

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

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

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

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

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

I guess I can understand that feeling. Let's break it down though:

"you don't get to appropriate the road that I helped fund with tax money and that belongs to everyone"

When Waze sends me off into some neighborhood it's not usually someplace I'm familiar with, certainly not even the same town I pay taxes in i.e. I didn't help fund that road.

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

The thing is, people often don't drive responsibly except in their own neighborhood (and maybe not even then). I saw a sign once that said something along the lines "Please drive like your own kids play here." The people who take a short cut to save time are probably not the ones who are willing to go 20 miles an hour looking for kids on bikes, house cats in roads, etc.

"The people who take a short cut to save time are probably not the ones who are willing to go 20 miles an hour looking for kids on bikes, house cats in roads, etc."

This is the problem.

Where I live, people taking shortcuts roll thru stop signs and bomb down side streets, peering at their phones, speeding up as needed to validate their choice of this time-saving shortcut.

The local cops (LAPD) have bigger things on their plate than traffic scofflaws, so it leaves residents with little recourse.

The abstract principles here ("it's a public road") don't translate well into what is in reality a complex situation.

I was told in Sweden all yards are publically usable and if someone wants to use "yours" you have to let them.

I only bring that up to point out a cultural difference that other cultures might see this differently

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20101116164518A...

I think you are referring to this type of law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam

However, it is common in Sweden to respect unwritten laws and social conventions. Many neighbourhoods also have neighbourhood watch and such things. I haven't lived there for over ten years but I'd imagine not taking shortcuts through neighbourhoods with children would be a convention most swedes will respect.

Not quite.

There is a traditional free right to roam, but it does not extend to gardens and areas next to houses. Outside of that, it is rather permissive.

Back on topic but still in Sweden: more or less all shortcuts in residential areas are closed, either by physical barriers, or more commonly by official signs forbidding pass-through traffic, and they are typically respected.

> "Less noise, less polution, ... "

Well, isn't it what NIMBY is about?

NIMBY is more "Don't use my road, use the road one block over" - in other words, road is the same but not in front of me. Thats a little different than "Don't use my road, use the road that has 3 lanes and no children on it and is labeled for commuting" I feel like there is a difference in that regard; I personally wouldn't want through traffic on my street, but I also don't want it on the streets next to mine either due to how recklessly people drive when trying to beat traffic.

> It's nothing against you but is this a common opinion in the US? People in neighborhoods "own" the streets?

Yes, but it's nuanced. Own the streets in order to control the environment of our mini-castles (our homes), but know that we don't have a legal basis to stand on.

Neighborhood streets weren't organized in a manner to accommodate high traffic patterns, and it ends up being a real issue for local residents. It's not too much of a stretch to be upset that your once quiet neighborhood is now a major traffic jam because of a mobile app.

> It's like having their cake (single-family home with a parking space) and eating it too (avoiding traffic nuisance which they impose on others).

Multi-family units with multi parking spaces cause significantly more traffic issues than single family home.

> As a Frenchman...and it's my right to use it to cut traffic as I see fit.

Is this why people in Paris don't clean up after their dogs on sidewalks? I know Parisians don't represent all the french, but it definitely was a culture shock seeing all that excrement.

I heard from someone who visited Paris that cleaning crews would come around every night with water hoses, so that may be why you saw such a lax attitude to waste. Did you see any of that?

I think this is a chicken and egg problem here. Coming from the US, it's my opinion that the pet owners should be responsible for their own pet's waste, not the government.

It's annoying, and possible a real problem if you neighborhood does have that much traffic, but it's something that should be solved at the city level, maybe don't do construction in multiple places that causes a major jam. Either way, I seriously doubt I'll ever stop driving on a street because it's bothering the residents.

France is much more than Paris, and even in Paris you cannot see the dog shit that has been cleaned up.

Everywhere else I've been, you can't see the dog shit at all, because it all gets cleaned up.

I lived in France for several years and overall it was great, but this part puzzled and somewhat annoyed me.

Speaking for myself, my logic doesn't consider the neighborhood roads owned by the neighborhood. I consider it public, and as such I don't think cutting through the neighborhood is illegal. I just consider it something almost like pissing in a swimming pool. They aren't asking for this extra traffic and it is after all their neighborhood. I wouldn't like it happening in mine either.

What we should have is better infrastructure on the main roads. The whole point is that they go faster than neighborhood side streets; and if that's not working then something isn't right. More or better public transit, more or better bike friendly roads, homes closer to work or telecommute. Or maybe the cauliflower neighborhood design, where basically the neighborhood is a maze, there's a mandatory 90 degree right or left turn ever 3 blocks, so it's totally pointless to use such a neighborhood for rat running. And it's not super expensive to retrofit a neighborhood this way; certainly it's more pedestrian and cyclist friendly. Plus it also slows people down automatically, no one is going to rip a 90 degree right going 20mph.

So you take all the acrimony, regulations, fines, speed bumps, dips, ugly signage away and just design the thing to be driven the way the neighborhood wants, and not designed for rat running.

As a cyclist, I avoid these mandatory-turn mazes like the plague. It's just as confusing as it is for cars, unless you put dedicated bike lanes in many of the streets - which of course isn't going to happen because, you know, they're quiet little side streets with few markings and overprotective NIMBYs. Not designed as through streets also for cyclists.

If the intention is to scare vehicles away, it's unlikely that they come out specifically for one type of vehicle.

I'd rather take the straightforward road and share with cars, thank you. (Yes, think Toronto, not Atlanta.)

I'm neither American nor European, but have lived in both for a while, so at the risk of appearing like I'm trolling - the likely explanation IMHO is just that people in the US are nice and don't want to feel like they're being a nuisance to someone, even if legally they're in the right :)

I think that's a bit tone deaf. He doesn't think he owns his street so it doesn't occur to him that other people feel that way, and that's a pretty fair stance. That mindset is why a lot of people hate the suburbs.

I'm not American either but I can understand not wanting excessive traffic in streets that were meant for feeding the suburbs. It's not that there shouldn't be cars on those streets but they're meant to connect homes not as an extension of the highway. As such, they are being somewhat misused. It's not unlike city zoning - for example, you wouldn't want to have an industrial plant in the middle of a residential zone, so why would you want commercial traffic going through the back streets of a residential neighborhood?

One part of the issue is being addressed by restricting traffic (e.g. forbidding left or right turns, etc.) but it also inconveniences the locals. I think a part of a better solution would be if the streets and roads were graded with more nuance in the maps Google/Waze/others use. As it is now, there is little distinction between a proper street or a small back street that's really just a single lane split for both directions, or something that's basically a glorified driveway.

We have an interesting situation where I live. There is a wide four lane road that is suitable trucks. Drivers who use Google or Waze, however, are directed to go down a surface street that heads to a railroad overpass with especially low clearance. At least once a year we see a truck plow into the overpass and put this crazy dent in it.[0] Then they have to let the air out of the tires and tow it.

To some degree Google and Waze seem to have caught on to this and are directing these trucks to take a left prior to the overpass. Now we have signs that disallow trucks on these roads since they are residential and nobody wants a truck running children over.[1] The last of these streets contains the local elementary school.

My point is that it's more complicated than it looks. Increased traffic is one thing, but large vehicles represent and entirely different issue. In this case, Google and Waze aren't really serving anyone at all.

[0]: http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2014/11/northamptons_...

[1]: https://www.google.com/maps/place/Bridge+Street+Elementary+S...

Sydney makes extensive use of no left/right turn between 6-10am/3-7pm signs. It makes sure that traffic stays on the main roads instead of side streets that would quickly fill up during peak hour otherwise but isn't an inconvenience outside of those times

This American does not believe that residents "own" the streets. But I also understand the people who live on quiet residential streets would like to keep traffic to a minimum. That's probably why they chose to live there! So I do think it is rude to consistently cut through their neighborhoods, undermining their expectation of a quiet neighborhood, and generally reducing their quality of life when there are other perfectly good routes available.

> It's nothing against you but is this a common opinion in the US?

Not by anyone who understands how roads are paid for.

I pay for the roads in my neighborhood through increased property taxes (A MUD tax.) That said I do understand it's a public utility and don't care all that much about people cutting through.

> Not by anyone who understands how roads are paid for.

Interestingly enough, WAZE does not pay for those roads.

And its users?

Point taken.

Should tobacco companies have any responsibility for the effects of it's products?

If they're used voluntary by adult people who were not misinformed by false advertising (as was actually the case historically)— why the hell?

If the costs associated with tobacco products was born 100% by it's users, I'd agree.

However, those costs are subsidized by the public.

The increase in traffic in some areas can be a safety issue. Close to where I live is a lower school. During rush hour, many drivers choose to drive down the parallel side street for about 5 or 6 blocks to bypass a minute of traffic. Often, these drivers speed and ignore pedestrians, stop signs and cross walks. Just recently, a child was hit by one of these drivers in front of the school and suffered major injury.

The community has organized with the city to add in more stop signs and is attempting to get speed bumps put in place that would control the speed of the traffic. Everyone understands that they cannot legally stop someone from driving down the street but they can add in traffic controls to lower the risk to those who live in the area and make it less appealing to leave the main road designed for higher traffic.

In our case, it isn't about owning the streets, but rather is a matter of safety.

I don't know how many neighborhoods are like mine but we recently had our roads redone and each house in the neighborhood was assessed based on the road frontage that they had. Our neighborhood does not own the street maybe but we have a financial incentive to keep them nice since the residents actually paid for a large part of the construction. An extra 45,000 cars per day would wear the roads much more quickly.

Let's not exaggerate, that's a car every 1.9 seconds, 24/7. There are major arterials that don't see 45,000 cars a day. Waze isn't doing this.

An extra 45k cars a day and you should rezone your house into a gas station. :)

One factor is that in Europe cities are older and roads are narrower, so there is a natural disincentive to cutting and speeding through many residential streets. Having lived in London I can tell you that people speeding through narrow residential streets to avoid traffic was a significant local issue in my borough (Wandsworth).

> It's nothing against you but is this a common opinion in the US? People in neighborhoods "own" the streets?

Yes. In many suburban neighborhoods (especially predominantly white ones) people will give you dirty looks if you are a stranger walking around. If you are black many white people will call the police.

Wow.. what? Do you have any data to back that up? I don't, but from personal experience I have never seen police stopping black people in my neighborhood who are walking around.

Oh boy! Check out the police blotter for this sleepy little town only five miles from Palo Alto, right in the heart of the Valley: http://www.mercurynews.com/peninsula/ci_18770819

"A woman told police someone rang her doorbell but when she called out to ask who it was, no one answered. Police responded and determined the visitor had delivered a package. A resident called police to report that someone had tipped over his recycling containers. A man was reported to be lying on the ground, possibly writing. A person reported a man tried to hide his face, then turned and walked away."

Take for example Oakland, which used to have a large African-American population. Now that a lot of white people have moved in and started calling the police on blacks, some parents are afraid to let their African-American children walk around on the streets by themselves: http://www.eastbayexpress.com/oakland/racial-profiling-via-n...

Nobody "owns" the street, I don't think that's the issue.

The issue is that the street was built for 10 cars an hour and now it's getting 300. Why is that important? It determines how wide the shoulders are, whether there's stop signs or roundabouts or traffic lights, whether there's on-street parking, whether there's just painted lines or botts dots' or physical lane barriers, etc.

It's not about ownership, it's about a street that was designed for X now being used for Y.

An interesting phenomenon is resident-only on-street parking.

While I have a parking spot on my own land, in some neighborhoods you get to take a public asset and make it private for either free or 1/10th the market rate. Some are even audacious enough to put cones in front of their houses.

The NIMBYism is very strong in the US.

Checkout the Neighborhood App for examples.

It's probably cultural, but yes, the idea in a suburban area like that is that the drivers are there to drive to/from the houses there, not cut through, and they drive slowly in the development because there's children playing, animals, etc. When commuters cut through, they drive too fast (it's not like there's cops there all the time looking for speeders) and that's dangerous when there's children around. The roads are made small because it's only supposed to be for residential traffic for the houses there; other people are supposed to use the high-capacity streets that are designed for that purpose.

Does France not have differently-sized streets for different traffic needs? You don't have highways there?

It's more a "Just because you can, doesn't mean you should" issue.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com