N.Y. Times: Navigation Apps Are Turning Quiet Neighborhoods Into Traffic Nightmares (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/24/nyregion/traffic-apps-gps-neighborhoods.html)
QuoteLEONIA, N.J. – It is bumper to bumper as far as the eye can see, the kind of soul-sucking traffic jam that afflicts highways the way bad food afflicts rest stops.
QuoteSuddenly, a path to hope presents itself: An alternate route, your smartphone suggests, can save time. Next thing you know, you're headed down an exit ramp, blithely following directions into the residential streets of some unsuspecting town, along with a slew of other frustrated motorists.
QuoteScenes like this are playing out across the country, not just in traffic-choked regions of the Northeast. But one town has had enough.
QuoteWith services like Google Maps, Waze and Apple Maps suggesting shortcuts for commuters through the narrow, hilly streets of Leonia, N.J., the borough has decided to fight back against congestion that its leaders say has reached crisis proportions.
QuoteIn mid-January, the borough's police force will close 60 streets to all drivers aside from residents and people employed in the borough during the morning and afternoon rush periods, effectively taking most of the town out of circulation for the popular traffic apps – and for everyone else, for that matter.
Wow! I suppose that they can't prohibit Waze from giving such directions without running into free speech issues, so I guess this is about all they can do to stop it.
and many previous examples:
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=18094.0
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=14246.0
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=18139.0
I wonder what happened with previous similar attempts....
NJ.com originally ran the story how Leonia was going to basically block people from their town's streets. As has been the view of many on here, most commenting wondered what kind of lawsuits will be brought against the town for prohibiting people from driving on public streets.
In that story, someone mentioned how it takes 'hours' to leave their driveway. I wonder why reporters manage to find these people. Do they yell out "Hey, who's the dumbest of the dumbest', and someone sticks their head out the door..."ME!!! ME!!!".
I bet you many of these same folks get angry whenever talk of raising the gas tax to fund highway expansion happens.
SM-G950U
Isn't Leonia the reason why I-80/I-95 does the big curve around anyway? they didnt want the highway through their town.
Btw, if I want to take Leonia streets to get to my destination rather than the highway I should be able to. Yeah it's not the most direct route, but it's my right.
Just like if I want to shunpike the DE I-95 tolls, it's my right to do that.
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on December 25, 2017, 04:20:39 PM
Just like if I want to shunpike the DE I-95 tolls, it's my right to do that.
Just to play devils advocate here, do you have a right to shunpike the California agriculture inspections?
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on December 25, 2017, 04:20:39 PM
Isn't Leonia the reason why I-80/I-95 does the big curve around anyway? they didnt want the highway through their town.
Btw, if I want to take Leonia streets to get to my destination rather than the highway I should be able to. Yeah it's not the most direct route, but it's my right.
Just like if I want to shunpike the DE I-95 tolls, it's my right to do that.
Unless those roads are restricted, which is the towns' right to do. If it says "no through traffic" and you drive straight through, you can be ticketed.
Quote from: roadguy2 on December 25, 2017, 04:28:29 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on December 25, 2017, 04:20:39 PM
Just like if I want to shunpike the DE I-95 tolls, it's my right to do that.
Just to play devils advocate here, do you have a right to shunpike the California agriculture inspections?
Yes. You can take any roads you want that are open to the public. Unless those roads are closed to through traffic.
Quote from: Alps on December 25, 2017, 04:35:11 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on December 25, 2017, 04:20:39 PM
Isn't Leonia the reason why I-80/I-95 does the big curve around anyway? they didnt want the highway through their town.
Btw, if I want to take Leonia streets to get to my destination rather than the highway I should be able to. Yeah it's not the most direct route, but it's my right.
Just like if I want to shunpike the DE I-95 tolls, it's my right to do that.
Unless those roads are restricted, which is the towns' right to do. If it says "no through traffic" and you drive straight through, you can be ticketed.
Which is technically unenforceable. There is no way in a court of law to prove the driver wasn't going to a destination within the neighborhood.
QuoteThere is no way in a court of law to prove the driver wasn't going to a destination within the neighborhood.
There is for trucks, who are required by law to have origin and destination on their manifest.
Quote from: froggie on December 25, 2017, 09:18:07 PM
QuoteThere is no way in a court of law to prove the driver wasn't going to a destination within the neighborhood.
There is for trucks, who are required by law to have origin and destination on their manifest.
I'm not discussing trucks. I'm discussing commuters in cars.
Quote from: Brandon on December 25, 2017, 08:43:37 PM
Quote from: Alps on December 25, 2017, 04:35:11 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on December 25, 2017, 04:20:39 PM
Isn't Leonia the reason why I-80/I-95 does the big curve around anyway? they didnt want the highway through their town.
Btw, if I want to take Leonia streets to get to my destination rather than the highway I should be able to. Yeah it's not the most direct route, but it's my right.
Just like if I want to shunpike the DE I-95 tolls, it's my right to do that.
Unless those roads are restricted, which is the towns' right to do. If it says "no through traffic" and you drive straight through, you can be ticketed.
Which is technically unenforceable. There is no way in a court of law to prove the driver wasn't going to a destination within the neighborhood.
There is if a police officer tracks you going from one end to the other without stopping. Which they could always do if so inclined.
http://blog.al.com/breaking/2011/12/no_through_traffic_signs_in_ne.html
QuoteThe signs are installed as a deterrent, but the police have no authority to enforce it, Roberts said. It boils down to a matter of the public's constitutional rights to travel on public roads, he said.
Quote from: NE2 on December 26, 2017, 12:38:25 AM
http://blog.al.com/breaking/2011/12/no_through_traffic_signs_in_ne.html
QuoteThe signs are installed as a deterrent, but the police have no authority to enforce it, Roberts said. It boils down to a matter of the public's constitutional rights to travel on public roads, he said.
If it's black on white, it's regulatory and can be enforced. So in this case, the municipality should have used black on yellow signs.
Wait, what did the people of Leonia think was going to happen?
Hoboken tried this back in the early aughts. They wanted to concoct some permit scheme where drivers could not go on their main throfares on their way to the Lincoln Tunnel. That went to court and got shot down, which is exactly what will happen to Leonia here. Such is life, and it will inevitably continue.
Reminds me of people who live in shore towns and get all butt-hurt about people parking on public streets in front of their house to use the beach
Z981
A town affected by this phenomenon might want to just do what West Seattle did on a lot of their secondary through streets back in the '80's and install small-diameter roundabouts every couple of blocks; when through traffic has to drop to 5-10 mph repeatedly just to navigate them, the deterrent factor will quickly ensue.
Quote from: Alps on December 25, 2017, 04:35:11 PM
Unless those roads are restricted, which is the towns' right to do. If it says "no through traffic" and you drive straight through, you can be ticketed.
I suspect that such signs are not enforceable. A small (but wealthy) municipality here in Maryland was quietly and politely told that their NO THRU TRAFFIC signs were not enforceable under state law and for that reason had to be removed (and they were taken down).
Quote from: Alps on December 25, 2017, 11:54:33 PM
There is if a police officer tracks you going from one end to the other without stopping. Which they could always do if so inclined.
Only instance I am aware of where law enforcement has been able to do that and make the charges stick is at Dulles Airport in Virginia, where drivers (illegally) use the dedicated Dulles Airport Access Road to shunpike the tolls on VA-267 (and until recently HOV restrictions on I-66 inside the Capital Beltway). But that's because the Airport Access Road was built to connect places to the airport only (and it is signed that way as well).
So they follow drivers through the airport in unmarked vehicles and radio to a marked car to stop drivers that passed through without stopping on the airport property for "airport business." Stopping at the Sunoco station on the airport property is apparently enough to make the trip count as "airport business."
In Sherwood, one Neighborhood used to get no traffic but with one of the streets being badly congested due to design, it is now used as a bypass. The area is not enforced by police and is one of the worst spots in town for traffic violations. It can be used by Google maps and waze occasionally but since I don't travel at peak times and I'm in school, I've never seen it happen.
Edit: I realize this is in the Northeast however I thought it could be useful to know. If it isn't I understand.
Quote from: sparker on December 26, 2017, 01:41:00 AM
A town affected by this phenomenon might want to just do what West Seattle did on a lot of their secondary through streets back in the '80's and install small-diameter roundabouts every couple of blocks; when through traffic has to drop to 5-10 mph repeatedly just to navigate them, the deterrent factor will quickly ensue.
IMO, nothing wrong with that approach. The District of Columbia uses (unwarranted) STOP signs to do same thing on many streets - never mind that the MUTCD says that STOP signs are not about "traffic calming."
Driving through quiet neighborhoods is the only way to get around in Branson (MO) without going crazy. It used to be that nobody but locals knew the shortcut streets. Now a lot of people do, and some of them are even labeled on tourist maps.
Quote from: kphoger on December 26, 2017, 12:31:11 PM
Driving through quiet neighborhoods is the only way to get around in Branson (MO) without going crazy. It used to be that nobody but locals knew the shortcut streets. Now a lot of people do, and some of them are even labeled on tourist maps.
WAZE and the others are giving these communities that suffer from spillover traffic an opportunity to do what is right - and advocate for more and bigger freeways, even if the freeway is in their backyard.
I can see putting up restrictions if it's a safety or legit issue, like no trucks b/c of a low underpass or No Left Turn Weekdays between 7am-9am because of a school bus traffic where it helps traffic flow in that intersection.
I just have a problem with them cherry picking who they want to use the public streets. It reeks of NIMBYism. I still say if I want to drive back roads rather than a limited access highway it's my right. It may not be the quickest or the "smartest" route. It's like shunpiking. If I want to get off the NJ tpke NB at I-280 and take NJ-21 NB to NJ-3 back to the NJ Turnpike to avoid the tolls it's my right.
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on December 26, 2017, 07:58:45 PM
I can see putting up restrictions if it's a safety or legit issue, like no trucks b/c of a low underpass or No Left Turn Weekdays between 7am-9am because of a school bus traffic where it helps traffic flow in that intersection.
I just have a problem with them cherry picking who they want to use the public streets. It reeks of NIMBYism. I still say if I want to drive back roads rather than a limited access highway it's my right. It may not be the quickest or the "smartest" route. It's like shunpiking. If I want to get off the NJ tpke NB at I-280 and take NJ-21 NB to NJ-3 back to the NJ Turnpike to avoid the tolls it's my right.
No, it's your privilege. Driving is a privilege, not a right.
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on December 26, 2017, 07:58:45 PM
I just have a problem with them cherry picking who they want to use the public streets. It reeks of NIMBYism. I still say if I want to drive back roads rather than a limited access highway it's my right. It may not be the quickest or the "smartest" route. It's like shunpiking. If I want to get off the NJ tpke NB at I-280 and take NJ-21 NB to NJ-3 back to the NJ Turnpike to avoid the tolls it's my right.
I like how you used major state routes in your example...except that's not the issue here. Go from I-280 to NJ 3 using nothing but 25 mph residential streets with driveways every 65 feet and stop signs every block.
Better yet, involve a route that involves your side street or development. Then imagine it jammed every day. That's the issue.
Quote from: Alps on December 26, 2017, 08:24:20 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on December 26, 2017, 07:58:45 PM
I can see putting up restrictions if it's a safety or legit issue, like no trucks b/c of a low underpass or No Left Turn Weekdays between 7am-9am because of a school bus traffic where it helps traffic flow in that intersection.
I just have a problem with them cherry picking who they want to use the public streets. It reeks of NIMBYism. I still say if I want to drive back roads rather than a limited access highway it's my right. It may not be the quickest or the "smartest" route. It's like shunpiking. If I want to get off the NJ tpke NB at I-280 and take NJ-21 NB to NJ-3 back to the NJ Turnpike to avoid the tolls it's my right.
No, it's your privilege. Driving is a privilege, not a right.
Actually, that routing has nothing to do with driving privileges. Sorry, but Mergingtraffic is right, that is a right within his driving privileges.
Quote from: Alps on December 26, 2017, 08:24:20 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on December 26, 2017, 07:58:45 PM
I can see putting up restrictions if it's a safety or legit issue, like no trucks b/c of a low underpass or No Left Turn Weekdays between 7am-9am because of a school bus traffic where it helps traffic flow in that intersection.
I just have a problem with them cherry picking who they want to use the public streets. It reeks of NIMBYism. I still say if I want to drive back roads rather than a limited access highway it's my right. It may not be the quickest or the "smartest" route. It's like shunpiking. If I want to get off the NJ tpke NB at I-280 and take NJ-21 NB to NJ-3 back to the NJ Turnpike to avoid the tolls it's my right.
No, it's your privilege. Driving is a privilege, not a right.
Driving may be a privilege, but traversing a public way is indeed a right.
iPhone
Surprised I have seen no discussion of this here.
No surprises.
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=21829.0
NorthJersey.com: Leonia's ban on commuter traffic along local roads: Is it legal? (https://www.northjersey.com/story/news/bergen/leonia/2018/01/25/leonia-ban-commuter-traffic-local-roads-legal/1059993001/)
QuoteLEONIA – Residents cheered. Commuters cursed.
QuoteBut as Leonia's new law, which bans commuters from using backstreets during rush hour to reach the George Washington Bridge, took effect Monday, a key question remained unanswered: Is it actually legal?
QuoteBorough officials think so. They point to a 41-year-old Supreme Court decision affirming local governments' right to restrict commuter parking in residential neighborhoods as proof of their authority over the more than 60 roads they're closing to pass-through traffic.
Quote"We believe we're on pretty firm ground," said Judah Zeigler, the borough mayor.
QuoteDespite the mayor's confidence, others – including legal experts and the law's opponents – are less sure it will survive a court challenge.
Quote"No, it is illegal," said Steve Carrellas, head of the New Jersey chapter of the National Motorists Association. "Any municipality ... can get away with anything they want until they're challenged in court."
It would be easy enough for these communities to just sever the road connections in key places to make through traffic impossible. If the courts strike down these laws, I'm pretty sure this is what will happen in response.
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on February 04, 2018, 05:22:06 PM
It would be easy enough for these communities to just sever the road connections in key places to make through traffic impossible. If the courts strike down these laws, I'm pretty sure this is what will happen in response.
https://goo.gl/maps/y2hQ6M3kPUC2
(Bird Ave in Birmingham, MI -- cutting off a neighborhood routing between M-1 Woodward Vvenue to 14 Mile Road)
Quote from: wanderer2575 on February 04, 2018, 06:15:14 PM
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on February 04, 2018, 05:22:06 PM
It would be easy enough for these communities to just sever the road connections in key places to make through traffic impossible. If the courts strike down these laws, I'm pretty sure this is what will happen in response.
https://goo.gl/maps/y2hQ6M3kPUC2
(Bird Ave in Birmingham, MI -- cutting off a neighborhood routing between M-1 Woodward Vvenue to 14 Mile Road)
The only issue with that type of action is that such would impede the movements of
local emergency vehicles (police, fire, ambulances, etc.) as well.
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 05, 2018, 10:17:22 AM
Quote from: wanderer2575 on February 04, 2018, 06:15:14 PM
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on February 04, 2018, 05:22:06 PM
It would be easy enough for these communities to just sever the road connections in key places to make through traffic impossible. If the courts strike down these laws, I'm pretty sure this is what will happen in response.
https://goo.gl/maps/y2hQ6M3kPUC2
(Bird Ave in Birmingham, MI -- cutting off a neighborhood routing between M-1 Woodward Vvenue to 14 Mile Road)
The only issue with that type of action is that such would impede the movements of local emergency vehicles (police, fire, ambulances, etc.) as well.
Which is why a lot of places that cut off roads like this use gates instead. Such as this case near Buffalo (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.9560919,-78.6993307,3a,44y,323.23h,83.15t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1ss5vqTdYg1vqxBn--beeQtg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656).
In a case like Leonia, all they really need to do is take down the 'Residents Only' signs, and suddenly the No Left/No Right Turn restrictions become perfectly legal.
It'll just make it harder for the residents to get around.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 05, 2018, 11:56:00 AM
In a case like Leonia, all they really need to do is take down the 'Residents Only' signs, and suddenly the No Left/No Right Turn restrictions become perfectly legal.
It'll just make it harder for the residents to get around.
And not ticketing cars with local registrations can achieve the same purpose.
However the biggest can of worms is with public access to public owned roads. And I wouldn't be surprised if the matter ends up in supreme court...
Quote from: kalvado on February 05, 2018, 12:12:08 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 05, 2018, 11:56:00 AM
In a case like Leonia, all they really need to do is take down the 'Residents Only' signs, and suddenly the No Left/No Right Turn restrictions become perfectly legal.
It'll just make it harder for the residents to get around.
And not ticketing cars with local registrations can achieve the same purpose.
However the biggest can of worms is with public access to public owned roads. And I wouldn't be surprised if the matter ends up in supreme court...
The problem is, when they start attempting to ticket non-resident vehicles, they can, and will run afoul of higher laws. Who are they to determine that the person is using the road to cut through instead of going to a residence. Then there's rental vehicles, which might be rented by a resident, but subject to ticketing under their scheme.
Quote from: kalvado on February 05, 2018, 12:12:08 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 05, 2018, 11:56:00 AM
In a case like Leonia, all they really need to do is take down the 'Residents Only' signs, and suddenly the No Left/No Right Turn restrictions become perfectly legal.
It'll just make it harder for the residents to get around.
And not ticketing cars with local registrations can achieve the same purpose.
However the biggest can of worms is with public access to public owned roads. And I wouldn't be surprised if the matter ends up in supreme court...
Again, going back to legality: No Left/Right Turn signs are perfectly legal, and in the MUTCD. The public still has access to the road if they make the proper turns.
Ticketing cars based on their registration status isn't legal, and you ignored those that work or otherwise conduct business on those streets.
Quote from: Brandon on February 05, 2018, 12:45:55 PM
Quote from: kalvado on February 05, 2018, 12:12:08 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 05, 2018, 11:56:00 AM
In a case like Leonia, all they really need to do is take down the 'Residents Only' signs, and suddenly the No Left/No Right Turn restrictions become perfectly legal.
It'll just make it harder for the residents to get around.
And not ticketing cars with local registrations can achieve the same purpose.
However the biggest can of worms is with public access to public owned roads. And I wouldn't be surprised if the matter ends up in supreme court...
The problem is, when they start attempting to ticket non-resident vehicles, they can, and will run afoul of higher laws. Who are they to determine that the person is using the road to cut through instead of going to a residence. Then there's rental vehicles, which might be rented by a resident, but subject to ticketing under their scheme.
Ticketing based on address is illegal - if t can be proven it is indeed based on address. Implementing such policy informally is fairly easy, though. ANd that is what I'm actually afraid of...
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 05, 2018, 10:17:22 AM
Quote from: wanderer2575 on February 04, 2018, 06:15:14 PM
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on February 04, 2018, 05:22:06 PM
It would be easy enough for these communities to just sever the road connections in key places to make through traffic impossible. If the courts strike down these laws, I'm pretty sure this is what will happen in response.
https://goo.gl/maps/y2hQ6M3kPUC2
(Bird Ave in Birmingham, MI -- cutting off a neighborhood routing between M-1 Woodward Vvenue to 14 Mile Road)
The only issue with that type of action is that such would impede the movements of local emergency vehicles (police, fire, ambulances, etc.) as well.
I assume it will come down to New Jersey's legal duty to keep public ways open for public passage. Presumably they can't completely restrict any member of the public from traversing a road without going through an official process of abandonment. In other words, if the road is public, it has to be open to
all of the public.
Now, they may indeed be allowed to restrict travel by certain modes of transportation–such as motor vehicles–by erecting gates, curbs, bollards etc. However, I suspect that if they try to do this wholesale across the borough, it will likely be argued that they are using an ostensibly legal action to effect an illegal restriction against certain members of the public. The same argument might even be made against turn restriction signs, I'd bet, if it can be shown to have a nefarious purpose.
So are the "local traffic only" signs I see everywhere illegal? I mean unenforceable sure, but illegal?
I've been watching the news reports about Leonia and now Weehawken too. It will be interesting to see how this issue evolves. For one thing it must be costing these towns for police manpower to enforce the new rules. How much depends on whether they're just using on-duty personnel or paying overtime for extra staffing.
Another question is whether these towns have the legal authority to restrict public roads to residents only like they're doing. I understand someone is already taking Leonia to court over this. It will be interesting to see how the courts rule.
And now business owners in Leonia are complaining about lost business 'cause people are afraid to drive into that area for fear of being ticketed. Of course this may be just a case of potential customers not understanding when and where the restrictions apply. Maybe some public education and/or better signing is in order.
Quote from: SignBridge on February 18, 2018, 09:12:45 PM
And now business owners in Leonia are complaining about lost business 'cause people are afraid to drive into that area for fear of being ticketed. Of course this may be just a case of potential customers not understanding when and where the restrictions apply. Maybe some public education and/or better signing is in order.
For me personally, any strong restriction like that is a clear message - "you're not welcomed here!" - regardless of signs and/or newspaper articles. Most, if not all, small downtown businesses have competitors, in many cases amazon is also an option.
In my particular case, downtown nominally has plenty of interesting businesses. But they have some complex parking restrictions and red light cameras... so I've been there twice over past 12 months, since museums are not as abundant as retail or restaurants.
Quote from: bzakharin on February 06, 2018, 03:18:17 PM
So are the "local traffic only" signs I see everywhere illegal? I mean unenforceable sure, but illegal?
Can they be found in the federal MUTCD? No.
Can they be found in any state MUTCD supplement? Not sure (I have some familiarity with a few of them, but not all of them). But probably not.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on February 18, 2018, 11:43:56 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on February 06, 2018, 03:18:17 PM
So are the "local traffic only" signs I see everywhere illegal? I mean unenforceable sure, but illegal?
Can they be found in the federal MUTCD? No.
Wouldn't it be covered under Sections 2A.06 and 2B.02? (I am referring to the legality of
the sign itself, not of the underlying local ordinance.)
Quote from: MUTCD Section 2A.06Option:
13 State and local highway agencies may develop special word message signs in situations where roadway
conditions make it necessary to provide road users with additional regulatory, warning, or guidance information,
such as when road users need to be notified of special regulations or warned about a situation that might not be
readily apparent. Unlike colors that have not been assigned or symbols that have not been approved for signs, new
word message signs may be used without the need for experimentation.
Quote from: MUTCD Section 2B.02Option:
02 Regulatory word message signs other than those classified and specified in this Manual and the "Standard
Highways Signs and Markings" book (see Section 1A.11) may be developed to aid the enforcement of other laws
or regulations.
I have been hearing updates on this fairly often in the news. Notably, the only angle I've been hearing is that of local business owners fearing the loss of traffic, nothing about the legality of the restriction. Most recent reporting is that the borough government is willing to revise the signs to appease business owners; as far as the traffic-dodging out-of-towners using the local streets, well, just plan your fuel stop at a Leonia gas station, and you're all set. :-)
Quote from: empirestate on February 19, 2018, 06:54:12 AM
I have been hearing updates on this fairly often in the news. Notably, the only angle I've been hearing is that of local business owners fearing the loss of traffic, nothing about the legality of the restriction. Most recent reporting is that the borough government is willing to revise the signs to appease business owners; as far as the traffic-dodging out-of-towners using the local streets, well, just plan your fuel stop at a Leonia gas station, and you're all set. :-)
Courts may not move all that fast, and it may be possible that a lowest-level "traffic and misdemeanor" court cannot nullify a law (though I presume they can dismiss any tickets issued, which ends up being the same thing for people that challenge them in court).
In the case of the New Jersey Turnpike Authority ban on photography (apparently part of the New Jersey Administrative Code) as described in Looking for America on the New Jersey Turnpike (https://www.amazon.com/Looking-America-New-Jersey-Turnpike/dp/0813519551), the case had to end up before a New Jersey state appellate court before that ban was definitively declared unconstitutional and thus vacated.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on February 19, 2018, 11:13:33 AM
Quote from: empirestate on February 19, 2018, 06:54:12 AM
I have been hearing updates on this fairly often in the news. Notably, the only angle I've been hearing is that of local business owners fearing the loss of traffic, nothing about the legality of the restriction. Most recent reporting is that the borough government is willing to revise the signs to appease business owners; as far as the traffic-dodging out-of-towners using the local streets, well, just plan your fuel stop at a Leonia gas station, and you're all set. :-)
Courts may not move all that fast, and it may be possible that a lowest-level "traffic and misdemeanor" court cannot nullify a law (though I presume they can dismiss any tickets issued, which ends up being the same thing for people that challenge them in court).
Indeed not, but if it's true that litigation has already been initiated, that would be worth mentioning in news articles on the subject.
All around Greater Boston (Somerville in particular loves these) are Do Not Enter signs with a time limit on them, "except abutters." Would anyone see a legal difference between limiting travel based on the classification of people shown a practical preference for being let in (needs property access) rather than a seemingly arbitrary political preference (lives in same jurisdiction)?
NJ's Attorney General tells Leonia to stop enforcing the ban on out-of-town motorists.
http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2018/05/out-of-town_traffic_bans_are_illegal_ag_tells_traf.html
Per the article, the AG did talk with the towns prior to the Assembly Committee meeting he was speaking at, and they agreed to halt enforcing the ban. The AG will work with the towns to find legal ways to deal with the issue.
Also in the article - even though GWB congestion problems are older than almost any one of us have been alive, Christie's upping the ante will always and forever make this a subject of some good jokes.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 03, 2018, 10:57:14 AM
NJ's Attorney General tells Leonia to stop enforcing the ban on out-of-town motorists.
Figured something like this would happen.
Quote from: Brandon on May 03, 2018, 02:01:41 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 03, 2018, 10:57:14 AM
NJ's Attorney General tells Leonia to stop enforcing the ban on out-of-town motorists.
Figured something like this would happen.
I doubt this is the end of the story, though..
Quote from: kalvado on May 03, 2018, 02:09:28 PM
Quote from: Brandon on May 03, 2018, 02:01:41 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 03, 2018, 10:57:14 AM
NJ's Attorney General tells Leonia to stop enforcing the ban on out-of-town motorists.
Figured something like this would happen.
I doubt this is the end of the story, though..
As per the story, and as noted, it's not. But there are legal things that can be done, like dead-ending a road or making roads one-ways. Even prohibiting traffic from turning is legal...as long as it's prohibited for everyone.
"This is a byproduct of Google Maps and Waze..."
Are we just gonna keep blowing past the fact that, no, it's not?
Quote from: empirestate on May 04, 2018, 12:02:07 AM
"This is a byproduct of Google Maps and Waze..."
Are we just gonna keep blowing past the fact that, no, it's not?
Sure it is. People completely admit to it.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 04, 2018, 01:19:40 AM
Quote from: empirestate on May 04, 2018, 12:02:07 AM
"This is a byproduct of Google Maps and Waze..."
Are we just gonna keep blowing past the fact that, no, it's not?
Sure it is. People completely admit to it.
Concur. It's doubtful that a lot of people* would know surface routes to take if not for smartphone routing.
(*People like us excluded. :bigass: )
Quote from: hbelkins on May 04, 2018, 11:14:38 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 04, 2018, 01:19:40 AM
Quote from: empirestate on May 04, 2018, 12:02:07 AM
"This is a byproduct of Google Maps and Waze..."
Are we just gonna keep blowing past the fact that, no, it's not?
Sure it is. People completely admit to it.
Concur. It's doubtful that a lot of people* would know surface routes to take if not for smartphone routing.
(*People like us excluded. :bigass: )
Of course, it does seem obvious on the surface. But any sufficiently detailed paper map, digested and interpreted by the reader, would also suggest the same alternate routings as the smartphone apps. Google and Waze didn't create them.
Quote from: empirestate on May 04, 2018, 12:12:25 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on May 04, 2018, 11:14:38 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 04, 2018, 01:19:40 AM
Quote from: empirestate on May 04, 2018, 12:02:07 AM
"This is a byproduct of Google Maps and Waze..."
Are we just gonna keep blowing past the fact that, no, it's not?
Sure it is. People completely admit to it.
Concur. It's doubtful that a lot of people* would know surface routes to take if not for smartphone routing.
(*People like us excluded. :bigass: )
Of course, it does seem obvious on the surface. But any sufficiently detailed paper map, digested and interpreted by the reader, would also suggest the same alternate routings as the smartphone apps. Google and Waze didn't create them.
Paper maps would show that it's shorter, but not necessarily that it's faster.
Quote from: 1 on May 04, 2018, 12:16:04 PM
Quote from: empirestate on May 04, 2018, 12:12:25 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on May 04, 2018, 11:14:38 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 04, 2018, 01:19:40 AM
Quote from: empirestate on May 04, 2018, 12:02:07 AM
"This is a byproduct of Google Maps and Waze..."
Are we just gonna keep blowing past the fact that, no, it's not?
Sure it is. People completely admit to it.
Concur. It's doubtful that a lot of people* would know surface routes to take if not for smartphone routing.
(*People like us excluded. :bigass: )
Of course, it does seem obvious on the surface. But any sufficiently detailed paper map, digested and interpreted by the reader, would also suggest the same alternate routings as the smartphone apps. Google and Waze didn't create them.
Paper maps would show that it's shorter, but not necessarily that it's faster.
Right; that's part of the "digesting and interpreting". So it's something to do with the use of the information, not the information itself.
I'll often see "shortcuts" on a map. But I'm never sure if they'll be faster, due to unknown factors (stop signs? red lights? pedestrians?). Because of those unknowns, I'm skeptical of recommending the shortcut to the driver. If we lose time, I look like a fool.
Quote from: webny99 on May 04, 2018, 12:35:20 PM
I'll often see "shortcuts" on a map. But I'm never sure if they'll be faster, due to unknown factors (stop signs? red lights? pedestrians?). Because of those unknowns, I'm skeptical of recommending the shortcut to the driver. If we lose time, I look like a fool.
If that shortcut is along your daily commute, you just try it once and try to remember how it works. Doesn't work for one-off trips, but I suspect this issue is mostly about commuters..
Quote from: hbelkins on May 04, 2018, 11:14:38 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 04, 2018, 01:19:40 AM
Quote from: empirestate on May 04, 2018, 12:02:07 AM
"This is a byproduct of Google Maps and Waze…"
Are we just gonna keep blowing past the fact that, no, it's not?
Sure it is. People completely admit to it.
Concur. It's doubtful that a lot of people* would know surface routes to take if not for smartphone routing.
(*People like us excluded. :bigass: )
I also concur with these sentiments. I live on a narrow and somewhat twisty and hilly road. The road is like a horseshoe in that it connects out to a main road on either end, however, it changes name midway. Several few years ago the main road had speed humps installed to discourage speeding (SL is 25 and widely ignored, and in fairness it can easily be driven 35-40). Naturally, residents complained to the town and likely the local police about speeding. The speed humps became the traffic calming solution. Thru traffic continued using the road and slowing down for the speed humps. Fast forward some when GPS became prevalent and lo and behold, people saw that my road bypasses said humps (many didn't realize it was a thru road since it has a different name at either end connecting to the main road). Needless to say, my road saw an uptick in traffic, especially by non locals looking to avoid the speed humps. I'm not sure if navigation apps increased the usage on my road, but I wouldn't be surprised. Anyway, I'm not complaining, as I acknowledge that it's a public road, however some tend to travel quite fast and reckless (the road is narrow with hills and twisty as I noted) and indeed accidents, some head-on have occurred as a result of careless/reckless driving. I guess my point is that just because it bypasses traffic calming, I wouldn't say it's faster if it's driven safely. It certainly isn't faster if one encounters one of the accidents that I mentioned because it would block the road completely, perhaps a motorcycle could squeeze by.
Quote from: signalman on May 04, 2018, 01:11:00 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on May 04, 2018, 11:14:38 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 04, 2018, 01:19:40 AM
Quote from: empirestate on May 04, 2018, 12:02:07 AM
"This is a byproduct of Google Maps and Waze..."
Are we just gonna keep blowing past the fact that, no, it's not?
Sure it is. People completely admit to it.
Concur. It's doubtful that a lot of people* would know surface routes to take if not for smartphone routing.
(*People like us excluded. :bigass: )
I also concur with these sentiments. [...] I guess my point is that just because it bypasses traffic calming, I wouldn't say it's faster if it's driven safely. It certainly isn't faster if one encounters one of the accidents that I mentioned because it would block the road completely, perhaps a motorcycle could squeeze by.
I thought your point was supposed to be that it was a byproduct of Google/Waze, not that it isn't faster even though it bypasses traffic calming. ;-)
Quote from: kalvado on May 04, 2018, 12:39:42 PM
Quote from: webny99 on May 04, 2018, 12:35:20 PM
I'll often see "shortcuts" on a map. But I'm never sure if they'll be faster, due to unknown factors (stop signs? red lights? pedestrians?). Because of those unknowns, I'm skeptical of recommending the shortcut to the driver. If we lose time, I look like a fool.
If that shortcut is along your daily commute, you just try it once and try to remember how it works. Doesn't work for one-off trips, but I suspect this issue is mostly about commuters..
I was under the impression that we were discussing one-off, or at least irregular, trips. In any case, I have no need for a map on my commutes, and unless there's an unforeseen delay (like an accident), there's no shortcuts worth taking.
Now, if there
was some good shortcuts on my commute, I wouldn't hesitate to use them. My comment about being skeptical of shortcuts was solely applicable to areas I'm unfamiliar with.
Quote from: empirestate on May 04, 2018, 12:22:21 PM
Quote from: 1 on May 04, 2018, 12:16:04 PM
Quote from: empirestate on May 04, 2018, 12:12:25 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on May 04, 2018, 11:14:38 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 04, 2018, 01:19:40 AM
Quote from: empirestate on May 04, 2018, 12:02:07 AM
"This is a byproduct of Google Maps and Waze..."
Are we just gonna keep blowing past the fact that, no, it's not?
Sure it is. People completely admit to it.
Concur. It's doubtful that a lot of people* would know surface routes to take if not for smartphone routing.
(*People like us excluded. :bigass: )
Of course, it does seem obvious on the surface. But any sufficiently detailed paper map, digested and interpreted by the reader, would also suggest the same alternate routings as the smartphone apps. Google and Waze didn't create them.
Paper maps would show that it's shorter, but not necessarily that it's faster.
Right; that's part of the "digesting and interpreting". So it's something to do with the use of the information, not the information itself.
These roads have always been there. Little difference in traffic. Waze becomes popular. Large increase in traffic.
Most people in the past had atlases or state maps. Few had county maps. Extremely few had county maps not for their own county. So while the info had always been available, most didn't take the time to try to figure out a shorter route.
Now with Waze, they don't need to figure it out. They just listen and follow the directions. Heck, the options could change daily. The driver doesn't care...they may not even remember the route. Don't need to. Waze will tell them what to do tomorrow as well.
Quote from: webny99 on May 04, 2018, 11:58:02 PM
I was under the impression that we were discussing one-off, or at least irregular, trips. In any case, I have no need for a map on my commutes, and unless there's an unforeseen delay (like an accident), there's no shortcuts worth taking.
Now, if there was some good shortcuts on my commute, I wouldn't hesitate to use them. My comment about being skeptical of shortcuts was solely applicable to areas I'm unfamiliar with.
If you will, this boils down to question "who actually drives into Manhattan?" as original article talks about approaches to a bridge between NJ and NYC.
I'm afraid there is more commuter traffic than out-of-area traffic in that particular spot - and I wouldn't be surprised if it is local drivers conditioned to congested roads that are embracing the use of whatever needs to bring them home a few minutes earlier. Besides, we're talking about narrow side streets where heavy commercial vehicles simply will not fit.
It may go both ways as long haul driver is more likely to use some form of directions assistance. However Waze mentioned their app is used by 20% of drivers in Los Angeles area - and that means significant number of commuters use it as I don't believe in 20% traffic being non-commuters.
Quote from: webny99 on May 04, 2018, 11:58:02 PM
I was under the impression that we were discussing one-off, or at least irregular, trips. In any case, I have no need for a map on my commutes, and unless there's an unforeseen delay (like an accident), there's no shortcuts worth taking.
I think you might be assuming that navigation apps like Waze are used by out-of-towners rather than commuters since, if you're in your own city driving a route you take everyday, why would you need navigational assistance–right?
In my experience, particularly in very dense, traffic-choked urban areas, many people blindly rely on GPS navigation every single time they get in their cars–even on their daily commute and for short trips in familiar areas not far from their homes. This is especially true of many of my co-workers/associates in the S.F. Bay Area. And they're not slaves to Waze merely because they're lazy or stupid: The potential cost of
not relying on a system that has up-to-the-second information on current traffic conditions is just too great.
Even if you invested the time to find all of the shortcuts along your regular route, you couldn't possibly know that, for example, unplanned utility work has closed one of your reliable alternates. In my estimation, navigation apps like Google Maps and Waze truly are a case of taking something that was already possible (looking at maps, seeking an alternate route) and turbocharging it to the point that it becomes an entirely different proposition.
As to whether the results of this newfound utilization of alternate routes is a good thing or not, that's a difficult and complicated question. Certainly, people have the right to freedom of movement and can utilize whatever public roads they wish. And if drawing upon the collective knowledge generated by other motorists allows them to make use of unutilized road capacity and reduce the overall level of level of congestion, that's a generally a good thing.
But is it a desirable outcome if 100,000 commuters have their already hellish hour-long commutes shortened by a minute at the cost of 1,000 people in a residential neighborhood having their trip to the corner grocery store increased by 100 minutes? That's an extreme (and unlikely) scenario, but you get the idea: A massive number of people experience an almost imperceptible benefit at the expense of a relative few people's neighborhood peace being completely destroyed.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 05, 2018, 04:55:55 PM
Quote from: empirestate on May 04, 2018, 12:22:21 PM
Quote from: 1 on May 04, 2018, 12:16:04 PM
Paper maps would show that it's shorter, but not necessarily that it's faster.
Right; that's part of the "digesting and interpreting". So it's something to do with the use of the information, not the information itself.
These roads have always been there. Little difference in traffic. Waze becomes popular. Large increase in traffic.
Most people in the past had atlases or state maps. Few had county maps. Extremely few had county maps not for their own county. So while the info had always been available, most didn't take the time to try to figure out a shorter route.
Now with Waze, they don't need to figure it out. They just listen and follow the directions. Heck, the options could change daily. The driver doesn't care...they may not even remember the route. Don't need to. Waze will tell them what to do tomorrow as well.
Exactly–you're honing in on it there. The information was always there, on paper maps, but few people bought them. And if they did, they didn't bother to use them. The traffic is a byproduct of these behaviors, not of the apps themselves. (Otherwise, it would also have been a byproduct of the paper maps.)
Quote from: empirestate on May 05, 2018, 11:50:16 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 05, 2018, 04:55:55 PM
Quote from: empirestate on May 04, 2018, 12:22:21 PM
Quote from: 1 on May 04, 2018, 12:16:04 PM
Paper maps would show that it's shorter, but not necessarily that it's faster.
Right; that's part of the "digesting and interpreting". So it's something to do with the use of the information, not the information itself.
These roads have always been there. Little difference in traffic. Waze becomes popular. Large increase in traffic.
Most people in the past had atlases or state maps. Few had county maps. Extremely few had county maps not for their own county. So while the info had always been available, most didn't take the time to try to figure out a shorter route.
Now with Waze, they don't need to figure it out. They just listen and follow the directions. Heck, the options could change daily. The driver doesn't care...they may not even remember the route. Don't need to. Waze will tell them what to do tomorrow as well.
Exactly–you're honing in on it there. The information was always there, on paper maps, but few people bought them. And if they did, they didn't bother to use them. The traffic is a byproduct of these behaviors, not of the apps themselves. (Otherwise, it would also have been a byproduct of the paper maps.)
Huh?
No...it's a byproduct of the apps.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 06, 2018, 07:59:39 AM
No...it's a byproduct of the apps.
And retail stores struggle is a byproduct of online commerce; politicians falling out of favor is a product of information becoming available, and more people dealing with cancer is a product of better diagnostics and care.
This is irrelevant, honestly speaking - as road capacity stalled and traffic keep growing, such sideways would open up, one way or the other.
Quote from: briantroutman on May 05, 2018, 07:52:50 PM
Quote from: webny99 on May 04, 2018, 11:58:02 PM
I was under the impression that we were discussing one-off, or at least irregular, trips. In any case, I have no need for a map on my commutes, and unless there's an unforeseen delay (like an accident), there's no shortcuts worth taking.
I think you might be assuming that navigation apps like Waze are used by out-of-towners rather than commuters since, if you're in your own city driving a route you take everyday, why would you need navigational assistance–right?
You certainly nailed my thought process... but I didn't consider it an assumption at all. In the mind of a roadgeek, that was the only possible conclusion :)
QuoteIn my experience, particularly in very dense, traffic-choked urban areas, many people blindly rely on GPS navigation every single time they get in their cars–even on their daily commute and for short trips in familiar areas not far from their homes. This is especially true of many of my co-workers/associates in the S.F. Bay Area. And they're not slaves to Waze merely because they're lazy or stupid: The potential cost of not relying on a system that has up-to-the-second information on current traffic conditions is just too great.
I can certainly see that in a large metro, like the Bay area, with constant congestion. In fact, I recall my host in San Fran using Waze and being mildly surprised, assuming they needed it to get downtown, which I thought was strange. My surprise, of course, was a byproduct of:
(1) being a roadgeek
(2) living in a rust belt city with plenty of highway capacity
(3) my having a (reverse direction) suburb-to-suburb commute.
The thought that Waze would help me in my commute to exurban Webster is almost laughable... but I can easily see how commuters in congestion-plagued metros could come to benefit from it and thus depend on it.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 06, 2018, 07:59:39 AM
Quote from: empirestate on May 05, 2018, 11:50:16 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 05, 2018, 04:55:55 PM
Quote from: empirestate on May 04, 2018, 12:22:21 PM
Quote from: 1 on May 04, 2018, 12:16:04 PM
Paper maps would show that it's shorter, but not necessarily that it's faster.
Right; that's part of the "digesting and interpreting". So it's something to do with the use of the information, not the information itself.
These roads have always been there. Little difference in traffic. Waze becomes popular. Large increase in traffic.
Most people in the past had atlases or state maps. Few had county maps. Extremely few had county maps not for their own county. So while the info had always been available, most didn't take the time to try to figure out a shorter route.
Now with Waze, they don't need to figure it out. They just listen and follow the directions. Heck, the options could change daily. The driver doesn't care...they may not even remember the route. Don't need to. Waze will tell them what to do tomorrow as well.
Exactly–you're honing in on it there. The information was always there, on paper maps, but few people bought them. And if they did, they didn't bother to use them. The traffic is a byproduct of these behaviors, not of the apps themselves. (Otherwise, it would also have been a byproduct of the paper maps.)
Huh?
No...it's a byproduct of the apps.
It's not really, though: it's a byproduct of the app's accommodation for people's laziness. If people were concerned enough to save time, they
easily could have found the shortcut themselves using a paper map. The apps make people more likely to
use the shortcut (by recommending it)... but the driver is solely to blame for not
knowing about the available shortcut in the first place.
Quote from: webny99 on May 06, 2018, 01:08:23 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 06, 2018, 07:59:39 AM
Quote from: empirestate on May 05, 2018, 11:50:16 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 05, 2018, 04:55:55 PM
Quote from: empirestate on May 04, 2018, 12:22:21 PM
Quote from: 1 on May 04, 2018, 12:16:04 PM
Paper maps would show that it's shorter, but not necessarily that it's faster.
Right; that's part of the "digesting and interpreting". So it's something to do with the use of the information, not the information itself.
These roads have always been there. Little difference in traffic. Waze becomes popular. Large increase in traffic.
Most people in the past had atlases or state maps. Few had county maps. Extremely few had county maps not for their own county. So while the info had always been available, most didn't take the time to try to figure out a shorter route.
Now with Waze, they don't need to figure it out. They just listen and follow the directions. Heck, the options could change daily. The driver doesn't care...they may not even remember the route. Don't need to. Waze will tell them what to do tomorrow as well.
Exactly–you're honing in on it there. The information was always there, on paper maps, but few people bought them. And if they did, they didn't bother to use them. The traffic is a byproduct of these behaviors, not of the apps themselves. (Otherwise, it would also have been a byproduct of the paper maps.)
Huh?
No...it's a byproduct of the apps.
It's not really, though: it's a byproduct of the app's accommodation for people's laziness. If people were concerned enough to save time, they easily could have found the shortcut themselves using a paper map. The apps make people more likely to use the shortcut (by recommending it)... but the driver is solely to blame for not knowing about the available shortcut in the first place.
You can't read a paper map while driving (or shouldn't).
Quote from: Alps on May 06, 2018, 01:25:47 PM
Quote from: webny99 on May 06, 2018, 01:08:23 PM
It's not really, though: it's a byproduct of the app's accommodation for people's laziness. If people were concerned enough to save time, they easily could have found the shortcut themselves using a paper map. The apps make people more likely to use the shortcut (by recommending it)... but the driver is solely to blame for not knowing about the available shortcut in the first place.
You can't read a paper map while driving (or shouldn't).
There's also plenty of folks out there who don't know how to read a map.
Quote from: signalman on May 06, 2018, 01:30:09 PM
There's also plenty of folks out there who don't know how to read a map.
I know I'm influenced by being a roadgeek and all, but I have a hard time buying that.
Quote from: webny99 on May 06, 2018, 03:58:05 PM
Quote from: signalman on May 06, 2018, 01:30:09 PM
There's also plenty of folks out there who don't know how to read a map.
I know I'm influenced by being a roadgeek and all, but I have a hard time buying that.
I've seen it firsthand many times. I give folks credit who can admit to it at least, instead of pretending that they can and end up getting lost as a result.
It's probably a slight exaggeration, but I'd bet 25% of the gas used is by people not knowing where they're going, or going a longer route than necessary. It's amazing how lost people can get in their own hometown, much less on a road trip or vacation.
Quote from: Alps on May 06, 2018, 01:25:47 PM
You can't read a paper map while driving (or shouldn't).
Lots of things that people should be able to do - but they don't.
Such as...
If you cannot read check engine code, you shouldn't be driving!
If you cannot fix a flat tire, you shuldn't be driving!
Quote from: kalvado on May 06, 2018, 05:27:57 PM
Lots of things that people should be able to do - but they don't.
Such as...
If you cannot read check engine code, you shouldn't be driving!
If you cannot fix a flat tire, you shuldn't be driving!
Even more basic things that I've heard people (men no less) tell me that they don't know how to do:
1) Check tire pressure and add/remove air as necessary
2) Check oil and add some if needed
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 06, 2018, 07:59:39 AM
Quote from: empirestate on May 05, 2018, 11:50:16 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 05, 2018, 04:55:55 PM
Quote from: empirestate on May 04, 2018, 12:22:21 PM
Quote from: 1 on May 04, 2018, 12:16:04 PM
Paper maps would show that it's shorter, but not necessarily that it's faster.
Right; that's part of the "digesting and interpreting". So it's something to do with the use of the information, not the information itself.
These roads have always been there. Little difference in traffic. Waze becomes popular. Large increase in traffic.
Most people in the past had atlases or state maps. Few had county maps. Extremely few had county maps not for their own county. So while the info had always been available, most didn't take the time to try to figure out a shorter route.
Now with Waze, they don't need to figure it out. They just listen and follow the directions. Heck, the options could change daily. The driver doesn't care...they may not even remember the route. Don't need to. Waze will tell them what to do tomorrow as well.
Exactly–you're honing in on it there. The information was always there, on paper maps, but few people bought them. And if they did, they didn't bother to use them. The traffic is a byproduct of these behaviors, not of the apps themselves. (Otherwise, it would also have been a byproduct of the paper maps.)
Huh?
What you said: "So while the info had always been available, most didn't take the time to try to figure out a shorter route."
QuoteNo...it's a byproduct of the apps.
If it were a byproduct of the apps, it would also have been a byproduct of the maps, since the information had always been available that way, too. But if, as you also say, people were too lazy to figure out a shorter route in those days, then it's a byproduct of laziness.
I'm not sure that's the whole story, of course–as I say, you're honing in on it, but we're not quite there. The clue may lie in something else you said: "Waze becomes popular." If the traffic problem were a byproduct of Waze, then it would have occurred before Waze became popular. So there has to be more to it: what made Waze popular?
Ok, then using the good ol' World Wide Web, find me ONE story which says that residents became upset with motorists because the motorists read paper maps telling them about shortcuts around congested areas they their neighborhoods.
You're starting to grasp for straws honestly.
A lot of the women that buy large items at Target don't even know how to fold down the seat in their own vehicles
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 07, 2018, 12:19:47 AM
Ok, then using the good ol' World Wide Web, find me ONE story which says that residents became upset with motorists because the motorists read paper maps telling them about shortcuts around congested areas they their neighborhoods.
I don't know of any such stories; remember, the traffic isn't a byproduct of paper maps, so we wouldn't expect to find one.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 07, 2018, 12:19:47 AM
You're starting to grasp for straws honestly.
How do you mean? It's getting clearer for me with every reply.
But there's a big difference between paper maps and GPS systems...paper maps will tell you what shortcuts are available...but paper maps will not tell you real-time conditions on those short cuts. I think someone alluded to this earlier...but if there is an accident or roadwork on one of the possible short-cuts, Waze/Google will be updated enough to route people away from that shortcut.
I know people here in the Philly area who use Waze daily on their commute...not because they don't know the various ways to go...but want to avoid the one-time issues.
Quote from: signalman on May 06, 2018, 05:41:01 PM
Quote from: kalvado on May 06, 2018, 05:27:57 PM
Lots of things that people should be able to do - but they don't.
Such as...
If you cannot read check engine code, you shouldn't be driving!
If you cannot fix a flat tire, you shuldn't be driving!
Even more basic things that I've heard people (men no less) tell me that they don't know how to do:
1) Check tire pressure and add/remove air as necessary
2) Check oil and add some if needed
This is a really pompous and elitist attitude. If there are products or services that let you drive without knowing things then there is no reason to know them. Now I can read a map and check/add air (using the gas station machine, I don't own a gauge or pump). I look up "check engine" codes using my manual. Why would I need to memorize those? For oil changes I go to a mechanic. But I don't begrudge others if they know more/less than I do. As long as they know and follow rules of the road, I don't really care.
Quote from: jemacedo9 on May 07, 2018, 01:32:00 PM
But there's a big difference between paper maps and GPS systems...paper maps will tell you what shortcuts are available...but paper maps will not tell you real-time conditions on those short cuts. I think someone alluded to this earlier...but if there is an accident or roadwork on one of the possible short-cuts, Waze/Google will be updated enough to route people away from that shortcut.
I know people here in the Philly area who use Waze daily on their commute...not because they don't know the various ways to go...but want to avoid the one-time issues.
In theory, yes. In practice, Waze is too conservative in rerouting when there is a sudden accident/delay (it shows the delay with a simple beep instead of verbal message, but doesn't change the route), and when it does it often suggests sub-optimal local street bypasses for no reason (in my trials using it in Northeast Philly).
Quote from: bzakharin on May 07, 2018, 01:36:04 PM
Quote from: signalman on May 06, 2018, 05:41:01 PM
Quote from: kalvado on May 06, 2018, 05:27:57 PM
Lots of things that people should be able to do - but they don't.
Such as...
If you cannot read check engine code, you shouldn't be driving!
If you cannot fix a flat tire, you shuldn't be driving!
Even more basic things that I've heard people (men no less) tell me that they don't know how to do:
1) Check tire pressure and add/remove air as necessary
2) Check oil and add some if needed
This is a really pompous and elitist attitude. If there are products or services that let you drive without knowing things then there is no reason to know them. Now I can read a map and check/add air (using the gas station machine, I don't own a gauge or pump). I look up "check engine" codes using my manual. Why would I need to memorize those? For oil changes I go to a mechanic. But I don't begrudge others if they know more/less than I do. As long as they know and follow rules of the road, I don't really care.
Yeah, I have to agree. I wonder if these people feel the same way about computer maintenance and repair...
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on May 07, 2018, 01:43:21 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on May 07, 2018, 01:36:04 PM
Quote from: signalman on May 06, 2018, 05:41:01 PM
Quote from: kalvado on May 06, 2018, 05:27:57 PM
Lots of things that people should be able to do - but they don't.
Such as...
If you cannot read check engine code, you shouldn't be driving!
If you cannot fix a flat tire, you shuldn't be driving!
Even more basic things that I've heard people (men no less) tell me that they don't know how to do:
1) Check tire pressure and add/remove air as necessary
2) Check oil and add some if needed
This is a really pompous and elitist attitude. If there are products or services that let you drive without knowing things then there is no reason to know them. Now I can read a map and check/add air (using the gas station machine, I don't own a gauge or pump). I look up "check engine" codes using my manual. Why would I need to memorize those? For oil changes I go to a mechanic. But I don't begrudge others if they know more/less than I do. As long as they know and follow rules of the road, I don't really care.
Yeah, I have to agree. I wonder if these people feel the same way about computer maintenance and repair...
OK, finally we have some people who recognize that nobody is perfect!
Quote from: bzakharin on May 07, 2018, 01:36:04 PM
In theory, yes. In practice, Waze is too conservative in rerouting when there is a sudden accident/delay (it shows the delay with a simple beep instead of verbal message, but doesn't change the route), and when it does it often suggests sub-optimal local street bypasses for no reason (in my trials using it in Northeast Philly).
I had Waze saving a day for me in Chicago by rerouting around backup on something like a frontage road. SO it can help for sure.
For my commute, options are limited, and if there is a problem (always checking google maps before heading out! Evenings are more prone to problems in general), then working a bit late and/or some grocery shopping may be a good idea. Waze does its best in rerouting for me, but there are only that many alternatives to 18 mile interstate dash...