4 ms·

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 b

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.

tormeh 10y ago
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.
- chrisbennet 10y ago
  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.
  - mturmon 10y ago
    "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.
- zippergz 10y ago
  > 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).
greggman 10y ago
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=20101116164518AAPv79j https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20101116164518A...
- abelhabel 10y ago
  I think you are referring to this type of law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam 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.
- kpil 10y ago
  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.
Joky 10y ago
> "Less noise, less polution, ... " Well, isn't it what NIMBY is about?
- awm 10y ago
  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.
hx87 10y ago
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.
- johnmaguire2013 10y ago
  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.
  - hx87 10y ago
    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.
    - johnmaguire2013 10y ago
      At that point, why not expand "public" roads?
      - rahimnathwani 10y ago
        Expand them how? Make them wider, and get rid of the sidewalk? Make them multi-level?

tormeh 10y ago

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.

chrisbennet 10y ago
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.
- mturmon 10y ago
  "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.
zippergz 10y ago
> 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).

greggman 10y ago

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=20101116164518AAPv79j https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20101116164518A...

abelhabel 10y ago
I think you are referring to this type of law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam 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.
kpil 10y ago
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.

Joky 10y ago

> "Less noise, less polution, ... " Well, isn't it what NIMBY is about?

awm 10y ago
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.

hx87 10y ago

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.

johnmaguire2013 10y ago
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.
- hx87 10y ago
  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.
  - johnmaguire2013 10y ago
    At that point, why not expand "public" roads?
    - rahimnathwani 10y ago
      Expand them how? Make them wider, and get rid of the sidewalk? Make them multi-level?