4 ms·

I fail to understand how merely directing people toward a certain street amounts to encouraging reckless driving.

by koboll 7y ago

jcranmer 7y ago
For one thing, Waze is using the actual speed of drivers instead of the legal speed limit to determine the travel time of a route. If drivers are speeding, Waze is basing its time savings on drivers violating the law. In some of the conditions that are brought up in these stories, it's not even really safe to travel the legal speed limit. (And reckless driving includes travelling too fast for conditions). Given the resistance of Waze to merely cut out those routes that are not safe for through traffic, it's clear that they do not value safety and I hold little sympathy for them.
- Mtinie 7y ago
  Are you sure about that, if the speed is moving greater than the posted limit? Waze displays your current speed as a green/red value compared against the posted speed. I can’t imagine they’d use absolute herd speed as the baseline against the projected speeds of the herd’s speed was a greater value.
- solveit 7y ago
  I strenuously object to the idea that the government should be able to stop the spreading of publicly available truths in the name of public safety, especially over a justification as flimsy as "encourages reckless driving". I would be willing to revisit this debate when somebody figures out how to build nuclear weapons in their garage, not so much before that.
  - paggle 7y ago
    How do you feel about government setting up speed cameras at all of these side streets and issuing citations to all speeders, even those 1mph over the limit, through dragnet surveillance?
    - thrower123 7y ago
      They'd have to collect a lot of tickets to justify the cost. Are there really not more important things the legal system could be using it's resources to combat? There are child molesters and drug dealers out there.
      - paggle 7y ago
        The government is big and can do multiple things at once. Ensuring safe streets is an important responsibility. Vehicles kill many more people than child molesters and drug dealers combined.
        thrower123 7y ago
        Opiods are giving car fatalities a run for their money.
    - solveit 7y ago
      I don't see anything fundamentally wrong with enforcing the speed limit in such a way. Perhaps one could question its efficiency, or the fact that many laws and regulations are enforced inconsistently based on the whims of whoever happens to be in charge. But those seem like small evils, relatively speaking.
- JMTQp8lwXL 7y ago
  > If drivers are speeding, Waze is basing its time savings on drivers violating the law. Have you ever tried driving 65 when everyone else does 80 (and the law says 65 mph)? It's borderline reckless to do so. All sorts of people will be passing you, creating unnecessary merges and lane switching that decreases road safety conditions.
  - enoch_r 7y ago
    This is true for freeways and possibly multi lane arterials. It's absolutely not true for small neighborhood streets, which seem to be the shortcuts at issue here.
    - JMTQp8lwXL 7y ago
      It seems improbable, though, that Waze is assuming you're doing 65 mph on residential streets (which, presumably, are around 25mph legal limit) to save time. It's faster to take residential streets if the freeways are completely backed up to the point they're moving slower.
      - nullc 7y ago
        From the article: “If it’s a single-lane residential street and the speed limit is 15 mph, but people are speeding through at 35, they will model the time off that data.” The article also appears to state that it doesn't model the load dependent throughput-- 'The instant the time penalties work out,” DwarfLord claims, “Waze will just as happily send a thousand Wazers down'. Which isn't surprising, since routing a lot of cars independently is computationally tractable but adding capacities to the problem makes it NP-complete in theory and much harder in practice.
- PeterisP 7y ago
  Waze doesn't tell you what speed to drive. It just gives you a direction, and you're literally at the steering wheel. If you're breaking any limits, it warns you, quite loudly by default. However, it does give a reasonable ETA based on real world traffic conditions, and that's a good thing - if today on some street everybody's driving at 10mph then it doesn't matter if it's because of a traffic jam or unsafe icy road, Waze won't send me there.
- koboll 7y ago
  >For one thing, Waze is using the actual speed of drivers instead of the legal speed limit to determine the travel time of a route. So what should Waze do? Lie about how long a route will actually take, and pretend like the person is going the speed limit? Here's a thought experiment. What do you think someone running late who's speeding and being shown a longer-than-actual ETA is going to do? Stands to reason they're going to speed up even more.

I fail to understand how merely directing people toward a certain street amounts to encouraging reckless driving.

by koboll 7y ago

I fail to understand how merely directing people toward a certain street amounts to encouraging reckless driving.

For one thing, Waze is using the actual speed of drivers instead of the legal speed limit to determine the travel time of a route. If drivers are speeding, Waze is basing its time savings on drivers violating the law. In some of the conditions that are brought up in these stories, it's not even really safe to travel the legal speed limit. (And reckless driving includes travelling too fast for conditions). Given the resistance of Waze to merely cut out those routes that are not safe for through traffic, it's clear that they do not value safety and I hold little sympathy for them.

Mtinie 7y ago
Are you sure about that, if the speed is moving greater than the posted limit? Waze displays your current speed as a green/red value compared against the posted speed. I can’t imagine they’d use absolute herd speed as the baseline against the projected speeds of the herd’s speed was a greater value.
solveit 7y ago
I strenuously object to the idea that the government should be able to stop the spreading of publicly available truths in the name of public safety, especially over a justification as flimsy as "encourages reckless driving". I would be willing to revisit this debate when somebody figures out how to build nuclear weapons in their garage, not so much before that.
- paggle 7y ago
  How do you feel about government setting up speed cameras at all of these side streets and issuing citations to all speeders, even those 1mph over the limit, through dragnet surveillance?
  - thrower123 7y ago
    They'd have to collect a lot of tickets to justify the cost. Are there really not more important things the legal system could be using it's resources to combat? There are child molesters and drug dealers out there.
    - paggle 7y ago
      The government is big and can do multiple things at once. Ensuring safe streets is an important responsibility. Vehicles kill many more people than child molesters and drug dealers combined.
      - thrower123 7y ago
        Opiods are giving car fatalities a run for their money.
  - solveit 7y ago
    I don't see anything fundamentally wrong with enforcing the speed limit in such a way. Perhaps one could question its efficiency, or the fact that many laws and regulations are enforced inconsistently based on the whims of whoever happens to be in charge. But those seem like small evils, relatively speaking.
JMTQp8lwXL 7y ago
> If drivers are speeding, Waze is basing its time savings on drivers violating the law. Have you ever tried driving 65 when everyone else does 80 (and the law says 65 mph)? It's borderline reckless to do so. All sorts of people will be passing you, creating unnecessary merges and lane switching that decreases road safety conditions.
- enoch_r 7y ago
  This is true for freeways and possibly multi lane arterials. It's absolutely not true for small neighborhood streets, which seem to be the shortcuts at issue here.
  - JMTQp8lwXL 7y ago
    It seems improbable, though, that Waze is assuming you're doing 65 mph on residential streets (which, presumably, are around 25mph legal limit) to save time. It's faster to take residential streets if the freeways are completely backed up to the point they're moving slower.
    - nullc 7y ago
      From the article: “If it’s a single-lane residential street and the speed limit is 15 mph, but people are speeding through at 35, they will model the time off that data.” The article also appears to state that it doesn't model the load dependent throughput-- 'The instant the time penalties work out,” DwarfLord claims, “Waze will just as happily send a thousand Wazers down'. Which isn't surprising, since routing a lot of cars independently is computationally tractable but adding capacities to the problem makes it NP-complete in theory and much harder in practice.
PeterisP 7y ago
Waze doesn't tell you what speed to drive. It just gives you a direction, and you're literally at the steering wheel. If you're breaking any limits, it warns you, quite loudly by default. However, it does give a reasonable ETA based on real world traffic conditions, and that's a good thing - if today on some street everybody's driving at 10mph then it doesn't matter if it's because of a traffic jam or unsafe icy road, Waze won't send me there.
koboll 7y ago
>For one thing, Waze is using the actual speed of drivers instead of the legal speed limit to determine the travel time of a route. So what should Waze do? Lie about how long a route will actually take, and pretend like the person is going the speed limit? Here's a thought experiment. What do you think someone running late who's speeding and being shown a longer-than-actual ETA is going to do? Stands to reason they're going to speed up even more.