5 ms·

> The article mentions the 'LA Complete Streets Official Guide' listing which streets the planners designated as arterial vs non-arterial - guess what, if there

> The article mentions the 'LA Complete Streets Official Guide' listing which streets the planners designated as arterial vs non-arterial - guess what, if there's a mismatch between the plan and how people can reach their destinations most efficiently, then it is the plan that's wrong and needs to change, not the drivers. I think you are failing to differentiate between use and abuse. Roads have a specific purpose. Small, narrow side streets in dense, highly populated neighborhoods are not meant for heavy thru-traffic. Drivers using them for that purpose are, in fact, abusing them, at the expense of the people that live, walk, run, bicycle, and park in that neighborhood. In these instances, it is not that the city planners were wrong. The plan wasn't wrong. The drivers heedlessly barreling down streets never meant for that are in the wrong. > it's not the fault of drivers that this road doesn't suit their needs. You can't always get what you want. The desire to get to work 5 minutes faster doesn't overrule the right of people to have safe streets to live on. Unnecessarily diverting loads of drivers onto roads not meant to handle them is unethical.

PeterisP 7y ago
I would consider that any driver who's following all the rules of the road and posted signs (which would and should be different for these small, narrow side streets) should be freely able to use that road if it gets them where they want to be faster or more conveniently, and that them using these streets in that way should NOT be considered abuse. If there's a mismatch between the planners' intent and the posted street signs, speed limits, etc - that's a fault of the plan and the planner's; street signs delineating how drivers should behave on these streets are a key part (if not the main part) of city traffic planning. Drivers have to obey the signs, and they don't have to obey some official's intent - so if some streets have lower speed limits or speed bumps because they're residental areas, then that's completely fine and both drivers and Waze will take that into account when routing. But in general, if it's a public street, then the public (including nonlocal public!) is meant to be there if they want to; if it's not a private street of a gated neighbourhood then the drivers passing through have the exact same right to use that public street as the people who live there. It's not at the expense of the people who live there, it's simply using your own rightly deserved share of that public street instead of expecting that those other people have a monopoly on it and that you'd need their permission to share that street with you - if anything, you could label the desire to keep others off "their" street as doing so "at the expense" of these other taxpayers. You can plan and build non-arterial streets so that they're more useful for reaching local stuff and less useful for passing through; however, if the locals are allowed to drive through that street with x mph, then arbitrary numbers of other people are (and should!) also be allowed to be there on the same conditions.
- jacques_chester 7y ago
  Your underlying argument seems to be that planners were insufficiently psychic to foresee Waze. The roads are public property and their use is constrained by law. The same legal authorities which can set speed limits can ban non-local traffic. That would overcome your reliance on emphasising the letter, and not intent, of the law.
- nullc 7y ago
  > I would consider that any driver who's following all the rules of the road and posted signs (which would and should be different for these small, narrow side streets) Sweet. So you agree that adjusting the traffic laws and/or posting signs that say "No through traffic, transit to or from neighborhood properties only" would be sufficient to then permit enforcement actions? Those signs don't exist yet because prior to waze/maps they generally weren't required-- common decency and limited patience with convoluted paths were enough to restrict through traffic in most cases. Now that almost everyone driving is being directed by a mechanical sociopath it has turned into an issue.
  - scarejunba 7y ago
    They can put up the signs if they want. I'll beat them in court because City of Lafayette vs Contra Costa County makes such selective prevention except for temporary construction work not enforceable. Simply put: California has recognized our fair and even freedoms. You want to take them away? Molon labe.
    - nullc 7y ago
      You misunderstand the case law there-- it establishes no such right, only that such actions must follow from acts of the legislature, rather than allowing municipal authorities to override the legislature. [And in particular, the case law in California appears to be very liberal in allowing cities to close roads to cars entirely.]
      - scarejunba 7y ago

PeterisP 7y ago

I would consider that any driver who's following all the rules of the road and posted signs (which would and should be different for these small, narrow side streets) should be freely able to use that road if it gets them where they want to be faster or more conveniently, and that them using these streets in that way should NOT be considered abuse. If there's a mismatch between the planners' intent and the posted street signs, speed limits, etc - that's a fault of the plan and the planner's; street signs delineating how drivers should behave on these streets are a key part (if not the main part) of city traffic planning. Drivers have to obey the signs, and they don't have to obey some official's intent - so if some streets have lower speed limits or speed bumps because they're residental areas, then that's completely fine and both drivers and Waze will take that into account when routing. But in general, if it's a public street, then the public (including nonlocal public!) is meant to be there if they want to; if it's not a private street of a gated neighbourhood then the drivers passing through have the exact same right to use that public street as the people who live there. It's not at the expense of the people who live there, it's simply using your own rightly deserved share of that public street instead of expecting that those other people have a monopoly on it and that you'd need their permission to share that street with you - if anything, you could label the desire to keep others off "their" street as doing so "at the expense" of these other taxpayers. You can plan and build non-arterial streets so that they're more useful for reaching local stuff and less useful for passing through; however, if the locals are allowed to drive through that street with x mph, then arbitrary numbers of other people are (and should!) also be allowed to be there on the same conditions.

jacques_chester 7y ago
Your underlying argument seems to be that planners were insufficiently psychic to foresee Waze. The roads are public property and their use is constrained by law. The same legal authorities which can set speed limits can ban non-local traffic. That would overcome your reliance on emphasising the letter, and not intent, of the law.
nullc 7y ago
> I would consider that any driver who's following all the rules of the road and posted signs (which would and should be different for these small, narrow side streets) Sweet. So you agree that adjusting the traffic laws and/or posting signs that say "No through traffic, transit to or from neighborhood properties only" would be sufficient to then permit enforcement actions? Those signs don't exist yet because prior to waze/maps they generally weren't required-- common decency and limited patience with convoluted paths were enough to restrict through traffic in most cases. Now that almost everyone driving is being directed by a mechanical sociopath it has turned into an issue.
- scarejunba 7y ago
  They can put up the signs if they want. I'll beat them in court because City of Lafayette vs Contra Costa County makes such selective prevention except for temporary construction work not enforceable. Simply put: California has recognized our fair and even freedoms. You want to take them away? Molon labe.
  - nullc 7y ago
    You misunderstand the case law there-- it establishes no such right, only that such actions must follow from acts of the legislature, rather than allowing municipal authorities to override the legislature. [And in particular, the case law in California appears to be very liberal in allowing cities to close roads to cars entirely.]
    - scarejunba 7y ago