3 ms·

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 temp

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
  Yes, I am comfortable with the state legislature making law like this because that reflects the will of the people of the entire state. It's only when locals decide they can segregate their streets that I'm annoyed because they violate the social contract we agreed upon. I'm also super comfortable with closing roads to cars entirely.
  - nullc 7y ago
    Fixing the issue with blunt closures in order to close off neighborhoods is frequently bad for everyone: it increases load at the remaining ingress. The neighborhood gets saved the through traffic, but congestion is increased outside of it. Is that something you think is actually preferable to simply avoiding sending large amounts of through traffic on roads which were not designed nor are able to handle the traffic? That seems like a cutting off ones nose to spite one's face. I don't live in LA, nor do I personally suffer from waze traffic (in fact, I have the good fortune of having been able to select my location so that such things will never be a problem for me) ... but I've lived in Florida where it's the norm for communities to be constructed with single outlets, and its clearly a bad design that leads to more roadway congestion. Yes, it keeps neighborhoods free from being speedways, but it makes driving and the community less enjoyable for everyone else.
    - scarejunba 7y ago
      If it's bad for everyone, then let's not do it. The current situation is equitable. I will not have government place one man above another any more than it already does. I'm more comfortable with solutions that are even. If you want to install metering lights so be it. All will be equal under the law.
      - nullc 7y ago
        Cutting connectivity to a neighborhood to prevent through traffic is good for the neighborhood on the net, bad for everyone else... and the law is quite permissive at allowing it. Our roads are designed so that some are arterial, some are access. The designs of these different kinds of roads are strikingly different, the costs to construct them are strikingly different, as is its durability to traffic. The impact on the surrounding properties are strikingly different as well. Treating each kind of road according to its designed purpose is not a failure to treat the public equally. Would you also argue that prohibiting drivers from traveling southbound in the northbound lanes is not treating them equally under the law? -- I suppose not. But then why do you consider directing transit traffic via non-arterial roads, causing unplanned wear to the road, risk the the surrounding properties, and congestion at interconnection points to be materially different than driving the wrong way? The road is designed to be used a particular way, using in a manner contrary to the design can cause serious problems. The law does not currently have carveouts for prohibiting transit traffic on public roads, as they weren't generally needed in the past and no doubt their enforcement would have their own costs (e.g. police stopping people to ask where they are going)... but such laws could certainly be created, and will be created if mapping companies continue to insist that they can ignore the harms they are creating by directing drivers to drive in ways contrary to the design of the road network so long as the law doesn't outright prohibit them from doing so. With automatic plate number recognition cameras it would be relatively straight forward to automate ticketing of through traffic in posted no-through roadways...
        scarejunba 7y ago
        So far municipalities cannot do this for good reasons: all the rich ones will block access to keep the poor folks out. I'll see you at the ballot box for this one.

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
Yes, I am comfortable with the state legislature making law like this because that reflects the will of the people of the entire state. It's only when locals decide they can segregate their streets that I'm annoyed because they violate the social contract we agreed upon. I'm also super comfortable with closing roads to cars entirely.
- nullc 7y ago
  Fixing the issue with blunt closures in order to close off neighborhoods is frequently bad for everyone: it increases load at the remaining ingress. The neighborhood gets saved the through traffic, but congestion is increased outside of it. Is that something you think is actually preferable to simply avoiding sending large amounts of through traffic on roads which were not designed nor are able to handle the traffic? That seems like a cutting off ones nose to spite one's face. I don't live in LA, nor do I personally suffer from waze traffic (in fact, I have the good fortune of having been able to select my location so that such things will never be a problem for me) ... but I've lived in Florida where it's the norm for communities to be constructed with single outlets, and its clearly a bad design that leads to more roadway congestion. Yes, it keeps neighborhoods free from being speedways, but it makes driving and the community less enjoyable for everyone else.
  - scarejunba 7y ago
    If it's bad for everyone, then let's not do it. The current situation is equitable. I will not have government place one man above another any more than it already does. I'm more comfortable with solutions that are even. If you want to install metering lights so be it. All will be equal under the law.
    - nullc 7y ago
      Cutting connectivity to a neighborhood to prevent through traffic is good for the neighborhood on the net, bad for everyone else... and the law is quite permissive at allowing it. Our roads are designed so that some are arterial, some are access. The designs of these different kinds of roads are strikingly different, the costs to construct them are strikingly different, as is its durability to traffic. The impact on the surrounding properties are strikingly different as well. Treating each kind of road according to its designed purpose is not a failure to treat the public equally. Would you also argue that prohibiting drivers from traveling southbound in the northbound lanes is not treating them equally under the law? -- I suppose not. But then why do you consider directing transit traffic via non-arterial roads, causing unplanned wear to the road, risk the the surrounding properties, and congestion at interconnection points to be materially different than driving the wrong way? The road is designed to be used a particular way, using in a manner contrary to the design can cause serious problems. The law does not currently have carveouts for prohibiting transit traffic on public roads, as they weren't generally needed in the past and no doubt their enforcement would have their own costs (e.g. police stopping people to ask where they are going)... but such laws could certainly be created, and will be created if mapping companies continue to insist that they can ignore the harms they are creating by directing drivers to drive in ways contrary to the design of the road network so long as the law doesn't outright prohibit them from doing so. With automatic plate number recognition cameras it would be relatively straight forward to automate ticketing of through traffic in posted no-through roadways...
      - scarejunba 7y ago
        So far municipalities cannot do this for good reasons: all the rich ones will block access to keep the poor folks out. I'll see you at the ballot box for this one.