voludu2 wrote:I wouldn't want the USA guidelines to get into any particular detail about the various state guidelines.
The only change I would suggest is to make clear that we are not limiting ourselves to speed limits only in cases where there are signs.

I think this is an important point, as in Massachusetts the state laws explicitly defines speed limits when not posted, going into so much detail as to describe the density of the houses to distance of road for a certain speed limit. There no reason when laws like that exist that we cant get the entire state

School Zone Speed Limit Question

This is partly philosophical in nature, but what is the harm if we were to put school zone speed limits as the speed limit for those segments? My thoughts: Majority of the drivers probably are driving during school hours near the school, speeding during in a school zone would be the harsher fine/penalty for the driver, people will speed regardless of what is posted, some states have ambiguous signs like when children present which could make the speed limit in effect anytime.

Overall I think even if people were favorable to allowing school zones being allowed for SL it probably would be a state by state decision. But this is one of those I don't know what level discussion occurred on this specific topic as the national guidelines were developed and as things evolve sometimes it is good to revisit some topics.

Thank you guys, i agree something is better than nothing and the drivers will let us know with URs if they dont agree with our efforts

While I posted earlier in this topic in favor mapping the school speed limit philosophically not for any legal purposes. It mostly based on the concept it will impact the most people driving during the school hours concept. We are not mapping anything illegal just mapping what is valid majority of the time. If the school zone would cover greater than 50% of the whole week then I think it should be mapped. But the bigger issue is the system can't handle this and we are limited by the tools we have. I wanted to hear the discussion behind the decision with my post, as I doubt that I was the only one who had this thought.

The further reality is that the more times the app gives a prompt or notification while driving the higher the chance the driver becomes distracted. School zones are short areas with highly visible signs. If a driver is dependent on having an app tell them they are driving too fast there they are probably not fit to be driving, but I will leave that up to the lawyers to decide as well.

I await the arrival of time based speed limits and will be updating school zones when it is available. We do the best with the tools we have and hope drivers are responsible enough to operate their cars in a safe manner when using this app.

The guidelines are trying to remove as much subjectivity to this process as possible. We deal with the facts, like turn restrictions sometimes while legal a certain turn is a bad idea in reality at certain times of the day. We can only map what is legal and hope the app and driver figure out this is not the way to go at that time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm sympathetic to schalliol's concern. It isn't the only thing we do that I find unsafe, e.g., connecting railroads to roads. However, I would expect Waze will move forward into integrating conditional speed limits at some point. As others have noted, the app is not to blame for a drivers' lack of situational awareness. I have to go through such legalese when starting the Navigon app.

It provides an opportunity for Waze to route people onto railroads through either a failure of the routing engine or software bug (same thing). Waze does not meet the software engineering standards for the protection of human life such as those generally found in the medical or avionics industries...nor does it claim to. There was not a reason to connect them and introduce the possibility of a routing issue, especially considering adding a railroad first begins in the WME as a street. I dread what happens if the editor forgets to change it to a railroad.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_system_safety.

Even if the risk of being routed onto a railroad is low, it is not zero. Connecting roads to railroads did not reduce that risk. Thanks for asking.

Not automatons, just people who despite their intelligence can make mistakes, whether developers, system integrators, editors, or users. My position is one of mitigating risk to public safety over any and all routing considerations. Waze made a determination that the risk of connecting railroads and roads is acceptable. I just don't agree with it.

Fredo-p wrote:I could have sworn it was a federal regulation (FHWA MUTCD) that stated SL signs are to be placed every XXX feet/miles based on the speed.

No the MUTCD merely states that speed limit signs indicating statutory speed limits shall be installed at entrances to the State and, where appropriate, at jurisdictional boundaries in urban areas. But I wouldn't call that a federal regulation.

Agreed, as far as I can tell Maryland just requires "appropriate signs giving notice of the limit."

But the speed limits different from the statutory speed limits are not enforceable unless there are signs. Such a speed limit "shall be prima facie lawful at all time or at such time as may be determined, when appropriate signs giving notice thereof are erected at such intersection, or other place or part of the highway." NJ Statutes 39:4-98. But yes there need be no signs for the statutory speed limits.