Anecdote, I was at Google in 2006 and there was (is?) a database of ideas that people shared that Google might pursue. As their motto was organize the world's information and make it easily accessible.
I had gotten a ticket for obstructing the intersection (the "anti-congestion" law in California that sought to limit gridlock by making it illegal to enter an intersection that you couldn't exit before the other light changed). I was fighting it and wanted to find other cases that had been decided on this law[1]. The only way to do that was to go to the public library and look through their published volumes of decisions and cases. So I thought here is a really useful thing Google could do, it isn't even a hard problem, collect the decisions that the courts publish anyway, and just connect the ones that are about the same part of the code. Match a number, match a date. And very useful to people who are fighting cases. It saved me some time and money [2]. But the idea never made it past the discussion stage because, as I was counseled, doing that would take on "powerful interests" who would really fight back hard and Google didn't want to draw that level of scrutiny. It wasn't until Carl Malamude started attacking this problem in earnest[3] that it became clear to me what it means to take away a revenue stream from lawyers.
[2] turns out there had been no case law on this particular law and lots of dismissals so I just entered a plea of not guilty at the clerk, and the court informed me a week before my trial date that the prosecution had declined to prosecute.
Chuck, I'm not sure who you talked to in 2006 at Google, you should know we basically done done it already :)
It was being done then, in fact. It made it well past the discussion page, and was already being implemented.
We spent a lot of time building up a case law, pushing to open Pacer (meeting with the federal judiciary and offering to just pay the revenue they make), etc.
Scholar has pretty up to date legal data since then, from OCR'ing federal reporters to parsing it, to what have you.
In fact, ask Carl. We worked really closely with him and have helped fund him for years, both directly, and through public.resource.org (https://yeswescan.org/index.court.html - 9F is Anurag, who started/ran Google Scholar, 22F is the group I ran)
A lot of states have exclusive contracts with westlaw or nexis or what have you, so it's non-trivial.
The target was also to try to have data for the kind of situation you mention, not to try to replace the dedicate legal resources that exist.
Anyway, again, not sure why you think Google didn't do it.
You say this as if they aren't like 10+ year contracts :)
Also, they often come with crazy requirements and local IT support (designed this way in order to ensure only lexis/westlaw can fulfill them).
Sorta, but not really. Usually what happens is that a company works with a state or local government on custom projects for so long that they create their own niche which is extremely difficult for a newcomer to fill. This is mostly just an emergent property of bureaucracy. Eventually these niches are choked off and die, however it takes decades.
> pushing to open Pacer (meeting with the federal judiciary and offering to just pay the revenue they make)
Wait what? You offered to pay the ~$145M/year they bring in for access fees in return for an open access PACER system? Was this offer just made to the PACER people or was it brought to the attention of the Judicial Conference?
We talked to the judicial conference of course.
Honestly, it this was a long time ago at this point. We may have only offered to pay what it costs them to run it instead of revenue. It was definitely somewhere between those two.
(I realize there is a huge difference in those two numbers, but we were also idealistic and thought they might actually care about public access at the time. Look how dumb we were)
Interesting. I have never been able to put my finger on if the resistance to opening pacer comes from the judiciary itself (judges fearing public scrutiny of the entire corpus of court filings) vs the Admin Office / IT wanting to maintain what is essentially a court-tech slush fund. Probably the reality is a little bit of both. I think the only way it gets fixed is with congressional action, so not holding my breath.
The anti gridlock law is actually a great law that DOES stop gridlock. The problem is you need to get people to actually follow it and in california for some reason no one does. In chicago we all know about this law and I had never seen gridlock the whole time I lived there (23 years). crazy right? not really. But to the people in LA it seems crazy to them. within a year of moving to LA, I saw gridlock. I had no idea this was still a problem in the united states. I thought it was only a 3rd world problem. But nope. In LA they have it. And it's becuase people block intersections here ALL THE FUCKING TIME. It's crazy.
Why? I don't get it. Do LA drives really not know it causes gridlock? Or do they just not care. I remember talking to an uber driver who didn't even know what gridlock was, or why blocking intersectinos was bad. As someone from chicago, I was amazed. And even on HN, OP doesn't know that blocking intersections causes gridlock, it amazes me. I thought this was common knowledge. For some reason people in these gridlocked towns are skeptical that the law doesn't work.
for example, in downtown LA they blocked one street for a festival and the entire downtown became gridlocked. Ive never seen traffic this bad IN MY ENTIRE LIFE. All because of people blocking intersections. I was able to walk 10 blocks faster than cars did. I saw cars sitting in place for an hour and more. It was crazy. I've never seen anything like it. And when the lights turned green people still blocked the intersection. THEY WERE SITTING IN GRIDLOCK AND STILL DIDN"T STOP BLOCKING INTERSECTINOS. Like wow. I was dumbfounded. How are LA drivers so bad at driving?? I was so glad to be on foot.
It's a completely fair law; it's easy to follow, and it benefits everyone. blocking intersections DOES CAUSE GRIDLOCK. IF YOU STOP BLOCKING INTERSECTIONS, GRIDLOCK WILL GO AWAY. Get this through your head!
the problem is people dont know about the law in california, and don't have the common sense to figure out themselves. it needs to be enforced more. LA has some of the worst gridlock problems ive ever seen.
> The problem is you need to get people to actually follow it and in california for some reason no one does.
This problem isn't specific to this law. There are many laws which aren't being enforced, but do exist. I'm from NL, and we're known for using bicycles a lot, and this is true. Yet bicyclers don't use their hand to show the way they go, they drive through red light, drive without light, and drive on the wrong side of the road all the time. And they get away with it because the cops aren't enforcing the rules.
> It's a completely fair law; it's easy to follow, and it benefits everyone. blocking intersections DOES CAUSE GRIDLOCK. IF YOU STOP BLOCKING INTERSECTIONS, GRIDLOCK WILL GO AWAY. Get this through your head!
Another reason it isn't working is due to selfishness plus ignorance. Inform drivers. Heck, teach it during driver license exams.
So,
1) Inform the users (in this case the general public).
2) Enforce the rules.
I would like to add laws need to be simple to explain, but I'm not so sure on how to describe that point.
I'm sure that people do know, but selfishness drives (pun not intended) people to do it. When there was a horrible freeze down here a few years back, traffic became gridlocked. Yes, the lack of traction caused issue, but the main problem was that everyone was hellbent on getting home without regard to how the flow of traffic normally works.
I witnessed gridlock happen. At a particularly odd, 6-way intersection, people started edging the cars into the intersections. The light would change, cross traffic would get pissed, and then they'd edge around the blocking traffic creating a snaked grid. As cars moved out the way in the cross, the other section would block more and more until the whole intersection was blocked. It was a beautiful tragedy of bucket crabs[0] stopping progress for all. That's when I pulled into a nearby lot, called a friend, and just crashed with them for the night.
If there is no space in the lane you're driving into, whether turning or going straight, you should not enter the intersection. That video just doesn't deal with the case of the lane you're turning into being full already.
Except that you block the view for oncoming vehicles turning the opposite direction (their left). A properly labeled intersection has white lines (in the US, other places may use something else) that indicate where to stop, and if engineered properly, stopping before these white lines leaves a clear view.
It annoys me as well when people don't enter the intersection on green when waiting for oncoming traffic to clear so that they can turn left. However I don't think it's related to the gridlock discussion unless the road you are turning onto is backed all the way up to the intersection, so that you will not be able to complete the turn even when oncoming traffic clears. In that case I believe you should not enter the intersection.
You are supposed to enter the intersection when turning left (then turn when safe), but not if there is no room to complete your turn in the target lane.
The whole point is to not have people clogging the intersection and preventing movement when the lights change. That's what creates gridlock instead of just a backup on one street.
I would appreciate if anyone can point to any noteworthy studies documenting the impact on traffic flow that avoidable gridlock can have, I would like to contact administrators in my city to get them to consider a public education campaign to teach drivers about turning lanes and pedestrians about walk signals. The combination of these two things means at rush hour we're often lucky if we get 2 cars at a time through a light (1 lane plus turning lane, driver trying to turn leaving his ass in the main lane preventing anyone else from passing, meanwhile pedestrians don't respect walking stop signal, so sometimes the turning driver can't even make it through after the light has turned red as then the main traffic is coming, as they even often have to wait for someone crossing).
There is a similar law in the UK, which works well and is enforced automatically through the use of ANR cameras at junctions. (As I know to my cost, since I misjudged and ended up stationary with my back wheels on the yellow hatching.)
Block an intersection in Chicago and people will usually make you feel like you're a bad person and you did a bad thing. I've seen people nearly pull onto the sidewalk to get out of an intersection they were blocking.
Similar in Manhattan ... every intersection has large signs that say, "Don't Block the Box". Driving there has made me more conscientious when driving in other areas that don't seem to enforce this at all.
It's a good law, but not always easy to follow. Sometimes traffic is moving along slowly, and then suddenly stops when you're already into the intersection. This mainly happens when you're immediately behind a large vehicle like a city bus and can't see what's further up ahead.
You don't have to predict whether your exit will be clear. You just wait until you _can_see_ it's clear.
In the UK, it's pretty simple:
"You may enter a yellow box junction when your exit is clear and there is enough space on the other side of the junction for your vehicle to clear the box completely without stopping."
It's not complicated. It just requires an incentive (don't break the rule, don't pay a 1000 GBP fine).
Though it might not be obvious to American drivers, this is the solution.
There will always be that driver who attempts to change lanes mid-intersection to get into an opening first; that's part of what motivates American drivers to enter the intersection before their exit is clear.
(Lane changes within the intersection are illegal in the US, but rarely enforced.)
American drivers also accelerate quickly only to brake desperately, which creates "openings" for rapid lane changes as well as more trouble staying out of intersections. In spite of higher accidents, more fuel costs, and even occasional tickets (for not signalling properly), this is a persistent driver behavior in many areas like California.
False. In California and some other states the vehicle code doesn't prohibit changing lanes in an intersection. Although depending on the circumstances an officer might cite you for an unsafe lane change.
That might fly in the land of socialism but here on the free side of the lake sitting at the intersection while the light is green will just encourage people to take their "right on red" in front of you ensuring you never make it across, unless of course you're at an intersection where the locals have been deemed to be idiots and are not allowed to take a right on red.
Yes but if traffic is moving slow and you're at a stale green light then you simply don't enter the intersection until you know you can get through it. Sure, you might miss the light, but blocking the intersection means everyone your blocking will miss it instead.
Here in Europe people often enter roundabouts and junctions before the exits are clear and it is against traffic law, the reason given for it being a wrong thing to do is that there should be a clear path through for emergency vehicles. Surely that is reason enough to implement a law in US states?
Which part of Europe? According to everyone I know in Sweden (including myself) it is really frowned upon to do that. If you enter without being sure that you'll be able to exit in time you're a massive jerk.
From the UK here too, I've been living in Norway for 30 years now and Norwegian drivers only really started to get the hang of roundabouts and pedestrian crossings (zebra crossings) about five years ago. In the Drammen area at least.
Lost count of the number of times I have been almost run down on pedestrian crossings but it's much better now than it was.
One thing that is very good here is that everyone gets out of the way of emergency vehicles very promptly.
I work with a guy who got a fine and points for not stopping at a zebra crossing in Holmestrand, and the person the police meant he should stop for wasn't even crossing. Apparently the rule is that you should stop even if they look like they might cross.
My biggest pet peeve is that many people don't seem to understand slip roads and tailgating is rife. Also that patience is a virtue, if I'm in the middle of a 3 point turn on a country road then don't drive around me, just wait the 4 more seconds it will take me complete the maneuver. And parallel parking, don't get me started.
I see this all the time: A group of (say) 3 cars enters the intersection when there is plenty of space for 3 cars on the other side of the intersection. One of the first two drivers stops way short, leaving the third car stranded in the intersection. Sometimes it doesn't matter if you "know".
No, it's very easy. Never enter the intersection unless you can make it all the way across. Even if the light is green you stop at the intersection if you don't have room to go on the other side.
> I just entered a plea of not guilty at the clerk, and the court informed me a week before my trial date that the prosecution had declined to prosecute.
It is disappointingly common. To the point you can unironically say: tickets are a tax on the busy, and those unfamiliar with or frightened by the courts.
This shotgun "see what sticks" approach is infuriating.
My wife had a even more annoying case of this in SF. They actually set a trial date, she went, sat on court for hours and then when the trial came up it turned out that the cop who had given her the ticket hadn't shown up and she got to get home and get the money from the ticket back. Then it took the city about a year to pay the money back. Just imagine we had taken a year to pay the ticket...
CaseText (https://CaseText.com) is pretty close to Google for law. They have a new tool that is aimed at lawyers doing legal research where they suggest other relevant cases based on the cases you're already citing.
Disclaimer: I have nothing to do with CaseText but I do know the CEO as a result of being a legal operations software CEO and being in YC with them.
>I had gotten a ticket for obstructing the intersection (the "anti-congestion" law in California that sought to limit gridlock by making it illegal to enter an intersection that you couldn't exit before the other light changed).
To be fair, there is a lot of traffic created from this problem--especially in the Financial District in San Francisco. Whereas NYC has those "don't block the box" signs and it seems like their drivers are much more aware of it.
SF does have these signs, for example on Battery crossing onto Market [1] (including most intersections onto Market). Unfortunately it doesn't look like the intersection I see block most often (California / Montgomery) has any, and I've been honked at plenty of times waiting for the intersection to clear, so education is probably pretty bad.
I don't know what NYC you're referring to but the one I live in has huge problems with asshats blocking intersections and I've never once seen the NYPD pick up anyone for it (or any other traffic violation).
Of course why anyone drives in Manhattan is beyond me.
Oh it's not just traffic. It makes it dangerous for pedestrians as well. You're either waiting patiently for the intersection to clear (hint: it won't) or you're walking in traffic, around the obstruction. I suppose the latter isn't so bad until someone else that's blocking the box tries to move and nearly runs you over.
The MTA has the right approach. At a number of intersections downtown the traffic enforcement guys just hang out at the intersection taking pictures and writing down license plates of folks who block the box.
Oh, I agree. I was gently chiding OP. I think blocking the intersection like that is one of those things that everyone hates, but has also committed at one point or another. Though from his explanation of the situation in another subthread, it sounds like he was in the right after all.
I'm sad to hear that gridlock laws were not enforced. Gridlock is a pet peeve of mine as it wastes a lot of time unnecessarily. It's a simple coordination problem, with an easy solution (yellow boxes with expensive, automatic fines) that's proven to work (at least in London).
Sheparding isn't hard and Google Scholar does an adequate job of it for cases in its database. Doing anything more sophisticated is much harder though.
Take a simple query I needed the other day: when is it proper to file a summary judgment motion before claim construction of a patent? The query "summary judgment before claim construction" on Google Scholar returns a bunch of highly-cited cases, and on the first page only one is even a patent case, and none answer the question.
In contrast, the first hit on WestLaw is a directly relevant case. It's a District of South Carolina case, cited by a single other case, but it answers the question! And that's with a free-form query, which I'd never do. One minute of planning to create a good terms-and-connectors search immediately returns mostly-relevant cases.
The citing office was on the corner of the intersection and upon seeing him, a car on my left which had been heading for the carpool lane, opted instead to cut in front of me to stay in the legal lane. Both driving in the car pool lane and the unsafe lane change were illegal on the part of this other car. My argument was that the officer (having seen this whole thing (we talked about it when he wrote up my ticket)) was that safely avoiding the collision from the illegal driver was the proximate cause of the alleged violation. I was also irritated he didn't cite the other driver for his egregious actions.
Yes. This. Not just in terms of access to code but general willingness to be helpful to your colleagues also. As a lawyer turned programmer I remember when I discovered IRC thinking "Why can't attorneys be this chill with each other?!"
I had gotten a ticket for obstructing the intersection (the "anti-congestion" law in California that sought to limit gridlock by making it illegal to enter an intersection that you couldn't exit before the other light changed). I was fighting it and wanted to find other cases that had been decided on this law[1]. The only way to do that was to go to the public library and look through their published volumes of decisions and cases. So I thought here is a really useful thing Google could do, it isn't even a hard problem, collect the decisions that the courts publish anyway, and just connect the ones that are about the same part of the code. Match a number, match a date. And very useful to people who are fighting cases. It saved me some time and money [2]. But the idea never made it past the discussion stage because, as I was counseled, doing that would take on "powerful interests" who would really fight back hard and Google didn't want to draw that level of scrutiny. It wasn't until Carl Malamude started attacking this problem in earnest[3] that it became clear to me what it means to take away a revenue stream from lawyers.
[1] And learned this is called 'Sheparding' based on finding citations -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shepard's_Citations
[2] turns out there had been no case law on this particular law and lots of dismissals so I just entered a plea of not guilty at the clerk, and the court informed me a week before my trial date that the prosecution had declined to prosecute.
[3] https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150726/23080731763/even-...