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.

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.

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.

>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.

> 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.