8 ms·
“Coning” AVs is part of a long tradition of tactical urbanism
- davidw 3y agoI think the jury is still out on self driving vehicles, but the ever larger trucks and SUV's on our streets are a clear and present danger to life and limb. I'd focus on those in terms of street safety, as well as safe infrastructure for people walking or biking.
- wardedVibe 3y agoI'd rather see them deflating the tires on any trucks beyond a certain size parked in cities
- on-demand-econ 3y agothis is a thing! https://www.independent.ie/regionals/dublin/dublin-news/tyre-extinguishers-why-are-climate-activists-targeting-dublin-suvs/a606780334.html https://www.independent.ie/regionals/dublin/dublin-news/tyre...
- safestreetrebel 3y agoYes! We fully support this, but we really need the EPA to close the monster SUV /truck loophole. Otherwise there is economic incentive for people to keep buying these insane trucks
- 13of40 3y agoThere are people who believe we shouldn't have personal vehicles at all. Would it be OK for them to deflate the tires on Priuses and Nissan Leafs they find parked in their city?
- aledue 3y ago1. The chance of getting popular support for a protest like this diminishes with the number of people you piss off. You may be able to earn some sympathy by targeting SUVs only, but doing the same with all cars wouldn't be a good strategy. 2. There are good reasons to own a car, and in some places a significant number of people may be justified in using one. Blanket targeting everyone would be unfair to those who really need it. By contrast, SUVs don't have any (significant?) utility over a regular car (other than ego boosting maybe...).
- vrosas 3y agoThere seems to be very little incentive to buy a compact car in the US, especially when the calculus involves _every other driver_ is in 6000 lb death machine, with 400 more horsepower than they need and vision-blocking A-pillars the size of small cars themselves. Oversized vehicles and non-commercial trucks need to be taxed to death.
- tzs 3y agoI know that larger cars need stronger A-pillars because the A-pillar is supposed to keep the cabin from getting smushed in a roll-over, and so the A-pillar needs to have a larger cross section. But why don't they get that increased cross section by extending the A-pillar in the directions toward and away from the driver and keep its size perpendicular to that the same? That should give a stronger A-pillar without changing how much it blocks. It would slightly reduce the interior volume of the cabin bit that would come from space that normally isn't used.
- louwrentius 3y agoI think I have a solution against coning! Each AV will be equipped with a person that will prevent the unicornification or removes the cone after-the-fact. I do wonder if those cones act as a reusable catalyst, once the car goes in failure mode, you just remove the cone and use it again. Anyway, there is something more revolutionary than an AV. It’s called not driving. It requires working from home, or decent public transport. Or it requires walkable/bikeable cities. Unfortunately this really solves actual issues but it isn’t as sexy from a technological standpoint I guess.
- bluescrn 3y agoWhatever you think of autonomous vehicles, we should not continue to normalise maximally disruptive acts of protest by tiny groups. Serious protest should involve serious people power, not just a handful of radicals aiming for maximum disruptive impact (usually knowing they'll face zero consequences for it, and may well turn more people against their cause, e.g 'Just Stop Oil' in the UK)
- jacobsenscott 3y agomaximally disruptive would be to douse the cars in gasoline and light them on fire. This is just some lulz.
- bluescrn 3y agoDisruptive != Destrucive. But when you screw around with transport infrastructure, you may be putting lives at risk if emergency vehicles are held up in completely unnecessary traffic jams.
- yetanotherloser 3y agoDitto if you cross the road. I think this is fine. Arguably the AVs are the source of the disruption anyway, since a human piloted vehicle would cope.
- giraffe_lady 3y ago"Only protest if you have a clear majority or your protest isn't disruptive." Denies both the reason and mechanism for protests. Which I realize is probably exactly the point and I don't accept it.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- asadotzler 3y agoYeah, these "your protest isn't they way I want you to protest because it inconveniences me and my goal is to not be inconvenienced" is not really gonna land the way the speaker hopes.
- askafriend 3y agoThis is one of the dumbest "tactics" I've had to witness. These are the same people falsifying data that makes autonomous vehicles appear more unsafe than they are. "New letter from CA state accuses SF officials of data manipulation: In the 4 @Waymo traffic collisions SF cited to prove driverless cars are less safe, 3 were the Waymos being rear-ended and 1 didn't even involve any cars touching, CA says." Source: https://twitter.com/annatonger/status/1673403230804385813 https://twitter.com/annatonger/status/1673403230804385813
- eli 3y agoI really doubt the people putting cones on cars are "the same people" as officials for SF transportation agencies.
- askafriend 3y agoIn any other city, this would be a good doubt to have.
- fnord77 3y agothis is SF. It would not surprise me.
- scarmig 3y agoIn this case, the person doing it was an employee of Dean Preston, a city supervisor. Regardless, the traffic cone clowning and the falsifying data clowning both are born of the same shortsighted desire to get "progressive" points by attacking evil corporations.
- safestreetrebel 3y agoWrong in multiple ways, youth comissioners are not "employees" nor aides to supes; it's essentially a volunteer advisory position for high schoolers. And no, it's not just him, and we appreciate his contribution
- barbazoo 3y ago
- spankalee 3y agoAVs will help reduce pedestrian deaths and reduce car ownership. While they are still cars and don't solve all car problems like traffic, most reasonable urbanists seem to support them.
- aidenn0 3y ago> reduce car ownership Really? Since when has making using something more convenient reduced ownership of it? The less of a pain it is to take a car somewhere, the more often people will take cars places. It's very slightly possible that there will be fewer total cars all running at a higher utilization, but the mean number of cars on the road at any given time would seem like it would only go up.
- fluoridation 3y agoIf there are fewer total cars, how can ownership not also go down?
- aidenn0 3y agoI don't think there will be fewer total cars (unless as a sibling asserts, they will be significantly more expensive), but I admit the possibility. Many (but not all; cf. parking) of the issues of cars in urban areas are related to cars being on the road, not being owned.
- fluoridation 3y agoSure, but the person you were replying to specifically said ownership not usage.
- stouset 3y agoOkay, but that’s irrelevant to basically anyone’s concerns. Active road use and parking area required are. Are you saying we should not debate the meaningful impacts here because OP mentioned a related aspect that has little to no impact?
- flaque 3y agoThis is the "anti-nuclear" of urbanism. AVs are safe now and they're only going to get safer. You can't legitimately say you care about pedestrian and bike safety and then turn around and suddenly try and block AVs because the vibes are wrong.
- Fricken 3y agoMatters of safety are not the only problem with our urban transportation systems, but the AV companies would like for you to think about it that way. It's single vector sci-fi.
- CamperBob2 3y agoPerhaps, unlike disaffected urban youth (read: trust-fund anarchists), the AV companies are smart enough to address one problem at a time.
- Fricken 3y agoPerhaps, unlike urban planners have spent decades studying and understanding urban transportation systems and their relation to the socio-economic fabric of cities, the AV companies are just part of another giant Silicon Valley circlejerk.
- CamperBob2 3y agoThe "urban planners" have had their say, and we've all seen the results. It's time to let someone else try.
- Fricken 3y agoGo for it, but the cruxes of these problems aren't technological. They're political and cultural.
- valine 3y agoA piece of tape over the cameras is probably enough to immobilize most SDVs. Works on humans too. Guarding against vandalism isn’t really the car makers job. Tires have always been easy to slash. That’s why we have laws and penalties for breaking them.
- fluoridation 3y agoIs this vandalism, though? No actual damage is done to the car. It's even less invasive than a piece of tape, because the cone is just sitting there. It could even be done without touching the car itself. Just place a few mannequins in front and behind the car, so it can't go anywhere.
- JohnFen 3y agoI can't imagine this counting as vandalism in any reasonable world. Vandalism involves actually damaging things. Coning damages nothing. As you suggest, putting tape over cameras is closer to actual vandalism because it could leave tape residue on the lens.
- fluoridation 3y agoYup. If the car is not smart enough to realize that it can drive with a cone on its hood, or that it can run over mannequins that have been purposely placed in front of it, then that's no one's fault but the manufacturer's.
- oh_sigh 3y agoMost human drivers would probably not want to run over a mannequin sized object intentionally for fear of damaging their vehicle.
- oh_sigh 3y agoImagine someone kept doing that to a car with a human driver. Do you think they would be breaking no law?
- tikhonj 3y agoThis particularly protest is elegant because it's effective exactly to the extent that self-driving cars are not adaptable—it highlights the brittleness of the system by getting a substantial effect from a small nudge.
- whyenot 3y agoIt was a political stunt by an aide to one of SF's supervisors. It did not arise organically from people upset about self driving cars. I don't think there was anything elegant about it. Just politics as usual in SF where the progressives battle the über-progressives over meaningless issues like re-naming schools while homeless people die on the street, the Tenderloin is an open sewer, and downtown withers away. It really hurts to see what has happened to my hometown over the past decade. I blame district elections and a weak mayor, both of which have contributed to a government that is incapable of doing much of anything. I suppose ultimately the voters are to blame.
- safestreetrebel 3y agoLol we're literally people living in SF upset about self driving cars. And the no the youth comissioner you're referring to is not some mastermind behind this, but we appreciate his political activism both with coning and with volunteering to be on the youth commission advisory board :)
- andrewflnr 3y agoDubious. A human driver is also not going to take off with a cone on their hood. So fine, you need a human to take it off, what do you expect? The next problem after that is that the technician needs to reset the car's system... because it tries really hard to fail safe when something unexpected happens? And this is meant to be proof that they're dangerous?
- JohnFen 3y ago> And this is meant to be proof that they're dangerous? Umm, no? I don't think that's the point these protests are trying to make.
- poweredger640 3y agoJust wait until they get blasters.
- throwaway9274 3y agoIt was literally the District 5 Supervisor Dean Preston’s “youth coordinator” aid who astroturfed this with some DSA people, to distract from his handling of the Tenderloin. He got caught bragging on Twitter and then deleted the tweets. You can still find the commentary around it if you search. This is part of a long tradition of lying for political benefit, not tactical anything.
- safestreetrebel 3y agoLol no that kid is not some mastermind behind this, though we appreciate his coning contribution, as well as his work on the Youth Commission (which is just an unpaid advisory board of young people).
- throwaway9274 3y agoYou’re 100% the same guy under a brand new burner account. This isn’t a movement, and you’re not an activist. Your actions will have knock on effects that harm millions, especially the disabled and elderly. Keep at it, chucklehead. Soon they’ll start requesting CFAA prosecutions. FBI are much less forgiving than SF’s absentee PD.
- safestreetrebel 3y agoDamn you really just made up a narrative in your head and now you believe it? Lmao Harm millions especially disabled and elderly? Cruise and Waymo give zero accessible rides. But what we do have, which already exists, are buses (which all have accessible ramps) and dial-a-ride paratransit. But sorry techies there's no profit motive there. CFFA? FBI? Okay now you're just being funny :D
- throwaway9274 3y agoThe Computer Fraud and Abuse Act makes interference with a computer system a felony punishable by five years in Federal prison. That’s what intentionally and maliciously blinding a self-driving car is. That’s not something affected by local politics. FBI investigates CFAA offenses and SF office of DOJ prosecutes the charges. There is zero doubt the companies involved kicked off that process when the attacks occurred. This is not speculation. Have fun. Also imagine the lack of vision in not understanding that automating transport is a prerequisite to massively expanding accessibility. You have zero ability to think in terms of growth. Short term zero sum mindset is what kills cities.
- huevosabio 3y agoLuddites abound in San Francisco. Coning AVs is part of a long tradition of Luddites, just like smashing looms.
- CamperBob2 3y agoThat's being too kind to them. Luddites didn't actively try to maintain a state of affairs that resulted in 30,000 deaths per year in their country alone. These idiots are doing just that.
- yetanotherloser 3y agoYou could avoid those by getting rid of cars, rather than adding more cars controlled by unaccountable programs with OTA updates pushed by people saying YOLO.
- CamperBob2 3y agoYou could do pretty much whatever you want, if you could get hold of enough guns.
- spankalee 3y agoOne thing I noticed on Twitter is that Tesla is doing massive damage to AV perception. Waymo has an incredible safety record, and Tesla's should probably land some people in jail. But Tesla's recklessness is driving some of the hate towards Cruise and Waymo.
- fnord77 3y agoCruise isn't in the same league as Waymo in terms of quality
- spankalee 3y agoI agree, but Tesla is worlds worse and even if they don't have actual AVs, many people think they do and associate them.
- safestreetrebel 3y agoPersonally not sure, but it does seem this way. But it might also just be because there seem to be so many more Cruises than Waymos out on the road. And/but Waymos seem to have more drivers shuttling their cars around as well.
- kstrauser 3y agoI have an older relative who shouldn’t be driving, but lives in another state in a place where there’s effectively zero public transit. For them, a car is what allows them to participate in society. The moment a self-driving car comes on the market, I’m helping them buy one. They don’t have to be perfect. One that gets my relative off the streets will be a get gain for all of us.
- safestreetrebel 3y ago[dead]
- buzzert 3y agoGo ahead and keep doing that, while also letting public transportation get filthier and less safe every day. See what happens to car ownership. If you are a public transit "activist", I'd suggest trying to actually improve public transit (like enforcing fares, hiring more operators, etc) instead of continuing your crusade against cars. Otherwise, speaking from personal experience, more people will give up on public transportation and turn to personal vehicles instead.
- safestreetrebel 3y agoOh don't worry, were definitely fighting for better public transit too! Top-down successes like ensuring state bridge funding to prevent a death spiral for now (was a big multi-coalition effort), local support for new bus lanes (e.g. on Geary), to bottom-up direct action work that is secret :)
- asadotzler 3y agoThis is bullshit and no one should listen to you. The idea that the only acceptable actions people should take are to improve one thing instead of tearing another down. The US could have let the Germans do their thing in WWI and focused on building a great alternative here at home, but sometimes it's actually worth tearing down evil over building up good.
- buzzert 3y agoJust to get this straight, "please focus on making public transportation cleaner and safer" is "bullshit" to you?