7 ms·
> "We thought that putting cones on these [driverless cars] was a funny image that could captivate people," says one organizer. "One of these self-driving cars
by fastball 3y ago
> "We thought that putting cones on these [driverless cars] was a funny image that could captivate people," says one organizer. "One of these self-driving cars with billions of dollars of venture capital investment money and R&D, just being disabled by a common traffic cone."
So basically they're just idiots. Yes, deliberate sabotage does have a way of messing things up, no matter how much money something is worth / has been spent. If you stab a billionaire they bleed, just like the common folk!
- leetcrew 3y agoright, it is almost always cheaper to destroy something than it is to build it. there is some beauty to this principle, in a cosmic sense, but this particular stunt doesn't impress me either.
- elromulous 3y agoThis is so often true. I can think of one notable exception, rocket counter measures[0]. Perhaps there is some inversion, since this is destroy(destroy()). [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Dome https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Dome
- thefourthchime 3y agoThey did an interview with the guys from NYT's Hard Fork (https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/hard-fork/id1528594034?i=1000624136280 https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/hard-fork/id1528594034...). When asked what their act of protest was against, they said "cars in general." They're very anti-car and, although they acknowledge that self-driving cars will be much safer in the long term and could transform a world full of wasteful single-car ownership, they are adamant that cars shouldn't exist. Yes, they're in their 20s and enjoy riding their bikes in San Francisco.
- Kerb_ 3y agoThey argue for "public transit, walking and bikes" according to their website. Bikes are mainly how they choose to protest, but they want accessible public transit. Your last sentence is phrased like a "gotcha" but seems like a disingenuous way to say that young members of the community are organizing over this cause.
- felipelemos 3y agoOr maybe would be disingenuous to think that public transport would cover for all places a car today can go. The world is not only made of urban sprawl.
- pharmakom 3y agoSelf driving cars will lower the costs of having a roaming fleet out looking for fares down to near zero. It will be disastrous for cities in terms of congestion and emissions.
- mahkeiro 3y agoWhy would they have to roam? In a country like Switzerland where public transportation is ubiquitous in a lot of cases buses cannot be the answer because density or usage (for instance during the night) is too low. On demand bus are costly and rather ineffective, so there is no question that on demand car will meet an important need.
- pharmakom 3y agoThey roam to avoid parking charges whilst being near potential pick up locations. Public transport is the solution but I see that as less likely than mass self driving cars in US cities (how depressing)
- aydyn 3y agoThats easily fixed by regulation. Theres no way such inefficient use of public resources will be allowed.
- Drblessing 3y agoJust rode SF public transit from airport and there was human urine on the floor. It’s anecdotal, but still … ew. Public transit only works when done right.
- bradgessler 3y agoThese bozos should see what happens if they put “just one road cone” on an airport runway and it gets ingested by a jet engine. “One of these 15 million dollar jet engines, just being disabled by a common traffic cone” I can think of a lot of really expensive equipment that can be destroyed or disabled by a common traffic cone.
- woodruffw 3y agoOne salient difference is that the jet engine isn’t autonomously cruising around a major city center.
- slt2021 3y agoit does cruise almost-autonomously above the city center though
- nomel 3y agoRelated, they’ve been able to taxi for some time now, and full automation has just finished testing: https://www.businessinsider.com/airbus-completes-autonomous-taxi-take-off-and-landing-tests-2020-7?op=1 https://www.businessinsider.com/airbus-completes-autonomous-...
- woodruffw 3y agoI’ll let you be the one to try and put the cone in the engine at 35,000 feet :-)
- lstodd 3y agoActually, no. What is the cone made of? LDPE most likely. Soft, easily melted, easily shredded, easily burned. So a gas turbine most likely won't even notice a cone. Besides in a modern high-bypass turbofan about 80% of it would just get shredded by the fan and fly around the delicate parts, which aren't that much delicate.
- itsyaboi 3y ago
- gsich 3y agoWhy idiots? Driverless cars transport 0 people. From that point they are only contributing to congestion.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- greatpatton 3y agoThe same can be said regarding taxi...
- gsich 3y agoNo, there is at least 1 person in there.
- ornornor 3y ago> So basically they're just idiots. Because they’re asking for more access to public transit, reconsidering the US car culture, and improving quality of life in the city in general? Less cars means less pollution, less noise, less traffic, better health, more livable districts… How is that idiotic?
- imgabe 3y agoAnd driverless cars, if they are allowed to be developed, will eventually be public transit that takes you from door-to-door running 24/7, way, way better than any train or bus. But idiots just need something to be against.
- Kerb_ 3y agoAccording to the International Energy Agency, cars emit between 57 and 322 gCO2-eq/pkm—compared to buses at just 22-92 gCO2-eq/pkm, and trains at 6-118 gCO2-eq/pkm. That metric meaning “grams of carbon dioxide-equivalent per passenger-kilometer”. They are also just massively safer to ride. https://climate.mit.edu/explainers/public-transportation#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20International%20Energy,gCO2%2Deq%2Fpkm https://climate.mit.edu/explainers/public-transportation#:~:.... So driverless busses would probably be a better outcome than driverless taxis. Does a driverless electric bus fall under "any bus"? This group targets individual transport systems like robotaxis, and similar developments in the field of public transit would probably not be targeted by this group as such.
- ornornor 3y agoHow? They also point out that these automated cars, if they end up actually working right, make zero effort to be handicap accessible, unlike existing and currently working public transit (which also happens to be delayed and hampered by these same semi functional, automated cars)
- imgabe 3y agoYou'd have a fleet of driverless cars driving around the city and summon one with an app. With no drivers they would only need to stop to recharge/refuel and for maintenance. If you can automate a car, you can automate a handicap accessible van. Just because they haven't yet doesn't mean they wouldn't. Public transit is great, but it means you have to go to a specific stop and wait there, and then go from wherever you get dropped off to your final destination, which is probably not the bus stop / train station. That's not very handicap-accessible, since it often means navigating escalators / elevators that end up being broken half the time.
- jcarrano 3y agoIt is a statement of how hugely productive their society is, where people can afford to waste time on such stupidities.