“Coning” AVs is part of a long tradition of tactical urbanism
oversharing.substack.com
“Coning” AVs is part of a long tradition of tactical urbanism
1–10 of 101 posts
Re: “Coning” AVs is part of a long tradition of tactical urbanism
#2I 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.
Re: “Coning” AVs is part of a long tradition of tactical urbanism
#3Whatever 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)
Re: “Coning” AVs is part of a long tradition of tactical urbanism
#4This 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
Re: “Coning” AVs is part of a long tradition of tactical urbanism
#5AVs 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.
Re: “Coning” AVs is part of a long tradition of tactical urbanism
#6This 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.
Re: “Coning” AVs is part of a long tradition of tactical urbanism
#7Whatever 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)
maximally disruptive would be to douse the cars in gasoline and light them on fire. This is just some lulz.
Re: “Coning” AVs is part of a long tradition of tactical urbanism
#8A 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.
Re: “Coning” AVs is part of a long tradition of tactical urbanism
#9I 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.
I'd rather see them deflating the tires on any trucks beyond a certain size parked in cities
Re: “Coning” AVs is part of a long tradition of tactical urbanism
#10This 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.