Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

“Coning” AVs is part of a long tradition of tactical urbanism

oversharing.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 101 posts

Re: “Coning” AVs is part of a long tradition of tactical urbanism

#11

Post by giraffe_lady »

bluescrn wrote: post #3

Whatever 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)

"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.

Re: “Coning” AVs is part of a long tradition of tactical urbanism

#12

Post by bluescrn »

jacobsenscott wrote: post #7
bluescrn wrote: post #3

Whatever 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.

Disruptive != 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.

Re: “Coning” AVs is part of a long tradition of tactical urbanism

#13

Post by eli »

askafriend wrote: post #4

This 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: http…

I really doubt the people putting cones on cars are "the same people" as officials for SF transportation agencies.

Re: “Coning” AVs is part of a long tradition of tactical urbanism

#15

Post by aidenn0 »

spankalee wrote: post #5

AVs 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.

> 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.

Re: “Coning” AVs is part of a long tradition of tactical urbanism

#16

Post by barbazoo »

askafriend wrote: post #4

This 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: http…

> These are the same people

Are they though?

Re: “Coning” AVs is part of a long tradition of tactical urbanism

#17

Post by askafriend »

eli wrote: post #13
askafriend wrote: post #4

This 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: http…

I really doubt the people putting cones on cars are "the same people" as officials for SF transportation agencies.

In any other city, this would be a good doubt to have.

Re: “Coning” AVs is part of a long tradition of tactical urbanism

#18

Post by throwaway9274 »

It 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.

Re: “Coning” AVs is part of a long tradition of tactical urbanism

#19

Post by [deleted] »

giraffe_lady wrote: post #11
bluescrn wrote: post #3

Whatever 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)

"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]

Re: “Coning” AVs is part of a long tradition of tactical urbanism

#20

Post by Fricken »

bluescrn wrote: post #3

Whatever 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)

"...we should not continue to normalise maximally disruptive acts of protest by tiny groups."

In this case the argument works both ways.

Post reply on HN