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

51–60 of 101 posts

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

#51

Post by fluoridation »

JohnFen wrote: post #39
fluoridation wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is 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.

I 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.

Yup. 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.

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

#53

Post by JohnFen »

andrewflnr wrote: post #44
tikhonj wrote: post #10

This 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.

Dubious. 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?

> 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.

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

#54

Post by spankalee »

aidenn0 wrote: post #26
fluoridation wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If there are fewer total cars, how can ownership not also go down?

I 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.

I believe that resistance to transit and pedestrian oriented policies is higher when car ownership is higher. If you get more families to not need multiple cars or not need cars at all, then they may be more favorable to things like less street parking, no parking minimums in new buildings, protected bike lanes, fewer slip lanes, eliminating turn-on-red, etc.

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

#55

Post by oh_sigh »

fluoridation wrote: post #32
valine wrote: post #8

A 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.

Is 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.

Imagine someone kept doing that to a car with a human driver. Do you think they would be breaking no law?

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

#56

Post by AirMax98 »

andrewflnr wrote: post #44
tikhonj wrote: post #10

This 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.

Dubious. 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?

Weird, unexpected things happen on the road every day. Are we seriously going to potentially risk gridlocking a city (not to mention our personal safety) for the gains of a small handful of private corporation as they test this black-box tech out against us?

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

#57

Post by oh_sigh »

fluoridation wrote: post #51
JohnFen wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I 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.

Yup. 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.

Most human drivers would probably not want to run over a mannequin sized object intentionally for fear of damaging their vehicle.

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

#58

Post by spankalee »

fnord77 wrote: post #33
spankalee wrote: post #31

One 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.

Cruise isn't in the same league as Waymo in terms of quality

I agree, but Tesla is worlds worse and even if they don't have actual AVs, many people think they do and associate them.

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

#59

Post by stouset »

fluoridation wrote: post #47
aidenn0 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I 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.

Sure, but the person you were replying to specifically said ownership not usage.

Okay, 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?

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

#60

Post by oh_sigh »

JohnFen wrote: post #48
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. The majority of the time, it's groups doing things like this that lead directly toward what you're calling "serious protests".

Which does not imply that any group using those tactics will lead to "serious protests".
Post reply on HN