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

61–70 of 101 posts

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

#61

Post by louwrentius »

davidw wrote: post #2

I 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 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.

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

#62

Post by fluoridation »

oh_sigh wrote: post #55
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.

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

I suppose it would count as harassment, but that's because it'd be done to a person. I don't think it's possible to harass a computer program. If we ignore the harassment side of it, then I don't know what law it breaks, if the object can be trivially removed by the driver.

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

#63

Post by iudqnolq »

apendleton wrote: post #42
iudqnolq wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Making all cars more expensive would reduce car ownership. Adding extra expensive cars while keeping constant (or even reducing*) the price of cars at the bottom won't. *if everyone suddenly wants to buy the amazing new self-serving cars then that could effect the used car market

Again, I feel like there are so many what-ifs that it's hard to say for certain. If it were to turn out that AVs were dramatically less likely to kill people than human-driven cars (seems not to be the case with current technology, but humans suck at driving, so it's not inconceivable), maybe there would be regulatory/legislative disincentives that would make human car ownership harder or more expensive.

Sure, if the government implements regulation to dissuade non-self-driving car ownership then car ownership will decrease. But that's entirely tangential. If the government decides taking cars away from poor people to reduce accidents is worthwhile they could do that tomorrow.

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

#64

Post by oh_sigh »

fluoridation wrote: post #62
oh_sigh wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I suppose it would count as harassment, but that's because it'd be done to a person. I don't think it's possible to harass a computer program. If we ignore the harassment side of it, then I don't know what law it breaks, if the object can be trivially removed by the driver.

Criminal law - mischief - which generally includes altering of property and isn't limited to damage or destruction of property. Common law - tortious interference - if the vehicle is a taxi being summoned by a customer, and it cannot fulfill the contract because of the interference of a third party intentionally preventing its movement.

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

#65

Post by JohnFen »

oh_sigh wrote: post #60
JohnFen wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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".

True! There are no guarantees. But every effective protest movement that I'm aware of started with a handful of people doing things that get a lot of attention.

Without such groups, nothing would ever really happen. There's an enormous power differential here, and theatrics like this is one of the few ways available to help level the playing field.

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

#66

Post by yetanotherloser »

bluescrn wrote: post #12
jacobsenscott wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Ditto 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.

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

#67

Post by joosters »

oh_sigh wrote: post #64
fluoridation wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suppose it would count as harassment, but that's because it'd be done to a person. I don't think it's possible to harass a computer program. If we ignore the harassment side of it, then I don't know what law it breaks, if the object can be trivially removed by the driver.

Criminal law - mischief - which generally includes altering of property and isn't limited to damage or destruction of property. Common law - tortious interference - if the vehicle is a taxi being summoned by a customer, and it cannot fulfill the contract because of the interference of a third party intentionally preventing its movement.

You are not a lawyer.

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

#68

Post by yetanotherloser »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #35
huevosabio wrote: post #30

Luddites abound in San Francisco. Coning AVs is part of a long tradition of Luddites, just like smashing looms.

That'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.

You 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.

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

#69

Post by scld »

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.

I think it highlights how the system is tuned to safety over all other concerns. If there had been cones put on vehicles being driven by actual humans, you'd probably have had a few bad injuries or deaths.
Post reply on HN