“Coning” AVs is part of a long tradition of tactical urbanism • Hacker News Board

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

#71

Post by fluoridation » Mon, Jul 10, 2023, 8:39 PM UTC

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.

"Altering" would have to include a permanent change or anything that's difficult to undo, such as completely repainting the car, or putting it upside down in such a way that it's not damaged. It could not include simply placing a lightweight object on top of the hood that anyone can remove at any time.

Tortious interference, as the name implies, is a matter of civil courts and could open up the person doing it to being sued, depending on the circumstances under which it happens. It doesn't mean they're breaking any laws.

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

#72

Post by dragonwriter » Mon, Jul 10, 2023, 8:43 PM UTC

fluoridation wrote: post #71

oh_sigh wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"Altering" would have to include a permanent change or anything that's difficult to undo, such as completely repainting the car, or putting it upside down in such a way that it's not damaged. It could not include simply placing a lightweight object on top of the hood that anyone can remove at any time. Tortious interference, as the name implies, is a matter of civil courts and could open up the person doing it to bei…

> Tortious interference, as the name implies, is a matter of civil courts and could open up the person doing it to being sued, depending on the circumstances under which it happens.

True.

> It doesn't mean they're breaking any laws.

Yes, it does. Civil law is law (and a larger portion of the law than criminal law is), and torts are as much violations of law as crimes.

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

#73

Post by oh_sigh » Mon, Jul 10, 2023, 8:49 PM UTC

JohnFen wrote: post #65

oh_sigh wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You should research the Montgomery bus boycotts then. Perhaps the most effective boycott in US history, and the only people it inconvenienced were the very people doing the boycotting.

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

#74

Post by IncreasePosts » Mon, Jul 10, 2023, 8:56 PM UTC

joosters wrote: post #67

oh_sigh wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

As we all know, there is a law which says you are not allowed to talk about the law unless you are a lawyer.

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

#75

Post by CamperBob2 » Mon, Jul 10, 2023, 9:05 PM UTC

Fricken wrote: post #49

CamperBob2 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps, unlike disaffected urban youth (read: trust-fund anarchists), the AV companies are smart enough to address one problem at a time.

Perhaps, unlike urban planners have spent decades studying and understanding urban transportation systems and their relation to the socio-economic fabric of cities, the AV companies are just part of another giant Silicon Valley circlejerk.

The "urban planners" have had their say, and we've all seen the results. It's time to let someone else try.

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

#76

Post by dragonwriter » Mon, Jul 10, 2023, 9:10 PM UTC

aidenn0 wrote: post #15

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.

> The less of a pain it is to take a car somewhere, the more often people will take cars places.

That’s an increased use not increased ownership argument. The reduced ownership argument is that AVs make on-demand use without ownership easier, reducing the degree to which regular use necessitates ownership.

> 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.

Sure, but that's a different issue. On the flip side, casual AV use doesn’t require parking at either end of the users trip (it still needs some place to park when idle and to the extent that is remote you get extra empty travel distance, but that’s still a lot more urban spacr use flexibility than traditional auto usage.

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

#77

Post by dragonwriter » Mon, Jul 10, 2023, 9:15 PM UTC

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.

> 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.

Parking is an extremely major urban land use issue, and its related to, well, not ownership per se but vehicles being possessed and stored by the usual occupant. On-demand use of not-personally-stored (whuch probably means fleet-owned) AV’s is radically freeing for urban land use, and is probably one of the least disruptive ways to transition from car-dependent to not-car-dependent urban design, with on-demand AVs as a bridge technology.

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

#78

Post by JohnFen » Mon, Jul 10, 2023, 9:23 PM UTC

oh_sigh wrote: post #73

JohnFen wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You should research the Montgomery bus boycotts then. Perhaps the most effective boycott in US history, and the only people it inconvenienced were the very people doing the boycotting.

True, although given the social situation at the time, those actions were just as transgressive as actively inconveniencing people.

I guess, really, my point is a bit broader than "inconveniencing". What seems necessary is attention-getting theatrics that actively angers those who want to maintain the status quo, and the Montgomery bus boycotts were absolutely that.

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

#79

Post by fluoridation » Mon, Jul 10, 2023, 9:42 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #72

fluoridation wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Altering" would have to include a permanent change or anything that's difficult to undo, such as completely repainting the car, or putting it upside down in such a way that it's not damaged. It could not include simply placing a lightweight object on top of the hood that anyone can remove at any time. Tortious interference, as the name implies, is a matter of civil courts and could open up the person doing it to bei…

> Tortious interference, as the name implies, is a matter of civil courts and could open up the person doing it to being sued, depending on the circumstances under which it happens. True. > It doesn't mean they're breaking any laws. Yes, it does. Civil law is law (and a larger portion of the law than criminal law is), and torts are as much violations of law as crimes.

Fair enough, but still, the violation arises from the circumstances surrounding the act, not from the act itself. You could very well place a cone on top of someone's car at every available opportunity without running into this tort issue.

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

#80

Post by tzs » Mon, Jul 10, 2023, 9:57 PM UTC

vrosas wrote: post #38

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.

There seems to be very little incentive to buy a compact car in the US, especially when the calculus involves _every other driver_ is in 6000 lb death machine, with 400 more horsepower than they need and vision-blocking A-pillars the size of small cars themselves. Oversized vehicles and non-commercial trucks need to be taxed to death.

I know that larger cars need stronger A-pillars because the A-pillar is supposed to keep the cabin from getting smushed in a roll-over, and so the A-pillar needs to have a larger cross section.

But why don't they get that increased cross section by extending the A-pillar in the directions toward and away from the driver and keep its size perpendicular to that the same? That should give a stronger A-pillar without changing how much it blocks. It would slightly reduce the interior volume of the cabin bit that would come from space that normally isn't used.