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

91–100 of 101 posts

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

#91

Post by safestreetrebel »

scarmig wrote: post #43
eli wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

In this case, the person doing it was an employee of Dean Preston, a city supervisor. Regardless, the traffic cone clowning and the falsifying data clowning both are born of the same shortsighted desire to get "progressive" points by attacking evil corporations.

Wrong in multiple ways, youth comissioners are not "employees" nor aides to supes; it's essentially a volunteer advisory position for high schoolers. And no, it's not just him, and we appreciate his contribution

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

#92

Post by throwaway9274 »

safestreetrebel wrote: post #89
throwaway9274 wrote: post #18

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.

Lol no that kid is not some mastermind behind this, though we appreciate his coning contribution, as well as his work on the Youth Commission (which is just an unpaid advisory board of young people).

You’re 100% the same guy under a brand new burner account.

This isn’t a movement, and you’re not an activist. Your actions will have knock on effects that harm millions, especially the disabled and elderly.

Keep at it, chucklehead. Soon they’ll start requesting CFAA prosecutions. FBI are much less forgiving than SF’s absentee PD.

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

#93

Post by dragonwriter »

fluoridation wrote: post #79
dragonwriter wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> Fair enough, but still, the violation arises from the circumstances surrounding the act, not from the act itself.

That's an arbitrary distinction you could equally apply to any civil or criminal violation of the law; its “the circumstancrs surrounding the act not the act itself” that distinguishes murder from perfectly legal self-defense.

Its the circumstances surrounding picking up an item and walking off with it that distinguish lawful activity from theft.

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

#94

Post by dragonwriter »

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.

It's arguably either or both of criminal malicious mischief and/or public nuisance, and it's also pretty clearly civil trespass to chattels.

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

#95

Post by asadotzler »

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.

Yeah, these "your protest isn't they way I want you to protest because it inconveniences me and my goal is to not be inconvenienced" is not really gonna land the way the speaker hopes.

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

#96

Post by asadotzler »

buzzert wrote: post #86
safestreetrebel wrote: post #70

[dead]

Go ahead and keep doing that, while also letting public transportation get filthier and less safe every day. See what happens to car ownership. If you are a public transit "activist", I'd suggest trying to actually improve public transit (like enforcing fares, hiring more operators, etc) instead of continuing your crusade against cars. Otherwise, speaking from personal experience, more people will give up on public t…

This is bullshit and no one should listen to you. The idea that the only acceptable actions people should take are to improve one thing instead of tearing another down. The US could have let the Germans do their thing in WWI and focused on building a great alternative here at home, but sometimes it's actually worth tearing down evil over building up good.

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

#97

Post by safestreetrebel »

throwaway9274 wrote: post #92
safestreetrebel wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lol no that kid is not some mastermind behind this, though we appreciate his coning contribution, as well as his work on the Youth Commission (which is just an unpaid advisory board of young people).

You’re 100% the same guy under a brand new burner account. This isn’t a movement, and you’re not an activist. Your actions will have knock on effects that harm millions, especially the disabled and elderly. Keep at it, chucklehead. Soon they’ll start requesting CFAA prosecutions. FBI are much less forgiving than SF’s absentee PD.

Damn you really just made up a narrative in your head and now you believe it? Lmao

Harm millions especially disabled and elderly? Cruise and Waymo give zero accessible rides. But what we do have, which already exists, are buses (which all have accessible ramps) and dial-a-ride paratransit. But sorry techies there's no profit motive there.

CFFA? FBI? Okay now you're just being funny :D

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

#98

Post by safestreetrebel »

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

Personally not sure, but it does seem this way. But it might also just be because there seem to be so many more Cruises than Waymos out on the road. And/but Waymos seem to have more drivers shuttling their cars around as well.

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

#99

Post by throwaway9274 »

safestreetrebel wrote: post #97
throwaway9274 wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re 100% the same guy under a brand new burner account. This isn’t a movement, and you’re not an activist. Your actions will have knock on effects that harm millions, especially the disabled and elderly. Keep at it, chucklehead. Soon they’ll start requesting CFAA prosecutions. FBI are much less forgiving than SF’s absentee PD.

Damn you really just made up a narrative in your head and now you believe it? Lmao Harm millions especially disabled and elderly? Cruise and Waymo give zero accessible rides. But what we do have, which already exists, are buses (which all have accessible ramps) and dial-a-ride paratransit. But sorry techies there's no profit motive there. CFFA? FBI? Okay now you're just being funny :D

The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act makes interference with a computer system a felony punishable by five years in Federal prison.

That’s what intentionally and maliciously blinding a self-driving car is.

That’s not something affected by local politics. FBI investigates CFAA offenses and SF office of DOJ prosecutes the charges. There is zero doubt the companies involved kicked off that process when the attacks occurred.

This is not speculation. Have fun.

Also imagine the lack of vision in not understanding that automating transport is a prerequisite to massively expanding accessibility.

You have zero ability to think in terms of growth. Short term zero sum mindset is what kills cities.

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

#100

Post by fluoridation »

dragonwriter wrote: post #93
fluoridation wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Fair enough, but still, the violation arises from the circumstances surrounding the act, not from the act itself. That's an arbitrary distinction you could equally apply to any civil or criminal violation of the law; its “the circumstancrs surrounding the act not the act itself” that distinguishes murder from perfectly legal self-defense. Its the circumstances surrounding picking up an item and walking off with it…

There's a definite distinction there, though, with regards to immediacy of cause and effect. "Picking up an item and walking off" is a crime or not depending on circumstances that are present at the moment the item is picked up, even if both you and I don't realize the item doesn't belong to me; the same is true for self-defense vs. murder. If I do something to you as innocuous as placing a traffic cone on the hood of your car that triggers a "for want of a nail" situation that ends up in someone terminating a business partnership with you, that's something that neither you nor I could have predicted at the time I did whatever it was to you.
Post reply on HN