San Francisco Activists Are ‘Coning’ Cruise, Waymo Robotaxis to Disable Them
sfstandard.com
sfstandard.com
Usually we see actions that are more damaging - but the simple act of “coning” would seem to be a relatively low risk act of defiance that Waymo may not have an easy answer to.
Although, I don't disagree with the method of protest.
These aren't victimless crimes, just that the people suffering from them are indirect (economic crimes always have victims).
These coners are exploiting a simple hack that would ordinarily be nothing but a minor nuisance to a human driver, but it turns into a showstopper for an SDC, because there is no responsible human for dozens of miles around. It disables the car for an inordinate period of time without a realistic mitigation. It's genius!
SDCs are rolling into active shooter zones, they're blocking police, fire, and hydrants, they're actively stalking pedestrians.
This is not some random prankery or vandalism, this coning is a non-violent statement in defense of human dignity and rule of law.
But what if someone was pretending to be a public worker doing sidewalk maintenance and that forced you to simply walk on the other side of the road and not being able to access the fast food?
That to me is more like an annoyance and a form of protest.
In case you are serious, there is a difference between acting to harm (human, animal, building, company). Not acting to prevent harm, not acting to provide gain.
Stealing a burger, Reporting a burger being stolen, rolling your sleeves jumping behind the grill to help out
I’m sure a philosophy major can add to the list with a clearer argument
If we put it into context of a city where the police care about traffic infractions, and you have some guy wearing a ski mask that runs up and throws a large opaque object onto the hood of a moving vehicle, I am confident that any cop worth his salt could think up a plausible reason to write a ticket for that ski-mask guy.
I think it would be a minor infraction of some kind, of course: jaywalking, or mischief, or interfering with moving traffic.
I think that if a cop was determined to ticket the guy, that it wouldn't matter whether the vehicle is driverless or not, it'd still be (in a cop's mind) a ticketable offense.
But of course this is transpiring in San Francisco, where the cops don't care if you're mugged and beaten, or your drugstore is smash-and-grabbed, unless you happen to be Nancy Pelosi's husband.
It’s blinding sensors on a car. Best case, nothing is damaged in a way that hurts someone later.
It’s also property damage. Excusing it in this form is the same blindness that has led to retail becoming unviable in downtown San Francisco. Damage and victimhood doesn’t disappear just because it’s complicated.
The line between peaceful protest and rioting is property damage. This looks intended to be peaceful, but the intent is ambiguous. All it takes is a toss too hard or a hooligan to cross that line, and the line is crossed and civic argument toasted.
Put another way, this is aimless catharsis. Not civic engagement. It’s about as mature as the folks who were egging Google busses a decade ago, and now decry the budget cuts those jobs leaving San Francisco bring.
1. Are there reliable statistics that show SDC are currently more dangerous than the average, non-incapacitated person?
2. Regardless, those people are still driving today and hopefully driving less in a future world full of SDC. I’m just making assumptions (bad idea I know) but I’m guessing traffic mortality goes down when alternative, safer options are more viable
If you have a human in control, they are presumably licensed, they are identifiable, and they have a personal interest in a clean record (presumably). So there is a full legal system in place to take care of problems on the road.
If there is no human, then who's liable? Who's responsible for mistakes? Do you fine Waymo $100 for blocking fire hydrants? If an SDC drives wrong, do you take it out of service? What are the penalties and recourses for shenanigans? I don't like the fact that the legal system hasn't been able to catch up to this, despite having decades of lead time, and now these things are all over the streets like a cancer. I support the coners wholeheartedly.
Where are these open questions? In California and San Francisco there is specific enabling statute and liability framing. Every car, self driving or not, is registered. There is no liability black hole at the centre of this, just a lack of public understanding of the law.
Is there any proof that they aren't? If not, they have no business being on the road. It's not society's responsibility to validate every new potentially deadly tech that a for profit company comes out with, it's the people developing and profiting from the new tech that have the burden to show that it's safe.
I wasn't implying anything; rather, I've just seen various forms of "if you exclude drunk/high/etc. drivers then they are more dangerous" repeated multiple times in different comments. Curious where that was coming from.
> ...it's the people developing and profiting from the new tech that have the burden to show that it's safe.
Is there a reason to believe this hasn't happened? I don't know the process involved in approving an autonomous system but I'm guessing they showed some convincing data to regulators.
These cars also drive much slower than others and frequently stop unnecessarily, which annoys every other driver, and causes more honking.
Based on that experience, I totally understand why folks are frustrated with them. Especially drivers who need to drive around these stopped cars everywhere.
Since it's pointless to come occupied vehicles (which have a person who will have a clear motive to remove the cone), the only ones being impacted are empty and _not_ carrying drunk or reckless otherwise-could-have-been-drivers.
Best route is actually getting rid of cars and having good and safe public transport
literally fantasy. won't happen. not in my life, and not in yours.