San Francisco protestors are disabling autonomous vehicles using traffic cones

[midian182]

WTF?! Anti-car activists have come up with a novel and effective way of disabling driverless vehicles owned by Waymo and Cruise in San Francisco: placing traffic cones on their hoods. It's the work of a group called Safe Streets Rebel, which has launched a protest dubbed "Week of Cone."

Safe Streets Rebel's protest comes after autonomous vehicles were blamed for incidents including crashing into a bus and running over a dog. City officials in June said there have been ninety incidents involving Alphabet's Waymo and General Motors' Cruise vehicles since January.

Adding to Safe Streets Rebel's anger is an upcoming ruling by the California public utilities commission that will decide whether autonomous vehicle companies can expand both the number of vehicles they operate in San Francisco and robotaxis' hours of operation, from the middle of the night to 24/7.

A postcard, with love pic.twitter.com/tO4EOOSfao

– ConeSF - Week of Cone (@SafeStreetRebel) July 11, 2023

A video from the group that has gained almost 5 million views on Twitter points out that AVs block buses, emergency vehicles, and everyday traffic. It also claims that they're partnering with police to record everyone all the time without anyone's consent. And, most importantly, they require streets designed for cars, not people or transit.

The video goes on to explain how to disable one of the vehicles by simply finding a traffic cone, which are "everywhere," and gently placing it on the hood – but make sure the car is empty first. The group is encouraging people to join in the protest again the AV companies and upcoming vote by disabling one of the cars.

A group of San Franciscans realized that they can disable Waymo and Cruise robotaxis by placing a traffic cone on the vehicle's hood.

They're now encouraging others to do it: "Hell no, we do not consent to this." pic.twitter.com/ZrYhy4OATy

– David Zipper (@DavidZipper) July 6, 2023

"It's a great time," one of the organizers said. "We're not damaging anyone's property, it's very fixable, but it is a funny and effective tactic that has really resonated."

Waymo was less enthusiastic about the practice. A spokesperson said that the cone protest reflects a lack of understanding of how autonomous vehicles work and is "vandalism and encourages unsafe and disrespectful behavior on our roadways." Waymo says it will call the police on anyone caught interfering with its fleet of robotaxis.

Cruise, meanwhile, pointed out that its vehicles have never been involved in a single fatality or serious injury after racking up 3 million miles on San Francisco streets.

KRON4 reports that city officials have said the protest could cause more congestion as a disabled autonomous vehicle requires tech experts to reset it.

The organizer of the protest told The Guardian that it was just the latest of several actions Safe Streets Rebel has taken as it tries to get cars off city streets, secure more funding for public transportation, and keep bikers and pedestrians safe. The group says that AVs pose many risks to safety and the environment, even though they are being sold as alternatives to cars.

"They still require wide roads, tire wear, they have cameras everywhere," the organizer said. "It's not just about 'are they safer than a human driver?' We want healthy cities that don't require these high-tech surveillance pods moving around."

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/99348-san-francisco-protestors-disabling-autonomous-vehicles-using-traffic.html

 

[DSirius]

Next time they can replace real traffic cones with board cones. It is cheaper, and harder for municipality to charge protesters for using municipality traffic cones.

 

[MasterMace]

If Waymo wants to interfere with peoples 1st amendment rights to peacefully protest and escalate the situation, I don't think they will like where it escalates to.

 

[Theinsanegamer]

I'm torn.

On the one hand, these activists are supremely annoying, advocating for their pie in the sky dream of cities without cars, not understanding the ramifications, costs, and problems that would result. They come across as entitled brats, similar to the "no oil" people, wearing shirts with oil products in them, using paint with oil products in them, to protest people using oil.

On the other hand, AV companies are scummy as hell, and pranks like this are actually funny. Since nothing was actually damaged, its hard to find fault in their actions.

If Waymo wants to interfere with peoples 1st amendment rights to peacefully protest and escalate the situation, I don't think they will like where it escalates to.

They're a private company sweaty, they can do what they want.

 

[Bobbydpue]

I'm torn.

On the one hand, these activists are supremely annoying, advocating for their pie in the sky dream of cities without cars, not understanding the ramifications, costs, and problems that would result. They come across as entitled brats, similar to the "no oil" people, wearing shirts with oil products in them, using paint with oil products in them, to protest people using oil.

On the other hand, AV companies are scummy as hell, and pranks like this are actually funny. Since nothing was actually damaged, its hard to find fault in their actions.
They're a private company sweaty, they can do what they want.

"AV companies are scummy as hell" Oh I can't wait to see the substantiation of this claim...oh wait there isn't any. Well I'm not about to waste an hour of my time trying to find multiple sources to back up the claims someone else posted.

 

[kira setsu]

As someone who has to drive to work and hopefully make it back home everyday im not sure where I stand.

cars that can drive themselves imho seem to be a good idea on paper, especially when I look around and see how many are on their phones while driving, and not just talking but facetiming and all kinds of other crap, its probably annoying with them causing some issues but how else can they be trained to deal with people who can be random as all hell.

also calling them surveillance pods is funny considering everyone is walking around with a cellphone thats tracking, listening to, capturing and sending everything you do back to base.

I love driving but it isnt even fun these days with how people are on the roads and around them(looking at you oblivious pedestrians) if the future is me just chilling in my car watching vids while it struggles to deal with airpod addicts instead of me then im cool with it.

 

[Theinsanegamer]

"AV companies are scummy as hell" Oh I can't wait to see the substantiation of this claim...oh wait there isn't any. Well I'm not about to waste an hour of my time trying to find multiple sources to back up the claims someone else posted.

Found the Waymo investor.

 

[RandomWAN]

Found the Waymo investor.

At least the adjective in your screen name fits.

 

[3volv3d]

Aren't these guys taking on autonomous vehicles ? Or do they actually want all cars gone?

Trains and monorail would have been a great idea, but towns and cities are designed to not use them efficiently and for everyone, meaning you need cars, buses, and they suck, cause deaths, polute the world.

And as much as it may cost a fortune to change everything, who do you think pays that? The people. And who does it benefit by creating jobs, people.

So, yeah this is funny, its a cone on a car, I would rather you could lock someone inside with a cone, that would be 10 x better

 

[Theinsanegamer]

At least the adjective in your screen name fits.

Gonna screenshot this epic takedown for my Reddit account!

Aren't these guys taking on autonomous vehicles ? Or do they actually want all cars gone?

They want both gone, if it wasnt immediately clear from their name.

Trains and monorail would have been a great idea, but towns and cities are designed to not use them efficiently and for everyone, meaning you need cars, buses, and they suck, cause deaths, polute the world.

And as much as it may cost a fortune to change everything, who do you think pays that? The people. And who does it benefit by creating jobs, people.

So, yeah this is funny, its a cone on a car, I would rather you could lock someone inside with a cone, that would be 10 x better

Trains, well known for not polluting at all. And no pollution comes from ripping apart cities and rebuilding them either! XD

Pro tip: HUMANS pollute the world. Humans are also a royal pain to live next to. There is a very good reason that, the moment the car became viable, the "vibrant city centers" began decaying and everybody left.

 

[Crinkles]

the moment the car became viable, the "vibrant city centers" began decaying and everybody left.

No we didn't.

https://media2.sacurrent.com/sacurrent/imager/u/blog/29497697/3q3a5421.jpg?cb=1659453710

 

[brucek]

by simply finding a traffic cone, which are "everywhere,"

Where they are especially common is where they are needed to enhance public safety.

 

[RaunchyButts]

"And, most importantly, they require streets designed for cars, not people or transit."

This is such a dumb, tiresome refrain. STREETS ARE FOR CARS. Get over it. Yes we can add bike lanes in many cases, but the infantile and ignorant whining about "designing streets for cars and not people" is stupid. You don't see drivers complaining that sidewalks don't accommodate cars.

 

[RaunchyButts]

Tthese activists are supremely annoying, advocating for their pie in the sky dream of cities without cars, not understanding the ramifications, costs, and problems that would result. They come across as entitled brats, similar to the "no oil" people, wearing shirts with oil products in them, using paint with oil products in them, to protest people using oil.

Exactly. The constant whining about "why is everything optimized for cars" and "how come we [the righteous hypocrites] have to make accommodations for cars" ignores the fact that the USA is not Amsterdam. We have large distances to cover in many cases. Look at L.A., a giant county masquerading as a city. Good luck biking from Culver City to work in Orange County.

And the same people who want to eliminate all cars also want to eliminate car thoroughfares... which prevents delivery vehicles from getting to people. So they want to eliminate the very thing that makes a carless existence feasible for some. Monumental stupidity.

 

[RandomWAN]

Gonna screenshot this epic takedown for my Reddit account!

Don't forget your Tumblr blog.

 

[sreams]

If Waymo wants to interfere with peoples 1st amendment rights to peacefully protest and escalate the situation, I don't think they will like where it escalates to.

The 1st Amendment does not cover disabling the property of others.

 

[rmcrys]

IMHO
- these groups are just annoying and borderline of being useless, usually they are unrealistic "against everything" just because

- I stand that AVs and technology ought to not substitute humans unless they do something very risky / hard. I find the full self driving fantastic if there is also a human "driving", not that cars just replace the taxi drivers. The same in coffee shops or bars, I won't accept to have a robot attendant.

 

[Thanthan]

I'm torn.

On the one hand, these activists are supremely annoying, advocating for their pie in the sky dream of cities without cars, not understanding the ramifications, costs, and problems that would result. They come across as entitled brats, similar to the "no oil" people, wearing shirts with oil products in them, using paint with oil products in them, to protest people using oil.

On the other hand, AV companies are scummy as hell, and pranks like this are actually funny. Since nothing was actually damaged, its hard to find fault in their actions.
They're a private company sweaty, they can do what they want.

Car ‘free’ cities, if defined as places where cars are not a primary mode of transport for most people, and where the city is primarily planned around people, are entirely plausible and exist many places with absolutely no issues. In fact they have much fewer issues than places built primarily around cars.

 

[mcnabney]

IMHO
- these groups are just annoying and borderline of being useless, usually they are unrealistic "against everything" just because

- I stand that AVs and technology ought to not substitute humans unless they do something very risky / hard. I find the full self driving fantastic if there is also a human "driving", not that cars just replace the taxi drivers. The same in coffee shops or bars, I won't accept to have a robot attendant.

You aren't factoring that self driving cars have shown to be orders of magnitude safer than humans. They also will continue to improve as the bizarre circumstances that the machine isn't anticipating will be adapted to as they occur. Humans on the other hand keep getting more and more dangerous.
The anti-car protestors also haven't thought the whole industry through. Reliable, inexpensive, and plentiful self driving cars will allow more and more households to reduce or even eliminate how many cars they own.

 

[ydrive]

How about a comparison of death and injury caused by human drivers vs automated ones?

 

[p51d007]

I remember back in the 60's the old story about how a company spent a lot of money developing an ink pen that would write in outer space, upside down. Shown to the (at the time) USSR, they asked them what they thought....
The USSR rep said...we just use pencil.

 

[scavengerspc]

Oh, God! That is HILARIOUS!

The tiny little car and his dunce cap!

(Attempted) jokes aside. If you see someone doing that to your ride, just smack them around a little.

 

[rmcrys]

You aren't factoring that self driving cars have shown to be orders of magnitude safer than humans....Reliable, inexpensive, and plentiful self driving cars will allow more and more households to reduce or even eliminate how many cars they own.

How about a comparison of death and injury caused by human drivers vs automated ones?

- self driving mode with a human at the wheel is a good option; not a replacement

- reliable, inexpensive self driving cars... why would they be even cheaper than for humans driving and why would that reduce cars on a household? Reasons without grounds... if you have two humans that work or need to go in different directions to work, they need two means of transport (eg two cars), why would a self driving car eliminate that issue?

- about injury humans vs machines: machines / AI can HELP humans on that, but the limit should be NOT to substitute humans, at least in daily tasks or jobs. With that thinking, one days the AI can decide that humans in general are less effective and more dangerous and eliminate that source of non perfection...

 

[mcnabney]

- self driving mode with a human at the wheel is a good option; not a replacement

- reliable, inexpensive self driving cars... why would they be even cheaper than for humans driving and why would that reduce cars on a household? Reasons without grounds... if you have two humans that work or need to go in different directions to work, they need two means of transport (eg two cars), why would a self driving car eliminate that issue?

- about injury humans vs machines: machines / AI can HELP humans on that, but the limit should be NOT to substitute humans, at least in daily tasks or jobs. With that thinking, one days the AI can decide that humans in general are less effective and more dangerous and eliminate that source of non perfection...

Because most cars owned by humans are sitting idle for over 90% of their existence. A fleet of 100 self driving cars could provide transportation services for a thousand would-be drivers. That is a huge savings that would be split between the consumer and the vendor. It also removes the need to carry automotive liability insurance. Would you pay a $250 monthly fee if you were assured of a car arriving to take you where you needed to go within 5 minutes? That is a whole lot less than a loan/lease, gas, maintenance, and insurance. That type of price can't be met with a human in the driver's seat, but it can with self-driving.

 

[mbk34]

Because most cars owned by humans are sitting idle for over 90% of their existence. A fleet of 100 self driving cars could provide transportation services for a thousand would-be drivers.

Here in London you could also add that you wouldn't need to pay for parking or the time it takes to find that parking. I guess you wouldn't have to pay insurance, servicing costs, repairs, fuel and an MOT (our yearly vehicle test). Plus the streets would become more pleasant without them being packed with parked cars that barely move. If the roads weren't packed with frustrated drivers then I'd even feel much happier on a push bike.