The lead-up to the commission’s vote prompted the Safe Street Rebel group to start “coning,” as they call it. Members have long used street theater shenanigans to gain attention in their fight against cars and to promote public transportation.

So they want to decrease cars and increase public transport. Makes sense.

Coning driverless cars fits in line with a long history of protests against the impact of the tech industry on San Francisco. Throughout the years, activists have blockaded Google’s private commuter buses from picking up employees in the city. And when scooter companies flooded the sidewalks with electric scooters, people threw them into San Francisco Bay.

Uh, one of their other protests is to block mass transport (not technically public, but better than cars) and destroy items that promote not using cars? I mean I hate that those fucking scooters are littered everywhere, but a simple ordinance that only allows them in certain locations (stations) could fix that.

“Then there was the burning of Lime scooters in front of a Google bus,” says Manissa Maharawal, an assistant professor at American University who has studied these protests.

Burning battery-powered devices in front of a bus. I’ve lost all empathy with this group.

And that doesn’t even address how driverless cars will eventually be far, far safer than drivers, and will cut down on total cars. I understand not wanting your streets to be testing grounds, but that has to happen eventually. Test courses can only do so much to simulate reality. All things eventually are tested on volunteers or the public, like medicine. Perhaps they should be pushing for a referendum as to where to test driverless cars? Because being opposed to all cars is unrealistic. With how America is designed, a small fleet of driverless cars to get places public transportation can’t cover is an ideal future. Redesigning entire cities isn’t a near-term solution.