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.
Blocking the sensors of a self-driving car is a hell of a gamble to take on the public’s safety. They shouldn’t be arrested, but they should be cited same as any petty vandal. They won’t, at least for the time being, because this is San Francisco.
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.