'We had to get out of the way': The backlash over delivery robots
27 points
2 hours ago
| 5 comments
| bbc.com
| HN
solid_fuel
43 minutes ago
[-]
I have a friend who uses a wheelchair and he hates encountering these things in the wild. I know there's a couple different companies making these things and I'm not sure if they all behave like this, but they take up the whole sidewalk and won't backup or turn to get out of the way.

Instead they just sit there blinking and beeping at my friend, and of course in a wheelchair it's not easy (or safe!) to go over the curb or anything to get around them.

Automated delivery sounds cool at first glance but they probably shouldn't be on the sidewalk if they can't accommodate the humans who also need to get around.

reply
exmadscientist
7 minutes ago
[-]
Robots that cannot share sidewalks with humans, including humans in wheelchairs, should be banned from sidewalks. Full stop. End of discussion. They can use the streets proper if they want to.

I'm sure there is some way to formalize that using ADA sidewalk requirements or something similar.

reply
relyks
30 minutes ago
[-]
This article captures the problem exactly. In Miami, there are areas where sidewalks are too narrow for a robot (from Serve Robotics) and a human to share simultaneously, so either the robot or the human goes first. If the human wants to go first, they have to step into the street and walk around the robot. The robot and its operator are never courteous enough to back up.

Which raises the question: why should these robots be prioritized over humans? Why can't they use the streets when there are pedestrians? Why should the SAFETY OF HUMANS be compromised for these profit-seeking corporations and their robots?

reply
clipsy
26 minutes ago
[-]
> Which raises the question: why should these robots be prioritized over humans? Why can't they use the streets when there are pedestrians? Why should the SAFETY OF HUMANS be compromised for these profit-seeking corporations and their robots?

That's a good start, now ask some of the same questions about cars vs pedestrians. Ultimately, big money will win as it always does. Get used to dodging robots.

reply
Lammy
8 minutes ago
[-]
Those are not comparable at all, because cars also have humans inside.
reply
slowmovintarget
22 minutes ago
[-]
Good point. Just look up the invention of Jay-walking. It was a marketing campaign that called people "jays" (bozo, basically) for walking "improperly" in the streets when that used to be what everyone did. Eventually, cities came up with penalties for j-walking.
reply
relyks
18 minutes ago
[-]
New York City DOT actually made jaywalking legal there last year
reply
wsatb
8 minutes ago
[-]
I’m really not convinced these serve a genuine purpose at all. Beyond them always being in your way, they seem to be incredibly inefficient. This is something that would work better in a large building like a hospital, a mall, or an airport, rather than city streets.
reply
SoftTalker
37 minutes ago
[-]
They are motorized vehicles, and as such should not operate on sidewalks or other pedestrian areas.
reply
Ferret7446
34 minutes ago
[-]
True but cyclists have already established a precedent of taking over pedestrian paths without consequence, at least in the CA Bay Area
reply
kg
14 minutes ago
[-]
Post you're replying to: "motorized vehicles" You: "cyclists"

I don't get it. Can you explain why humans on bicycles are relevant to a discussion of motorized robots? Are you talking specifically about e-bike users scooting along on the sidewalk at 40mph or something?

reply
skywhopper
28 minutes ago
[-]
What does this have to do with robots? What does a local government failure to provide cycling infrastructure have to do with private businesses co-opting public shared resources?
reply
brian-armstrong
31 minutes ago
[-]
Absolutely. Let them fend for themselves in the streets.
reply
Avicebron
52 minutes ago
[-]
They had these in Berkeley when I was there, my thought was always, why aren't the homeless hunting these for food?
reply
an0malous
46 minutes ago
[-]
Or salvageable RAM
reply
dylan604
29 minutes ago
[-]
at today's prices, they could afford to not be homeless with just kidnapping two or three robots.
reply
iberator
30 minutes ago
[-]
Because it's a crime? A major issue for the homeless is not food but shelter and storage.

In this case risk vs reward it crazy low

reply