[solid_fuel]

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.

[exmadscientist]

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.

[Grombobulous]

I really don’t understand how a four wheeled self-driving powered vehicle is allowed to drive on the sidewalk when riding a bicycle on the sidewalk in that same city is illegal.

[rcxdude]

Probably under the same regulations that allow a powered wheelchair on the sidewalk. A low maximum speed makes up for a lot of things. But they should have a plan for encountering a wheelchair user.

[slyall]

Because traffic laws work for cars and pedestrians. Anything else in between in fuzzy and hard to define or legislate

[lovich]

Because corporations have more rights than the common man and these robots are the property of corporations.

If you as a regular person cause some sort of damage to a corporation you’ll be arrested and locked up while they determine the legality and if there was an actual illegal damage. If these corporations cause regular people problems then it’s “oopsies, you can sue us in court with your far smaller resources in a system that is heavily incentivized for those with more resources” and no equivalent corporate entity is getting the equivalent of cash bail.

[Hizonner]

> They can use the streets proper if they want to.

How about no? They'll block traffic there, too.

[fouc]

Vehicles have been far too dominant in city planning, it's probably time to re-prioritize, make it look more like Netherlands or some other European countries perhaps.

I suggest a priority order somewhat like:

pedestrians > bicyclists > delivery bots > vehicles

currently in America I suppose it probably looks more like this currently:

vehicles > delivery bots > pedestrians.

[margalabargala]

Only at first, they'll fragment after the first few cars.

[ncallaway]

If I saw a delivery robot blocking someone in a wheel-chair, I'm moving it off the sidewalk and I'm not particularly concerned if it's able to complete its trip after that.

[_doctor_love]

I worry that some enterprising person representing the delivery companies will find a way to make it so that if humans in wheelchairs block the path of the robots, then it's the humans who will have to yield.

It makes me think of that scene from The Man In The High Castle - "drag on the state."

[al_borland]

Delivery robots also can’t come to the door. So for a person with a disability, or who simply ordered food because they didn’t want to leave the house for whatever reason (maybe they have the flu), it kills the value proposition.

[xnx]

> won't backup or turn to get out of the way.

This seems surprising. As far as I know all these carts are controlled remotely in real time.

[eloisius]

Remote controlled by people in faraway LCOL places where they may not understand or be trained on Western disability norms, but are certainly incentivized by how many deliveries they complete.

[solid_fuel]

I think it depends on the robot. The ones around here seem to be semi-automatic and seem to get taken over by a human when they're blocked, but it often takes 5 or 10 minutes before that happens.

[colechristensen]

This would seem like an easy ADA case.

[solid_fuel]

I'm not aware of someone filing such a case yet, but I would think so too.

I'm not sure if you would sue the city or the robot company, or both? It feels like a failure on the part of both.

[margalabargala]

Why would the city be liable for shitty robot behavior?

Maybe you could construct a situation where they would be but I can't imagine it would be one that would play out in real life. A city allowing robots to operate would make the robot company to follow all applicable laws" including ADA so unless the city's lawyer is really really bad this lands on the robot company.

[colechristensen]

Whatever entities, city or state which are doing the licensing and permitting I'd imagine might be able to be sued.

Because it's a bit of a unique new situation with no caselaw, it would be a pretty open question of who could be sued for what.

[bluefirebrand]

It's not the city's responsibility to make the sidewalks delivery robot friendly, it's 100% a failure on the part of the robot company

[solid_fuel]

> It's not the city's responsibility to make the sidewalks delivery robot friendly, it's 100% a failure on the part of the robot company

I don't expect them to make the sidewalks robot friendly, but I think they are responsible for keeping the sidewalks clear of obstructions - so if the robots are obstructing people in my view the city should remove them and fine the company.

Failing to do that would be a failure to maintain the sidewalk space, at least that's my thinking.

[colechristensen]

The city gives them permits, they don't just freely operate wherever.