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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The vast majority of Americans prefer roads being dedicated to vehicles. I live in a town that is stealing drivable roadway for bike lanes. It's a total wast of tax dollars. There is never anybody in this bike lanes. Because even in this flaming blue, bike friendly city, people drive because it's just better.
"Stealing" as in having a public process for proposed street designs that you can't be bothered to attend.
"There is never anybody in this bike lanes" you don't see them because they aren't stuck in traffic like you. Also the city has to build out a full network of high quality bike facilities to convince a bunch of skeptics and scaredy cats to get out of their cars and enjoy life and actually get somewhere instead of just be traffic all the time.
There's this weird "bicyclist viewpoint" where the only acknowledged possible purpose of leaving your house appears to be to get your body to a different point within a relatively small area.
Personally, if I go anywhere at all, I'm usually moving more cargo than I could move on a bicycle, and doing that is the whole purpose of the trip. Cargo or no, it's often to a place I could not practically reach on a bicycle. And when neither is true, I can usually walk. The number of trips where I could use a bicycle is not large enough to make it worth maintaining one, and that wouldn't change no matter how good the infrastructure got.
Also, for a good chunk of the year, it's icy enough here that basically nobody rides bicycles... and in the rest of the year, it's not uncommon to get unpredictable thunderstorms. Sorry, riding in that is not "enjoying life".
By the way, the economy that feeds you and maintains your bicycle also depends on motorized road vehicles and the infrastructure to support them. The converse is not true; you and your bike could go away and nobody else would notice.
Seriously, they're very, very limited, niche vehicles. If your life fits into that narrow niche, then good for you... but the rest of us are sick of hearing from you.
Often it feels unsafe to bike on roadways, so people just avoid doing so. And most bike lanes on roadways have trash in them and are basically a glorified shoulder.
> 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.
I would keep on rolling into the robot. Sometimes the provider needs some production incidents to get motivated into fixing a bug.
Or to understand that public sentiment makes their stupid business venture wholly unviable, economically. That happens when people break your shit. We didn't get traction on scooters and e-bikes until they started landing in ponds and off overpasses. Your politicians want new business. They won't help. You have to fight the businesses directly.
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.
Don't pussyfoot around it. Break the fuckin' thing. Let the owner know this is absolutely fucking unacceptable. A person would get the shit kicked out of them for that kind of behavior.
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
...The robots aren't (by and large) just sitting there taking up space. They're not something you're going to be able to have a standard city street cleaning crew just pick up and toss in the bin when they go around in the early morning. They're actively scooting around, mostly from midmorning through early evening, because that's when people want to receive deliveries.
I thought it was obvious but to be extra clear "remove" in this case would mean fining the company and revoking their permits to operate in the city. Not... running around and herding robots into a truck or whatever.
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?
> 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.
Tip them over to make a path. The sidewalk is for humans, the robot is a guest.
Can't program your robots to behave properly? Have fun spending a fortune running after them!
> 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.
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.
And then started using it as pretense for harrassing minorities. In California, they recently made it so they have to prove you caused or nearly caused an accident for it to be a crime.
Sure, and the delivery robots have people who want the things at the end, and the robots can't (apparently) go in the road.
Roads used to be for people and wagons, till cars showed up and kicked the people off. Now delivery bots are trying to do the same thing, kick the humans on foot off the sidewalks.
No, his parallel works. This was also like when the e scooter/e bike craze was high and they just started occupying public space on the sidewalks because “fuck you, I can” and it was the nominal citizens problem to work around it.
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.
If you’re in a city with some density, order a Jimmy John’s sandwich. “Freaky Fast” is no joke. Their delivery people make the sandwich for you toss it in their backpack and ride a bike over within seconds after your order is placed. I think my record is 7 minutes from order placed to sandwich in my hand.
Delivery places like that, the ones that existed before Grubhub and DoorDash, those are the ones that know efficiency.
If you’ve ever seen the delivery robots in person or on video you’ll see that they are super clumsy, and unlike human DoorDash drivers they make the restaurant employees come outside and fill them up.
If you go to the store to order a sandwich and it isn't the lunch rush there is a decent chance they'll have your sandwich ready before you pay. No joke.
As someone who regrettably orders a lot from DoorDash, I’ve had a lot of issues with drivers getting orders wrong (picking up the wrong bag, delivering to the wrong house, etc) or taking an hour to deliver something (even if I pay for the straight to me option) because they’re working on 2 apps at the same time. I’ve also had heavy smokers deliver, where my food tastes like cigarettes.
It’s been enough of an issue where DoorDash sent me a snarky email about how often I report issues with my order. Essentially accusing me of lying for a discount, which I’ve never done.
If a variable was removed where the restaurant was directly responsible for what’s going in and it knows where to go, that could be a big improvement in some aspects of the experience.
That said, I’m not a fan of these robots taking over sidewalks. I also think the inability for the robot to actually come to the door kills it for me. If I need to go out to the sidewalk to get the food from the bot, I might as well just drive to the restaurant too.
So I think they are attempting to address a real issue I’ve had, but I don’t think it’s the right solution. What worked a lot better was restaurants that employees their own delivery people. So it was the restaurant that was accountable for the whole experience. With the DoorDash model, no one is accountable for anything. It seems like there is little incentive to make sure the customer is actually happy, there are too many independent parties involved in the end-to-end process.
I live in a dense urban area where it's easy to walk to get stuff, so that biases my perception, but why do you order from door dash? Is it a time constraint? Unless I was incapacitated or seriously out of time (which, as you say, Door dash doesn't reliably solve for), I can't imagine not walking within the range of these robots.
From what I can find, the delivery radius on these things is about 3 miles. While I have a lot of options in that range, the vast majority of those options are a little over a mile away. So it would probably be a 2.5 miles round trip walk. I’ve done it, but it’s not like living in a dense urban area where I can walk outside and have dozens of options (which I’ve had in the past). My allergies prevent me from wanting to make the walk during any season that isn’t winter, as there is a lot of green along the way. I’d also be eating alone at a restaurant in that case, because I don’t want to spend 20 minutes carrying home a bag of food, which in the winter would be cold by the time I get there.
I’ve been dealing with a lot of burnout and depression, so the motivation to leave the house is low. I work from home. The idea of driving just to go pick something up and bring it home is one my brain won’t jive with. If I’m driving somewhere it’s going to be the grocery store. That also means taking the shower I probably didn’t take before work. Since I’m going to the store, if I were to pickup prepared food I’d want it to be on the way home, which limits the options a lot. The area a mile from me with a lot of options is a small suburban downtown, which usually means dealing with a parking structure and then walking, if I wanted to drive there. The hassle factor is high.
If I was in your situation, I would do what you do, and have. I’m just far enough away where it annoying to walk to anything, and driving is equally annoying for such a trivial thing. Then the burnout/depression has me living the hermit life for the most part. Now that I’ve spent so much time inside, it requires a bigger reason to get me out. It’s a problem; I’ve found myself outside looking up at the sky, like I forgot how high it went.
Sorry to hear that. I have all kinds of interesting stuff literally right outside my door, and WFH hermit mode gets me too sometimes. I've come to believe cars are mental illness machines. When I was at that range, I used to bike places, which was kind of it's own activity apart from where I needed to go, but I know there are many places where that would not reduce hassle or stress.
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?
There is cycling infrastructure, the cyclists just choose to use pedestrian sidewalks. If cyclists infringing on pedestrian pathways isn't enforced, why should robots infringing on pedestrian pathways be enforced?
It doesn't really matter in this case. Even if we assume the lack of cycling infrastructure justifies cyclists taking over pedestrian paths, that must mean robots are also justified in taking over pedestrian paths since there is no dedicated infrastructure for robots.
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?
Because cyclists violating pedestrian walkways isn't enforced, so robots violating pedestrian walkways not being enforced is at least the law being enforced consistently.
These robots cover Los Angeles’ walkable areas, because they’re the only places they work for delivery. My understanding is oftentimes they’re piloted by someone overseas for less pay than the local delivery person market rate. To me, this seems like the worst of both worlds:
It takes up public space in the US, but the operator oftentimes doesn’t benefit from actually living and working in the US. At worst, it literally removes gig jobs from the US while still maintaining the physical presence a delivery person here could do, puts downward pressure on labor pay, costs stay the same for the customer, with no improvement (often worse, imo) to the customer delivery experience. So why do we allow it?
Do we really have to outsource something that inherently requires physical and local presence?
I don't have a problem with autonomous delivery vehicles. We do have a place for vehicles with wheels though. If they aren't safe enough to be on roads, they just aren't ready. Same as a person intentionally blocking my way though, they often end up on their ass when they use the sidewalk.
Seeing this reminds me of a project I delivered in the past. A tram installation was being planned in my city, and a researcher conducting a feasibility study asked me to build a crawler that would submit data for their research materials. As part of the process, they explained the study to me, and I got the sense that a tram and a delivery robot are essentially the same thing in this context.
When I was organizing the results, the personal conclusion I reached was that this kind of design is ultimately about redistributing existing public space. And in that process, the first people to be pushed to the margins are, by and large, the transportation disadvantaged. This delivery robot is consuming the same public resource, public space, and the same dynamic plays out: the weakest end up being pushed out first. I think it's a similar issue.
I am not from the US so I would never encounter one, but what happens if you kick them / hurt them / destroy them? Do they have a recording camera that would show you did it?
Yes. Autonomous delivery vehicles and sidewalk delivery robots are equipped with multiple high-definition cameras. If an incident—such as a collision, vandalism, or theft—occurs, the vehicle's surveillance systems or navigational cameras will have captured exactly what happened.
There was a trial of starship's robots in the city I live in, and they generally seemed to be well received (of the people I know who used them and just encountered them while walking/cycling around, and I didn't see any reports of trouble with them). But this is a city which has fairly good pedestrian and cycling infrastructure, which I'm sure helps. (they were also designed to be quite cute, which I think is also pretty important).
One of the first of those systems, Starship, tested in Redwood City for six months, almost a decade ago. A "safety driver" tagged along, about half a block behind, with some kind of controller. Their units were slow, rather dumb, and never reached deployment. Too early.
Sounds like they're now good enough to deploy and be annoying.
The argument of proponents used to be that it removes a lot of large vehicles off the street for small local deliveries… yes and onto the sidewalk. Makes no sense.
I don’t think there are proponents, just corporations with capital looking for a new way to extract and concentrate wealth away from individuals. The fact that it’s a robot on the sidewalk is an implementation detail.
"because no-one asked us for permission to use the sidewalks for this business enterprise - "
color me surprised that yet another tech start up came in like a bull in a china shop acting like being a "disruptor" is a cool blanket excuse to be an asshole of a company.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Because traffic laws work for cars and pedestrians. Anything else in between in fuzzy and hard to define or legislate
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.
There should be some some way to sue for unlawful restriction of access to public infrastructure.
As far as I'm aware, you can't just put a border on a sidewalk.
Bots that stop you from using sidewalk are essentially that. A border on a public infrastructure put there by some company.
> They can use the streets proper if they want to.
How about no? They'll block traffic there, too.
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.
The vast majority of Americans prefer roads being dedicated to vehicles. I live in a town that is stealing drivable roadway for bike lanes. It's a total wast of tax dollars. There is never anybody in this bike lanes. Because even in this flaming blue, bike friendly city, people drive because it's just better.
"Stealing" as in having a public process for proposed street designs that you can't be bothered to attend.
"There is never anybody in this bike lanes" you don't see them because they aren't stuck in traffic like you. Also the city has to build out a full network of high quality bike facilities to convince a bunch of skeptics and scaredy cats to get out of their cars and enjoy life and actually get somewhere instead of just be traffic all the time.
There's this weird "bicyclist viewpoint" where the only acknowledged possible purpose of leaving your house appears to be to get your body to a different point within a relatively small area.
Personally, if I go anywhere at all, I'm usually moving more cargo than I could move on a bicycle, and doing that is the whole purpose of the trip. Cargo or no, it's often to a place I could not practically reach on a bicycle. And when neither is true, I can usually walk. The number of trips where I could use a bicycle is not large enough to make it worth maintaining one, and that wouldn't change no matter how good the infrastructure got.
Also, for a good chunk of the year, it's icy enough here that basically nobody rides bicycles... and in the rest of the year, it's not uncommon to get unpredictable thunderstorms. Sorry, riding in that is not "enjoying life".
By the way, the economy that feeds you and maintains your bicycle also depends on motorized road vehicles and the infrastructure to support them. The converse is not true; you and your bike could go away and nobody else would notice.
Seriously, they're very, very limited, niche vehicles. If your life fits into that narrow niche, then good for you... but the rest of us are sick of hearing from you.
Often it feels unsafe to bike on roadways, so people just avoid doing so. And most bike lanes on roadways have trash in them and are basically a glorified shoulder.
Only at first, they'll fragment after the first few cars.
> 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.
I would keep on rolling into the robot. Sometimes the provider needs some production incidents to get motivated into fixing a bug.
Or to understand that public sentiment makes their stupid business venture wholly unviable, economically. That happens when people break your shit. We didn't get traction on scooters and e-bikes until they started landing in ponds and off overpasses. Your politicians want new business. They won't help. You have to fight the businesses directly.
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.
Don't pussyfoot around it. Break the fuckin' thing. Let the owner know this is absolutely fucking unacceptable. A person would get the shit kicked out of them for that kind of behavior.
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.
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."
> 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.
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.
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.
This would seem like an easy ADA case.
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.
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.
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.
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
> 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.
...The robots aren't (by and large) just sitting there taking up space. They're not something you're going to be able to have a standard city street cleaning crew just pick up and toss in the bin when they go around in the early morning. They're actively scooting around, mostly from midmorning through early evening, because that's when people want to receive deliveries.
I thought it was obvious but to be extra clear "remove" in this case would mean fining the company and revoking their permits to operate in the city. Not... running around and herding robots into a truck or whatever.
The city gives them permits, they don't just freely operate wherever.
[dead]
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?
> 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.
Tip them over to make a path. The sidewalk is for humans, the robot is a guest.
Can't program your robots to behave properly? Have fun spending a fortune running after them!
> 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.
Some of this does seem to stem from pedestrian infrastructure not exactly being great in the first place.
The insurance and litigation industries are big money
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.
And then started using it as pretense for harrassing minorities. In California, they recently made it so they have to prove you caused or nearly caused an accident for it to be a crime.
New York City DOT actually made jaywalking legal there last year
Those are not comparable at all, because cars also have humans inside.
Sure, and the delivery robots have people who want the things at the end, and the robots can't (apparently) go in the road.
Roads used to be for people and wagons, till cars showed up and kicked the people off. Now delivery bots are trying to do the same thing, kick the humans on foot off the sidewalks.
You are hardly searching for parallels where no are.
No, his parallel works. This was also like when the e scooter/e bike craze was high and they just started occupying public space on the sidewalks because “fuck you, I can” and it was the nominal citizens problem to work around it.
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.
If you’re in a city with some density, order a Jimmy John’s sandwich. “Freaky Fast” is no joke. Their delivery people make the sandwich for you toss it in their backpack and ride a bike over within seconds after your order is placed. I think my record is 7 minutes from order placed to sandwich in my hand.
Delivery places like that, the ones that existed before Grubhub and DoorDash, those are the ones that know efficiency.
If you’ve ever seen the delivery robots in person or on video you’ll see that they are super clumsy, and unlike human DoorDash drivers they make the restaurant employees come outside and fill them up.
If you go to the store to order a sandwich and it isn't the lunch rush there is a decent chance they'll have your sandwich ready before you pay. No joke.
As someone who regrettably orders a lot from DoorDash, I’ve had a lot of issues with drivers getting orders wrong (picking up the wrong bag, delivering to the wrong house, etc) or taking an hour to deliver something (even if I pay for the straight to me option) because they’re working on 2 apps at the same time. I’ve also had heavy smokers deliver, where my food tastes like cigarettes.
It’s been enough of an issue where DoorDash sent me a snarky email about how often I report issues with my order. Essentially accusing me of lying for a discount, which I’ve never done.
If a variable was removed where the restaurant was directly responsible for what’s going in and it knows where to go, that could be a big improvement in some aspects of the experience.
That said, I’m not a fan of these robots taking over sidewalks. I also think the inability for the robot to actually come to the door kills it for me. If I need to go out to the sidewalk to get the food from the bot, I might as well just drive to the restaurant too.
So I think they are attempting to address a real issue I’ve had, but I don’t think it’s the right solution. What worked a lot better was restaurants that employees their own delivery people. So it was the restaurant that was accountable for the whole experience. With the DoorDash model, no one is accountable for anything. It seems like there is little incentive to make sure the customer is actually happy, there are too many independent parties involved in the end-to-end process.
>regrettably orders a lot from DoorDash
I live in a dense urban area where it's easy to walk to get stuff, so that biases my perception, but why do you order from door dash? Is it a time constraint? Unless I was incapacitated or seriously out of time (which, as you say, Door dash doesn't reliably solve for), I can't imagine not walking within the range of these robots.
From what I can find, the delivery radius on these things is about 3 miles. While I have a lot of options in that range, the vast majority of those options are a little over a mile away. So it would probably be a 2.5 miles round trip walk. I’ve done it, but it’s not like living in a dense urban area where I can walk outside and have dozens of options (which I’ve had in the past). My allergies prevent me from wanting to make the walk during any season that isn’t winter, as there is a lot of green along the way. I’d also be eating alone at a restaurant in that case, because I don’t want to spend 20 minutes carrying home a bag of food, which in the winter would be cold by the time I get there.
I’ve been dealing with a lot of burnout and depression, so the motivation to leave the house is low. I work from home. The idea of driving just to go pick something up and bring it home is one my brain won’t jive with. If I’m driving somewhere it’s going to be the grocery store. That also means taking the shower I probably didn’t take before work. Since I’m going to the store, if I were to pickup prepared food I’d want it to be on the way home, which limits the options a lot. The area a mile from me with a lot of options is a small suburban downtown, which usually means dealing with a parking structure and then walking, if I wanted to drive there. The hassle factor is high.
If I was in your situation, I would do what you do, and have. I’m just far enough away where it annoying to walk to anything, and driving is equally annoying for such a trivial thing. Then the burnout/depression has me living the hermit life for the most part. Now that I’ve spent so much time inside, it requires a bigger reason to get me out. It’s a problem; I’ve found myself outside looking up at the sky, like I forgot how high it went.
Sorry to hear that. I have all kinds of interesting stuff literally right outside my door, and WFH hermit mode gets me too sometimes. I've come to believe cars are mental illness machines. When I was at that range, I used to bike places, which was kind of it's own activity apart from where I needed to go, but I know there are many places where that would not reduce hassle or stress.
> I’ve been dealing with a lot of burnout and depression, so the motivation to leave the house is low
I know this isn't the point of your post but I hope you have a good support network to help you through this. Wishing you the best.
They are motorized vehicles, and as such should not operate on sidewalks or other pedestrian areas.
Absolutely. Let them fend for themselves in the streets.
[dead]
True but cyclists have already established a precedent of taking over pedestrian paths without consequence, at least in the CA Bay Area
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?
There is cycling infrastructure, the cyclists just choose to use pedestrian sidewalks. If cyclists infringing on pedestrian pathways isn't enforced, why should robots infringing on pedestrian pathways be enforced?
Is there actual cycling infrastructure, or is it just a painted line on car infrastructure done in a way that only a suicidal person would use it?
My country has great cycling infrastructure. I never see bikes on the sidewalk. There is a direct link between the two.
It doesn't really matter in this case. Even if we assume the lack of cycling infrastructure justifies cyclists taking over pedestrian paths, that must mean robots are also justified in taking over pedestrian paths since there is no dedicated infrastructure for robots.
No it doesn’t. Laws and regulations aren’t equations and don’t need to be perfectly balanced. There is no QED here with your reasoning.
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?
Because cyclists violating pedestrian walkways isn't enforced, so robots violating pedestrian walkways not being enforced is at least the law being enforced consistently.
These robots cover Los Angeles’ walkable areas, because they’re the only places they work for delivery. My understanding is oftentimes they’re piloted by someone overseas for less pay than the local delivery person market rate. To me, this seems like the worst of both worlds:
It takes up public space in the US, but the operator oftentimes doesn’t benefit from actually living and working in the US. At worst, it literally removes gig jobs from the US while still maintaining the physical presence a delivery person here could do, puts downward pressure on labor pay, costs stay the same for the customer, with no improvement (often worse, imo) to the customer delivery experience. So why do we allow it?
Do we really have to outsource something that inherently requires physical and local presence?
They had these in Berkeley when I was there, my thought was always, why aren't the homeless hunting these for food?
Or salvageable RAM
at today's prices, they could afford to not be homeless with just kidnapping two or three robots.
Not with Berkeley housing costs being what they are.
I’ve seen a lot of videos of people in LA abusing them pretty hard.
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
Going to prison is a easy solution for missing food and shelter. Don't think that there lies the problem.
Guessing you haven't spent time in the Bay Area if you think "because it's a crime" is a deciding factor in these decisions.
I don't have a problem with autonomous delivery vehicles. We do have a place for vehicles with wheels though. If they aren't safe enough to be on roads, they just aren't ready. Same as a person intentionally blocking my way though, they often end up on their ass when they use the sidewalk.
Seeing this reminds me of a project I delivered in the past. A tram installation was being planned in my city, and a researcher conducting a feasibility study asked me to build a crawler that would submit data for their research materials. As part of the process, they explained the study to me, and I got the sense that a tram and a delivery robot are essentially the same thing in this context.
When I was organizing the results, the personal conclusion I reached was that this kind of design is ultimately about redistributing existing public space. And in that process, the first people to be pushed to the margins are, by and large, the transportation disadvantaged. This delivery robot is consuming the same public resource, public space, and the same dynamic plays out: the weakest end up being pushed out first. I think it's a similar issue.
I am not from the US so I would never encounter one, but what happens if you kick them / hurt them / destroy them? Do they have a recording camera that would show you did it?
Yes. Autonomous delivery vehicles and sidewalk delivery robots are equipped with multiple high-definition cameras. If an incident—such as a collision, vandalism, or theft—occurs, the vehicle's surveillance systems or navigational cameras will have captured exactly what happened.
Nothing a mask and a can of spray paint can't prevent
Not that I would ever suggest anyone mask up, blind them with paint, then take a crowbar to these things or anything
There was a trial of starship's robots in the city I live in, and they generally seemed to be well received (of the people I know who used them and just encountered them while walking/cycling around, and I didn't see any reports of trouble with them). But this is a city which has fairly good pedestrian and cycling infrastructure, which I'm sure helps. (they were also designed to be quite cute, which I think is also pretty important).
One of the first of those systems, Starship, tested in Redwood City for six months, almost a decade ago. A "safety driver" tagged along, about half a block behind, with some kind of controller. Their units were slow, rather dumb, and never reached deployment. Too early.
Sounds like they're now good enough to deploy and be annoying.
The argument of proponents used to be that it removes a lot of large vehicles off the street for small local deliveries… yes and onto the sidewalk. Makes no sense.
The density can go up quite a bit when you don't have a car needing to haul itself around.
Or we could build walkable cities so people can, you know, just walk to the restaurant.
Why car? In our city the delivery guys are using tuned e-bikes.
I don’t think there are proponents, just corporations with capital looking for a new way to extract and concentrate wealth away from individuals. The fact that it’s a robot on the sidewalk is an implementation detail.
What happens if you refuse to yield?
Or gently push them out of your way?
"because no-one asked us for permission to use the sidewalks for this business enterprise - "
color me surprised that yet another tech start up came in like a bull in a china shop acting like being a "disruptor" is a cool blanket excuse to be an asshole of a company.