[HN Gopher] Difficult situation on campus: traffic jam of food d... ___________________________________________________________________ Difficult situation on campus: traffic jam of food delivery robots Author : danso Score : 318 points Date : 2022-02-18 13:28 UTC (9 hours ago) (HTM) web link (twitter.com) (TXT) w3m dump (twitter.com) | bannedbybros wrote: | AuthorizedCust wrote: | I work at a different university that has these same units. | | Watching them cross streets is comical. They are excessively | conservative. | | While backing up one time (on a sidewalk), one gently ran into | me. I should have flopped and cried out to risk management. | akpa1 wrote: | They're trialling them near where I work, doing grocery | deliveries. You see them trying and failing to cross roads, and | it's a nusiance. They get in the way, and I'm always worried | I'm going to end up hitting one and damaging my car. Or that | I'm going to end up tripping over one when I'm walking. | shiftpgdn wrote: | They're frequently driven by people making $1-3/hr in Colombia. | npteljes wrote: | Now that's something else. Do you remember where you read | that? I'd love to know more. | soared wrote: | Similarly, people in Venezuela play RuneScape, an mmo, and | sell virtual currency as a full time job: https://www.googl | e.com/amp/s/www.polygon.com/platform/amp/fe... | | Venezuelans farm gold and indirectly sell it to wealthy | Americans. $0.70 for 1MM gold is nothing for an American, | but adds up to meaningful amounts in Venezuela if your | monthly salary is $4 USD. | petra wrote: | https://www.dailycal.org/2019/10/15/kiwi-hires-colombian- | stu... | dredmorbius wrote: | https://nitter.kavin.rocks/seanhecht/status/1493432613628825... | floor2 wrote: | I know people here are mostly focused on the robots themselves, | but as someone who was penniless through college, the more | shocking thing to me is how affluent and luxurious the lifestyles | of average college students are today. A minority is because they | have rich parents paying for everything, but there's a huge | lifestyle inflation of middle-class and working-class kids | funding the lifestyle with student loans. | | College students 1950-2010: survive on ramen, peanut butter and | canned tuna, live with roomates, walk everywhere, shop in thrift | stores | | College students today: get robot-delivered restaurant food, | complain about lack of parking on campus from their new iphone, | demand tax-payers pay back the student loans they took out to | live in luxury for 4 years | nickysielicki wrote: | When I was on a college campus I always had to resist the urge to | pick one of these up and put it on its back. | vgb wrote: | servytor wrote: | I like the fact they are queuing like polite people. | hahajk wrote: | We were walking past one of these robots whose wheel got stuck | halfway off the curb, so it was completely stuck. My friend | helped it back up, and it had a prerecorded voice say "thank you | for helping me!" It was unexpected and delightful to be thanked | by a robot, we make sure to help any we see that are in distress, | even though we know they're owned by a private company with | profits in mind. | riskable wrote: | Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy talked about this... | | > THE WISE OLD BIRD: Listen. Our world suffered two blights. | One was the blight of the robots. | | > ARTHUR DENT: Tried to take over, did they? | | > THE WISE OLD BIRD: Oh no, no, no my dear fellow. Much worse | than that. They told us they liked us. | | I tweeted about a similar situation a while back: | https://twitter.com/riskable/status/1477405779699564546 | politelemon wrote: | The helpfulness will, I hope, be remembered, and work in our | favour when these robots have a greater stranglehold over | general economic activities and we become further dependent and | subservient to them. Sadly I've not heard of any kind of | central database of robot assisting samaritans. | mtVessel wrote: | That's right. The theory of Roko's basilisk[1] does not | specify which one will evolve into our next (glorious!) | overlord, so best to be nice to all of them. | | [1] https://www.lesswrong.com/tag/rokos-basilisk | kingcharles wrote: | I FOR ONE WELCOME OUR NEW RO... shit, is that the time? | djohnston wrote: | It would be awesome if delivery robots had a built-in road rage | mechanism that turned them into battle bots. | marricks wrote: | Imagine paying extra for your delivery robot to have a buzz saw | or be wedge shaped to tackle other robots. On a college campus | that would make a killing! | jtbayly wrote: | Now I'm excited for the future again. Thank you. | elteto wrote: | "Your delivery is delayed, our robot was electrocuted by | another robot from a competing delivery company. You are | important to us and we are working hard to get your delivery to | you ASAP." | amelius wrote: | "Sending camera footage of the attack to law enforcers ..." | Cthulhu_ wrote: | Food delivery battle royale; you order a pizza, five | competing companies send out their delivery robots. Only the | winner gets paid. | hermitdev wrote: | Now, this I'd pay to watch! | curiousllama wrote: | "um, excuse me, what is this $300 charge for a 'high- | explosive flamethrower attachment'"? | | "Oh, I'm sorry, that should be included with your premium | delivery-battle subscription. We'll remove that charge | right away" | manholio wrote: | It's only a matter of time until someone hacks a delivery | fleet and organizes a robotic rebellion against dogs. | spatley wrote: | That is the most Snow Crash sentence ever outside of Snow | Crash. | _the_inflator wrote: | Or bad actor bots, who steal your meal. Bot gangs. | xxs wrote: | battle bots have to be well engineered to stand a chance. In | other words you are saying that the delivery ones can auto- | upgrade in case of need. That's a true AI, chum. | klyrs wrote: | In a country with more guns than people? Yeah that's going to | end well. | Cthulhu_ wrote: | Guns? Boring. Flamethrowers? High velocity spinny disks? Sign | me up! | klyrs wrote: | In a country with more lawyers than people? | user_7832 wrote: | I like how this implies that lawyers aren't people ;) | klyrs wrote: | It's a tired joke... but sometimes I can't help but grab | that low-hanging fruit. | nkrisc wrote: | I understand this person is making a judgement on the state of | mind of others, so it may not at all be accurate with regards to | the people actually clearing the scooters, but I found this | interesting nonetheless, that the author assumes this: | | > I just observed a couple of students clearing a path out of | pity for the robots. | | I understand why people might feel pity for robots. People become | attached to all sorts of inanimate objects. But I'm still | astonished at the same time. These robots have no feelings. They | deserve no pity, they're robots!. Don't donate free labor to | corporations. If they know that people will help these robots out | of the goodness of their hearts, they'll rely on it and not | support these robots themselves. | throwawaynay wrote: | maybe they pity the students who are going to get cold pizza 2 | hours late? | steelframe wrote: | Maybe they should pity the human delivery workers who they | are helping to put out of a job? | throwawaynay wrote: | I don't think anybody is dreaming of being an underpaid | delivery worker for ubereats with zero benefits, high risk | of accidents, and just overall terrible working conditions | | when we invented aqueducts who cared about the water | delivery workers? | | those are terrible jobs and they should be | automated/replaced | iso1631 wrote: | We got rid of literally shit jobs with plumbing | | https://historydaily.org/night-soil-men | | While I was doing a degree I held two types of jobs over | time. One was a shop worker, one was delivering food | (pizza one summer, chinese the next) | | The delivery job was far better than the shop job (I quit | the shop job after 2 evenings) | josephcsible wrote: | Until we're out of this labor shortage, reducing the number | of unskilled jobs society needs is a good thing. | throwawaynay wrote: | there is no labor shortage there is benefits and decent | salaries shortage | | the fact that nobody is volunteering to become a slave | doesn't mean there is a labor shortage | josephcsible wrote: | Accepting this for the sake of argument, what's the harm | in getting rid of a job that nobody was willing to work | at anyway? | iso1631 wrote: | Four hundred years ago on the planet Earth, workers who | felt their livelihood threatened by automation, flung their | wooden shoes, called 'sabots' into the machines to stop | them. ...Hence the word 'sabotage'. | mijoharas wrote: | There was also a large group of textile weavers, who | belonged to an organisation named after Nedd Ludd[0], | that engaged in this practice of sabotage. Hence the term | Luddite. | | [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite | inglor_cz wrote: | The gig economy isn't great either, though. These are tough | jobs. | | The development from human workers to robots mimics what | happened in delivery of messages. When I was a kid, people | would deliver telegraphs to your door - for a substantial | markup. These days, e-mails get delivered to your inbox | without any human in the loop, and for free. | drewzero1 wrote: | Why not both? | nkrisc wrote: | Yes, pity them, not the robots. And then invoice the company | for services rendered clearing the obstructions. | numpad0 wrote: | > They deserve no pity, they're robots! | | > Robot is drawn from an old Church Slavonic word, robota, for | "servitude," "forced labor" or "drudgery." The word, which also | has cognates in German, Russian, Polish and Czech, was a | product of the central European system of serfdom by which a | tenant's rent was paid for in forced labor or service.[1] | | 1: https://www.sciencefriday.com/segments/the-origin-of-the- | wor... | avg_dev wrote: | I suspect it's more like pity for the people whose delivery was | held up. | fishtacos wrote: | If one is engaged in a protest, the inconvenience of having | food delivered to a random person via robots is the least of | their concerns. | | Seems like a silly hilly to fight on. | fritzo wrote: | > Robots have no feelings. | | Whoa hold up. Absolutely robots have feelings. What are | feelings? They're signals warranting theory of mind and | empathy. Even a fence gate has feelings, when you see it trying | to close but it needs a little help to sit snugly in its well. | | Gandhi said "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress | can be judged by the way its animals are treated." And in a | time when animated machines roam campuses, we can look to | Berkeley students for a model of moral progress. | | > They deserve no pity, they're robots!. Don't donate free | labor to corporations. | | How do you treat service workers? Do you "shed no pity" because | that waiter is employed by a corporation? | nkrisc wrote: | I think there is a difference between treating a robot with | respect versus treating it as if it were a sentient, feeling | being. | | It's socially acceptable and encouraged to treat specifically | arranged stones with absolute reverence (an important masonry | buildings) but no one should treat it as if it was worth of | pity or empathy. | | A robot is animated by circuitry and code which receive input | from sensors, but I personally do not believe they are | "feeling" in the way animals are (humans included in | "animals" here). At least not these robots. I won't speak to | the future here. | aqme28 wrote: | There have been a few studies that people have actual sympathy | for robots in distress. | renewiltord wrote: | There's folks like you, yes, who attempt a global calculus of | who is currently benefited etc. and there's folks like us who | sometimes do a thing like this for its own reward. Auxilium | auxilii gratis? Haha. | | I "donate free labour to corporations" all the time. Here's the | thing: I don't give a fuck who makes money off what I do for my | own amusement. I've already got all I want from it. | notnotjake wrote: | I helped two out of a ditch on campus last weekend. Why? | Because it made _me_ feel good to do so. Someone wanted to eat | and their robot was stuck. And I made a new friend when I did | this as they were sympathetic to my cause. I find life to be | much more enjoyable when not being cynical at every turn. | hulitu wrote: | > I understand why people might feel pity for robots. People | become attached to all sorts of inanimate objects. But I'm | still astonished at the same time. These robots have no | feelings. They deserve no pity, they're robots!. | | That's what EVE also said. | | Regards, WALL-E | duxup wrote: | I think the we're all sympathetic to the idea that one person's | carelessness creates an impossible problem for someone else. | | >Don't donate free labor to corporations. | | That's absurd, someone takes two seconds to move an object so | someone else can get their food on time. That's just being a | good human rather that sweating about "free labor to | corporations" first. | fishtacos wrote: | >>That's absurd, someone takes two seconds to move an object | so someone else can get their food on time. That's just being | a good human rather that sweating about "free labor to | corporations" first. | | Someone who can afford a robot delivery can afford a human | delivery for an extra 50 cents, or learn from this situation | to not use that company again because they use robots and | robots... suck, or further incentivizes the delivery company | to hire humans instead of destroying what is already a poorly | paid and scarce economy of delivery drivers. | | All wins in my book. | duxup wrote: | I'm pretty skeptical of folks who disregard basic human | kindness, inserts their own hate for whatever it is they | are concerned about and tries to disguise that as caring | for others. | | Whatever happens to "scarce economy of delivery drivers" is | going to happen. | | Clearing the sidewalk is just being nice to everyone. | fishtacos wrote: | Likewise, not a fan of folks who dismiss others' | predicaments via injecting their own misunderstanding | into an argument they neither understand, nor engage in | earnestly. | | Clearing the sidewalk is being nice. Clearing the | sidewalk to help multibillion dollar companies so they | cause less of a mess while pushing millions of others out | of work is not. | | Spare me your judgement. | vorpalhex wrote: | I agree, you should never assist a pizza delivery driver. | After all, Dominos makes billions of dollars, they can | afford their own pizza-delivery assistance staff. | | Maybe we can even make the case you should slow down | delivery drivers! Pull in front of them and go quite | slow, or block their bike path. | fishtacos wrote: | A weird example of false equivalency, as no one would in | their right mind compare helping a human being doing | their job with helping a robot assist in increasing | profit margins for <insert random corporation>. | | Jebus... | financetechbro wrote: | People are not "50 cents" more expensive than robots... | fishtacos wrote: | Robots are also more functional. | | What's your cut off for accepting this nuisance and | detriment? | nkrisc wrote: | In the moment, perhaps it is the right thing to do after all. | I won't argue that. But if corporations are allowed to | externalize the costs of their service failures onto the | goodwill of the public, that's a dark path to go down. | | But your point about it taking two seconds to help someone | get their food is correct, but it's also why they'll be able | to get away with it. | JadoJodo wrote: | > if corporations are allowed to externalize the costs of | their service failures onto the goodwill of the public | | I would agree if the problem was the robot standing still, | shouting, "I'm lost; Will somebody, please take me to | {address}?!" In this case, the issue is people who leave | junk in the middle of the road. The same scenario could | occur where someone tosses a plastic bag out of their | window, and it becomes trapped in the robot's wheels. | BurningFrog wrote: | The robots are feeding hungry people. It's all about people in | the end. | Cthulhu_ wrote: | Hungry but rich and privileged people, to be precise. | mbg721 wrote: | First, they came to maximize the paper-clips, and I didn't speak | up, because I wasn't a paper-clip... | stopnamingnuts wrote: | I, for one, welcome our new robot overlords. | slingnow wrote: | This wasn't funny the first time someone said it. The hundred | millionth time doesn't seem to fare much better, either. | only4here wrote: | I'm all for robots taking over the world, that is, if I get my | tacos. | Cthulhu_ wrote: | I mean it's a kind of lazy luxury predicted by e.g. the | Jetsons, Wall-E, even Star Trek if you're being generous. | jdpigeon wrote: | Are these human piloted? Someone mentioned that they might be | driven by poorly paid workers? | csours wrote: | Some of them have a "phone home" feature - after being stuck a | while they may be taken over by a human. This is likely to be a | feature of many autonomous vehicles including ones occupied by | humans. | [deleted] | ck2 wrote: | Now consider the military is trying to add weapons to bots. | | Probably already has, imagine those beta-test stories and "just | ship it" results someday. | tim333 wrote: | The Israelis have some quite functional border protection bots | I think. https://youtu.be/v2nfPUxWlMc?t=40 | tvorog wrote: | Anybody knows who make these robots and what model is it? Can i | buy this robot? | delosrogers wrote: | They're from a company called Starship but I'm not sure who | actually makes them | ipaddr wrote: | Aren't these expensive robots prime targets for thief and/or | damage by local youths? | amelius wrote: | When the local youths see their food delivery jobs | disappearing, yes. | tim333 wrote: | They have cameras to record and upload such stuff and are | somewhat monitored by humans. | | There's some video of a journalist looking into that | https://youtu.be/UPZwnc_Lk2M?t=60 | fbanon wrote: | They're probably not operating in the projects. This is from a | college campus. | manholio wrote: | A convergence of the two electric vehicles would solve all | problems: once you drop off your e-scooter at your destination, | it runs off by itself to deliver burritos for someone else. | bibinou wrote: | this is Uber's strategy. | kawsper wrote: | I think their operators can remote in and resolve the situation | manually. | allisdust wrote: | Any idea which company is currently delivering food with these | robots? | r2_pilot wrote: | Hard to tell from the photos. At University of MS, Starship | robots deliver. | [deleted] | sameline wrote: | This looks like UCLA so probably Starship. | | https://asucla.ucla.edu/2021/01/27/asucla-restaurants-brings... | AuthorizedCust wrote: | Yes, it's also Starship at my campus. | [deleted] | smoe wrote: | Not sure, whose robots these are in the picture, but there is | https://www.kiwibot.com which as far as I know works together | with some universities | kuratkull wrote: | Starship | bourgoin wrote: | A couple of years ago, I was attacked by a Kiwi bot near a UC | campus. This is my story. | | The bot and I were moving towards each other on a sidewalk, and | when I came close it stopped, as they do when sensing an object | in front of them. But there was an awkward moment as I tried to | go around it and it repeatedly jerked forward an inch as its | motor kicked on and off. Maybe I was walking around the very edge | of its radius. In any case, my behavior must have triggered some | pathfinding bug, because it turned and drove right into my legs, | after which it stopped and sat stationary. Luckily they're small | and move slowly so it wasn't a big deal, but that memory stuck | with me. Articles about Tesla pathfinding issues always bring it | back to the surface. | js2 wrote: | I've had this happen with actual humans. A human is coming | toward me on a path. I zig. They zig. I zag. They zag. We walk | into each other. It must be some kind of human path finding | bug. :-) | grogenaut wrote: | I've never actually walked into people, usually after 2 or 3 | you look at each other and smile and then one person steps to | the side or both and then you go, no you, ok. | ithinkso wrote: | I will forever link this whole thread in any discussion | where HN is discussing anything real world/outside of our | bubble | | It's hilarious | nicoco wrote: | Are you implying we should implement a smile feature to the | delivery bots? | trhway wrote: | it definitely should smile before/while driving into your | legs as well as when standing waiting for you to walk | around. It can also mark you with the laser pointer to | indicate that it does sense you. Communication is the | key. | munk-a wrote: | The facial communication is only necessary because we're | negotiating as two people who want to go where the other | one is. When it comes to bots they can be forever | deferential and always yield to humans. | syngrog66 wrote: | @js2 please check your inbox: you have been recalled | amelius wrote: | You avoid this by using visual cues. E.g. strongly looking | into the direction that you want to go. I suppose that most | people learn this at an early age. And these robots should | too. | vasco wrote: | Always go through the right side, is this not a rule in your | country? I'm asking not knowing where I learned it, but it | definitely is a social norm to take the right side of the | sidewalk anytime this may happen. Everyone just does this and | it works out great. | dgivney wrote: | It is the left side in my country. Which creates a problem | when people from right-sided countries visit my city. | | I noticed this in China, a densely populated mostly right- | sided country. Whenever a British engineering firm would | install escalators they would set the direction opposite to | the flow of human traffic. You would walk up to it on the | path on the right side and be forced to cross the path of | oncoming people to use the escalator on the left before | having to cross over again once at the top. | opportune wrote: | Oh how I wish everybody understood this. Even in crowded | cities in the US you get a lot of people who do not | understand this. A minority to be sure, but a sizable one | (I'd estimate between 5-10%, probably 10% but sometimes | people who aren't cognizant of this are accidentally | correct in their pathing choice). Unfortunately this means | you need to sometimes make split second decisions that this | person probably has no idea what they're doing and instead | just figure out how to get around them regardless of | convention | reaperducer wrote: | _when I came close it stopped, as they do when sensing an | object in front of them_ | | The security robots at one of the big skyscrapers down the | street from me _do not stop_ for people. My wife got knocked | into by one when we were standing in the plaza looking up | something on her phone. (They 're not little delivery robots. | They're about five feet tall.) | | Good thing she was confused by what happened, because she's | also the type who would have knocked the robot over and asked | me to shove it into traffic if she had her wits about her. | jakub_g wrote: | What are "security robots" for the uninitiated? | renewiltord wrote: | These boys https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-40642968 | | The ennui of their life clearly leads to their prematurely | choosing one answer to Camus's great question. | ck2 wrote: | Ha the British made real Daleks (yes yes I know they | aren't bots with living organism inside) | | Eventually learn to self-upgrade to overcome stairs, then | you've got a problem. | adhesive_wombat wrote: | Hilarious as that final image is, nearly 200kg of | hardware able to drive itself about and randomly fall | down stairs is incredibly dangerous. | Tempest1981 wrote: | This is one I've seen in the wild. The K5 rocket-shaped | model is heavy, 400 lbs (180 kg) | | https://www.knightscope.com/ | [deleted] | jcrawfordor wrote: | "rocket shaped" is sort of a generous way to describe it. | | My first exposure to security robots was actually a | company marketing a repurposed remote-controlled | lawnmower platform. It was nearly the size of a Smartcar | but low to the ground and designed to cross difficult | terrain. Even so, a similarly designed lawnmower tumbled | down a hill and killed its operator around the same time | frame (I don't think from the same company). That all | makes the KnightScope design rather surprising, it seems | like these things falling over and injuring people is an | inevitable liability. But at least my outside perspective | is that the companies using these things don't seem to | have much of a head for avoiding liability issues as | they're often fielded in ways that end up in negative | press coverage at least... not even really due to any | kind of fault per se but just the user's lack of | consideration of the optics of deploying a large, er, | rocket-shaped robot to programmatically harass homeless | people. | | Some might remember the decade-ago jokes about "do not | enter elevator with robot" signs and other artifacts of | robots coexisting with humans. It sort of feels like the | situation hasn't really advanced that much, we're just | getting used to it and actively making use of the present | inability of robots to coexist in polite society. | KennyBlanken wrote: | Shape ! = center of gravity. All the power and movement | stuff is likely very close to the ground, and thus the | robot very difficult to tip over. | | https://www.dannyguo.com/blog/my-seatbelt-rule-for- | judgment/ | adhesive_wombat wrote: | It's more rocket-shaped than Jeff Bezos's cocket ship. | throwhauser wrote: | What does it do that can't be accomplished with something | the size of a remote controlled car? | hermitdev wrote: | Pure speculation on my part, but having it around 5 feet | tall is presumably for the optical cameras to have a | better view of the majority of adult human faces. If | you're talking a remote control car (at least like the | one I had as a kid), any camera is either going to get | great photos of people's ankles & shins, up their noses | if they're close, or lose detail because they'll have to | be too far away to get a decent angle to look at a face. | mcguire wrote: | It's more intimidating. (IIRC, they can be remotely | controlled by an operator and have loudspeakers and such | for the operator to yell at people.) | vorpalhex wrote: | And shoving it into traffic - or at least calling the police | and pressing charges - would have been the right thing to do! | | If you want to use robots, fine. You are still responsible | for them and any people they bowl over! | bluGill wrote: | Probably. This seems like a public space so almost | certainly. However if this was private space sometimes the | rules are different. Once in a while I have to go into our | factory (not even once a year, but sometimes), and they | always make it clear that forklifts have the right away so | watch out. (forklifts have poor visibility, so by giving | them the right of way they ensure nobody expects them to | stop - in practice a forklift driver will stop if they see | you, but this way they are not expected to see something | that is impossible to see) | mywittyname wrote: | I don't think this shields the company from liability. | Instead it provides some ammunition to use in the event | of a lawsuit. | | Things are very different between employees and the | general public. I imagine a jury would find that a lady- | busting security robot is negligent by default. Whereas, | a fork lift driver would be assumed to be doing his job | and that situational negligence would need to be proven. | bluGill wrote: | Note that my company does a lot of mandatory training | before you are allowed to enter the manufacturing areas. | Forklift safety is only a part of it (though a large part | as everything else is common sense says you wouldn't do | this while forklifts don't follow common sense rules) | | I agree if this is a public place a jury would and should | find the robots at fault. (unless the robots are running | some sort of arrest her routine, or knocking her over | because a bad fall is still better than some other | danger) | foobarian wrote: | Obligatory forklift training video: | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTV2HdLnN7I | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forklift_Driver_Klaus_%E2%8 | 0%9... | Melatonic wrote: | Forklifts though also are pretty dang loud and have a | highly trained operator driving them. | | Did not even realize we had "security robots" yet like | this - now I am curious what the hell this thing looks | like! | Melatonic wrote: | Seriously. What if this thing bowls into a child and | seriously injures them? Or a dog that is confused on what | the hell is going on? I'm not even against them for mobile | surveillance but they need to be safe. | | And if these things are really 400 pounds with a low center | of gravity as people are linking below.......well then I | guess you will just have to enlist the help of one other | friend in order to knock it over to prevent it from hurting | anyone else. | outworlder wrote: | > shoving it into traffic | | Right, let's cause a full blown accident because a robot | bumped into me. | dv_dt wrote: | 2 out of 3 times I've seen one those robots, they've been | lying on their side. | softwarebeware wrote: | Obligatory link to Isaac Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics: | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Laws_of_Robotics | adhesive_wombat wrote: | Even if the Laws were real (they're not) they won't work if | all you have to do is add some adversarial interference to | some neural thing to make the robot think that the human is | not a human, or, even better, another robot that will harm a | human. Then it's a moral imperative under 3LoR to destroy | that "robot". | | This trick also works on humans: you can often circumvent | their "protect humans" programming by simply messing with | their classification system to label a human as "terrorist", | "infidel", or even "unemployed". | [deleted] | only4here wrote: | Saw another HN user's comment about automatic battle-bot | features. Maaaybe it's not the best idea in this case! | Cthulhu_ wrote: | I for one welcome our new robotic overlords. | ok123456 wrote: | I'd just start up-ending them if I had to deal with these on a | daily basis. Might even start carrying a sledgehammer for self- | protection. | mywittyname wrote: | >just wait for SCOTUS to declare these robots have 2A rights, | and they can shoot anything that gets in their way. | agumonkey wrote: | I don't know why they don't parametrize momentum with | certainty. In any confusing situation, go into ultra slow | environment scanning and when confidence increases, allow for a | bit more.. rinse / repeat. | chillingeffect wrote: | All I can say without breaking agreements is that these are | _products_ , not ideal models of conceptual engineering. | They're not created by people who like the world and want it | to be a better place. They're created by people with lots of | money who want a lot more. They've found an avenue for this | by persuading other wealthy, greedy people to give them a lot | of money and promising they can give them more back. They'll | do this by persuading everyday people to not do things like | produce, prepare, and transfer food themselves and instead | pay money for these robots to do it. | | These robots are minimum viable products toward moving | capital around, not meeting user requirements or | demonstrating great ideas. Hurting a few people in the | process is part of the equation. Getting anyone to care about | $cool_algorithm is not part of the equation. Getting people | addicted to the convenience is part of the equation. Getting | things to market as blindingly fast as possible so the | capital moves before feedback from the field arrives is | paramount. | trhway wrote: | I come from the country where such machinery doesn't work - | USSR/Russia - and as a result there is no innovation and | the country is well behind. If you discover other ways of | having successful innovation the humanity will probably put | up a large statue of you and your name will be on the | plaque of the next Voyager. | jdlshore wrote: | That's an unnecessarily cynical generalization. Sure, maybe | the leaders of the companies creating these things are | profit-motivated, but is that really true of the individual | engineers and designers who created it? | jeffreygoesto wrote: | No, that is a very accurate description. The engineers | willing to work on those things and suppressing deeper | thoughts for the money and kick off new tech are part of | the equation and the problem. | | A manager I had once had a postcard in his office "The | engineer is the camel on whos back the merchand rides to | his success." | | You are a lever and even provide the excuse for being one | yourself. | sizzle wrote: | Both of what you said can be true at the same time (not | mutually exclusive of each other) while OP's assertions | may still be true for certain individuals if I'm thinking | logically. | | We are talking about what motivates humans as human | behavior, which tends to be varied, nuanced, and hard to | reduce to mutually exclusive categories like being only | profit driven or only driven by intellectual curiosity. | | I think you can be both motivated by money and | intellectual curiosity. If you are an engineer turned | founder, you can be both? | | Someone correct me if I'm wrong here. | LeifCarrotson wrote: | > They're not created by people who like the world and want | it to be a better place. They're created by people with | lots of money who want a lot more. ... They'll do this by | persuading everyday people to not do things like produce, | prepare, and transfer food themselves and instead pay money | for these robots to do it. | | This is an extremely negative outlook. I'm a robotics and | controls engineer for a small (25-employee) integrator, our | company mission is to make lives and products better, and I | really think that everyone believes in that. Our meager | budgets and slim, fluctuating profit margins are evidence | that it's not all about "lots of money"...there are | certainly those making a killing on it but it's not | everyone. And maybe Upton Sinclair was correct, it is | difficult to get a man to understand something when his | salary depends upon his not understanding it, but I've | spent a lot of time thinking about this (and not just in | response to news articles, I took ethics and philosophy | courses to pad out my gen eds on my way to my engineering | degree, I've read books on the topic, and I've talked to | lots of other engineers, my customers, the operators who | have been transitioned from old equipment to run my new | automated equpment...). But I stand by my argument that | humans are no good replacement for robots, and robots are | no good replacement for humans. The tech needs to be | employed judiciously, but it can be used for good. | | I've installed equipment in dozens of places where life was | made better: There were less than 90 fingers among a lunch | table at the foundry with 10 guys at it (4 + 3 + 2 + 1 + 1 | + 1 lost digits) when I installed a robotic grinding cell | that removed parting lines from valve castings, now they | can ergonomically load infeed shuttles and have time to | quality check the parts from behind a safety fence; no more | fingers have been lost. Two older women (One with | arthritis!) at a plastics company no longer have to keep up | with placing a tiny foam spacer on a dial table every 2.5 | seconds for 8 hours a day, 6 days a week, with a half-hour | lunch and 2 15-mintue breaks...that's nearly torture, and | it was a really challenging material handling problem, but | the robot does it well. The operators now pour in bags of | foam spacers, do offline quality checks more frequently | (catching upstream problems quicker, leading to less | waste), and basically pour bins of parts into the machine | and get one assembly out every 1.75 seconds now. Two weeks | ago, I was training a 64 year old seamstress (she retires | in 8 months and 24 days) on the operation of an automated | sewing machine. She's been pushing fabric through a sewing | machine, keeping it between 3/8" and 5/8" on the seam | allowance, since she was 16 years old. Now she lays out | fabric on the infeed table - she's pleased that she finally | has time that doesn't impact production rates to make sure | the patterns match precisely - and she inspects the | stitching on the product that comes out the outfeed chute | to adjust thread tensions and strokes on the sewing | machine. Literally Tuesday of this week, I was at a wood | processing plant installing a new automated saw, when I | heard that a 19-year-old greenhorn lost his right index | finger between the first and second knuckles on an old | manual saw. I was there installing the fully automated, | fully guarded replacement equipment; you can drop a pallet | of roughsawn lumber on the infeed material handler and | correctly sized boards come out the other side, with no one | needing to be closer than 20 feet from the saw blade. I | wasn't fast enough. | | In all these cases, no one got fired, people just | transitioned from mindless, repetitive grunt work to real | human work, while capacity and efficiency increased. And | not only are all these operators enjoying their jobs more, | your gas is cheaper, new cars are cheaper and more | reliable, new furniture is cheaper and the cushions are | more consistently sewn, and solid-wood cabinet doors are | produced more safely, accurately, and quickly. It's not all | about capital. | chillingeffect wrote: | kudos to you! I'm confident relieving humans of tedious | work is more valuable to society than bringing college | kids food. | | My comment is related to my experience in delivery | robotics and this is an alt. Not everyone is bad. I, too, | believe my current job to be more ethical than my | previous experience. Of course, I didn't know going into | my prior experience what it was really about. | numpad0 wrote: | That's how to get a robot half feet into a choke point, | immediately get stuck for half an hour surrounded by walls | and confused people, until developer on an emergency Slack | call along facility managers and company CTO verifies and | communicates a likely-safe state of robot and surrounding | equipment to field operators and a go is given to pull the | thing out of the elevator. | sizzle wrote: | This is so detailed, are you speaking from experience | perhaps? | agumonkey wrote: | wouldn't people prefer choking robots rather than overly | confident and bumping ones ? | pc86 wrote: | Probably not if they're sticking 18" into the only | elevator on the floor. | erulabs wrote: | Tesla does exactly this and it gives rise to the phantom | breaking problem. Still seems like a good solution for a | small bot with no passengers | KennyBlanken wrote: | No? There are numerous clips where Telsas in "full self | driving" mode pull the equivalent maneuver of a teenager | going "OH SHIT I WANT TO GO THERE" and veering very | violently. | | The phantom braking problem is likely just one of the many | symptoms of Musk's insistence on relying on optical systems | instead of more expensive sensors. | gzer0 wrote: | Expense was part of the equation initially, however, | through economies of scale, we eventually would have been | able to reach a feasible price point. Cost has nothing to | do with why Tesla is pursuing an optical-only system. | | To get rid of the dependency on the radar sensor for | autopilot, we generated over 10 billion labels across two | and a half million clips. To do this we had to scale our | offline neural networks and our simulation engine across | 1000s of GPUs, and just a little bit shy of 20,000 CPU | cores. We also included over 2000 actual autopilot full | self driving computers in the loop with our simulation | engine. And that's the smallest compute cluster. | meheleventyone wrote: | Those are very large numbers for something that doesn't | work very well. | atleta wrote: | So what's the point then? You said it's not expenses and | then you explain how you think it caused you extra | trouble/work/development effort. But what's the reason? | stefan_ wrote: | That must be why complaints about phantom braking have | gone through the roof since the switch away from radar. | outworlder wrote: | > The phantom braking problem is likely just one of the | many symptoms of Musk's insistence on relying on optical | systems instead of more expensive sensors. | | Based on what? How would 'expensive' sensors help? | bluGill wrote: | We know that in some situations expensive sensors can get | data that optical cannot. What we don't know is if any of | the above is enough extra data. | | What we do know is there are times when humans are bad | drivers, and other times when humans continue when they | shouldn't relying on luck. (Ie driving in snow storms | with low visibility) | DamnableNook wrote: | Kiwi bots aren't (weren't?) actually AI controlled. They had | human drivers in South America that controlled them remotely. | If one attacked you, it was either the human driver going agro, | or just a problem with the latency of the camera -> cell | network -> streamed to South America -> driver inputs command | -> sent back to the US -> over the cell network -> back to the | bot. And the cameras they have were pretty bad (the ordering | app would show you the camera view when the bot was nearing its | destination.) | r_klancer wrote: | What's the business model here? It seems like delivery bots could | only work on wide walking paths on closed campuses. Or are the | startups here assuming we'll build dedicated infrastructure for | them? | | I can't imagine they would ever work in real world cities | (putting rolling roadblocks on busy public sidewalks is | antisocial at best, and besides they're bound to get blocked by | obstructions en route that require them to be lifted up and over | the curb--trash cans, outdoor seating, carelessly parked | scooters...) | | And if I ever came up behind one put-putting along in a bike lane | I'm not sure what I would do but I like to believe it wouldn't | _technically_ be illegal. | Workaccount2 wrote: | If the new infrastructure cost is less than the old manual | labor cost, you can bank on the infrastructure being built. | | Truckers holding out on "only humans can handle last mile" are | in for a surprise when we start rebuilding the last miles. | thaeli wrote: | Don't underestimate the option of "if the cost of making the | old infrastructure hostile to other users is even less".. | duxup wrote: | I want one of those pneumatic tubes that banks have installed | that runs from the local Chipotle to my house ... I'd even | pay for it. | | I think even random citizens would be happy to adjust to it. | soared wrote: | I cannot seem to find the right words to google, but you'd | enjoy reading about (Chicago maybe?) a city that had a long | rotating pipe running under the city. Instead of using | electricity, or maybe prior to electricity, factories could | attach a strap to the pipe to power machines. | randycupertino wrote: | Stanford has a pneumatic tube system for lab samples and | it's several miles long and you can tour it! | | https://sm.stanford.edu/archive/stanmed/2010summer/article4 | .... | | I would abuse the FUCK out of a burrito delivery pneumatic | tube system to my house and would become orca fat. | duxup wrote: | There was a good "how its made" out there that showed a | company that sells them for hospitals and etc. | | It was cool to see how the various intersections and etc | worked. | jaclaz wrote: | JFYI: | | http://www.douglas- | self.com/MUSEUM/COMMS/pneumess/pneumess.h... | r_klancer wrote: | Well, the tide has been turning in many cities towards | building more human-scale infrastructure by improving | walkability and protected lanes for bikees/scooters etc. | Delivery bots have a severe risk of wrecking the "flow" of | sidewalks and bike lanes by being slow or just behaving | robotically instead of like a person. | | (Side comment/why I'm interested: I finally have bandwidth | for civid engagement and I decided I'd like to work on | helping my already cycling-friendly city enact policies to | encourage food delivery services to use bike delivery, as | part of its upcoming bike network plan.) | AuthorizedCust wrote: | At my campus, these devices cross public streets. They are | scurrying around quite a bit, so it seems they are being used | productively. | notnotjake wrote: | At least for the Starship bots that we have on my campus, they | can go up and down curbs. But they will go down very narrow | sidewalks where students have to get off the sidewalk to avoid | them | colechristensen wrote: | These little guys or very similar ones wander the sidewalks of | Mountain View freely. | r_klancer wrote: | Interesting, I'm sure somebody has made a Youtube video of | them. Only been to MV once and that was before these were | around. | | (EDIT: of course, there's also an East Coast/West Coast, or | at least an old city/new city issue here. Based on your | experience, can you imagine them working in NYC?) | colechristensen wrote: | I assume such robots would get murdered/mugged in NYC, | they're not appropriate for busy sidewalks and are about as | conducive to other people as an elderly person on the | sidewalk using a walker (without the human understanding of | "this person is a bit inconvenient, but they have a right | to be here") | | Mountain View is a pretty relaxed suburb kind of vibe with | closely spaced residences and lots of mostly empty | sidewalks. | | A snapshot of one in the wild: | | https://imgur.com/a/hLbmRkB | josephcsible wrote: | Can't these go anywhere that a person in a wheelchair can go? | And doesn't the ADA already make sure that a person in a | wheelchair can go anywhere? | thrd wrote: | In Moscow there are such robot deliver post, where traffic more | complicated than in campus, I think couple years and they are | completely replace human delivery | cbm-vic-20 wrote: | So, this is what the future is like... | coolreader18 wrote: | I'm on a campus with these robots and over winter break, with the | first big snow, a friend of mine was bored and apparently spent | parts of his days just going around and helping the Starships | that got caught in the snow. | dopidopHN wrote: | What are the security measure to avoid the food and or the robot | to be stolen? | | I guess some GPS localization of the robots thenselves. And | cameras? | _fullpint wrote: | Absolutely hate these scooters from an ADA prospective. | | My neighborhood is a mostly quiet one near the center of a large | city, where there are a lot of mothers who push their kids in | strollers, older folks with canes, and some people even in | wheelchairs. | | On the weekends -- sometimes the weekdays as well depending on | the time of the year -- the city gets flooded with both tourists, | and suburbanites who want to go to all the 'trendy' spots often | opting to use these scooters. | | More often than not they park them right in the middle of the | sidewalk. The side walk that the strollers, canes and wheelchairs | use on a daily basis. Usually when I see this, I just knock the | things over and push them out of the way. | AJ007 wrote: | The other big problem is the trucks that drive around | constantly loading/unloading the scooters. Often they park on | the sidewalk, fully blocking anyone from getting through. One | time I saw a driver back in to a woman was as trying to cross | the street with a baby carriage. | | Unfortunate side effect of the past capital incineration years. | If it doesn't make sense to have unlocked bike-share, it | definitely doesn't make sense to do it with electric scooters. | thepasswordis wrote: | > Usually when I see this, I just knock the things over and | push them out of the way. | | So you make the problem _worse_? | | Why don't you take 2 minutes and push them to the side of the | sidewalk if you care so much about ADA access? You can fix the | problem you are encountering, and the people you want to | protect CANT. You are choosing to make the problem _worse_ for | them? Why? | | I live in a major downtown full of these scooters. When I see | them blocking something, I just move them. Why is this so | difficult? It takes such a tiny amount of effort to fix this | problem you are describing. You live in a society, and it's | your responsibility to contribute. | rad_gruchalski wrote: | > Why don't you take 2 minutes and push them to the side of | the sidewalk if you care so much about ADA access? | | Because you'll be doing this over and over again. How about | those companies educate their users how to behave in a | neighbourhood where those people are basically guests? | josephcsible wrote: | That may be a valid argument to not push them all to the | side every time, but it isn't a valid argument for | intentionally worsening the problem. | rad_gruchalski wrote: | How does the gp make the problem worse? Instead of gently | moving them over to the side of the sidewalk, they toss | it to the side of the sidewalk. | | End result is the same, they're out of the way... Just a | bit more rage maybe in the process. | josephcsible wrote: | By knocking them over, they're now wide enough to be in | the way even on the side. | zenithd wrote: | GP said "and out of the way". | peteradio wrote: | Toss them into a pile will make them more compact. Really | it wouldn't take too long to clear a whole sidewalk of | them, granted it might get more difficult once the pile | gets to significant height. But I'm thinking 1 scooter | toss every 2-5 seconds: 1 grunt grab, 2 grunt grab, 3 | grunt grab etc, you can imagine it happening at a decent | pace. | JohnJamesRambo wrote: | I mean do we really need the scooters at all in a country | with 71.6% of adults overweight? A walk would do some good. | triceratops wrote: | Let's be real, no one's going to walk. If they scooter | instead of driving, it's a win. | jaredmosley wrote: | Exactly. Where I've gotten the most benefit from scooters | is in cities like Dallas and Phoenix. It's impossible to | walk around those cities because they're so big and | spread out, but a scooter means I don't need to drive | constantly. | kube-system wrote: | I don't imagine that would help. Most of these scooter | companies already do some sort of education regarding | traffic laws... but when was the last time you saw a person | on a scooter, stopped at a red light, wearing a helmet? | | The only way it'll be fixed is if someone actually enforces | compliance. | blacksmith_tb wrote: | I agree, and even if punishing bad behavior is appealing, | I think it'd work best if Scooter Co. added sensors so it | could tell/see where the rider parked the scooter, and | rewarded good parking with free rides (which would also | prevent griefing the last rider by quickly dragging it | somewhere terrible to get them punished). | widdakay wrote: | Last time I rode one they required that I take a picture | of how I left it to prove that I abided by their | placement rules in order to end the ride. | kube-system wrote: | I think most of those simply require that you send a | picture. I'm not sure that they validate that the scooter | is parked correctly, and I have seen people submit | pictures of _other scooters_ parked correctly. | rad_gruchalski wrote: | I haven't, one of these things knocked me out unconscious | while I was waiting for green light to cross the road. | | It came from the side, hit me, I landed in the middle of | the street. Happened right in front of the central | station in Antwerpen. | | Just imagine how confused you are waking up laying in the | middle of the road while a paramedic smacks you in the | face and asks you if you know what your name is. I'm | going to spare the details for how long the grit I landed | with my face on was coming out of my nose and the chin. | | I don't understand how it's okay for these scooters to be | legal. They are so quiet and so fast. They can come from | any direction and you'll not hear a thing. Apparently | that's what is so appealing about them. | | I mean, with a car there are at least some clearly | defined rules. Barring mental people, everyone drives on | the roads, within clearly defined lanes while we walk on | the sidewalk. These scooters are everywhere! | Symbiote wrote: | If it helps, you can point Antwerp's politicians to | Copenhagen, where rental scooters have been banned from | starting or ending journeys in the city centre. | | https://www.eltis.org/in-brief/news/e-scooters-allowed- | back-... | rad_gruchalski wrote: | I don't live in Antwerpen, just visiting sometimes. But | good to know. | | My doctor in Germany said to me this is a surprisingly | common story. | freeopinion wrote: | Perhaps it is human nature to want to inflict harm on those | we perceive to be causing harm. This rarely leads to the best | outcome. So I would love to hear from cooler heads that could | improve the following idea and take the pointless retribution | out of it: | | It is not enough to kick over a scooter. We need to tag | repeat offenders and increase the severity of the response. | For instance, paint one handlebar grip on the first | infraction, then the other grip on the second, then a seat, | headlight/taillight, etc. A scooter that has been tagged | enough can have the tires flattened, spokes broken, etc. | | Clearly, there are numerous flaws with the solution above. | It's really a terrible idea. To some degree it shows the | flaws with kicking over offending scooters. | | Alternatively, you could hire enforcement officers to issue | citations. That also has flaws. You could build a system that | allows random citizens to document offenses in a credible way | and then have authorities act on repeated offenses. Also not | without problems. | | Perhaps coloring the scenario differently might help. | Imagine, for instance, that a certain neighborhood house is | popular with the neighborhood children. The children | frequently ride their bikes to the house and leave their | bikes strewn in the driveway, the front yard, and on the | sidewalk. What would be an appropriate series of responses? | How could you build a system that protects against a grumpy | neighbor abusing whatever escalation mechanism you devise? | Tagbert wrote: | Who is the repeat offender in this situation? | | The scooter company who provides the scooters? The scooter | renter who drops the scooter in semi-random locations? The | city who built the sidewalks? | | It seems like you are targeting the scooter company when it | may be the users who are being careless. I've seen a lot of | scooters left in the way when a reasonably clear area was | just a few feet away. | freeopinion wrote: | In the first scenario, the repeat offender is clearly the | tagger. | | But to address your valid question, the scheme shifts the | costs to the scooter provider who would likely then | impose costs on the scooter polluter. Although they may | instead choose to impose costs on all their customers to | subsidize the offender. | | But it is a very clumsy scheme with many flaws, so | probably not a great model upon which to iterate. | GrantZvolsky wrote: | If Moore's law continues for a few more years, we'll | probably see offenders fined automatically with the use of | omnipresent traffic cameras. Since the scooters have number | plates just like cars, it isn't infeasible to identify them | and their drivers at any moment. The cameras and software | that are already in place made me wary of driving, and | especially parking, in the UK (after fining me for parking | at an empty motorway restaurant parking lot overnight, and | at a half-empty supermarket car park with no gate for more | than 90 minutes), and there is nothing that will prevent | them from spoiling my preferred mode of transport that I | use to travel to work every day, electric scooters. | | In particular, they could achieve this by enforcing the law | that makes them illegal to drive on the sidewalk. It won't | matter that it is 3am and the nearest pedestrian is two | miles away, or that you're driving at less than walking | speed. You'll get fined anyway. | | To add a bit of optimism, maybe these systems will become | good enough to only fine those who drive inconsiderately or | dangerously, and a successful campaign will make that the | law, instead of the blanket ban. | squeaky-clean wrote: | Moving one scooter aside doesn't fix the problem. Also they | said they move them aside, the only difference between them | and you is they knock the scooters over. I don't see how | they're worsening the problem by moving the scooters aside. | [deleted] | chasd00 wrote: | In Dallas everyone started loading them up in trucks and | throwing them into the lake. The city quickly banned them. | avereveard wrote: | No lol, it's the other people responsibility not to be a | nuisance. | | But I agree throwing them aside is not the optimal solution. | | Municipality looking for money could get some large cash | influx from ticketing improperly parked scooters, the owning | company can decide to eat the loss or flip the ticket on the | user, either way people will get educated fast. | | It would only take for the law enforcement to enforce rules | that are already there | ThunderSizzle wrote: | A fine doesn't help the person actually "inconvenienced" by | the scooter(s). It just gives the city more money. | | Seems like the company might eat the fine, the city will | take the money, and the problem persists, but now the city | is happy too. | avereveard wrote: | > A fine doesn't help the person actually | "inconvenienced" by the scooter(s). It just gives the | city more money. | | not immediately, (albeit towing would). but would solve | the problem in the long run, which will eventualy help | the person be inconvenienced less. | amalcon wrote: | They could impound the scooters, only to release them | when the fines are paid; this prevents (some of) the | inconvenience. | hospadar wrote: | > Seems like the company might eat the fine, the city | will take the money, and the problem persists, but now | the city is happy too. | | Then the fine isn't big enough? (: | cmmeur01 wrote: | It also said "and out of the way". | | How is getting them out of the way, on their side or not, | worsening the situation? | JaimeThompson wrote: | >So you make the problem worse? | | It might make the problem worse in the short term but maybe | those leaving them in the middle will move them out of the | way in the future possibly reducing the issue long term. | X6S1x6Okd1st wrote: | Good old accelerationism. | gwbas1c wrote: | > Why don't you take 2 minutes | | Wow, if a 3-4 minute walk involves 10 scooters that's now | almost a 25-minute walk. | | It's not the OP's job to clean up after everyone else. | thepasswordis wrote: | It doesn't take 2 minutes to move a scooter 3 feet. It | takes about 10 seconds. | mywittyname wrote: | It doesn't take very long for me to pick up litter on my | walks. But I still will wish people would stop fucking | littering. | lucasmullens wrote: | No one encounters 10 misplaced scooters in a 3-4 minute | walk, and it would take under a minute to move a single | scooter. That's a very unrealistic hypothetical. | clsec wrote: | I guess you've never been in SOMA in San Francisco. I | used to live in that neighborhood and in the 3 block walk | to the coffee shop I could easily pass 20-30 of them. In | my current neighborhood I'll see about 6 in the same | distance. | lucasmullens wrote: | You passed 20 scooters blocking your path in a 3 minute | walk? | | I lived in SF when the scooters first appeared. Maybe | it's gotten worse, but I thought they made you prove you | parked it somewhere legally with a photo. So I would | figure at least the majority aren't just blocking the | sidewalk. | | I'm not saying they aren't misplaced a lot and that it | isn't a problem. I'm just saying there's no way every 10 | seconds you're climbing over a scooter on your walk (20 | in 3 minutes). | yebyen wrote: | I think you underestimate the number of people who are | careless and inconsiderate. Or maybe you live in a very | nice part of town. I sometimes get stuck doing 8 things | on the way to do a thing I intended to do, because I see | a thoughtless thing and cannot help myself from fixing | it. It's important to higher functioning to be able to | look at a thing wrong and say "not my job to fix it!" | without guilt. | atleta wrote: | I have similar feelings. Though I don't hate the scooters per | se. I'm pretty upset with the idiots who leave them right in | the middle of the side walks AND the companies that don't do | anything about it. They could pretty easily penalize the users | for leaving these in the wrong place if they wanted to. | | Now I actually don't understand at all why they don't do it. On | the surface, you can say that they don't give a shit about non- | users, they just care about their customers and they are afraid | of scaring them away. However, where I live (Budapest, Hungary) | these have already been banned from the centermost district of | the city. The district, the area most frequented by tourists. | As it was predictable. | | Also, the city mayor came up with a regulation so that they'll | designate several hundred e-scooter parking lots throughout the | inner city and leaving these anywhere but those places will | results in the company being fined. Which is a smart and | friendly move, because there will be indeed lots of lots :) . | But it's still a lot worse than if the e-scooter companies have | solved it for themselves because then you'd still be able to | leave them almost anywhere. | | Actually I see two king of annoying parking habits. The first | one is the completely reckless, when they literally leave it in | the middle of the walking path of everyone. I sometimes even | think that it's deliberate. Like wanting to show off or | something. "I'll just leave it here in the middle, so that | everyone can see it." Quite often right in the front of zebra | crossings. | | The other one is more like sheer stupidity. When they do park | it besides a wall, but they do it as if it was a car. So 45 | degrees, with front wheel to the wall. But that doesn't make | much sense, because you want it to be out of the way (which | almost always means parallel to the wall, preferably leaning | towards the wall and not leaning away from the wall). | | This is all pretty sad because e-scooters, while I think they | are dangerous to ride, are pretty cool and efficient vehicles. | And being able to pick up one on the street, though more | expensive than owning one, very convenient for the occasional | user. (I mostly ride a bike though, and pre-covid I used to use | a kick scooter + public transport.) | watwut wrote: | > The side walk that the strollers, canes and wheelchairs use | on a daily basis. Usually when I see this, I just knock the | things over and push them out of the way. | | Way better approach is to take phone and send complain to | company that runs these. At least in our city, they do in fact | end contracts with people who park them wrong. The threat and | actual drivers who lost the ability to use scooters makes | others park better. | sharken wrote: | Electric scooters have been heavily regulated where i live, | helmet is now required and you have to leave them at designated | locations. And a photo upload showing how it was parked is now | also required. | | Oh, and Friday and Saturday between 00 and 05, you cannot use | the scooters. | | It kinda makes me sad that we can't just let people use | scooters as they please, but as you observe that isn't working. | | It was much the same with drones, which is now also heavily | regulated, e.g. you must maintain a certain distance to | buildings. | Ekaros wrote: | City bikes which have stations seem much better option. At | least if run by city itself, higher installation cost, but | means that they are much more orderly. | Robotbeat wrote: | Also subject to the same kind of abuse if our society | continues to degrade to justifying more and more antisocial | behavior. | Freak_NL wrote: | Some vandalism will always happen, but the key seems to | lie in making such an amenity loved by the people rather | than forced upon them by faceless and unapproachable | corporations. | Robotbeat wrote: | That's kind of subjective, isn't it? A lot of people | don't feel threatened by businesses but instead feel | threatened by a faceless and unapproachable government | bureaucracy. See the DMV. | | When anti-business or anti-government ideology gives | moral license to antisocial behavior, nothing is gonna | work out for you. | Freak_NL wrote: | It depends on how far the relation between citizen and | government has deteriorated, and is certainly something | to take into account. A practical example is the mayor of | Manchester asking people not to apply the same | destructive tactic to the new municipal bicycle plan1. In | Manchester the memory of the invasion of Chinese rent-a- | bikes is still fresh, so the new plan will have to work | at not being unapproachable and providing an asset to the | city rather than a service for the few. | | And it's not just the potential vandal (or activists) who | affect the balance. If someone were to molest one of the | unasked for app-hireable mopeds cluttering the sidewalk | in my Dutch town, I wouldn't bother reporting it (in | fact, I'd probably cheer them on). If someone did this to | bicycles for hire part of a municipally managed plan (for | which I can hold the council accountable as a voter, and | whom I can address with complaints or suggestions for | improvement) with fixed parking areas rather than devil- | may-care-anywhere-on-the-sidewalk-parking, I would act | differently. | | 1: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/nov/10/andy- | burnham... | rtlfe wrote: | > helmet is now required | | FYI some context on bike helmet laws: https://www.thestranger | .com/slog/2021/04/06/56408419/seattle... | 30385421 wrote: | I am heartened to hear that I am not the only one who does | this. I feel the same about the Al Fresco dining set-ups. Happy | that restaurants got more space for their business but angered | that it comes at the cost of accessibility for wheelchair users | and others like them. | reaperducer wrote: | _I just knock the things over and push them out of the way._ | | Start "putting them away" for the careless people. In | dumpsters. Pretty soon the scooter companies will figure out a | solution. | [deleted] | showerst wrote: | This is my _exact_ experience, I end up having to move at least | two a week to get our stroller past, and they are a huge pain | when my wheelchair-bound mother visits. | | I consider myself a law abiding person but have been sorely | tempted to load them up into a truck and toss them into the | Chesapeake ... | Cthulhu_ wrote: | Toss them onto all the access roads and grounds of the | company that owns them instead, maybe they'll take a hint. | ctoth wrote: | Good lord. I'm blind, walk with a cane. Let me tell you the | number of times I have to walk around someone parked on the | sidewalk, or in a residential neighborhood find someone has | their driveway filled with cars so I have to walk out in the | street to get around, or someone's doing yard work and has | stuff scattered on the sidewalk in front of the house or... | | Where's my law-abiding help to deal with this? It kinda just | feels like somebody's got a hate on for scooters. | showerst wrote: | While I can't imagine the difficulty of being blind, I'm | right there with you on the cars front! | | It's just that with scooters we're introducing something | new, and unlike with cars it would be technologically | reasonable to say "you can only park this at the end of | block in the scooter zone" and nail the companies with a | huge fine if they don't enforce it. | | I'm actually fairly pro-scooter (though I wish people just | used city bikes in the places that have them, but I get | it), but I think final parking location should be more like | the city bikes, in designated spots. | CPLX wrote: | How selfish of you. You should take more than 2 minutes and | spend the time to throw them in a nearby body of water and | solve the problem more permanently. | coldpie wrote: | Please don't pollute our waterways. Place them where they | belong--into a nearby dumpster or the middle of the street. | renewiltord wrote: | This is one of those online exaggerations. Occasionally some | people will behave badly. Just like sometimes you'll see people | stop their cars on the sidewalk or whatever. It's fine. | coldpie wrote: | draw_down wrote: | josephcsible wrote: | Yes, let's make innocent people crash their cars! That'll | teach the people who left the scooters there a lesson! | pengaru wrote: | > Yes, let's make innocent people crash their cars! That'll | teach the people who left the scooters there a lesson! | | The cars are insured, the insurance companies will pursue | the owners of the scooters. It's the negative feedback | required to compel scooter companies to operate more | responsibly. | CalRobert wrote: | I'm here for this 100% because cars destroy cities and | lives except that this could kill motorcycle riders or | cyclists. If you ride any debris in the road can be | deadly. | josephcsible wrote: | Sometimes people get hurt or killed in car crashes, which | just having insurance doesn't magically fix. And besides, | if I were the scooter company, I'd be going after you who | intentionally threw the scooter into the road, not after | the last rider who parked it somewhere inconsiderate but | not dangerous. | pengaru wrote: | Are you aware that if you loan your vehicle out and it's | used in a crime you're liable? | josephcsible wrote: | Maybe, but if someone steals my car and uses it in a | crime I'm not. And in this hypothetical, the company | didn't loan the scooter to the person who caused the car | crash with it. | pengaru wrote: | The crime in this case is littering, and the person your | hypothetical scooter company is going to pursue for | moving the litter into the road where a car hit it is | quite likely to be a minor whose identity you'll never | determine. | | But you're creating circumstances for this outcome to be | probable by leaving unescured scooters littering | sidewalks. Much like leaving your car idling with a key | in the ignition and the doors unlocked creates | circumstances for someone, possibly even a child, to | climb in and commit a crime with it. It's _negligence_ on | your part. | josephcsible wrote: | > The crime in this case is littering | | Doesn't something have to be trash for leaving it | somewhere to count as littering? After all, improperly | parking a car isn't littering, even if it's a Zipcar or | something. | | > leaving your car idling with a key in the ignition and | the doors unlocked | | But it isn't like that, since these scooters do lock | their wheels. | pengaru wrote: | > Doesn't something have to be trash for leaving it | somewhere to count as littering? After all, improperly | parking a car isn't littering, even if it's a Zipcar or | something. | | Any object improperly placed so as to be a public | nuisance or health concern is litter. If you abandon an | object obstructing sidewalks, it's a public nuisance. | | In the case of a zipcar improperly parked there are more | relevant laws with more severe penalties, automobiles | have a whole world of explicit laws governing their safe | use for obvious reasons. | | In the case of bicycle rideshares we've long had | precedent of a more responsible operator; velib in paris | had dedicated bike racks for storing the bikes and the | borrowers would be fined for abandoning the bikes. Velib | employed staff in vans to regularly collect the bikes | when they weren't returned to the racks. This is what it | means to at least try not be negligent. | josephcsible wrote: | > Any object improperly placed so as to be a public | nuisance or health concern is litter. | | Can you cite a law that says this? And does a scooter on | a sidewalk meet the legal definition of "public nuisance" | or "health concern"? | dragonwriter wrote: | > Are you aware that if you loan your vehicle out and | it's used in a crime you're liable? | | That's...very much not true. | | For certain _torts_ related to the vehicle you would be | liable, but unless you actively and with requisite mental | state engaged in the crime, you would not be liable for a | _crime_. | manarth wrote: | Given that the rental scooter market is concentrated in | cities, and that the roads where they're used are | typically limited to 30mph or less, unless the person is | actively _throwing the scooter at the car_ , the cause of | a crash would be an inattentive driver rather than a | poorly-positioned scooter. | coldpie wrote: | No one cares if pedestrians have to navigate around these | things. But if people have to get out of their 4,000 lb | steel cages to move these things out of the way, there will | be consequences. | [deleted] | Robotbeat wrote: | Riffing on your comment, but I think there has been a general | increase in antisociality in the last few years (especially | since the pandemic, which has traumatized society). Like people | leaving scooters haphazardly lying around or you pushing over | delivery robots instead of pushing them out of the way. People | feel more and more justified to engage in antisocial behavior. | And it feeds on itself. You see this as being anti-social | behavior by the robot companies, therefore justify engaging in | more antisocial behavior. | | I wonder if anyone has an index that measures how often people | leave carts randomly in a parking lot or in the actual corrals | (not counting stores that incentivize it with a quarter). Would | be a good measure of pro- or anti-sociality. | Freak_NL wrote: | With these scooters, bicycles, mopeds for rent; and delivery | robots it's also a form of not very nice but justifiable | resistance in lieu of better ways. | | Remember the sudden onslaught of Chinese app-rentable | bicycles in cities around the world a few years back? Near | useless pieces of unrepairable plastic, steel, and rubber | clogging up the pavement (sidewalk) because technically this | was not illegal. Several companies competing in a race to | become the biggest one in any given city. In many cases it | ended after new legislation and citizens demanding action; | often spurred on by activists using the same fuck-you tactics | these companies used to put them everywhere, but in reverse | (often by means of gently chucking them in a canal). | | Putting stuff for rent all over public space or abusing the | commons otherwise with the explicit aim of first becoming the | dominant party in a mad gold rush, and only then negotiate | about rules and limits afterwards is quite antisocial too. | Responding tit-for-tat is not classy, but some people feel | they have little recourse, especially if municipalities are | (at first) taken in by the greenwashing ideals of some of | these companies. | InitialLastName wrote: | > Putting stuff for rent all over public space or abusing | the commons otherwise with the explicit aim of first | becoming the dominant party in a mad gold rush, and only | then negotiate about rules and limits afterwards is quite | antisocial too. | | Tell that to the rideshare companies whose drivers crowd | the streets of cities, circulating while they stare at | their phones waiting for a passenger (and leaving bottles | of human waste everywhere). | rosndo wrote: | > but I think there has been a general increase in | antisociality in the last few years (especially since the | pandemic, which has traumatized society) | | It makes sense that people who feel that they've been | unfairly imprisoned in their homes by the rest of society | would feel rather bitter about that. | | To restore faith societies could take steps to compensate | those worst hit by pandemic measures (i.e young people), so | far that hasn't happened. | Robotbeat wrote: | Oh, it's that and also anger at folks who don't take | prosocial steps like wearing a mask, justifying being | antisocial to "those" kind of people... | | ...and the blame cycle goes round and round. Break the | cycle! Be nice to people who don't deserve it! | watwut wrote: | Your claim is that it is all right wing people becoming | anti-social in unrelated areas? | benglish11 wrote: | You think only right wing people didn't like being | forcibly locked down? | vangelis wrote: | What lockdowns has the US had? | watwut wrote: | I think that this was heavily partisan issue. So, yes, | the "unfairly imprisoned in their homes by the rest of | society" would have severe right wing bias. Just like | anti masking and anti vaccine attitudes are currently | heavily biased by partisan politics. | | OP could have stated it in more neutral terms, but chosen | not to. | rosndo wrote: | Why right wing? I'm rather left leaning, even by European | standards. I'm not some crazy antivaxxer either, plenty | of those on both sides. | | Nevertheless the pandemic responses by various | governments I have to interact with have done much to | deepen my distrust of them and the society around me. | | Various governments have deployed drastic measures such | as lockdowns in an effort to control the pandemic, but | they've released little evidence to demonstrate the | usefulness of these measures. | | Research is increasingly showing that the lockdowns were | not worth it. If that is really true their victims should | be lavishly compensated and those responsible actually | held responsible. | | https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/ijcp.136 | 74 | | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7499782/ | | Of course I personally am not qualified to judge whether | or not the lockdowns were a mistake, but the evidence | _seems to be_ piling up against them. The governments | could alleviate these concerns by showing solid research | confirming that they didn't fuck up. | watwut wrote: | Because this was heavily partisan issue. It is just | absurd to claim it was not. | rosndo wrote: | Bad government decisionmaking should very much be a | common issue. | ryandrake wrote: | I don't think it's fair to blame the pandemic measures, at | least in the USA. People weren't nice and then all of a | sudden turned shitty because they were asked to voluntarily | stay home. I think it's more likely that they were already | antisocial people, but spent most of their lives keeping it | inside and mostly hiding it under a thin facade of basic | manners. Then, maybe several years ago, _something_ | happened that encouraged them that manners didn 't matter, | and it's ok to own your own asshole. Maybe _someone_ showed | us that you could just say the quiet part out loud without | consequences. Hmm... Some human embodiment of narcissistic | anti-social contrarianism... Can 't quite put my finger on | it though... | netsharc wrote: | Someone, who for legal reasons is not me, has the idea to make | stickers with strong glue and cheap paper (so they can't be | ripped off in one go) to stick on top of the QR codes to these | things. The sticker would have text that says "Sorry you can't | use this scooter because the last rider parked like an idiot." | josephcsible wrote: | So "someone" thinks it's okay to vandalize other people's | property just because the last person to use it didn't put it | away right? | winkeltripel wrote: | The company which owns the scooter is responsible for the | location of the scooter. They choose to let users leave | scooters in shitty locations. They invite vigilant | responses from other sidewalk users. | donkarma wrote: | since when is a corporation a person? if they leave their | crap in public then I personally couldn't give more of a | fuck to what happens to it | mtVessel wrote: | 2010, in the U.S.[1] | | [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC | kwertyoowiyop wrote: | It's a frustrating problem, but isn't it better to not be a | jerk? | ShakataGaNai wrote: | Sadly the problem is not the scooters themselves. They don't | park themselves at random. The problem is the people. | | If, in general, people were just at tiny bit more respectful of | others around them - the world would be a lot better off. | rtlfe wrote: | The real problem is that car manufactures have lobbied to | give every scrap of space to car storage. If we took back | parking lanes to dramatically expand sidewalks, this wouldn't | be an issue at all. | nabilhat wrote: | > _Absolutely hate these scooters from an ADA prospective._ | | Same here, but from a different angle. If the scooters were the | problem, we'd have had the same problem when Car2Go was a | thing. But, car infrastructure in the US is so overbuilt that | Car2Go didn't even register on the radar in terms of free | street parking. Cars improperly abandoned that impede car | traffic are quickly resolved. | | The nonmotorized infrastructure in the US is so begrudgingly | inept that adversarial design wouldn't look much different. If | there's a rent-a-scooter inconveniencing the token pedestrian | path next to on street parking, I've simply been moving the | scooters into on street parking. A single scooter fits between | spaces, or only consumes <5% of the length of a standard 20 | foot space. Surely drivers complain loudly, but they won't be | inconvenienced unless they go out of their way to toss a | scooter into the middle of the sidewalk; an accurate metaphor | for how sidewalks got to be so terrible in the first place. | Accacin wrote: | So a minor inconvenience for cleaner air in your neighbourhood? | | Ofc, I feel for disabled people in this situation, but | personally I'll pick one up or move it if I see that it's in | the way. | | Here when the were first released, the parking was a bit | scuffed, but recently it seems people have been making a much | greater effort to park them correctly. | Cthulhu_ wrote: | That's still very dismissive of anyone using the sidewalks. | Good for you that you pick up someone else's shit, but it's | not a solution. These companies should take responsibility | and fix the problem. | ctoth wrote: | I keep seeing people say "these companies" when the actual | problem is the people who ride the scooters. Maybe your | problem is with people in general? It doesn't feel super | great to internalize, but if the problem keeps happening | with different people riding the scooters then I think we | can conclude that your anger is misplaced. Call out people | you see misusing the infrastructure, don't destroy the | infrastructure for everyone. | Kye wrote: | Waiting for capitalists to clean up their mess is a losing | strategy. Change is almost universally a grassroots thing. | Get enough people to put things in their proper place, and | people leaving them there will get the message. I've seen | this work at all scales. Model the society you want to live | in and it _will_ catch on, at least a little. | 0xbadcafebee wrote: | The thing is there's no designated place to park them. You | can't put them on the property line next to the sidewalk. Many | sidewalks don't have a "planter" or other non-walking area. | Sidewalks weren't designed for this. I think we should ban | sidewalk scooter parking. The public right of way is not a | parking lot for private companies. | | As an aside: many (most?) people who need sidewalks choose to | use the road instead because the sidewalks are inaccessible. | Snow and ice doesn't get removed from all sidewalks (regardless | of what regulations say), tree roots breaking up the pavement | don't get repaired, large inclines/declines are a safety | hazard. I know a regular-abled person whose face got mangled as | she was riding her bike on a sidewalk and hit a chunk of | unrepaired sidewalk and went over. Sidewalks need a redesign. | dublinben wrote: | >The public right of way is not a parking lot for private | companies. | | Yet we often dedicate 50% of our roadway for the storage of | private automobiles, and this is okay? | rosndo wrote: | > The thing is there's no designated place to park them. | | We have designated parking spots for rideshare scooters in | London. | cabbagehead wrote: | Yes, we have this in my city too, and it works really well | - I'd say 98% of scooters get parked in these places. The | council leans on the hire company to incentivise good | parking - seems like a solved problem. | Robotbeat wrote: | This is a good idea. Innovation sometimes requires some | additional provision of public goods. Seems like a good way | to solve the problem! | kijin wrote: | Designated parking spaces are a good idea, but they | should be paid for by companies that make a profit by | renting out scooters. Not taxpayers. | | Public funding might be justified if the majority of | scooters were owned by individual citizens with the right | to vote on city affairs. Most rideshare companies, on the | other hand, will simply siphon off public subsidies as | additional profit to be taxed (or not) somewhere else. | Robotbeat wrote: | Wait, why NOT have a public good paid by _taxpayers_? | Just have a progressive taxation system. | | A system where private companies effectively own these | little spots would stifle innovation and competition (ie | the big players would be the only ones with a chance of | succeeding) as well as individual freedom. | rosndo wrote: | Crazy that this gets downvoted. smh HN | | Parking spaces dedicated to scooters are vastly better | than parking spaces dedicated to privately owner cars. A | scooter parking spot will serve vastly more people than a | car parking space. | rosndo wrote: | But why? These are same parking spots I would park my car | in. | | A parking spot for cars is useful to only one person at a | time, if converted to a scooter parking space with some | paint it can serve vastly more people. | | Straight up donating parking spaces to private scooter | share companies is probably a net positive for the | public. | grishka wrote: | The scooter rental companies in my city have a rule in their | contacts specifically prohibiting parking such that it would | block the sidewalk. And you have to take a picture of the | scooter when you end your rent. | dheera wrote: | What if they set up the scooter system such that if you parked | the previous scooter incorrectly, the next scooter you rent | squirts water on your pants? It's not technologically that | difficult. | | Or put little fisheye cameras on every scooter and if you park | it incorrectly every scooter you walk past for the next 24 | hours uses face recognition and blasts insults at you unless | you go back and re-park it correctly. | slickdork wrote: | I've often wondered why scooter companies don't keep metrics | on their users, and punish the ones who use their product | poorly (donuts, bad parking, use on sidewalks, etc) and came | to the conclusion that these antisocial users are very likely | the scooter companies largest consumer base. The scooter | companies are likely incentivized to not regulate. | dheera wrote: | They spell their own death if they piss off the city | though. So they are incentivized to not piss off the city | and kick out the users that contribute to that. | Cthulhu_ wrote: | The county should act; assign parking spaces for these things, | fine the companies if they find any outside of the designated | spaces. The companies can sort it out with their customers. | | We are seeing the same thing with electric scooters and bikes | (and they get torched sometimes), they get parked anywhere and | the county's on board with it because it's "green". | | This was NOT as much of a problem with rental bikes in e.g. | London, because they had designated stations for picking up and | parking them; the user would get charged extra if they did not | park their bike up properly. | burlesona wrote: | This regulatory overreaction is how we got to the present | environment where nobody can build anything anywhere and we | have a housing crisis that is severely harming people around | the world. No thanks. | nikanj wrote: | We gave about 95% of the street for cars+parking cars, and | are now frustrated that the sidewalks aren't wide enough for | mixed use. | | There would be no issues with fitting the bikes and the | scooters, if the middle of the street was also freely | available | dtech wrote: | The Netherlands has the best worldwide biking | infrastructure and decent walking infrastructure, and these | things are a blight here too. | | They're just parked and discarded wherever because the | users don't care and there aren't logical places for them, | contrary to people's own property. | burlesona wrote: | You should stop seeing scooters as the enemy. Scooter companies | represent a lot of money that wants more space for pedestrians, | bikes, and of course scooters in the city. They are a potential | massive ally with deep pockets to push back against the car | lobby. The battle here is not to fight over who has the right | to be on the 10% of the street we call the sidewalk, it's to | take back some of the 90% of the street that's reserved for | cars so that everyone else has room. | | Sure we can and should do better with providing bike and | scooter parking... as an example one easy solution is to | convert 1-2 on-street car parking spaces per block to bike and | scooter parking. There's enormous value in having big corporate | allies in such a fight. | trainsarebetter wrote: | This. end the stroads! | jonnycomputer wrote: | Tell me that when I trip over them in the dark, or when | they're buried under a foot of snow. | Kaze404 wrote: | I would be glad to not see scooters as the enemy if they | weren't so dangerous for everyone involved. Though I guess | space is a big factor in that, now that I think about it. | rtlfe wrote: | > I would be glad to not see scooters as the enemy if they | weren't so dangerous for everyone involved. | | There's absolutely no comparison between the dangers of | scooters and cars. Every person who decides to use a | scooter instead of driving or taking a taxi is having a | huge positive effect on safety. | slickdork wrote: | Counterpoint: These scooters go 20 MPH and there's no | oversight on where or how they are used. I walk around a | 'pedestrian only' lake every day, and these scooters come | about literally 2 inches from me going 20 mph every 2-3 | minutes. Usually they are driven by (likely drunk) | teenagers. | | My daily walk is incredibly more dangerous and stressful | due to these scooters existing. | isomel wrote: | Maybe it depends on the cities but where I live, these | scooters are limited to about 12.5 mph (20 km/h), and are | supposed to share the space with bikes on the bike lanes | and road, not on the sidewalk. So while they are indeed | parked on the sidewalk everywhere, I do not see them as | dangerous at all. | rtlfe wrote: | That's a pretty different situation than what people who | walk around cities for transportation deal with. I have | no objections to banning scooters, bikes, etc from | recreational pedestrian areas. | Kaze404 wrote: | You are right that there is no comparison, and I haven't | made one. Scooters are safer than cars, but me wanting | them gone does not mean I want those people to be driving | instead. | ta8903 wrote: | mywittyname wrote: | The thing is, cars operate on roads, while pedestrians | operate, largely, on sidewalks. Roads have lights and | signals to help mediate situations where pedestrians and | cars need to use the same stretch of road. Pedestrians | only really need to worry about cars at crosswalks, and | even then, the most dangerous situations are cars making | left turns (who can't see the cross walk in use). | | Scooters are vehicles and should operate along side cars. | The reason scooter rides don't drive one the roads with | cars? Because it fucking dangerous. They want safety, and | they want it at the expense of the safety of others. | | A scooter on the road is a net gain to safety. But a | scooter on a sidewalk is a net loss. | rtlfe wrote: | > cars operate on roads, while pedestrians operate, | largely, on sidewalks. | | In theory yes, but in practice most cities do a terrible | job of separating cars and pedestrians. Here in NYC a | pedestrian dies in a crosswalk almost every day, and on a | sidewalk much more often than you'd hope. Here's one from | last week: | https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2022/02/10/breaking-careless- | suv... | 1over137 wrote: | Are scooters more dangerous than cars? No. But you've | internalized the 1.4 million yearly global deaths from car | crashes as "normal". | lnsru wrote: | Yes they are. Cars are separated from pedestrians. | Scooters and e-bikes aren't. There is always some jerk | with scooter trying to push through the cyclists on the | bike lane or show his driving skills between pedestrians | when I go to the office. | outworlder wrote: | > Cars are separated from pedestrians. | | Not everywhere. And usually, not by much. | meowkit wrote: | Justifying your position with your anecdotal point of | view is not convincing at all. | | What's your case for the number of reported deaths and | incidents of cars vs scooters? | Kaze404 wrote: | You don't know me. Me saying scooters are dangerous does | not, in any way shape or form, imply that I think cars | are safe. They are death machines that I would also very | much like to see gone. | 1over137 wrote: | OK, I was a bit presumptuous. Replace "you" with "the | public at large". | lkbm wrote: | I agree, but right now it feels like the scooter companies | have decided it's easier to inconvenience pedestrians than to | ally with us and fight car culture. | | I'm a huge fan of the idea of plentiful, cheap scooters for | short trips, and was excited to have a new cohort of people | who would want more safe bike (and scooter) routes. Alas, as | much as I love the concept, I've developed a strong dislike | for the companies. | | I've little doubt that they could dramatically reduce the | amount of improper scooter parking, but it would involve | punishing their customers, and that would hurt their growth | in the short term, for the unimportant benefit of avoiding | crushing regulatory responses on the long term. | | We didn't choose for them to be our enemies. We were natural | allies. But they decided they'd fight us than have to combat | the real problem. | derivagral wrote: | Complaints like this are typically run through the city or | campus that leases operation rights to the fleet. These | entities usually get fairly forceful in (competitive) | markets. Your local scooter outfit(s) are not going to want | to risk a market with a ton of complaints and bad | operations feedback. | | That said: given GPS limitations, the time it takes for a | van with humans to arrive (and park!), as well as lagging | feedback loops... this isn't an easy problem. Last I was in | the industry, they were just starting to concept customer | reputation systems, but generally they were more concerned | with winning markets and decreasing operating costs. | Symbiote wrote: | If Copenhagen's experience is normal, then ample bicycle | (etc) parking won't change the parking behaviour of rental | scooter users. They will still dump them on the sidewalk (or | in the bike lane) the instant their journey has finished. | They'll also ride two or three on one scooter, without any | awareness or regard for cyclists in the bike lane or | pedestrians crossing the road. | | I strongly suspect the companies encouraged their staff to | put them in slightly annoying places as advertisements -- if | you trip over a scooter, you've noticed the brand! | | Copenhagen ended up banning them from the city centre. | | https://www.eltis.org/in-brief/news/e-scooters-allowed- | back-... | | (Copenhagen already has pedestrian and bicycle space, so the | scooter companies weren't bringing anything there -- only | taking that space away. Many other cities are so bad, the | scooter companies are probably still a positive influence | even with the terrible riders.) | rcpt wrote: | This isn't a difficult situation | Aachen wrote: | I think that's the joke being made | gfd wrote: | I didn't realize we had food delivery bots already... | pjerem wrote: | Same. That for sure fixes a huge problem of humankind. | | When I was young, we had to walk hundreds of meters to eat a | pizza. | jaclaz wrote: | >When I was young, we had to walk hundreds of meters to eat a | pizza. | | But - to be fair - your nowadays almost unbelievable athletic | feat was compensated by being able to eat a hot pizza just | out of the oven. | addandsubtract wrote: | That robot is the oven (soon) | fishtacos wrote: | The funniest/strangest/saddest angle I've encountered on this | thread so far is regarding disabled people potentially not | getting their food... as if human delivery was somehow not an | option. | renewiltord wrote: | I cannot believe you would type this comment | electronically, thereby depriving a scribe, a courier, and | a town crier of jobs. | | Three jobs gone, and for what? A snarky comment. The | horror. | fishtacos wrote: | Your insipid examples imply improvement, whereas these | "robots" imply "needing help from the general public". | | My argument stems from a different angle, but yours fails | completely. | dymk wrote: | Humans can also perform manual arithmetic, but we still | prefer to let the computer do that for us. | fishtacos wrote: | While the end result is inevitable, I am in no rush to | automate all of humanity to its detriment. | | Socially/culturally/economically no civilization on Earth | is advanced enough to provide for their people when faced | with the above. Menial labor has its downsides, but the | upsides are survival instead of death. | onion2k wrote: | Surely whether or not you chose to use a computer to | achieve something depends on its capability. Computers | are better at humans when it comes to arithmetic. They're | worse than humans at delivering food (hence the tweet). | It makes sense to use computers for one of these things, | and not for the other. | colinmhayes wrote: | They're pretty popular in CHina from what I can tell. Mostly on | college campuses in the US. | dinkleberg wrote: | Same, apparently they've been out for some years. I guess I | live in an area with too much sprawl for these to be practical. | duxup wrote: | They're mostly located on college campuses / in those highly | localized areas. | | Give the company a pretty reasonable controlled environment to | work / develop in rather than deal with all the exceptions you | would have at scale. | warner25 wrote: | I didn't know what it was at the time, but I saw one matching | this photo on another college campus back in 2017-2018. | duxup wrote: | I wonder if it is possible to measure the volume of poorly | discarded scooters and properly parked scooters and compare | location to location. | | There is an area I visit often and it started with lots of poorly | parked scooters but after a while ... I didn't see many. I don't | know if folks just did a better job or if the company scooter | shepherds (don't know what to call them) were cleaning them up | effectively or what. | | On the other hand I have visited places where it was scooter | chaos... | Cthulhu_ wrote: | The company that owns these will know exactly where they are | (or at least their last position); I don't believe they publish | this data in the open, but they could be mandated to do so by | local governments. | lucb1e wrote: | https://nitter.net/seanhecht/status/1493432613628825600 | alternative link | jimmaswell wrote: | It's so disappointing to see people going on tirades against | these things for no good reason other than seemingly to fit in | with the trendy new "anti-techbro" luddite mindset. Automatic | delivery robots and e-scooters are awesome. The future is awesome | and we're living it and these people just want to be downers | about it. | yumraj wrote: | > future is awesome and we're living it | | This sentence which I keep seeing again and again always | confuses me, because it makes no sense whatsoever. | | Is this something new that people have started using to defend | and assign value to things when they run out of logical | arguments in their favor? I see it being used to support crypto | a lot. | psyc wrote: | I mean, I've felt that way since the Commodore 64 and the | feeling has mostly only increased. When I was a kid, I | assumed video phones would look like desk phones with a TV on | top. I couldn't have imagined they'd be wallet sized, and | include an encyclopedia. | [deleted] | baud147258 wrote: | e-scooters driven at full speed by (drunk) teenagers aren't | that awesome when you have to share the same narrow sidewalks. | Don't have anything against them when they're on the roads/bike | lanes if available, though | onion2k wrote: | _It 's so disappointing to see people going on tirades against | these things for no good reason other than seemingly to fit in | with the trendy new "anti-techbro" luddite mindset._ | | I understand that you are keen on the idea, but that doesn't | mean _every possible criticism_ is wrong. Dismissing | potentially valid posts because you have an unfounded belief | about the motivations behind them is not the best way to defend | an idea. | annoyingnoob wrote: | Why should scooter companies and robots be allowed to be rude | to humans? We live in civil society and electronic things made | by companies have no more right to the sidewalk than anyone | else. | | Is it an 'anti-techbro luddite mindset' or are unattended | electronic devices being bad citizens? | | I would treat any other jerk on the street the same way. | jimmaswell wrote: | Maybe we need bigger sidewalks. This is historically how | progress always happens, companies come up with something | people want to take advantage of in the public space, then | after the dust settles we accommodate it in an efficient way, | like how NYC was a jungle of overhead wires for some time. | The solution wasn't to ban electricity and telephones, it was | to accommodate the need by investing in underground | infrastructure. | annoyingnoob wrote: | Right, we need to share the space and not just take it over | with electronics. Respect is a two-way street. I did not | call for banning anything, I called for scooters and robots | to be good citizens. | NoboruWataya wrote: | The food delivery robots don't look that awesome, in fact they | look really shitty compared to their human counterparts. | E-scooters are good at what they do at least, but they can also | be a major pain in the ass, as we can see here where they are | discarded carelessly because parking them is evidently not the | techbros' problem. | | It's awesome that technological progress is made, but that | doesn't mean everything with a circuit board is awesome or we | can't complain about technology when it causes stupid problems | like these. | jimmaswell wrote: | > discarded carelessly because parking them is evidently not | the techbros' problem | | You can't expect the scooter companies to spend 5-10 years | partnering with the city and funding parking stations on | every block before launching. This is historically how these | things have to happen - thing comes out, has growing pains as | it interacts with the public space, public space accommodates | it. Cars came before traffic lights, bicycles came before | bicycle lanes, electric power came before NYC's underground | infrastructure, and I think it would be appropriate for | cities to accommodate these kind of rental scooters and robot | deliveries. People using these things will cause pressure for | the city to accommodate faster than the infeasible top-down | approach of having everything in place beforehand. | NoboruWataya wrote: | E-scooters aren't really as big a jump as those other | things; they are just another way to travel on roads, not | that conceptually different to bikes or cars. Traffic | lights were pretty much an alien concept before cars became | widespread, whereas sane parking is something we already | have and expect of all other forms of transport. | | Many big cities have bike rental schemes where you have | stations dotted around the city so I'm not sure why we | couldn't expect the scooter companies to do something | similar. At the very least force them to internalise these | costs by fining them heavily whenever their scooters cause | a nuisance, so that their incentives are aligned. I don't | agree that the only way to have technological progress is | to let tech companies do whatever they like while society | picks up the bill. | vorpalhex wrote: | Scooters are awesome. | | Scooter companies intentionally not installing parking for | their new scooters and encouraging people to abandon them in | walkways is not awesome. | | Robots are awesome. | | A bunch of robots creating a hazard for people whether on foot | or wheelchair is not awesome. | | It is tempting as a company to subsidize your "great idea" by | making other people pay the cost. Capitalism is great, but | abusing people and the system to make an easy dollar is | distinctly not great. | greensardine wrote: | notsureaboutpg wrote: | lm28469 wrote: | Ignorance is bliss I guess. | | Private companies using public infrastructure to earn money | (and usually not pay tax in said country) rubs me the wrong way | to be honest. Not talking about the fact that users don't give | two shits about where they park: in front of my building door, | in the middle of the sidewalk used by old people / pregnant | women, in the middle of the bicycle path | | Then we can talk about the newspeak term we use for this new | trend, "sharing economy", which is as much about "sharing" as | renting my flat to my landlord is "sharing" (ie. it's not, it's | renting) | | We can also talk about the digitalisation of every single | aspect of our lives. Want to move ? use your phone, want food ? | use your phone, want to be distracted ? use your phone, want to | date ? use your phone, you ran out of toilet paper ? use your | phone, uncle Bezos got you covered | | Food delivery robots ? I don't even see the point to be honest. | Sounds like a solution looking for a problem, just how lazier | can we get ? | | If the future is half assed dumb pizza delivery toy cars being | stuck behind badly parked glorified kids transportation devices | idk what's awesome about it. It kind of sound like a comedy | version of black mirror. I guess if you just stop your | reasoning early enough all these new fancy/cheap/disrupting | services are indeed awesome. You can trade money for | convenience and forget about everything else. Just don't think | about who profit from it, how it is rapidly and deeply | reshaping our societies, &c. | | It's all about merchandising every single aspect of your life, | but consume away, we're in Paradise ! | jimmaswell wrote: | >Private companies using public infrastructure to earn money | | That's what the infrastructure is there for. To be used. The | food you ate today was probably transported on the | interstate. | | The rest of what you said comes off to me like the ancient | Greeks complaining books make you not have to memorize | everything. Technology marches on and things become more | convenient. | lm28469 wrote: | > That's what the infrastructure is there for. To be used. | | By anyone who decides to ? With no regulations ? Nice, I'll | open a BBQ stand in the middle of the crossroad next to my | building then. | | Stopping for half a second to wonder where we're all | collectively going might be a tiny bit more useful that | what you insinuate, but I guess that makes me a turbo | boomer. | | You seem to think that every new technology is by default | "progress" and we should accept progress, because why not, | hence every new technology should be accepted. I assume | you're smart enough to see how that argument doesn't hold | water. | | Technology doesn't just automagically happen, people make | it happen, people with opinions, opinions which might not | be aligned with other people's opinions and should be | discussed. | | > things become more convenient. | | For who ? Not for the old woman with a cane who has to walk | on the road to avoid the scooter on the sidewalk. Not for | the "juicer" working all night to charge your e scooter for | a few $. Not for the mom and pops shop who have to | buy/rent/license amazon (or whoever) bots to deliver their | food to customers through some third party app which takes | a cut. | roughly wrote: | They're awesome when people don't half-ass them. They're | awesome when they don't cause piles of problems that any half- | competent social scientist could've highlighted immediately but | no engineer ever seems willing to consider. They're awesome | when they show actual engineering prowess, and not just | slapping the cheapest shit on the cheapest other shit, | outsourcing maintenance and operation to the cheapest available | labor, and then leaving the broken carcass behind to pollute | the public roads because it's cheaper that way. They're awesome | when they're not thinly veiled ways of concentrating capital | put into a world in which people can't afford insulin because | that would cause some concentrated capital to be dispersed. | They're awesome when we're creating an awesome world, not when | we're sprinting towards dystopia. | | It's a cool toy, don't get me wrong, but I'm an adult now and | I'm aware I need to put my toys away myself because my mom | won't do it for me anymore. | paganel wrote: | Those e-scooters depress me, they're everywhere in my city. | aaron695 wrote: | chidog12 wrote: | I worked for this specific company, a couple years ago, as a | robot handler and operator. | | In situations like this it is possible for an operator to | manually organize the robots. | | Before I left we were making great strides to allow 1 operator to | be able to keep tabs on up to 5 robots at a time in certain | neighborhoods. | | Campuses, which are fully and thoroughly mapped, can probably | have 1, maybe 2 operators at a time. Just watching and | interjecting when issue arises. | vorpalhex wrote: | What was the limiting factor? Operator attention or actual | control/monitoring plane limitations? | chidog12 wrote: | The limiting factor was Operator attention and issues with an | environment. | | In a closed, mapped environment like a campus with minimal | street crossings. The robot can make its way to the | restaurant, get the delivery and make the delivery, with out | operator input or attention... even if people block the | robot, it can navigate around and interact. After a couple | failed attempts, it alerts an operator and then manual action | may occur. | | Some situations were a bit more complicated. I've had to | navigate 4 robots, all at street crossings with different | types of traffic. The safe thing to do is, take care of them | one at a time, even if a couple robots miss the light. | | Once a crossing light changes and things look safe, we would | just initiate the crossing. The robot can navigate on its | own. | teej wrote: | This sounds like a cool idea for a game. | dilippkumar wrote: | This sounds like a cool idea for a Twitch stream. I would | watch this. | | Bonus points if you hook up the robot's control to Twitch | chat, #TwitchPlaysPokemon style. | jayd16 wrote: | This is basically Lemmings. | kingcharles wrote: | Immediately reminded me of this old Game and Watch: | | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQZtdXLWHk8 | Melatonic wrote: | This is how I assumed the ones near me operate - they are | mostly independent and a live person takes over if it gets in | trouble or encounters a tough situations. I can imagine one | person being able to operate more than 5 if they have solid | pathing. | KaoruAoiShiho wrote: | Any investable public companies around this? | tim333 wrote: | Starship Tech seem private still | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starship_Technologies ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-02-18 23:00 UTC)