'Our Streets Are Made For People': San Francisco Mulls Ban On Delivery Robots (theguardian.com) 219
Norman Yee, an American elected official in San Francisco, has recently proposed legislation that would prohibit autonomous delivery robots -- which includes those with a remote human operator -- on public streets in the city. In a statement provided to Recode, Yee said, "our streets and our sidewalks are made for people, not robots." He also worries that many delivery jobs would disappear. The proposed legislation is causing a headache for one high-tech startup in particular. The tech company is called Marble, which uses bots fitted with camera and ultrasonic sensors to deliver small packages and food within a one or two mile radius. The delivery robots themselves travel at a walking pace and use cameras and sensors to avoid pedestrians and navigate pavements. The Guardian reports: San Francisco police commander Robert O'Sullivan is in favor of the legislation, fearing the robots could harm children, the elderly, and those with limited mobility. "If hit by a car, they also have the potential of becoming a deadly projectile," he told a local TV station. Marble CEO Matt Delaney says these fears are unfounded. "We care that our robots are good citizens of the sidewalk," he says. "We've taken a lot of care from the ground up to consider their need to sense and intuit how people are going to react."
buggy whips (Score:5, Insightful)
We must stop the impending automobile revolution. It worry that many buggy whip manufacturing jobs may disappear. In addition, they startle the horses.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ford paid something like double the going wage - he wanted his pick of workers.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
By paying a living wage Ford ensured his employees could afford to buy the vehicles they were manufacturing / building / producing.
Yes, but that's not why he did it. He did it so that he could have his pick of workers. Sure, a monkey could do those jobs, but you need a monkey with a work ethic who wants to do those jobs right. And in order to attract that guy to your business instead of some other business (which would also like to hire him) it's worth it to spend a few more dollars so that you don't have to do things twice... especially when you're building something that can kill people if you get it wrong.
Re: buggy whips (Score:4, Insightful)
What is truly stupid here is that a self driving car is just a drone with a person in it. Why are they allowing Uber to test self driving cars, but have a problem with drones? Aren't they hey both going to clog the streets?
Re: buggy whips (Score:4, Insightful)
Our roads are made for people, not horses. We can deal with skateboards and unicycles and bicycles, but not your new fangled horse carriages.
Actually, in San Francisco our roads are made for cars, trucks, and buses ... AND bicycles, skateboards, unicycles, etc, none of which are allowed on sidewalks where the people are.
Re: (Score:2)
It's that way in most of California. I always have to tell people on bicycles to get off of the sidewalk.
This is what I like best about being a giant mutant. Even on a bicycle, nobody wants to run into me. Come get me fucker, I'll jump down your throat. I'm serious about my share of the sidewalk, and I'll only share it with the disabled.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Which is kind of wrong, In UK the average number of people killed by cyclists anywhere including on the roads is between 0 and 1 out of a population of 65 million.
Meanwhile motor vehicles kill several people per year on the 'sidewalks' (dozens?).
And so it begins (Score:2)
We must stop the impending automobile revolution. It worry that many buggy whip manufacturing jobs may disappear. In addition, they startle the horses.
It's like that, but will be bigger than that. This is the beginning of the long anti-robot prejudice and protectionism that will be a standard political talking point of the next two centuries.
I'm surprised (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
If you want to perform unnatural acts with a robot, I am sure SF will be at the vanguard. Using them for a productive purpose, on the other hand, really doesn't fit their model.
Re: (Score:3)
There are plenty of cheap and nutritious foods: lentils, beans, peas, carrots, beans, peanuts, potatoes, rice, noodles, chicken, etc.
There are plenty of online recipes: https://www.google.com/search?... [google.com]
Well, maybe you should consider moving out of "Silicone Valley" to some a place that matches your
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Not only is the diet you want needlessly expensive, you wouldn't be losing weight on it, and you'd probably be hurting yourself.
You do not need to spend a lot of money to lose weight. Pick one of the cheap bulk vegetables (cabbage, cauliflower, carrots, lentils, peas, broccoli, etc.), then add some of the other cheap foods for nutrients and variety.
Oh,
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Seems like a self-imposed problem. Move 50 miles to the central valley and you can live like a [relative] king on $50K, eat whatever you want, and have plenty of money left to visit Silicon Valley every weekend.
Re: (Score:2)
https://potatohack.com/ [potatohack.com]
Really. But chicken is cheap, I saw breasts going for $1.74/lb the other day.
Re: (Score:2)
I was born and have lived in Silicone Valley all my life.
Okay, but we're talking about San Francisco right now, not Los Angeles.
Who can turn a wafer into a glue? It's silent E!
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Then move out of there! I live in Mississippi and fresh/healthy food is dirt cheap here at farmer's markets.
Food is not expensive in SV. It is about the same as everywhere else. The only thing that is considerably more expensive than elsewhere is housing.
Re: (Score:2)
Food is not expensive in SV. It is about the same as everywhere else.
Not the same as San Francisco, then, where food is hella expensive.
Re: (Score:3)
Not the same as San Francisco, then, where food is hella expensive.
Staples cost the same in SF as they do anywhere else, especially if you order them from out of town. If you never cook, then you might get the idea that food is expensive, because SF restaurants are more expensive than restaurants most other places in California, due to overhead. Produce costs a little more, but there are actual logistic issues involved in bringing stuff into SF. You can always drive across a bridge to do your shopping. Or if you have room for a larder and a chest freezer then go shop at Ca
Re: (Score:2)
Milk is about $1.90 a gallon here in the flyover region.
How do prices for a gallon of milk in S.V. compare?
Re: (Score:2)
I live in Pennsylvania, dairy country, and milk is about $3.60 a gallon, roughly double what you said. Did you really mean to say a half gallon?
Re: (Score:2)
Not since the condom legislation. Now all the porno companies have moved out into other counties where such regulations do not exist.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know how old you are, but if your life has gotten to the point where you're bothered by the appearance of barely legal pornstars that are still too young to drink a beer but are old enough to get fucked on camera, maybe you need to take a long walk on the beach and reflect on things.
Re: (Score:2)
It's much easier to lose weight when you have a lot of it. Forget "anything that really burns calories", exercise isn't going to help much unless you want to spend four hours a day biking. Forget Atkins. Do count the calories. Have a carrot, some broccoli, lentils, onions... cheap! You can cook up some eggs in about five minutes, or just boil a bunch in advance. I'm 53 and have lost 70 lbs, putting me the category of "slightly overweight".
Put delivery robots on equal footing with pets (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
If they're as hazardous as pets, give them the same requirements.
That's probably difficult to measure. On one hand, they won't bite anyone. On the other hand, pets don't burst into flame when run over by a truck.
No (Score:5, Insightful)
The streets of San Francisco are not well designed by any perspective.
Correct (Score:5, Funny)
After many, many visits to SF, both walking and biking scores of miles all around the city - I would say the city was actually designed as a kind of massive DARPA challenge to see if someone can design a warbot robust enough to survive the most extreme conditions.
I would say if a robot could last a week wandering around various parts of SF, I would have no problem sending it into Syria or Afghanistan.
P.S. - Robot makers, if you value your product at all please for the love of God make it poop proof. You'll see.
Re: (Score:2)
The poop thing is no joke, I only occasionally go to SF, intentionally avoiding it for all the obvious reasons, but people (bums) crapping on the street is no small problem. That's what happens when you welcome bums and claim that being out of work and homeless makes you some sort of SJW hero.
Re:No (Score:5, Insightful)
Man, if you think San Francisco is bad for pedestrians, you don't ever want to visit Houston. Gigantic city, and it's like they exist in a time after the emergence of giant office towers and highrises, but before the invention of sidewalks. Twelve lane superhighways all over the city, with insufficient signage, so drivers always have to cut across five lanes of traffic to make their turn-off. Lines on the highway that you can't see during the day or if it rains. Few trees, so a brutal sun, glaring like an angry god, cooks flora and fauna except for three months out of the year. No state income tax, so the infrastructure is either brand new or falling to pieces. No in-between. Everything made on the cheap, because people just come here to make some money (or used to, before oil went to $50/barrel) and nobody puts roots down here willingly.
And the best part? Absolutely no zoning laws, so you'll have a lovely quiet little residential neighborhood with ugly faux-brutalist high-rises on the corner and a strip mall smack in the middle of the block.
Re: (Score:2)
You forgot the never-ending Houston smog that makes the SoCal atmosphere look pristine.
Re: (Score:2)
Honestly, I tried very hard to love Houston when we moved here (my wife got an appointment to Rice University, and I was contractually obligated to come along). The food is great and cheap. There's no snow. I live walking distance from Miiller Outdoor Theater so I can see everything from opera to zydeco for free. Top medical center. No state taxes (but they make up for it with high fees for everything) and we never h
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I've been told that if you try to ride a bicycle on the streets of Houston, passing drivers will throw things at you.
Re: (Score:2)
Twelve lane superhighways all over the city, with insufficient signage, so drivers always have to cut across five lanes of traffic to make their turn-off.
My phone came with an app that will tell me which lane I want to be in. All I have to do is tell it where I'm going. And it's free!
Anyway, Texas is not really suitable for human residence. You should know this by now. It is actually meant to be peopled exclusively by four-door, long-bed, diesel, dually pickups, but they still need humans to move them around.
Re: (Score:2)
Those apps are near useless in Houston. Trust me, I use them all the time and except for the broad strokes, they will not help you navigate the in-city highways and tollways in Houston.
Re: (Score:2)
Trust me, I use them all the time and except for the broad strokes, they will not help you navigate the in-city highways and tollways in Houston.
To me, Houston is just a ring-shaped freeway. I'm dimly aware that there's some kind of chaos in the center, but I don't go in there. Not that I've been in Texas in twenty years, but I don't see any reason to change my policy now.
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, I live approximately in the middle of that chaos.
Re: (Score:2)
This was the best advertising for moving to Houston that I have ever read. No zoning by laws so everything is more convenient, no state income tax. Thank you, I will go to visit this August.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, by all means visit Houston in August. Everyone in Houston is laughing at the thought of you visiting in August. Bring a sweater.
Re: (Score:2)
Here in Houston, they do that and then just call the four year-old superhighway a "frontage road" and that's that. Then, they'll do some curb-cutting so you can put a Dollar Store, a Taco Cabana, a dental center and a gun/vape shop off the side of the road, and you've
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with most of what you say, but I'd have to see a citation for this one. It's impossible to go from anywhere to anywhere else in Houston in 29 minutes. Except my wife. She can commute to Rice in about 10 minutes because all she has to do is ride her bike through Hermann Park.
As I've writ
Re: (Score:2)
Austin has some scenic parts. The Arboretum is kind of nice, the riverwalk area, there's some parks... But you're in the wrong part of Texas for nice.
I briefly visited all the major cities and a few of the lesser ones in Texas, and Austin is the only place I'd even consider living again, for less than literally a whole truckload of money.
Re: (Score:2)
That sounds like the chorus of a country song.
Re: (Score:2)
Now you've peaked my interest. We've driven up to San Antonio and Austin and it was pretty nice. I'd love to camp in some hill country, but we'll probably have to wait until October because of the weather. Can you make a recommendation for a weekend trip?
I kind of like the way East Texas looks. It reminds me of Hap & Leonard country. We've taken a few trips into Louisiana. Love Loui
Re: (Score:2)
I've gotten three (maybe four) really good ideas from that link. Thanks a lot, friend. Colorado Bend, Big Thicket and Padre Island look right up our alley. Even Inks Lake looks like a possibility.
Re:No (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't know who San Francisco streets are designed for, but it's certainly not people.
They were clearly designed for one thing only: Enabling Steve McQueen to take his Mustang GT airborne at each and every intersection.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: No (Score:2)
SF is certainly made for movies. And tourists.
If you think about it, tourism is the major obstacle in many large old cities around the world to creating better urban communities.
All these futuristic city projects you see, they won't happen until we learn to deal with tourists.
All these picturesque slums from the past that we call tourist attractions must give space to cities of the future.
Re: (Score:2)
SF is certainly made for movies. And tourists.
That's the thing, though. It isn't made for tourists. Sidewalks are broken and heaved, the public transportation system smells like urine, there's no fucking place to park whatsoever... It has tourists in spite of itself, not because of how it was made.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know who San Francisco streets are designed for,
That's easy: they were designed for a mix of pedestrian traffic and horse-drawn wagons. That's why cities like Boston or San Francisco are laid out differently than, say, Las Vegas, which pretty much came into being after the advent of cars. If you look at Las Vegas its street grid has a superficial resemblance to San Francisco's but there's a subtle but important difference: at any random point in that network you're closer on average to a major traffic artery with capacity to handle high speed, high vol
Re: (Score:2)
That's easy: they were designed for a mix of pedestrian traffic and horse-drawn wagons. That's why cities like Boston or San Francisco are laid out differently than, say, Las Vegas, which pretty much came into being after the advent of cars. If you look at Las Vegas its street grid has a superficial resemblance to San Francisco's but there's a subtle but important difference: at any random point in that network you're closer on average to a major traffic artery with capacity to handle high speed, high volume traffic than you would be in San Francisco. You can't expect a street network optimized for traffic moving at 10 mph
No, you didn't read my post. That explains some of the layout, but it sure doesn't explain the lousy street signage. Seriously, even Modesto does a much better job posting street signs that are easily visible, and crosswalk signs that are non-existent.
Re: (Score:2)
I did read your post. But street signage won't fix the fundamental problem that pedestrians and cars don't mix. Yes, you can make it worse with bad signage, but that won't fix the fundamental problem of an old city trying to mix heavy auto and pedestrian traffic, which is only going to get worse. You can make things better for cars, or better for pedestrians, but not both.
The only city I've ever been where it comes close to working is Manhattan, but that's because, purely for aesthetic reasons, they laid
Re: (Score:2)
You can make things better for cars, or better for pedestrians, but not both.
No, making better signs would be better for everyone.
Re: (Score:2)
Look at Market street. It's basically an accident waiting to happen for everyone.
Look at McAllister street. It's a popular biking spot, but it's an accident waiting to happen. It's definitely not the worst biking spot in the city, but it's one I can think of off the top of my head. I've nearly killed a few bikers there myself. I would have if my aim were better.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If you're too lazy to look up San Fran streets on Google Earth you simply don't need to even be on the internet.
The entirety of mankind's knowledge is at your fingertips - if you can't find a fucking citation on your own you don't belong on the internet and should reattach yourself to mommy's teat.
Let's remove the washing machines too (Score:2)
Re:Let's remove the washing machines too (Score:4, Insightful)
Displacing jobs? (Score:2)
I hate to say it -- because I'm against the idea of robots barreling around our sidewalks -- but has the city government stopped to ask itself just what problem this startup is trying to solve?
It seems like food delivery is already a well-solved problem ... unless, that is, your city becomes so expensive that no one can afford to live there on the kind of pay you get from a delivery job. Then maybe the robots become necessary.
If you think about it, nobody is going to commute two hours into San Francisco jus
Re: (Score:2)
I hate to say it -- because I'm against the idea of robots barreling around our sidewalks -- but has the city government stopped to ask itself just what problem this startup is trying to solve?
Do you want a world where every business idea has to be approved by the government? If the robots present some kind of danger or hazard to people then, sure, regulate to ensure safety. If the startup can make a profit in a safe way then the government should get out of the way. Banning new technology to protect jobs is the way of the Luddite.
It seems like food delivery is already a well-solved problem
And in the old days weaving to make fabric for clothes was well solved too. I'm not sure being a food delivery person is much more challenging or fun than operating
Re: (Score:2)
If the startup can make a profit in a safe way then the government should get out of the way.
True. Now, who defines the criteria for "safe"?
Re: (Score:2)
Of course they will. Heck, I would move two hours away, drive in and deliver food if it paid $50,000 an hour. It's just that some people in SF want to avoid paying that kind of money (the others would be on the receiving end of it, and therefore don't want robots).
Ruthless killers (Score:5, Funny)
San Francisco police commander Robert O'Sullivan is in favor of the legislation, fearing the robots could harm children, the elderly, and those with limited mobility.
That's obvious. Robots, being machines, have no empathy. Like any successful predator, they are going to first target those vulnerable individuals who get separated from the main herd, regardless of the reason.
Banning is the wrong thing for the elderly (Score:2)
Delivery robots would help the elderly and handicapped far more than they would hurt. Delivery services make life much easier when you have trouble leaving your home. I'm sure you can imagine how much easier using Amazon is than trying to travel to a couple of different stores when moving is tough. The same is true for food delivery and restaurants, pharmacies and medicines.
This reasoning seems to be simply a justification, not a well thought out and realistic concern.
Re: (Score:3)
Delivery services make life much easier when you have trouble leaving your home.
The thing is, it's not like anybody had any trouble getting food delivered before they invented robots. San Francisco is filled with delivery services ... for prepared meals, for groceries, for whatever you want. And when you add the fact that these robots each have a human to guide them around, it's hard to see what value they add.
Re: (Score:2)
The thing is, it's not like anybody had any trouble getting food delivered before they invented robots.
That argument applies to cars just as easily: Nobody had trouble getting from place to place before automobiles were invented. They walked, biked, rode in horse carriages or trains. People got to where they needed to be.
Cars also don't add value and should've been banned from the beginning. I mean, they're way more dangerous than these robots!
The reality is, until something has been tried, you don't really know its value. Most new things flop, but a few takes off. If you proactively ban all new things
Re: (Score:2)
Cars also don't add value and should've been banned from the beginning. I mean, they're way more dangerous than these robots!
Here's the thing, SF is the fucking poster child for PRT, but we can't have it because the automobile companies spent so much money promoting the car life.
Re: (Score:2)
San Francisco is filled with delivery services ... for prepared meals, for groceries, for whatever you want.
And what does the safety record look life for those services? If they're using motor vehicles they're going to be killing and injuring people at some rate. What's the safety record for the new robots look like in comparison?
And when you add the fact that these robots each have a human to guide them around, it's hard to see what value they add.
Whether they add value is not for government to worry about. Some business is apparently betting they can make money this way: if they can, there's value in it; if they can't, they'll make a loss and the robots will go away.
Techno nerd hypocrisy (Score:2)
Yes to the profits, but let the plebs elsewhere in the country take all the risks during the alpha stage.
Fight Progress (Score:2)
Politicians. (Score:2)
How about paraplegics with a cargo-wheelchair?
But besides joking, the streets were actually built for horses and buggys, not cars, so ban those.
Re: (Score:2)
But besides joking, the streets were actually built for horses and buggys, not cars, so ban those.
You would need a fucking winch to get a horse and buggy up many of the streets in San Francisco. This is not hyperbole; winching was a regular part of some stagecoach trails, including the one into Lake County where I currently live. Indeed, I live a stone's throw from the original stagecoach trail that brought people into Kelseyville from Hopland, and it definitely included some steep sections where at least in the rain, you'd have to break out the block and tackle.
WW3 on our streets (Score:2)
About million and a half is being killed in traffic accidents each year. Times more are badly wounded. These are the figures of the WW3. This is what going on on our streets.
At the same time the US bureaucracy, which is under influence of an automobile lobby, de-facto sabotages delivery by airborne drones or by robotized vehicles. And these are the solutions wh
Only the Gueardian (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I like the way that The Guardian reminds people that San Francisco is in America. More Slashdot submitters should take a clue from them, and remind people what obscure things are, or where they are, right in the summary.
The only problem with that is that San Francisco is one of the best-known cities on the planet. It's right up there with Tokyo or New York or London. By all means, remind people what obscure things are, but reminding people of where San Francisco is goes a bit beyond the call.
Re: (Score:2)
There are other San Franciscos in Guatemala, Honduras, etc.
Most obvious implication.... (Score:2)
Del Spooner says... (Score:2)
"Out of my way, canner!"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Politics in San Francisco is radioactive. Blaming it on a party is cute.
Really, if they want to say that "our streets are made for people," they should ban cars and allow robots.
Re: (Score:3)
Worried about robots harming the children and elderly? Stop worrying! Just buy Old Glory robot insurance, and you're covered.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Not explicitly, but "reducing labor costs" certainly is. And a good thing, too, or we'd all be subsistence farmers.
Re: More job-killing regulations (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My main processor is thousands of hand-wire-wrapped transistors on a table-sized circuit board.
Re: (Score:2)
My main processor is thousands of hand-wire-wrapped transistors on a table-sized circuit board.
Hah!
In 1975/6 our HS vocational electronics class built a basic computer with a 12-inch amber monitor, mostly using 7400-series 14-pin DIP logic I.C.s in sockets with wire-wrap terminals mounted on perforated board, and connected together with wire-wrap using a special little hand tool to make the turns uniform and with the right amount of tension gripping the terminal post.
We all had to learn how to use this hand wire-wrapping tool, as at the time, that had been a standard wiring method for electronic digi
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, teenage carpal-tunnel from wire-wrapping!
You could say I was among the first "teenage carpal-tunnel ninjas"! :D
Strat
Re: (Score:3)
When the minimum wage in San Francisco is $15/hour, many delivery jobs simply don't provide sufficient value to sustain the position.
A robot is a one-time sunk cost. plus maintenance and charging. But certainly less than wages and mandated benefits and employer contributions. The business can continue delivering food, and make a profit.
Ban robots. . . and the delivery jobs will not come back, delivery will, for the most part, end. Certainly, high-end "gourmet" delivery will be sustainable, but that's a s
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, we all make fun of Jersey until it's 10 degrees out and everyone is sitting in their warm car in NJ while the rest of us are standing in the cold.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Context, New Jersey. That's Fahrenheit. I could live in Wisconsin or something where it regularly goes below zero and which scale you use no longer matters - but not many people choose to do that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Great idea!
Of course, electricity is very dangerous, too. We need qualified attendants at recharge stations to perform the actual connection-charge-disconnection procedures for safety's sake. Hey! I know! We can employ all those unemployed STEM graduates as "certified automobile recharging engineers"!
Somebody call the White House!!
Strat