As the spokesperson put it, the robot’s actions may legally constitute fleeing the scene of a traffic incident, meaning Starship Technologies could very well be on the hook for the incident.
I don’t understand. It darted into a moving bus regardless, even if it hadn’t fled. The bus sure as hell isn’t responsible…
“The fault lies with one of our subcontractors, one of the janitors is to blame, send him to prison. Anyway, we will keep doing business as we are a corporation and therefore a person and therefore none of us who own the company are at fault whatsoever.”
There was no actual collision
The injuries were from hitting the brakes. I’ve certainly has to brake for people and animals in the roadway before, never considered it an incident. Guess it’s different because there were injuries in the bus, which I wouldn’t have expected from just braking
Ok, but that’s still the robot’s fault. I’m sure the driver thought it was an animal or child at first. People don’t get to just wander into the road against a light.
The bigger issue here is 9 people being injured from a bus having to slam on the brakes
Seems like there is a safety review that should happen
Seriously, I don’t care what anyone says, busses should have seat belts.
We have them here in Scandinavia, and they’re technically mandatory. Nobody uses them but they’re there and encouraged to use.
deleted by creator
you know how to solve this in the most effective way?
same way we solve for gun violence.
arrest and charge the person who ordered the food.
I promise after the third time, people will stop ordering food from places that use these delivery bots, eventually the companies that support them will go out of business, and nobody will ever do this again.
is it ethical? no. is it morally dubious? absolutely. will it work? 100%
All this discussion about the safety of these bots. Has anyone considered that they’re only reading this story because this was an unusual event? If this was a normal thing, it wouldn’t be in the media.
Now consider how many more people would have been hurt by human drivers making tens of thousands of deliveries or more.
None of this deflects blame from the robot company, but we do tend to screech like monkeys over stories that are outliers. We’d never have read about this if a human driver was similarly blinded, or simply fucked up, and wrecked the bus.
You can’t just claim “Availability Heuristic” without providing any other evidence.
Additionally, a lot of people’s issue with these things is they’re operating in a legal gray zone. They’re using up pedestrian space for companies benefits.
Oh nooo the robot was blinded by traffic lights says the company.
WHAT THE ACTUAL FUCK.
Don’t shift the blame to bright ad boards or similar external factors. If the device can’t deal with it, it does not belong in that environment.
That’s the same reasoning that forced pedestrians out of basically every roadway
Have we considered modern urban design is terrible for pedestrians? Humans make this same mistake with regularity. We’re only able to cross roads at specific places and times that are solely designed around cars
But no, we’ll keep blaming all the people who get hit for it, as well as all the robots. Couldn’t possibly be bad design that neither humans nor robots can consistently safely cross
Hold upper management criminally liable
If a delivery robot can’t reliably distinguish traffic lights from advertising, it’s clearly not ready for public roads. Urban environments are unpredictable by nature, not exceptional circumstances. And a software failure could affect an entire fleet, not just one robot. Autonomous delivery may have real benefits, but public safety cannot become collateral damage in the race to automate everything.
Wheres the proof its not reliable? I think there’s about a hundred of them operating in the city since at least 2022 based on what I can see. So just based on the information here I’d have to assume each one causes an accident once every (100*365*(2026-2022)) = 146000 days which seems pretty okay to me, even if its a tenth of that.
There’s a substantial difference between mitigating for errors by human drivers and accepting a percentage of undesirable behaviour as part of a system run by logic.
I hope they told their bus drivers to not brake for those robots next time. If stopping in time means putting the passengers at risk of injury, run the damn clanker over.
Just asking for them to hit a runaway stroller they mistook for a delivery robot
In split second decisions, you don’t want to run the risk that the driver thought for a moment it’s a robot and not a small kid. Safety first. Let the robot go and sue the company.
Whomever allowed that robot outside is to blame. If they have grievances, they can sue whomever wrote the software or built the device. Keep sending the buck up until it reaches the top.
If i put a rock into traffic then it’s my fault. I see no difference.
The responsibility should lie with the company that decided the robot was safe enough to deploy. How it distributes liability among its developers, manufacturers and suppliers is its problem, not the public’s.
When it’s a criminal matter, the assigment of blame is absolutely a public matter. If you or I caused a car accident with irresponsible use of an RC car or a consumer drone, we would be facing criminal prosecution. The fact that no one is likely to face charges in this case is a huge failure of public policy.
💯 That’s an important distinction: Civil liability determines who pays for the damage, while criminal responsibility addresses whether someone’s negligence was serious enough to constitute a crime. And that question absolutely deserves public scrutiny. Automation must not become a shield against criminal accountability.
The robot was heard yelling “Bite my shiny metal ass!” as it ran away.
FREE Carolyn Marvin!
