Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Parents Upset After Their Boy Was 'Knocked Down and Run Over' By A Security Robot (abc7news.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the lawsuit-in-the-making dept.

An anonymous reader writes from a report via KGO-TV: PSA: Beware of dangerous security robots at the Stanford Shopping Center! After a young boy was "knocked down and run over" by one of the Stanford Shopping Center security robots, the boy's parents want to help prevent others from getting hurt. KGO-TV reports: "They said the machine is dangerous and fear another child will get hurt. Stanford Shopping Center's security robot stands 5' tall and weighs 300 pounds. It amuses shoppers of all ages, but last Thursday, 16-month-old Harwin Cheng had a frightening collision with the robot. 'The robot hit my son's head and he fell down facing down on the floor and the robot did not stop and it kept moving forward,' Harwin's mom Tiffany Teng said. Harwin's parents say the robot ran over his right foot, causing it to swell, but luckily the child didn't suffer any broken bones. Harwin also got a scrape on his leg from the incident." Teng said, "He was crying like crazy and he never cries. He seldom cries." They are concerned as to why the robot didn't detect Harwin. "Garage doors nowadays, we're just in a day in age where everything has some sort of a sensor," shopper Ashle Gerrard said. "Maybe they have to work out the sensors more. Maybe it stopped detecting or it could be buggy or something," shopper Ankur Sharma said. The parents said a security guard told them another child was hurt from the same robot just days before. They're hoping their story will help other parents be more careful the next time they're at the Stanford Shopping Center. The robots are designed by Knightscope and come equipped with self-navigation, infra-red cameras and microphones that can detect breaking glass to support security services.

6 of 255 comments (clear)

  1. Why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Why does a glass breaking sensor need to move? Why does it need to be 300 lbs.
    Such sensors are standard on home alarm systems and are small and cheap. Also they have pretty good range.
    Sounds like somebody just wanted to make a cheap thing into a very high markup item because "robot!"

    1. Re:Why by bjwest · · Score: 2, Interesting

      No, should probably shouldn't let your child run amock, but allowing your kid to walk without being tethered isn't a bad thing, ...

      It was in this case. I think the only concern for a parent is to keep their child safe from all hazards. Would you blame the escalator company or mall if you're in an unfamiliar mall and your child fell down the escalator you didn't know was five feet from you? I'm sorry, but there is no excuse for a toddler getting hurt in a mall that takes full blame away from the parent/guardian who's care that child is currently in. By all means, let your child run free and explore - in areas that are safe to do so, but do not take your child and allow it to wonder off while you're looking at the blingidy bling in the window.

      --

      --- Keep the choice with the user..
  2. Actually the robot worked perfectly by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It detected that he was Asian, so it didn't shoot.

  3. Not Kid Proof by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It seems the robot has a lidar sensor on the top and maybe another lidar or simple IR distance sensor midlevel about a 2.3ft above the ground. A little kid could walk beside it without the robot seeing the kid and the wide base could then easily run over something. Seems like it needs some low level bump sensors or maybe not run it in a crowded area.

  4. Re:The 3 laws of robotics ? by Jason+Levine · · Score: 4, Interesting

    As a parent (albeit one whose kids are older), little kids are surprisingly fast. One moment of distraction and your child can vanish. After two incidents with my youngest the same day - once when he decided to play hide & seek in a store (the laughing coat rack gave him away) and once when he walked off as we put his older brother's coat on (I followed him to see how far he'd go and finally just picked him up when he got halfway through the store without even looking back) - we decided to do something I thought was stupid pre-kids. We got one of those backpacks with a "leash" on it. (It was a monkey and the parent holds the long tail.) This let my son wander out of hand-holding range but still let us be sure that he was close by us.

    And while I'm on the subject of "special powers" little kids have, they can also reach things that you swear are completely out of their reach. My oldest proved this when he was able to get to the "completely out of the kids' reach" scissors and give himself a haircut as we bathed his brother.

    --
    My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
  5. Re:Bot manufacturer's press release here: by larryjoe · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The mom said, "The robot hit my son's head and he fell down - facing down - on the floor, and the robot did not stop and it kept moving forward." This is in direct contrast to what the robot company said, so one of the accounts is not accurate.

    The robot company also said, "The machine veered to the left to avoid the child, but the child ran backwards directly into the front quarter of the machine, at which point the machine stopped and the child fell on the ground." To make a statement about the orientation of the boy requires video (or at least some other electronic detection). Furthermore, the company said, "The machine’s sensors registered no vibration alert and the machine motors did not fault as they would when encountering an obstacle." So, there is some form of an electronic record of what the robot sensed.

    Did the parents or any other human claim to have seen the moment of impact? I don't read any direct claim of an eyewitness account.