Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Virginia Becomes First State To Legalize Delivery Robots (recode.net)

Posted by BeauHD on from the get-off-my-lawn dept.

According to Recode, Virginia is the first state to pass legislation allowing delivery robots to operate on sidewalks and crosswalks across the state. The law (HB 2016) was signed by the governor last Friday and will go into effect on July 1. Recode reports: The two Virginia lawmakers who sponsored the bill, Ron Villanueva and Bill DeSteph, teamed up with Starship Technologies, an Estonian-based ground delivery robotics company, to draft the legislation. Robots operating under the new law won't be able to exceed 10 miles per hour or weigh over 50 pounds, but they will be allowed to rove autonomously. The law doesn't require robots to stay within line of sight of a person in control, but a person is required to at least remotely monitor the robot and take over if it goes awry. Robots are only allowed on streets in a crosswalk. Municipalities in the state are allowed to regulate how robots will operate locally, like if a city council wants to impose a stricter speed limit or keep them out entirely.

38 comments

  1. "...like if a city council wants to impose a..." by turkeydance · · Score: 2

    tax

  2. Statist thinking by x0ra · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Legalize" is merely new speak for "regulate". The USA is a free country. Law does not, and can't, "allow" you to do anything, it only can forbid and regulate you to do things. There is no blanket statement about not being allowed to do anything but certain things.

    That being said, this statist point of view is typical of the east coast.

    1. Re:Statist thinking by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 2

      The sidewalks are owned by the government. They get to decide what happens on them; end of story.

      If you don't like that, buy your own sidewalks.

    2. Re:Statist thinking by x0ra · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You obviously did *not* understand my point: law can only be repressive, not releasing / liberatory. By default, you have the Right to to everything you want, then come the law in its oppressive form. As such "legalize" is actually a negative term.

    3. Re:Statist thinking by Mycroft-X · · Score: 3, Insightful

      But you don't make laws that legalize something, you repeal or negate laws that prohibit it. I'm woefully unaware of state laws that make it illegal for machinery to safely operate in pedestrian right of way.

    4. Re:Statist thinking by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      I'm woefully unaware of state laws that make it illegal for machinery to safely operate in pedestrian right of way.

      Maybe not states, but many localities have laws that prohibit powered vehicles from using pedestrian walkways. This is what killed the Segway.

    5. Re: Statist thinking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      .....aside from it being really dorky.

    6. Re:Statist thinking by rtb61 · · Score: 2

      So when a robot and a person meet on the street who has to give way? If a robot wanders on to your property by mistake, can you claim salvage rights, for an out of control robot? If a group of people are on the footpath and the robot can not proceed without entering the roadway, not at a crossing or trespassing on private property, what do they do, force their way through? When the robot is hacked, do the robot operators face penalties for improperly securing the robot? What are the legal ramifications of a robot bumping a person and knocking them down? When a robot participates in a crime, is the operator liable for the full penalty of that crime, again, for failure to secure the robot?

      Remember this is not robots in controlled private places, this is robots out in public, quite capable of killing people, in one form or another. Think not, how about a bump timed with an approaching subway train, how about a bump with an approaching bus, how about transmission of contagion, how about delivering explosives etc. etc. Robots wandering on the streets allows criminals to distance themselves from the crimes they commit via those robots. How technically secure does a robot have to be, before it is allowed to wander around in public, keep in mind, https://it.slashdot.org/story/....

      So headline "Worlds Largest Botnet Adds 'Murder For Hire', Hack Of Delivery Robots, Delivering Death To Your Enemies Front Door". If I were a politician that made enemies of hackers I would ban those delivery bots because fuck, the corrupt politicians would be doomed. Just add https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... and this could get way out of hand real fast, keep in mind there is zero discussion about how those robots should be the most secure computers in the world. Teachers of the world should be terrified.

      I'll bet freaks in the CIA and NSA would be salivating at the possibilities.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    7. Re: Statist thinking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Living in VA, my initial thought was "cool, VA doesn't lag again!"

      But then this post made me initially think "luddite," but then thought, f me, he's got a point. There's just no way our public servants thought this through. No. F ing. Way.

    8. Re: Statist thinking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought the segway disappeared because it drove its inventor off a cliff just before he invented it.

    9. Re:Statist thinking by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 2

      By claiming that the laws which define property are "oppressive", you're taking unhinged libertarianism into new and uncharted territory.

    10. Re:Statist thinking by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      So when a robot and a person meet on the street who has to give way?

      An electric personal delivery device operated on a sidewalk or shared-use path or across a roadway on a crosswalk shall yield the right-of-way to any pedestrian.

      If a robot wanders on to your property by mistake, can you claim salvage rights, for an out of control robot?

      No. It's handled like any other piece of someone else's property.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    11. Re:Statist thinking by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      So if motorized vehicles were illegal on the sidewalk, and the law is changed to allow small autonomous motorized vehicles to legally operate on the sidewalk, this action that made a previously illegal activity legal is not legalization?

      I think the issue is that your dictionary is broken.

      --
      Learn to love Alaska
    12. Re:Statist thinking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are a fucking retard! Streets are public property, regulated by the state which represents the public.

    13. Re:Statist thinking by _Sharp'r_ · · Score: 2

      Sidewalks are owned by the property owner, typically, smaller roads are also. The property just has recorded against it a right-of-way for others to use the road and whatever that locality's legally mandated distance from the road is. As part of the right-of-way, people can drive over the road, walk along the edge, etc...

      Cities typically legally take over responsibility for the road portion (and the road is currently usually built and paid for by the land owner at some point), but while the sidewalk is a public location for freedom of speech purposes, for example, it's still generally the responsibility of the property owner. If you are the property owner, if you don't shovel your snow and someone slips, you get sued, not the city. If you don't keep the sidewalk in good enough condition to be used, you get fined, etc...

      So for the same reason you can drive without a license on your own private property, you can likely run robots across your property however you like, as long as they aren't violating some other law. Now, if you want to take advantage of the public right-of-way across someone else's property, that's a different story where you'll need to comply with the rules associated with that right-of-way.

      --
      The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
    14. Re:Statist thinking by dougdonovan · · Score: 1

      delivery robots to operate on sidewalks and crosswalks across the state...these aren't robots, these are humans that work for the federal governments. they dress ( you know, the 9-5 look w/ the shirt and tie and sport coat even when it is 100+ degrees outside ) and act like robots, they drive new and probably leased suv's and i'm sure they own nice homes in nice neighborhoods but yes, in fact, they are humans with skin, blood and bones and even in that order so you don't need to legalize them because they make the laws...

    15. Re: Statist thinking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The answer probably is 'depends.'

      My plat shows me owning to the centerline of the roads that border my property, with the county granted an easement off the center line.

      I'd presume that's not always the case, but for the properties I've owned in 3 States, it's always been like that.

      So the poster wasn't an idjit. You might be, but they're definitely not.

    16. Re:Statist thinking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anti-robot law won't help you here. If criminals want to use robots - as drug mules, or for delivering an IED to complete a hit - they will do so. They won't care that the robot is illegal and is not allowed on sidewalks. If the robot does its job before cops arrive, they're fine.

      A robot is also easy to disguise. See an RC car rolling along the sidewalk? You'd think its just an rc toy, controlled by a kid not far away. You wouldn't think of calling the cops - even if "pizza droids" are outlawed to protect existing delivery business. But it may be a robot transporting heroin or on its way to deliver a grenade under somebody's car.

    17. Re:Statist thinking by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      Odd, I just had about 8 of them pass me on the sidewalk in Waikiki yesterday. What "killed" them is price and practicality for most people.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    18. Re:Statist thinking by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      The answer to most of your questions are simple common sense...stay on your side of the sidewalk...if someone's baseball lands in your yard, is it yours? We don't need lawyers to write rules for every god damn nit. It's one of the reason why we're so twisted about the axle in the U.S.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    19. Re:Statist thinking by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      "Sidewalks are owned by the property owner..."

      It's better to check when you don't know what you're talking about.

      https://www.reference.com/gove...

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    20. Re: Statist thinking by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      And in some places, like my previous home, the neighborhood can have a mix of public and private roads. My old HOA had to bill the folks on private roads for snow removal...public roads were covered by our taxes.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    21. Re:Statist thinking by MrL0G1C · · Score: 1

      The sidewalks are owned by the government.

      Are they? I dont know about THE US but in the UK they are public and public owned.

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
    22. Re:Statist thinking by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 1

      Isn't that the same thing as I said?

    23. Re: Statist thinking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are already existing laws. No if someone crashes a bike into your lawn, you kot. It have salvage rights. Yes, it a remote control toy injuries someone, they are liable. Umm that covers it all.

    24. Re:Statist thinking by _Sharp'r_ · · Score: 1

      Your random unattributed internet reference is incorrect. Even where some cities incorrectly try to call possessing a right-of-way "owning" the sidewalk to people, in a legal sense, the property still belongs to the property owner. If you look at the actual recorded deeds and maps in the recorders office, it's very easy to see the distinction. Some cities explain the distinction between owning the property and owning a right-of-way to a portion of the property very well, others fairly well, and some cities not so well, indicating whoever wrote their stuff doesn't actually understand it. For example, Champaign's web site talks about "owning" the right-of-way "property", then a couple of paragraphs later about the responsibilities of the "property owner" in that right-of-way, not meaning them. :)

      The closer you get to an actual legal authority and real city or county recorders who deal with property descriptions, plat maps, easements and right-of-ways, the more you find people who actually understand the difference between the owner of the property and what a public right-of-way legally is. What it isn't is ownership of the property itself, it's the right to use the property for a specific purpose. So under various circumstances the property owner can recover the right-of-way from a city, profit from mining oil or minerals underneath it, etc... Pretty standard for a city street, the center of the right-of-way is the actual property line between property owners (they each own half the road) and the right-of-way extends 30 ft. in either direction.

      If you ask a random city employee, you may be told the city "owns" the sidewalk, but if you ask a non-profit which exists to give cities and counties legal advice, you're likely to get a much more accurate answer, including legal citations. Let's not even talk about clickbait web sites who exist to get searchers to land on random "articles" like reference.com.

      So yes, "It's better to check when you don't know what you're talking about." Wish more city website writers would check a little more thoroughly, but then, that's what lawyers are for, right? To be legally pedantic. ;)

      --
      The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
  3. Meh... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

    I welcome our new delivery robot overlords — one package at a time.

  4. On sidewalks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who the hell expects to deliver a baby on the sidewalk?

    1. Re: On sidewalks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you are a faggot

  5. Of course they regulate drone delivery... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What better way for the state where several gov agencies reside to tap into drone cameras? Undercover drones in the future? Gather as much biometric data as possible?

  6. Starbucks by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

    Yawn. Let me know when Starbucks drones can deliver a coffee to me in traffic. I don't like Starbucks, and I'd not want the drone landing on my car roof, but I'd try it once for the novelty.

    --
    Learn to love Alaska
  7. a legacy of the Segway crazy of 2001? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Back in 2001, the Segway was hyped, and all sorts of governments passed laws restricting their use. Those laws might also grab small, autonomous sidewalk vehicles. I figured that small, sidewalk autonomous vehicles were the energy efficient way to transport stuff like groceries, or laundromat stuff, instead of sending a full sized car. Of course, I didn't think computers, or wireless data were so cheap to make it profitable.

  8. robots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    available on ebay in 3, 2, 1....

  9. Where's trump when you need him? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All that talk about creating American jobs and meanwhile the robots in Virginia are about to put deliverymen out of work and they're going to either have to become coal miners or starve. Shouldn't this be considered a domestic threat of some sort?

  10. Regulatory Capture? by jdschulteis · · Score: 1

    The two Virginia lawmakers who sponsored the bill, Ron Villanueva and Bill DeSteph, teamed up with Starship Technologies, an Estonian-based ground delivery robotics company, to draft the legislation. Robots operating under the new law won't be able to exceed 10 miles per hour or weigh over 50 pounds,

    I can't help wondering if Starship Technologies' robots coincidentally have a top speed of 10 miles per hour, and their competitors have more capable robots that weigh substantially more than 50 pounds.