San Francisco To Restrict Goods Delivery Robots (bbc.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

San Francisco To Restrict Goods Delivery Robots (bbc.com)

Posted by msmash on Thursday December 7, 2017 @04:40AM from the calculated-approach dept.

San Francisco officials have voted to restrict where delivery robots can go in the city, in a blow for the burgeoning industry. From a report: Start-ups will have to get permits to use such bots, which will be restricted to less crowded urban areas. Opponents are concerned about the safety of pedestrians, particularly elderly people and children. Walk San Francisco, a group that campaigns for pedestrian safety, wanted a complete ban. A range of companies have begun trialling small robots that can deliver food and other goods. They use sensors and lasers in a similar way to self-driving cars in order to navigate their routes. Robotics company Marble - which describes its machines as "friendly, neighbourhood robots" - began testing in San Francisco earlier this year.

114 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Well no surprise here... by yodleboy · 2017-12-07 04:44 · Score: 4, Funny

California, and SF in particular never came across something they couldn't restrict. Except wildfires apparently.
1. Re:Well no surprise here... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-07 04:50 · Score: 0
  
  oh, too soon =)
2. Re:Well no surprise here... by beachmike · 2017-12-07 04:50 · Score: 1, Troll
  
  Illegal aliens are one of the few things California and San Fran refuse to restrict.
3. Re:Well no surprise here... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-07 04:58 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  Illegal aliens are one of the few things California and San Fran refuse to restrict.
  So you're complaining that California and San Francisco are following the Constitution? States have no control over immigration, that's quite clearly spelled out as Federal Authority, not State or Municipal. In fact, it's quite well documented that the writers of the Constitution, not to mention those who wrote the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments were troubled for the potential for abuse that would cause, because even actual citizens could have their liberties constrained and impaired.
4. Re:Well no surprise here... by CajunArson · 2017-12-07 05:00 · Score: 0
  
  I hope that wherever you claimed to go to law school gave you a refund. Or at least publicly labeled you as ineligible to do anything other than work at a Starbucks.
  
  --
  AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
5. Re: Well no surprise here... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-07 05:08 · Score: 0
  
  California and more specifically the SF Bay Area invents most of the high technology you use. Whereâ(TM)s Apple, Intel, nVidia, AMD, Facebook, Twitter, Oracle headquartered?
  We also pay out far more than we get back from the federal government (unlike most of the red states). I believe over the last 30 years there has only been one or two years where California received more that it paid to the federal government.
6. Re:Well no surprise here... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-07 05:20 · Score: 0
  
  What the fuck are you talking about? The Dutch bought New York for some glass beads and a couple blankets. Maybe the Indians should have asked for a little more, but it was perfectly legal.
7. Re:Well no surprise here... by Waffle+Iron · 2017-12-07 05:27 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  What the fuck are you talking about? The Dutch bought New York for some glass beads and a couple blankets. Maybe the Indians should have asked for a little more, but it was perfectly legal.
  No, what the Dutch bought was access to New York.
  What happened is like if you went to Disney World and bought a day pass, then claimed that your ticket was a deed to the land and forcibly took over the whole park.
8. Re:Well no surprise here... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-07 05:30 · Score: 0
  
  Illegal aliens are one of the few things California and San Fran refuse to restrict.
  So you're complaining that California and San Francisco are following the Constitution? States have no control over immigration, that's quite clearly spelled out as Federal Authority, not State or Municipal. In fact, it's quite well documented that the writers of the Constitution, not to mention those who wrote the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments were troubled for the potential for abuse that would cause, because even actual citizens could have their liberties constrained and impaired.
  So, given the 2nd Amendment, states have no right to regulate guns then. Is that what you're saying?
  Or maybe you can point out in the Constitution where it's OK for a state to explicitly violate federal law, such as by refusing to turn over illegal immigrants to the federal government when the feds say to?
  Can you imagine what would happen to a white US citizen who had a gun and shot a woman in San Francisco?
9. Re:Well no surprise here... by CrimsonAvenger · 2017-12-07 05:47 · Score: 1
  
  The Dutch bought New York for some glass beads and a couple blankets. Maybe the Indians should have asked for a little more, but it was perfectly legal.
  Why? They got some glass beads that they could not make for any price, in exchange for a piece of land they didn't own.
  I'd call that a bargain, the best I'd ever had, if I'd managed to pull it off....
  
  --
  
  "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
10. Re:Well no surprise here... by jeff4747 · 2017-12-07 06:06 · Score: 0
  
  So, given the 2nd Amendment, states have no right to regulate guns then
  The well-regulated state militias referenced in the 2nd amendment were "well-regulated" by the states.
  
  Or maybe you can point out in the Constitution where it's OK for a state to explicitly violate federal law, such as by refusing to turn over illegal immigrants to the federal government when the feds say to?
  This is a lie, when it comes to "sanctuary cities".
  What happened before: States, counties and cities would hold suspected undocumented immigrants until the feds could determine if they were undocumented. This is actually constitutionally problematic, because the state, county or city has no right to enforce immigration law.
  What happens now: States counties and cities do not hold suspected undocumented immigrants, because they are not responsible for enforcing immigration law.
  If there is an actual federal warrant, then the state, county or city does hold the person and turn them over to the federal government.
  But the lie gets people like you riled up, so it's going to be shouted from the rooftops.
11. Re:Well no surprise here... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-07 06:31 · Score: 1
  
  I hope that wherever you claimed to go to law school gave you a refund. Or at least publicly labeled you as ineligible to do anything other than work at a Starbucks.
  Why do I need to go to Law School? I learned that in Civics Class in Middle School. I mean, they didn't get into the Passenger Cases, Henderson v. Mayor of New York, or the Chinese Exclusion Case, but really, they did point it out as a recognized Federal prerogative.
  If you want something different, change the Constitution.
12. Re:Well no surprise here... by Bryansix · 2017-12-07 07:31 · Score: 2
  
  Well regulated means well running. You have to understand the language as it existed at the time it was written. I know this is hard but is necessary. This is what is upheld by SCOTUS in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
13. Re:Well no surprise here... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-07 08:23 · Score: 0
  
  Illegal aliens are one of the few things California and San Fran refuse to restrict.
  So you're complaining that California and San Francisco are following the Constitution? States have no control over immigration, that's quite clearly spelled out as Federal Authority, not State or Municipal. In fact, it's quite well documented that the writers of the Constitution, not to mention those who wrote the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments were troubled for the potential for abuse that would cause, because even actual citizens could have their liberties constrained and impaired.
  So, given the 2nd Amendment, states have no right to regulate guns then. Is that what you're saying?
  There's no evidence of that in the text of the Second Amendment or the existing jurisprudence, unlike the matter of naturalization. In fact, several states expressly note their right to regulate guns in their constitutions, and I blame most of the conflict on the flawed text that is the Second Amendment.
  
  Or maybe you can point out in the Constitution where it's OK for a state to explicitly violate federal law, such as by refusing to turn over illegal immigrants to the federal government when the feds say to?
  If you can find the state officer violating federal law, you can see you way to charging them in court. Of course, the problem you'll have is that they aren't violating federal law, but instead, obeying it, since they were never served with a legally binding order, they are not federal officials, and are thus bound to refrain from acting as the Federal police absent the duly delegated authority to do so.
  You do realize that it's INS's fault for not getting an order from a court, right? They could have. They chose not to do so.
  Why is the Sheriff of San Francisco obligated to follow Federal officers who can't follow the law themselves? Are they planning on compensating him for the expenses of jailing an inmate? Immunizing him from claims of unlawful imprisonment? No?
  Then what are the state and local police officers supposed to do?
  
  Can you imagine what would happen to a white US citizen who had a gun and shot a woman in San Francisco?
  They'd get a fair trial, and the President of the United States would not be calling for a vindictive retribution that rested on a repudiation of one of the fundamental principles of American jurisprudence?
14. Re:Well no surprise here... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-07 09:32 · Score: 0
  
  Well regulated means well running. You have to understand the language as it existed at the time it was written. I know this is hard but is necessary. This is what is upheld by SCOTUS in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
  
  Sorry, but this recently manufactured interpretation is not evident in the actual document, or the contemporary practices of any of the state governments that used similar terms, and in fact, that Supreme Court opinion does not rely on the claim you are making. It would be shameful if they did, as bad a fraud as even Dred Scott.
  You should really not let yourself be so easily lead into dishonesty. Be more skeptical.
15. Re:Well no surprise here... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-07 13:00 · Score: 0
  
  As a limey/paddy hybrid that's married to a wop, fuck off. We don't want them.
16. Re:Well no surprise here... by jeff4747 · 2017-12-07 16:24 · Score: 1
  
  And they were well running due to what? Magic?
  Perhaps there were some rules being applied that made them will-running.
17. Re: Well no surprise here... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-07 17:06 · Score: 0
  
  Just wait until these robodorks move to your neck of the woods.
18. Re:Well no surprise here... by Green+Mountain+Bot · 2017-12-08 04:36 · Score: 1
  
  "I don't understand someone. Kill them!"
good job SF! by supernova87a · 2017-12-07 04:44 · Score: 4, Funny

One thing I love about SF supervisors and government offices! They focus on the important things that touch everyone, like food delivery robots. Not those pesky little problems that only affect a few people, like housing policies, transportation policies, tax policies. These are the things that matter, right on, good job!
1. Re:good job SF! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-07 05:13 · Score: 0
  
  Can delivery robots split lanes like motorcycles?
2. Re:good job SF! by david_thornley · 2017-12-07 05:34 · Score: 1
  
  You used the plural when referring to supervisors and government offices. This implies that there's more than one of each. This means that different people can focus on different things, and the government is not limited to dealing with the list of issues that have gotten under your particular skin.
  Given the current situation, is it wise to allow robots wander around busy streets without restriction? Or could there be possible undesirable consequences? How much experience do we have with these robots on busy streets?
  I think they were being forward-looking in allowing the use in less busy areas. Show us that that works, and the city will likely consider allowing the robots everywhere.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
3. Re:good job SF! by Dragonslicer · 2017-12-07 07:10 · Score: 1
  
  They just like going after the low-hanging fruit so that they claim to be doing their jobs.
  
  Housing and transportation are difficult problems to solve. Maybe they've assigned some experts to work on the difficult problems, who will take a couple years to come up with some potential plans. I wouldn't be surprised, though, if they just decided that the problems were too difficult to solve, so they won't bother trying.
  
  Did you notice that they went with the easiest possible response to the issue of delivery robots? They could have set up testing requirements or additional safety mechanisms so that the robots can't seriously injure pedestrians. Instead, the city just banned the robots and called it a day.
4. Re:good job SF! by TechyImmigrant · 2017-12-07 10:37 · Score: 1
  
  Can delivery robots split lanes like motorcycles?
  I imaging you would need a huge machine to split two lanes. The gap between the lanes would present a hazard to traffic. I think it's a bad idea all around.
  
  --
  I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
5. Re:good job SF! by BlueStrat · 2017-12-07 10:53 · Score: 1
  
  Housing and transportation are difficult problems to solve. Maybe they've assigned some experts to work on the difficult problems, who will take a couple years to come up with some potential plans. I wouldn't be surprised, though, if they just decided that the problems were too difficult to solve, so they won't bother trying.
  Welcome, Time Traveler!
  I see you are from a time long passed, when Califonia politicians, bureaucrats, and officials were, for the most part, simply petty, egotistical thieves, and not too bright.
  Today's leaders are simply using their positions any way they can to grow their fiefdom and thus the amount and value if the influence they can sell while on ideological crusades to further their party's agendas using any means they can get away with.
  Hopefully your time machine will allow you to escape back to your time. I just hope it doesn't need high-octane leaded gasoline or lack California state emissions standards certification.
  If you make it back, try to make them believe the chaos and corruption awaiting them that you've seen here.
  Vaya con Dios
  Strat
  
  --
  Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
Just keep them off the sidewalks by mspohr · 2017-12-07 04:50 · Score: 4, Insightful

Having a bunch of motorized wheeled vehicles driving around on the sidewalks is a bad idea. Even if they don't hit anyone, they will create congestion and confusion.
Confine them to the streets.

--
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
1. Re:Just keep them off the sidewalks by alvinrod · 2017-12-07 05:26 · Score: 1
  
  I think they would have to use the streets anyways as the sidewalks in parts of the city are full of tents or other makeshift dwellings for homeless people. Some of them would have no issues with stealing from delivery robots and there isn't a lot the police would do about it.
2. Re:Just keep them off the sidewalks by Kjella · 2017-12-07 05:34 · Score: 1
  
  Having a bunch of motorized wheeled vehicles driving around on the sidewalks is a bad idea. Even if they don't hit anyone, they will create congestion and confusion. Confine them to the streets.
  Any more than strollers, walkers, wheelchairs, bicycles, skateboards, rolling suitcases, beggars, street musicians and so on? I think this sounds like a really premature ban on something that might become a problem one day if they become popular and clog up the sidewalks during rush hour. I know our local hospital uses somewhat similar bots for internal medicine delivery, food delivery, laundry delivery etc. sharing corridors and elevators with patients and staff. It doesn't seem to be a problem for neither the deliveries nor everyone else. Granted it's a more controlled environment and you don't have people trapping or cow tipping them for shits and giggles, but maybe just see if that's an actual problem first?
  
  --
  Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
3. Re:Just keep them off the sidewalks by mspohr · 2017-12-07 05:39 · Score: 1
  
  I think the homeless would appreciate free deliveries of food from passing robots. Unfortunately, the robot pictured in the article looks like it would be difficult to get into without a crowbar. Probably need to outlaw crowbars.
  
  --
  I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
4. Re:Just keep them off the sidewalks by mspohr · 2017-12-07 05:47 · Score: 1
  
  I don't think it takes too much imagination to see these as a problem in cities. Good suggestion on "cow tipping". Some people may take this "solution" on their own initiative. Cow tipping and a crowbar could be a new path to unlimited free food.
  I believe that bicycles and skateboards are already banned in congested areas. Strollers, walkers, wheelchairs, rolling suitcases, beggars, and street musicians are legitimate pedestrian non-motorized activities (I think we need to give motorized wheelchairs a pass... they do have a real person in charge.)
  
  --
  I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
5. Re:Just keep them off the sidewalks by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-07 06:26 · Score: 0
  
  I think the homeless would appreciate free deliveries of food from passing robots. Unfortunately, the robot pictured in the article looks like it would be difficult to get into without a crowbar. Probably need to outlaw crowbars.
  It doesn't matter. Undocumented homeless immigrants will still be able to steal crowbars from federal agents and use them to threaten passing robots and "accidentally" damage them enough to relieve them of their contents. An SF jury will most certainly acquit any undocumented immigrant caught and tried, so that although possession of a crowbar might be illegal, it will still happen with no repercussions. This is SF after all, no crime matters when committed by a homeless or undocumented person...
6. Re:Just keep them off the sidewalks by psmoot · 2017-12-07 08:43 · Score: 1
  
  Let's see, a car vs. a delivery robot? I think the robot causes less congestion.
7. Re:Just keep them off the sidewalks by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-07 08:59 · Score: 0
  
  The problem is the delivery bots will spread the human feces around the city, thus increasing the Hepatitis A outbreak.
  And they dare to get offended if you call that place a shit-hole. I realize it's technically not a hole.
8. Re:Just keep them off the sidewalks by mspohr · 2017-12-07 09:44 · Score: 1
  
  Cars and trucks don't drive on the sidewalk.
  
  --
  I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
9. Re: Just keep them off the sidewalks by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-07 17:10 · Score: 0
  
  Logic doesn't work with these cretins. They're living in some vr robot dork world where some shitbox delivers gourmet hot pockets to their squalid basement "flat".
10. Re:Just keep them off the sidewalks by psmoot · 2017-12-08 05:11 · Score: 1
  
  True enough. I'd be inclined to put the robot on the street instead but that's just me.
  Thing is, the sidewalks in SF are often really crowded and a total mess. That seems the hardest place in the world to unleash a robot. If it were me, I'd start somewhere much easier to navigate. But maybe the two go hand in hand. You need lots of busy people who value convenience, are comfortable with technology, have the cash to pay for delivery, and are crowded together. Would Chicago be better? Boston and NYC are other choices but have similar challenges.
  But on a meta level, has this really been a problem yet? I don't hear news stories of people being flattened by errant delivery robots. Perhaps we could wait until there's a demonstrable problem before trying to solve it?
Congestion by Arzaboa · 2017-12-07 04:51 · Score: 1

Now that everyone on the streets seems to be an UBER driver, it takes forever to get anywhere in SF. With one person to a car, driving around aimlessly half of the time waiting for the fair that takes them home, the roads are completely packed.
Robots are sure to fix this when everyone buys a personal robot for driving and picking up food. Who needs to leave their house?
--
"Purple Rain, Purple Rain" - Prince
Illegal Aliens by beachmike · 2017-12-07 04:54 · Score: 1, Troll

If San Francisco really cared about public safety, they would ban illegal aliens instead of welcoming them as an illegal "sanctuary city." But NO, technological innovation such as delivery robots are what these liberal/progressive knuckleheads are focused on.
1. Re:Illegal Aliens by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-07 05:07 · Score: 0
  
  Who would do the shitwork if not for the illegal aliens? Are YOU gonna change my oil or cut my grass? No? Then fuck off with your sanctimony.
2. Re: Illegal Aliens by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-07 05:10 · Score: 0
  
  Crime in California has been reducing over the last 20 years except for last year which was a statistical fluke or Trump induced mania. If illegals were causing crime the crime rate would have gone up.
3. Re:Illegal Aliens by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-07 05:14 · Score: 0
  
  Won't ever happen. The people running the city have a taste for brown and round butts. White and blacks are not producing enough children, and the browns are producing lots and lots of nubile young boys that resonate strongly with the folks in government. Pretty soon the entire left coast will be brown and gay. oops it already is.
4. Re: Illegal Aliens by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-07 05:22 · Score: 0
  
  Umm, illegal aliens being in an area inherently increases the crime rate of that area just by them being there, because they're violating immigration and border control laws on an ongoing basis. Until they've been deported and prevented from re-entering the USA, these people are perpetually in a state of committing one or more crimes.
5. Re:Illegal Aliens by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-07 05:27 · Score: 0
  
  San Francisco locals are skilled at not getting raped or murdered by illegals. It mostly only happens to other people, so locals don't care. Locals do care about congratulating themselves for their shallow leftist morality though.
  So you see, other people getting raped and murdered doesn't affect them, while feeling good about themselves does effect them. That's how they make their choices.
6. Re: Illegal Aliens by david_thornley · 2017-12-07 05:36 · Score: 1
  
  There is a difference between committing a crime and breaking a law. Only certain specific laws cover criminal behavior. I'm not a lawyer, but I suspect you don't know which side immigration law is on, and likely didn't realize the distinction in the first place.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
7. Re:Illegal Aliens by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-07 05:40 · Score: 0
  
  Phoney Russia investigation is in taters, read it and weep, nerd:
  http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/12/07/wsj-editorial-board-calls-robert-mueller-step-fbi-agents-anti-trump-texts/
8. Re:Illegal Aliens by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-07 05:49 · Score: 0
  
  2017:
  Believing Breitbart for any reason whatsoever
  Pretending your IQ is above 75
  
  LOL
9. Re: Illegal Aliens by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-07 05:55 · Score: 0
  
  Illegal aliens are perpetually breaking the law and committing a crime every single moment they're in the country illegally. When they are in a given area, the crime rate of that area inherently increases because of the presence of these illegal aliens who are at all times in a state of law-breaking and criminality.
10. Re:Illegal Aliens by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-07 05:59 · Score: 0
  
  The article refers to the WSJ editorial board's call for Mueller to step down. Are you going to claim the WSJ is "fakenews" only read by low IQ people? Perhaps you should go back reading "top ten reasons it was HER turn!" lists on Buzzfeed.
11. Re:Illegal Aliens by Gravis+Zero · 2017-12-07 06:09 · Score: 1
  
  If San Francisco really cared about public safety, they would ban illegal aliens instead of welcoming them as an illegal "sanctuary city." But NO, technological innovation such as delivery robots are what these liberal/progressive knuckleheads are focused on.
  Typical know everything youngin'! It jerks like you that don't have to pay robot attack insurance that's ruining it for us old folks! ;)
  
  --
  Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
12. Re:Illegal Aliens by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-07 06:19 · Score: 0
  
  Pay me enough, and sure.
  Oh wait, what is that? You're too lazy to do it yourself and to cheap to pay somebody a livable wage to do it for you?
13. Re:Illegal Aliens by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-07 06:23 · Score: 0
  
  That whole Russia nonsense is probably the best sign that those who failed are the straw-grasping left.
14. Re: Illegal Aliens by slew · 2017-12-07 06:36 · Score: 1
  
  Illegal aliens are perpetually breaking the law and committing a crime every single moment they're in the country illegally. When they are in a given area, the crime rate of that area inherently increases because of the presence of these illegal aliens who are at all times in a state of law-breaking and criminality.
  Illegal aliens (aka undocumented immigrants) are perpetually breaking a *federal* law. They aren't breaking a *state* law or a *local* law. Although when people generally talk about crime statistics, they talk about breaking *state* laws (e.g., murder, theft, burglary), not federal immigration law (or even federal drug laws) or even *local* laws (e.g., parking tickets, loitering). But of course since this is /. we are free to make up whatever definitions suit our point, right?
15. Re: Illegal Aliens by mpercy · 2017-12-07 06:40 · Score: 1
  
  8 U.S. Code 1324 - Bringing in and harboring certain aliens
  (a) Criminal penalties
  (1)
  (A) Any person who—
  (i) knowing that a person is an alien, brings to or attempts to bring to the United States in any manner whatsoever such person at a place other than a designated port of entry or place other than as designated by the Commissioner, regardless of whether such alien has received prior official authorization to come to, enter, or reside in the United States and regardless of any future official action which may be taken with respect to such alien;
  (ii) knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, transports, or moves or attempts to transport or move such alien within the United States by means of transportation or otherwise, in furtherance of such violation of law;
  (iii) knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation;
  (iv) encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation of law; or
  (v)
  (I) engages in any conspiracy to commit any of the preceding acts, or
  (II) aids or abets the commission of any of the preceding acts,
  shall be punished as provided in subparagraph (B).
  (B) A person who violates subparagraph (A) shall, for each alien in respect to whom such a violation occurs—
  (i) in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(i) or (v)(I) or in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(ii), (iii), or (iv) in which the offense was done for the purpose of commercial advantage or private financial gain, be fined under title 18, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both;
  (ii) in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(ii), (iii), (iv), or (v)(II), be fined under title 18, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both;
  (iii) in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(i), (ii), (iii), (iv), or (v) during and in relation to which the person causes serious bodily injury (as defined in section 1365 of title 18) to, or places in jeopardy the life of, any person, be fined under title 18, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both; and
  (iv) in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(i), (ii), (iii), (iv), or (v) resulting in the death of any person, be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined under title 18, or both.
16. Re: Illegal Aliens by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-07 06:43 · Score: 0
  
  Crime is crime. Artificial categorizations like federal versus state versus local are irrelevant. All of those sum together to give the crime that will be experienced in a given area. Any area with a large number of illegal aliens will inherently have a higher crime rate until those illegal aliens are deported and prevented from returning, because they're perpetually in a state of committing crime by being in the country illegally.
17. Re: Illegal Aliens by mpercy · 2017-12-07 06:44 · Score: 1
  
  U.S. Attorneys Resources U.S. Attorneys' Manual Criminal Resource Manual CRM 1500-1999 Criminal Resource Manual 1901-1999
  1907. Title 8, U.S.C. 1324(a) Offenses
  Title 8, U.S.C. 1324(a) defines several distinct offenses related to aliens. Subsection 1324(a)(1)(i)-(v) prohibits alien smuggling, domestic transportation of unauthorized aliens, concealing or harboring unauthorized aliens, encouraging or inducing unauthorized aliens to enter the United States, and engaging in a conspiracy or aiding and abetting any of the preceding acts. Subsection 1324(a)(2) prohibits bringing or attempting to bring unauthorized aliens to the United States in any manner whatsoever, even at a designated port of entry. Subsection 1324(a)(3).
  Alien Smuggling -- Subsection 1324(a)(1)(A)(i) makes it an offense for any person who -- knowing that a person is an alien, to bring to or attempts to bring to the United States in any manner whatsoever such person at a place other than a designated port of entry or place other than as designated by the Commissioner, regardless of whether such alien has received prior official authorization to come to, enter, or reside in the United States and regardless of any future official action which may be taken with respect to such alien.
  Domestic Transporting -- Subsection 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii) makes it an offense for any person who -- knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, transports, or moves or attempts to transport or move such alien within the United States by means of transportation or otherwise, in furtherance of such violation of law.
  Harboring -- Subsection 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii) makes it an offense for any person who -- knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation.
  Encouraging/Inducing -- Subsection 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) makes it an offense for any person who -- encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation of law.
  Conspiracy/Aiding or Abetting -- Subsection 1324(a)(1)(A)(v) expressly makes it an offense to engage in a conspiracy to commit or aid or abet the commission of the foregoing offenses.
  Bringing Aliens to the United States -- Subsection 1324(a)(2) makes it an offense for any person who -- knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has not received prior authorization to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, to bring to or attempts to bring to the United States in any manner whatsoever, such alien, regardless of any official action which may later be taken with respect to such alien.
  The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA), enacted on September 30, 1996, added a new 8 U.S.C. 1324(a)(3)(A) which makes it an offense for any person, during any 12-month period, to knowingly hire at least 10 individuals with actual knowledge that these individuals are unauthorized aliens. See this Manual at 1908 (unlawful employment of aliens).
  Unit of Prosecution -- With regard to offenses defined in subsections 1324(a)(1)(A)(i)-(v), (alien smuggling, domestic transporting, harboring, encouraging/inducing, or conspiracy/aiding or abetting) each alien with respect to whom a violation occurs constitutes a unit of prosecution. Prior to enactment of the IIRIRA, the unit of prosecution for violations of 8 U.S.C. 1324(a)(2) was each transaction, regardless of the number of aliens involved. However, the unit of prosecution is now based on each alien in respect to whom a violation occurs.
  Knowledge -- Prosecutions for alien smuggling, 8 U.S.C. 1324(a)(1)(A)(i) require proof that defendant knew th
18. Re: Illegal Aliens by mpercy · 2017-12-07 06:47 · Score: 1
  
  8 U.S. Code 1325 - Improper entry by alien
  (a) Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection; misrepresentation and concealment of facts
  Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.
19. Re:Illegal Aliens by Rick+Schumann · 2017-12-07 06:57 · Score: 1
  
  You're clearly confused who is 'grasping at straws' right now.
20. Re:Illegal Aliens by Dragonslicer · 2017-12-07 07:15 · Score: 1
  
  If San Francisco really cared about public safety, they would ban illegal aliens
  [citation needed]
21. Re:Illegal Aliens by beachmike · 2017-12-07 07:33 · Score: 1
  
  Hey liberal/progressive knucklehead: There's no shortage of people willing to come the United States LEGALLY to do ANY type of legal work that needs to be done. Illegal aliens should be KICKED OUT of the United States. They don't belong here, which is why they are here ILLEGALLY. I realize this concept is beyond you. You don't understand the difference between a LEGAL RESIDENT and an ILLEGAL ALIEN.
22. Re:Illegal Aliens by CanHasDIY · 2017-12-07 08:43 · Score: 1
  
  Who would do the shitwork if not for the illegal aliens? Are YOU gonna change my oil or cut my grass?
  LOL, really?
  
  --
  An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
23. Re:Illegal Aliens by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-07 08:46 · Score: 0
  
  Mmmmm...taters!
24. Re:Illegal Aliens by CanHasDIY · 2017-12-07 08:51 · Score: 1
  
  If San Francisco really cared about public safety, they would ban illegal aliens
  [citation needed]
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
  
  --
  An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
25. Re:Illegal Aliens by Bryansix · 2017-12-07 09:16 · Score: 1
  
  Literally there is no shortage of people willing to make minimum wage. So are you proposing NOT to pay people minimum wage?
26. Re: Illegal Aliens by Bryansix · 2017-12-07 09:22 · Score: 1
  
  You need to control variables if you want to propose and test a hypothesis like this. See Freakonomics for allusions to the methods involved here. Namely, you would have to control for recent law changes at both the city and state levels that reduce punishment for crimes and release criminals early. Prior studies these guys have done point to reduced punishment as being directly correlated and most likely causative of increased crime. http://pricetheory.uchicago.ed...
27. Re:Illegal Aliens by mspohr · 2017-12-07 09:58 · Score: 1
  
  True. Lots of people would like to come the US legally. Unfortunately, the US has many arbitrary restrictions on immigration so most of the people who would like to come are prohibited.
  However, companies still want to hire immigrants to do all of the low wage work so they hire immigrants and don't ask too many questions about their legal status. The problem really boils down to companies breaking the law.
  
  --
  I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
28. Re: Illegal Aliens by slew · 2017-12-07 11:27 · Score: 1
  
  Crime is crime. Artificial categorizations like federal versus state versus local are irrelevant. All of those sum together to give the crime that will be experienced in a given area. Any area with a large number of illegal aliens will inherently have a higher crime rate until those illegal aliens are deported and prevented from returning, because they're perpetually in a state of committing crime by being in the country illegally.
  Of course you are free to slice statistics anyway you want on /., but when people talk about crime rate, they are generally talking about UCR (FBI uniform crime reporting) where they do not count the crime of immigration violation in the statistics.
  Similarly, there doesn't seem to be any correlation with the standard measurement of crime rate and the immigrant population (documented or undocumented).
  [citation offered] http://www.governing.com/gov-d...
  Besides crime rate doesn't count the continual state of committing a crime as more than one crime (the denominator rate is per capita/unit time). Even under your "crime-is-a-crime" measurement technique, one parking ticket every year and a continuous immigration violation would both count as one crime in the numerator and be divided by the population to add to the annual crime rate that year so it probably wouldn't move the needle much anyhow...
29. Re: Illegal Aliens by david_thornley · 2017-12-08 04:37 · Score: 1
  
  Thank you for this post, clearing up what I hadn't previously known. Your other two seemed to address crimes committed by anyone other than the illegal immigrant.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
30. Re: Illegal Aliens by Green+Mountain+Bot · 2017-12-08 04:39 · Score: 1
  
  Illegal aliens are perpetually breaking the law and committing a crime every single moment they're in the country illegally.
  Once again, "breaking the law" is not the same thing as "committing a crime". Immigration violations are CIVIL violations, not CRIMINAL violations. Breaking immigration law is not a criminal act.
31. Re: Illegal Aliens by mpercy · 2017-12-08 05:34 · Score: 1
  
  No the others represent crimes illegal aliens can also commit. "Anyone who...knowingly transports"...one illegal drives another known illegal around? "Anyone who....harbors"...one illegal rent a room to other illegals?
Obesity bots by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-07 05:00 · Score: 0

Bots delivering obesity is the future.
Nevermind the obvious problems by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-07 05:01 · Score: 0

You have an army of people literally shitting on your streets. So of course you’re worried about delivery robots instead.
San Francisco is way across the border that separates progressivism and insanity.
1. Re:Nevermind the obvious problems by jfdavis668 · 2017-12-07 05:15 · Score: 2
  
  They need some porta-potty robots.
Genius by Trailer+Trash · 2017-12-07 05:04 · Score: 1

âoeOpponents are concerned about the safety of pedestrians, particularly elderly people and children. Walk San Francisco, a group that campaigns for pedestrian safety, wanted a complete ban.â
Yeah, theyâ(TM)ll be much safer with UPS and fedex trucks driving around.

--
Do you have ESP?
1. Re:Genius by PCM2 · 2017-12-07 05:16 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, theyâ(TM)ll be much safer with UPS and fedex trucks driving around.
  Eh? UPS and FedEx trucks don't drive up onto the sidewalk.
  
  --
  Breakfast served all day!
2. Re:Genius by Trailer+Trash · 2017-12-07 08:45 · Score: 1
  
  And people never cross the street?
  
  --
  Do you have ESP?
3. Re: Genius by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-07 17:12 · Score: 0
  
  Dumbfuck.
They need urine/feces/squalor-cleaning robots. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-07 05:15 · Score: 0

If there's one thing that San Francisco really needs, it's robots that go around cleaning up all of the urine, feces, needles and squalor that hobos and other low-life scum leave all over the sidewalks there.
rich ppl in sf prefer to watch humans serve them by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-07 05:16 · Score: 0

what's the point of being a rich venture capitalist asshole if you can't lord it over some mexican peon?
Somewhere, Ned Ludd is smiling.. by h8sg8s · 2017-12-07 05:18 · Score: 1

Luddite
[luhd-ahyt]
noun
1.
a member of any of various bands of workers in England (1811–16) organized to destroy manufacturing machinery, under the belief that its use diminished employment.
2.
someone who is opposed or resistant to new technologies or technological change.

--
Organization? You must be joking..
1. Re:Somewhere, Ned Ludd is smiling.. by david_thornley · 2017-12-07 05:37 · Score: 1
  
  Yup, but Luddite is not a good term for a city that decided to allow potentially dangerous new things in less busy areas of the city.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Stupid idea by PCM2 · 2017-12-07 05:18 · Score: 1

Anybody who remembers "Segway will transform entire cities" (followed by ban) should have seen this coming.
Delivery robots are an idiotic idea anyway. Imagine I'm a disaffected teenager and I see a delivery robot coming down the sidewalk. List my options.

--
Breakfast served all day!
1. Re:Stupid idea by mspohr · 2017-12-07 05:51 · Score: 1
  
  1. Crowbar
  2. (there is no step 2)
  3. Profit!
  
  --
  I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
2. Re:Stupid idea by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-07 06:11 · Score: 1
  
  Imagine I'm a disaffected teenager and I see a delivery robot coming down the sidewalk. List my options.
  Being tasered on the balls if you get too close. Heh, that would be cool! heh, heh...
Delivery bots will be a boon to self-driving cars by trenobus · 2017-12-07 05:20 · Score: 3, Insightful

Delivery bots use much of the same hardware and software as self-driving cars, but have market pressures toward lower cost. If they are mass-produced, this will bring down the cost of self-driving cars to the point where even economy cars can be self-driving. Also the AI problem that delivery bots face is arguably more difficult than a self-driving car, in that pedestrian traffic is much less regulated. So they might also drive advances in machine learning from which self-driving cars will benefit.
On the other hand, if delivery bots start injuring a lot of people, the backlash may extend to self-driving cars as well.
But who'll protect the robots? by VeryFluffyBunny · 2017-12-07 05:35 · Score: 1

They may find that the robots will require protection from pedestrians. I can imagine irate people having been (almost) run over or shoved/scared out of the way might react somewhat aggressively towards a robot and any subsequent robots that they meet. After all, they're machines, not people with feelings and rights that can apologise and make amends.
I can also see municipalities being put under pressure to put up barriers to restrict their access to some areas. Not sure how that'd affect people who need to use mobility aids though.

--
Debate is a form of harassment. Do not question my truth.
1. Re:But who'll protect the robots? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-07 07:22 · Score: 0
  
  Put fur on them. There is a study that shows that people can't harm furry robots.
2. Re:But who'll protect the robots? by mentil · 2017-12-07 08:27 · Score: 1
  
  There will likely be a "how am I driving?" QR code on them. They will go at a low enough speed that they can stop on a dime, and will be coded to stop if it would collide with something. Even if it's not human, it IS illegal (property damage) to damage it (which has a camera and network connection.)
  
  --
  Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
Put on a Mexican flag. SFPD will look away by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-07 05:43 · Score: 0

Think of them illegal immigrant bots.
Just put a Mexican flag on them, and don't bother following any of the laws regarding their use. No registration, no license, nothing.
Then San Francisco will ignore them, even if they shoot white women.
yeah, I wouldn't want to share space... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-07 05:45 · Score: 0

I wouldn't want to share sidewalk space with robots. The sidewalk is for humans, all cars and bots need to be on the road. We need to protect the human space.
Re:Delivery bots will be a boon to self-driving ca by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-07 05:51 · Score: 0

> the AI problem that delivery bots face is arguably more difficult than a self driving car
Arguably not, because cars move at speeds that can cause death, unlike people and delivery bots.
Delivering by usual cars is not safe either by Max_W · 2017-12-07 05:54 · Score: 1

if not more dangerous. There are more than 1.25 million road traffic deaths globally each year: http://www.who.int/gho/road_sa... . Millions more are badly wounded.

SF chose a cheap conservative PR, instead of making a serious effort of ending this WW3 on roads.
1. Re:Delivering by usual cars is not safe either by jeff4747 · 2017-12-07 06:10 · Score: 2
  
  Yes, but we're used to those. This is new and therefore scary.
2. Re:Delivering by usual cars is not safe either by iggymanz · 2017-12-07 06:30 · Score: 1
  
  fallacy, what percent of cars are delivery cars? the deaths due to delivery cars are nearly zero.
3. Re:Delivering by usual cars is not safe either by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-07 07:24 · Score: 0
  
  What car is not a delivery car? I don't know a single car that was not used to deliver products from shop to home.
4. Re:Delivering by usual cars is not safe either by iggymanz · 2017-12-09 04:37 · Score: 1
  
  your insurance company would be delighted to tell you the difference between a car for personal transportation and one that is not. again, the percentage of cars used for purposes of commercial delivery is tiny.
Slightly used delivery robots for sale by Drunkulus · 2017-12-07 06:03 · Score: 1

Anyone want some nearly new robots or parts? These are "overstock demo" units. At these low, low prices, there's no warranty, and serial numbers have been removed for your convenience. We occasionally have self driving cars and parts, too!
Children and old people are safe by fustakrakich · 2017-12-07 06:06 · Score: 1

Everybody else better sleep with one eye open. We're the expendables.

--
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
1. Re:Children and old people are safe by WillAffleckUW · 2017-12-07 06:23 · Score: 1
  
  Pets. Hey, dog or coyote, cat or cougar, they're all meat for Soylent Red, right?
  
  --
  -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
2. Re:Children and old people are safe by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-07 07:01 · Score: 0
  
  Not only are dogs smarter than cats, they also taste better. So they say...
Friendly neighborhood robots with Lasers by WillAffleckUW · 2017-12-07 06:22 · Score: 1

Think about that.
Does nobody else ever write Dystopian SF?

--
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Orly? by slashmydots · 2017-12-07 06:45 · Score: 2

San Francisco? What if the robot is a transsexual gluten free vegetarian carbon neutral robot with a hipster beanie on its head and also has cupholders for Starbucks drinks?
1. Re:Orly? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-07 08:33 · Score: 0
  
  Then it'd be geofenced to the pink district.
Not ready for prime time by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-07 08:25 · Score: 0

It's unlikely that ANY of this stuff will go mainstream anytime soon, in some places, probably never. It just isn't practical, and probably never will be. Sorry, sci-fi nerds. When I think about the money that has been shoveled into this kind of shit, and how it could have been better used elsewhere, I cringe.
Much more so than you've outlined by RhettLivingston · 2017-12-07 09:28 · Score: 1

I predict that the future will include more self-driving vehicles designed to carry delivery bots than those designed to carry people. The bots will be taken to the delivery location by a vehicle, roll or walk off on their own to take the product to the door or even to the person, and return to the vehicle. People will even be able to receive deliveries in parks. You could be sitting in a park and order a meal to be delivered to your picnic table.
Workaround by thegreatbob · 2017-12-07 09:41 · Score: 1

Integrate a living creature, e.g. a rat, or even an insect, and it is then technically a cyborg. Cyborgs are not robots.

--
There is no XUL, only WebExtensions...
bicycles are vehicles by pereric · 2017-12-07 10:07 · Score: 1

Bicycles are legally classified as vehicles (but not motor vehicles), and should use normal traffic lanes on the street if no separate bicycle lane is available. Some local laws may allow cycling on the sidewalk, sometimes for minors only. It may also be allowed if the sidewalk is explicitly marked as a multi-use path, or is provided with a marked sidewalk-level bike lane. But normally bicycles are supposed to use the road.
What about dogs? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-07 12:21 · Score: 0

"Opponents are concerned about the safety of pedestrians, particularly elderly people and children."
The opponents forgot to mention dogs!!!
"Whatever you think of me, you should know he hates old people, children, and dogs."
TIn Cup
Concern by JThundley · 2017-12-07 14:02 · Score: 1

They're concerned about pedestrians? That's an even better reason to allow robots! Tell me, have you *ever* seen a UPS truck legally parked or stopped? Have you ever seen one obey the speed limit in residential areas? That shit is the real danger, people let their feelings get the best of them when there isn't a single person to blame and sue when something goes wrong.