this post was submitted on 07 Nov 2026
559 points (98.6% liked)

Technology

89619 readers
2855 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] RampantParanoia2365@lemmy.world 49 points 3 days ago (3 children)

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................................

[–] LovableSidekick@lemmy.world 15 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Yes, the real issue is that it disobeyed a Don't Walk signal, which is clearly a defect for a robot allowed on public streets. People saying it "fled the scene" are just making noise.

[–] postmateDumbass@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Defense: But it wasn't walking, it was rolling.

[–] SkaveRat@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 2 days ago

They saw it rollin'. They hatin'

[–] LovableSidekick@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago

According to OP it was waltzing.

[–] anarchy79@lemmy.world 13 points 2 days ago (1 children)

"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."

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

I don't think the US law applies in Estonia.

[–] Taldan@lemmy.world -5 points 2 days ago (3 children)

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

[–] Tarambor@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

Guess it’s different because there were injuries in the bus, which I wouldn’t have expected from just braking

I would have. When you slam on your brakes what happens? You go forward in your seat. In your car you're restricted to how far you go by the seatbelt which locks to prevent you going too far. People travelling in buses tend to not wear seatbelts so they'd have flown forward and directly in front of their faces would be the metal bars of the row of seats in front.

[–] nimble@programming.dev 1 points 1 day ago

The video very clearly shows a collision.

[–] RampantParanoia2365@lemmy.world 12 points 2 days ago

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.