Fled isn't quite the right term. "Scarpered" is better.
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
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- 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.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
The robot tried to cross the street against a Don't Walk signal it should have obeyed. That behavior is a defect, which the manufacturer should be responsible for. Whether the robot "fled the scene" is only an issue if the robot is smart enough to recognize that it caused a problem, and left to avoid the consequences - which I srsly doubt. I mean if the robot were a live dog we wouldn't expect it to understand the situation enough to flee, we would assume it just ran off because it's a dog.
These techs are seemingly developed with minimal coordination between companies let alone governments. With serious effort and planning, this could've been avoided with software providing both real time info or direct link with the city traffic system.
Why did the robot cross the road?
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................................
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.
load more comments
(3 replies)
"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."
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(4 replies)
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.
Unfortunately we may be forced to remove all advertising from public spaces to make them safer to robots.
Fuck the robots. Remove advertising because it's a cancer on society, by all means, but any robot that can't deal with this kind of thing shouldn't be allowed on the streets.
Advertisement is just misappropriated space that could have been used for art.
load more comments
(7 replies)
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.
But also, remove bright ad boards...not for the robots though, but for the people.
and whoever decided it did needs to be made an example of. too many people are harmed by half baked autonomous shit every day.
load more comments
(3 replies)
Oh nooo the robot was blinded by traffic lights says the company.
WHAT THE ACTUAL FUCK.
It cannot be blinded. What an incredibly bold statement, unless they aim to go bankrupt soon anyway
load more comments
(8 replies)
It's not "the robot fled", it's "a company put a unsafe robot onto a public street and should not be allowed to operate them at least until they've proven that their robots are really safe and will not flee from further accidents"
We need to hold CEOs and board members criminally liable for the shit their corporations do. Watch all sorts of bullshit just clear off the map.
This is one of those times that government oversight should've been overbearing since it involves street use.
load more comments
(2 replies)
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.
What ass backwards timeline we're living in that we got Asimov's three laws on backwards? That a human being cannot harm a robot? 🤬
If you've ever actually read any of the books you'd know that using these laws as actual laws is a dumb move. The paradoxes caused by them are a pretty central theme.
load more comments
(3 replies)
load more comments
(9 replies)
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.
It's not that easy. Running the thing over is also dangerous for the people in the bus. The driver must decide.
load more comments
(1 replies)
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.
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.
load more comments
(4 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
The robot was heard yelling "Bite my shiny metal ass!" as it ran away.
load more comments
(1 replies)
So, a hit-and-run.
I think the legal principle of liability is that a company is fully liable for the damage that their products cause. "It was an automation" or "it was a robot" is not an excuse.
So, maybe the consequence should be the permanent cancellation of the driving license of the responsible persons? If nobody else, the CEO of that company?
They caused an accident and then fled the scene, jail time seems most appropriate for the CEO and everyone underneath him who agreed this robot was fit to be out and crossing roads.
load more comments
(5 replies)
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%
load more comments
(2 replies)
view more: next ›