Hacker News Reader

Comment by neom | Hacker News Reader

Toronto expressly bans robots on it's sidewalks (granted, pending further review): https://cities-today.com/toronto-city-council-votes-to-ban-p...

Canada can be a hostile place for technology companies. I was involved in the robot delivery company in Toronto, the founder was so angry at Toronto he said F you Canada, picked up and moved the company to the states. Le sigh.

View on HN

> Toronto expressly bans robots on it's sidewalks

That's a good thing, they are just in the way (especially for people with disabilities). Sidewalks are for pedestrians, not robots.

Yeah this won't be popular with the "tech above all, progress at all costs" crowd, but I don't see how having unlicenced, unregulated, and unpredictable robots navigating sidewalks is a good thing

Banning is an overreaction though

I can absolutely understand it being frustrating when you work in the industry but I can see a ton of very valid concerns when it comes to robots on sidewalks. There are already a lot of accessibility concerns with these scooter companies that let people leave scooters wherever (blocking access for wheelchair or otherwise disabled folks), seems valid to me that you’d want to make sure those robots do not hinder other kinds of sidewalk transit.

I would trust a robot to be less obstructionist than randomly placed scooters by inconsiderate humans

Measure the width from one building, across the street, to the other. The vast majority of the space is taken up by land reserved for cars. Scooters are not the problem. The fact that cars are allowed sole domain of the vast majority of public spaces is.

The answer is 100% not to allow more 4 wheeled vehicles to take over the small amount of space the two/four legged individuals have left. I have 80% a mind to push every food carrying robot into the street where they belong when I see them coming by on a sidewalk making everyone leap out of the way to avoid their drunken careening.

You’ll hear no disagreement from me on that but I don’t see us anywhere near reimagining how we allocate road space. So absent some unexpected and dramatic shift, scooters/robots/whatever are still able to cause obstructions.

Yes but the cars’ use is sanctioned and by design, while scooters are taking up space meant for pedestrians and bikes. That can be reallocated but when it happens without any discussion or update to laws, it can upset people. But the difficulty is that a small startup can’t afford to fight political or legal battles, so it’s easier for them to just break some rules. Is that a good thing? Maybe.

"sanctioned and by design"

So is "qualified immunity". Yet it's still unjust.

Are you suggesting that a scooter user who is inconsiderate enough to not be willing to move the scooter two feet to avoid blocking a handicapped ramp would be willing to move it several feet to leave it in the street if the street were available?

Do you think scooter riders would even be on the sidewalk dodging trees and pedestrians if they could using the road safely?

This is about where they leave the scooters. Do you think they are going to leave them in the road? I think the ones that currently leave them as close as they can to the entrance to whatever building they are going to without regard to whether that blocks a handicapped ramp will, if they arrive by road, ride right up that handicapped ramp and leave the scooter the same place they leave it now.

I understand and respect the cities decision. I was frustrated that there was zero interest in compromise. There are many areas of the city that are "condo ville" 1000s of people in 4 cities blocks, and the width of the sidewalks in those particular areas are MASSIVE. You would have to deliberately impede someone, so that end: the robots are driven by humans, humans who are trained to absolutely under all circumstances make sure they are not impeding anyone or causing a problem as their primary focus, secondary focus is the delivery. We just needed somewhere to test, and the city wouldn't even have the conversation, and we asked and asked. That in particular is why I say "hostile".

It's worth noting that the ban is intended to be temporary. They want some more time to consider what the effects are [1] I get the idea, but I think it ends up being a bit ham-fisted. There's a compromise path that works for everyone.

The company I work for has hired a number of Canadians. There is a fair population of robotics companies and roboticists right around Toronto.

[1] https://www.therobotreport.com/toronto-city-council-votes-to...

If it was really intended to be temporary, it would have included a sunset clause.

Does anyone really think bills to ban something, even if temporary, are motivated by an honest desire for more time to "consider the effects" of something? Who is sitting around and doing this pondering? Does anyone's mind ever change?

It seems to me people have made a decision, and then if they can't gather the majority for a permanent ban they compromise on a temporary one.

> Does anyone really think [there is an] honest desire for more time to "consider the effects" of something?

Sometimes it might translate to: "We don't want to be the experimental guinea-pig, let someone else try first..."

"... So we honestly desire more time to consider the effects that will have happened to them."

Then they should say so :)

I can't speak to the general case, but in this specific case, the city has decided to basically punt and wait for the province's plan. Is the province being slow? Maybe.

https://www.ontariocanada.com/registry/view.do?postingId=390...

Not sure I understand. You’re raising a case in ON, distinct from the OP article discussing BC, right? Regardless, there are surely cases where one governing body delays a decision until action is taken by another governing body, or until a study is finished, or whatever. I’m talking about the claim that the delay is to give time for the issue to be “considered”.

Sorry, sircastor's message that you replied to was about Toronto/ON.

Oh gotcha, my mistake.

Sometimes, definitely. Other times it’s obstructionist.

Canada can also be a very friendly place for technology companies - see all the games dev studios that popped up in Montreal

For example these tax credits :

https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/scientific-...

are amazing.

I’m not familiar with Canadian regulations but isn’t there a debate right now about capital gains tax and its effects on venture capital and startups?

The thing I linked to is corporate tax credits, fwiw.

Not all tech companies are the same. Perhaps Canada is hostile to tech bros looking to socialize harms and risks and privatize profits.

That’s no bad thing in my book

sure that's one way of putting it. but the robots definitely get in the way of people, there's turmoil in SF because of robotaxis, and robotaxis have caused severe injuries. so - with that being the risk i would be ok with being a bit slow to the market to ensure that tech is in a better state.

like, you getting access to gmail beta as soon as it came out is a much different risk surface than a 4 ton metal thing going fast on the roads

lol, sounds like a good thing to me

Reply on news.ycombinator.com