3 ms·
Your overall point is certainly valid, but there's no "dichotomy" there. I'd say "sidewalks are for people, not X" where X is pretty much anything that's not pe
by wrs 11mo ago
Your overall point is certainly valid, but there's no "dichotomy" there. I'd say "sidewalks are for people, not X" where X is pretty much anything that's not people (including scooters and bikes, even though there are people on them).
If those delivery drivers were parked on the sidewalk, it would be a different discussion. Or if the robots were in the bike lane, we'd be saying "bike lanes are for bikes, not robots".
- johnfn 11mo agoMy point is that you aren't simply pushing robots off the sidewalk and getting a better city. You have externalized the problem somewhere else. "Look, our streets are free of garbage", he says, dumping it all into the ocean...
- 1shooner 11mo agoBut isn't this whole concept externalizing the commercial micro-transit problem onto pedestrian-only right of way? The sidewalk is the ocean in this metaphor.
- wrs 11mo agoIt’s not clear to me there even is a “problem”. We did just fine before there were either robots or DoorDash drivers clogging up the road/sidewalk. (Admittedly DoorDash was very handy in 2020.) The problem is in allowing commercial interests to unilaterally clog public infrastructure.