2 ms·
True but cyclists have already established a precedent of taking over pedestrian paths without consequence, at least in the CA Bay Area
by Ferret7446 4mo ago
True but cyclists have already established a precedent of taking over pedestrian paths without consequence, at least in the CA Bay Area
- skywhopper 4mo agoWhat does this have to do with robots? What does a local government failure to provide cycling infrastructure have to do with private businesses co-opting public shared resources?
- Ferret7446 4mo agoThere is cycling infrastructure, the cyclists just choose to use pedestrian sidewalks. If cyclists infringing on pedestrian pathways isn't enforced, why should robots infringing on pedestrian pathways be enforced?
- crote 4mo agoIs there actual cycling infrastructure, or is it just a painted line on car infrastructure done in a way that only a suicidal person would use it? My country has great cycling infrastructure. I never see bikes on the sidewalk. There is a direct link between the two.
- Ferret7446 4mo agoIt doesn't really matter in this case. Even if we assume the lack of cycling infrastructure justifies cyclists taking over pedestrian paths, that must mean robots are also justified in taking over pedestrian paths since there is no dedicated infrastructure for robots.
- taybin 4mo agoNo it doesn’t. Laws and regulations aren’t equations and don’t need to be perfectly balanced. There is no QED here with your reasoning.
- kg 4mo agoPost you're replying to: "motorized vehicles" You: "cyclists" I don't get it. Can you explain why humans on bicycles are relevant to a discussion of motorized robots? Are you talking specifically about e-bike users scooting along on the sidewalk at 40mph or something?
- Ferret7446 4mo agoBecause cyclists violating pedestrian walkways isn't enforced, so robots violating pedestrian walkways not being enforced is at least the law being enforced consistently.