> Marvin, 78, said she's not sure how many times she's blocked the path of these robots, which hit the streets of Philadelphia in March. The University of Pennsylvania professor emeritus has made a practice of it to protest "corporations that displace human delivery workers in order to enrich their own bottom line." Her past encounters have circulated online. The Wednesday incident was the first time, however, that the police got involved.
> Officers approached Marvin after she'd been there "quite a long time," she said. They asked her to step aside and let the robot complete its delivery. When she repeatedly refused, they arrested her for disorderly conduct.
Good. I want delivery robots to be able to operate in public, I don't want people like Marvin to be blocking them because they disapprove of the concept of delivery robots or think it's bad that they're displacing human jobs, and I think that a disorderly conduct arrest is an eminently reasonable response from the criminal justice system.
> Marvin, who plans to contest the charge on the grounds of her First Amendment right to protest, has been undeterred by the arrest. She plans to continue blocking Uber Eats robots and chatting with curious passersby who ask what she's doing.
The first amendment doesn't and shouldn't protect interfering with reasonable delivery robot use of the public streets; indeed the law should protect the rights of operators of delivery robots to have their robots deliver items to customers without interference. The criminal justice system should absolutely incarcerate her if she publicly intends to continue interfering with delivery robots.
And what about the person's right to continue without being obstructed?
It's a standoff. She's literally just standing there. She doesn't move out of her way to let the robot pass - but neither does the robot move to let her pass!
So why should she be the only one arrested and incarcerated? Why not arrest the robot for the same crime?
Sidewalks are for humans to walk on, not dedicated travel corridors for commercial robots. If those robots can't play nice and yield to pedestrians, then they don't belong on the sidewalk.
The robot was absolutely free to go around her, I truly don't see how what she did was illegal. The next time my kids are out doing sidewalk chalk and the mail carrier walks by, should the kids be arrested for obstructing mail delivery?
If someone is bothering me, I don't care if they claim to be doing it in the name of a political protest or not, I just want them to stop. And if they don't stop then I want the criminal justice system to compel them to stop, if necessary with violence (the cops arresting someone is absolutely an act of violence, one that I completely approve of in many cases).
What about the robot's interfering with my ability to operate in public? Perhaps you've never been at an intersection where one of these things has either died in the middle of the road or is having some kind of malfunction and is inhibiting traffic or commerce. I don't see anyone saying the criminal justice system should incarcerate the CEO of Uber Eats for incalculable damages to society.
In before "there is a difference between a robot accidentally blocking traffic and this woman blocking the robot intentionally" - No the fuck there isn't. If these robots can't be even circumnavigate a stationary elderly woman, or act reliably then they don't belong on the streets and anyone who put them there is acting criminally and negligently about the risks and harms.
good for her. nonviolent obstruction of a commercial endeavor she opposes, much like a sit-in. whether you agree with her perspective or not I think it is important to support her ability to protest in this way, though (as she is well aware) it may come with consequences.
Part of the idea of protesting like this is to elicit arrest. That's what civil disobedience is. It's not a coherent protest strategy if you factor enforcement out!
I do this whenever possible. I honestly don't understand why these aren't constantly vandalized. I just wanna peacefully protest them like this ex prof, but there's plenty of folks out there who'd like a free meal that's rolling by in a beach cooler that stops when you stand in its way.
Cars occupy public spaces where more efficient modes of transport have already been mostly driven out, while delivery robots conquer additional public space.
Preventing this from happening, so we can have reliable robot delivery service, is the point of having an institution of police that can carry out disorderly conduct arrests.
Personally reliable robot delivery service is not a priority for me. Especially when these things already negatively impact the communities they are placed in, take up limited public space, are duel purpose domestic surveillance devices, and are in general an eye sore.
Is it not enough that we've blanketed the country in concrete and asphalt, we've also got to inundate our crosswalks and side walks with thousands of delivery robots and whatever else, and then give them deference? Where the hell are the people supposed to go?
I understand that the ideal human for capitalism is one that sits inside their $6000 a month 10'x10' unipod, never leaves and consumes non-stop, but this is not what I want out of life. I applaud anyone working against these efforts using non-violent protests.
Jaywalking only became a crime because of lobbying from automobile companies. Are you really surprised in who is getting criminalized here now with delivery bots?
Back in the day, I worked for some professors who fit that stereotype. Nice people who meant sort-of well, investing into popular causes that weren't quite just and didn't yield much results
They are fundamentally different from bicycles, but I agree they should not be allowed on sidewalks.
If you simply generally forbid cars from the city (with some exceptions), there would be plenty of room for delivery bots, pedestrians, sidewalk cafes, bicycles, etc.
I don’t agree with her stance, but it’s absurd to call standing in the sidewalk “disorderly conduct.” I hope the judge sees it that way too and dismisses the charge.
Amen, our fast food deliveries should only be made by humans with questionable immigration status in leased Priuses, and then only so efficiently that they forego bathroom breaks
I'm sympathetic to her cause; these robots are a waste of space, poorly designed and behaved - the ultimate bad neighbor as you walk down the street. I do believe that delivery robots are inevitable, and I welcome them when they come - but these are not that, and the combination of fees and fines should keep the current model off the streets.
Now that the cops have helped her get the message out, by arresting her, would a better approach be to go up to the robot, say "Hi, I'm giving these out for free today, if you don't want one, let me know," put a bag over the camera pod, and leave? It seems like her time is too valuable to waste actually blocking the robot.
You couldn't do that to a mute person, an infant or someone's pet, what makes you think it's legal. At least if it was a mute person you could try to claim you didn't know they were a mute, with a robot it's straightforward that you blinded it on purpose because you knew it couldn't respond.
Yes! Unless you truly believe mute people lack agency and the ability to communicate their feelings and wants as well as the rest of us, but this would be a sad position to take. I hope you don't really feel that way.
The infants and pets analogy is silly. Are you suggesting that if someone leaves their unattended infant or pet on the public sidewalk, the rest of are simply to skirt and ignore it? Since we can't be sure of the robot's intentions (it's behaving erratically, has it been hacked?), and the owner is nowhere to be found, disabling it seems like the safest thing for everyone, especially if there's automotive traffic nearby and it might wander off-course and cause a crash.
These things should not be allowed to use sidewalks. They are a disturbance and annoyance taking space away from humans walking, chatting, etc.
I don't think that saving delivery jobs is the main issue, these jobs didn't even exist a few years ago and their working conditions are anyway quite bad. It's a bigger social question why deliveries are getting so common nowadays across many countries including also different parts of Europe. I already find delivery scooters unseemly and they often drive recklessly. Ramping up this stuff even more will just lead to more social isolation, and with that conflict and generally low-trust societies.
I wonder if there is some kind of city tax on these robots. You certainly shouldn't be allowed to just put an unlimited number of these things on the sidewalks and push the negative externalities on everyone else. Same way you need permits for drones, which are also a visual pollution and potential constant privacy invasion. Cars on the road are already taxed, not sure about these.
>I wonder if there is some kind of city tax on these robots.
No, it's the state law that permits these robots. The operator obtains a permit from the state and as far as I can tell, if there are any costs they are in the permit itself, not in taxes on each unit.
It is fantastic that someone is defending the noble long-standing profession of Door Dash driver. Its long history and entry path for long careers in delivery driving are fundamental to the strong middle class of this country.
Let's continue this process and protest the use of other automation like commercial dishwashers and street sweeping trucks. After all, they are displacing vitally important jobs.
If a new part of this arrest is that the robots are considered to be pedestrians, I wonder what the police would do if the professor replayed the exact same circumstances with a friend in place of the robot?
Decide one of them is delivering something, run into each other at the exact same spot, and call the police to resolve it?
52 comments
[ 1.6 ms ] story [ 10.9 ms ] thread> Officers approached Marvin after she'd been there "quite a long time," she said. They asked her to step aside and let the robot complete its delivery. When she repeatedly refused, they arrested her for disorderly conduct.
Good. I want delivery robots to be able to operate in public, I don't want people like Marvin to be blocking them because they disapprove of the concept of delivery robots or think it's bad that they're displacing human jobs, and I think that a disorderly conduct arrest is an eminently reasonable response from the criminal justice system.
> Marvin, who plans to contest the charge on the grounds of her First Amendment right to protest, has been undeterred by the arrest. She plans to continue blocking Uber Eats robots and chatting with curious passersby who ask what she's doing.
The first amendment doesn't and shouldn't protect interfering with reasonable delivery robot use of the public streets; indeed the law should protect the rights of operators of delivery robots to have their robots deliver items to customers without interference. The criminal justice system should absolutely incarcerate her if she publicly intends to continue interfering with delivery robots.
It's a standoff. She's literally just standing there. She doesn't move out of her way to let the robot pass - but neither does the robot move to let her pass!
So why should she be the only one arrested and incarcerated? Why not arrest the robot for the same crime?
Sidewalks are for humans to walk on, not dedicated travel corridors for commercial robots. If those robots can't play nice and yield to pedestrians, then they don't belong on the sidewalk.
She admitted that her intention was to block the robot and she took actions in furtherance of that, and that she wasn't trying to pass the robot.
Depends, did they actually block mail delivery and did they do it on purpose in your hypothetical?
"I've got a terrible pain in the diodes all down my left side. Life, don't talk to me about life!"
In before "there is a difference between a robot accidentally blocking traffic and this woman blocking the robot intentionally" - No the fuck there isn't. If these robots can't be even circumnavigate a stationary elderly woman, or act reliably then they don't belong on the streets and anyone who put them there is acting criminally and negligently about the risks and harms.
If someone believes strongly enough to inconvenience others, they should be willing to show sincerity by paying fines or spending time in jail.
Just inconveniencing others without feeling some pain yourself is just selfish.
Is it not enough that we've blanketed the country in concrete and asphalt, we've also got to inundate our crosswalks and side walks with thousands of delivery robots and whatever else, and then give them deference? Where the hell are the people supposed to go?
I understand that the ideal human for capitalism is one that sits inside their $6000 a month 10'x10' unipod, never leaves and consumes non-stop, but this is not what I want out of life. I applaud anyone working against these efforts using non-violent protests.
If you simply generally forbid cars from the city (with some exceptions), there would be plenty of room for delivery bots, pedestrians, sidewalk cafes, bicycles, etc.
I mean, I could block a wheelchair user by standing in a cut-out, too. Is that OK?
https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/philadelphia/latest/ph...
It classifies a delivery robot as a pedestrian, so she was impeding pedestrian traffic.
You couldn't do that to a mute person, an infant or someone's pet, what makes you think it's legal. At least if it was a mute person you could try to claim you didn't know they were a mute, with a robot it's straightforward that you blinded it on purpose because you knew it couldn't respond.
The infants and pets analogy is silly. Are you suggesting that if someone leaves their unattended infant or pet on the public sidewalk, the rest of are simply to skirt and ignore it? Since we can't be sure of the robot's intentions (it's behaving erratically, has it been hacked?), and the owner is nowhere to be found, disabling it seems like the safest thing for everyone, especially if there's automotive traffic nearby and it might wander off-course and cause a crash.
I don't think that saving delivery jobs is the main issue, these jobs didn't even exist a few years ago and their working conditions are anyway quite bad. It's a bigger social question why deliveries are getting so common nowadays across many countries including also different parts of Europe. I already find delivery scooters unseemly and they often drive recklessly. Ramping up this stuff even more will just lead to more social isolation, and with that conflict and generally low-trust societies.
I wonder if there is some kind of city tax on these robots. You certainly shouldn't be allowed to just put an unlimited number of these things on the sidewalks and push the negative externalities on everyone else. Same way you need permits for drones, which are also a visual pollution and potential constant privacy invasion. Cars on the road are already taxed, not sure about these.
I suggest they should be tipped on their back.
This lady has my full support.
No, it's the state law that permits these robots. The operator obtains a permit from the state and as far as I can tell, if there are any costs they are in the permit itself, not in taxes on each unit.
Let's continue this process and protest the use of other automation like commercial dishwashers and street sweeping trucks. After all, they are displacing vitally important jobs.
Decide one of them is delivering something, run into each other at the exact same spot, and call the police to resolve it?
If I was sick at home, I would be very angry at that professor.