Robots to be Street Legal in Japan
Posted 28 Jan 2003 at 15:11 UTC by steve
Times article describes recent moves in Japan to deregulate the
cities of Fukuoka and Kitakyushu to allow robots to walk the streets.
Current radio interference and traffic regulations in Japan prevent
robots from moving freely about the streets. Allowing them to enter
public areas could help people grow accustomed to their presence and
help researchers test the robots outside of controlled lab environments.
Among other robot street-walkers, expect to see the Tmsuk
04. (Interestingly, Tmsuk's CEO notes that the Tmsuk 04 is capable of using a
gun - a handy survival tool on some streets.)
I was contemplating how much it would take for a robot to get a
driver's license, in order to drive legally in the USA, in Texas for
Such issues will be coming up in the future, as robots advance to where
they can drive a vehicle on the public roads.
Currently the laws tend to prohibit a robot from being able to drive.
But what if a robot could successfully take the written exam, and drive
a automobile or truck for the driving skills test with the driving test
person in the vehicle telling the robot what he/she wants it to do?
The article states:
"At present," he said, the Tmsuk 04 robot, which is already being
sold to research organizations for $45,000, "can pull the trigger of a
gun. Even if the first purchaser is a goodwill organization, if it sells
the robot to someone else and the second buyer is, say, a cult and has
some evil intention, it can be very dangerous."
A Basic Stamp and a relay "can pull the trigger of a gun" also. Sorry, I
just see this statement as ridiculous and it gets worse later when
Kobashi starts pining about government regulation as an answer to this
"We need some rule to be established to own a robot, like the
license system to own a car," he said.
I can see it now, Ted Kennedy and Rosie O' Donnell making the case that
the 'little people' shouldn't have armed robots.. Only the elite who
(ostensibly) 'deserve' them..
Considering that we can't even build a bot that's fractionally as
efficient as a legally blind and handicapped housekeeper, I think this
kind of talk is premature to say the least. (and bordering on delusional
to say the most)
When it can clean the windows and the shower, then we'll address the
"evil robot cults" and other such things..
Whither ED209 ?, posted 28 Jan 2003 at 22:27 UTC by motters »
I suppose there is a reasonable case to be made that perhaps one day a
terrorist or other loony could teleoperate an armed robot and cause
damage to persons or property whilst himself remaining concealed, but I
think this would be some way off in the future. Most terrorists
probably have a very low IQ anyway and so would be technically
incapable of carrying off such a venture.
Maybe in the future there will be robocops walking the streets bashing
"Stay out of trouble!"
Low IQ, posted 29 Jan 2003 at 16:11 UTC by earlwb »
Actually, the terorist with the brains gets it all working.
Then they have the suicide terrorist carry out the attack.
That way the guy with the brains is able to avoid getting caught.
On Sept 11 the terrorist pilots all appeared to have college degrees,
from upper middle class families and yet they still did the terorist
attack. Not a lot of low IQ there in that bunch.
So it is not impossible for them to do it, it is whether anyone can
stop them before they do it.
Besides telepresense is what the military really want. They want robots
to wage the battle while the soldiers controlling them are safe. Thus
you loose robots and not experienced soldiers. Plus autonomous robots
for mine sweeping, patrol, scouting, and big massive assaults will be
really popular. Throwing 100,000 autonomous war machines into a battle
against an enemy position is what the military wants to do. Maybe with
some command and control units, and your in business. None of our
soldiers get wasted in the battle.
Creating a teleoperated robot is no longer rocket science. Most
Journeyers and Masters here would know how to build one and plenty of
tips and hardware is available for less sophisticated people to do the
same. Some basic info is even on my web site's faq.
As a robot controller maker, this is one of my greatest paranoia.
Already one of our user has showed me pictures of a paintball gun-
equipped robot. Another was able to remote control his via internet,
with live video feedback. Add the two, put live amunition, and you can
create real trouble.
We should be very cautious of the potential danger of our science if
used by people with bad intentions.
I tend to agree, posted 31 Jan 2003 at 16:43 UTC by earlwb »
It seems that is a risk nowadays.
Some moron will put a firearm on a robot and have it shooting at things
But the legal ramifications in today's environment tend to mean that if
we supplied or helped a moron do this we may be legally liable for the
damages as well. Look at the flurry of lawsuits against firearms
manufacturers when guns have been used in crimes and murder. Or the
stores that sold the firearms legally (not counting the illegal sales
Could one get sued or goto to jail if their devices or modules or
designs or innocent help and assistance were used by a criminal in the
execution of a crime?