On the Safety of Mobile Robots Serving in Public Spaces

Abstract

Since 2014, a specific standard has been dedicated for the safety certification of personal care robots, which operate in close proximity to humans. These robots serve as information providers, object transporters, personal mobility carriers, and security patrollers. In this article, we point out the shortcomings concerning EN ISO 13482:2014, which encompasses guidelines regarding the safety and design of personal care robots. In particular, we argue that the current standard is not suitable for guaranteeing people's safety when these robots operate in public spaces. Specifically, the standard lacks requirements to protect pedestrians and bystanders. The guideline implicitly assumes that private spaces, such as households and offices, present the same hazards as in public spaces. We highlight the existence of at least three properties pertaining to robots’ use in public spaces. These properties include (1) crowds, (2) social norms and proxemics rules, and (3) people's misbehaviours. We discuss how these properties impact robots’ safety. This article aims to raise stakeholders’ awareness on individuals’ safety when robots are deployed in public spaces. This could be achieved by integrating the gaps present in EN ISO 13482:2014 or by creating a new dedicated standard.

An iterative regulatory process for robot governance

“…These sources include research articles, web pages, and product catalogs, retrieved from online academic databases and web search results on Google and Google Scholar. The findings resulting from this research indicated that standards governing robots in different domains could benefit from improvement in the broadest sense of the word and highlighted specific areas which may require further investigation Salvini et al, 2021).…”

“…6 Oftentimes, however, these standards are not enacted inclusively and lack representation of affected users. Therefore, developers may comply with legislation that does not frame these developments correctly (Fosch-Villaronga, 2016;Fosch-Villaronga and Virk, 2016;Salvini et al, 2021). However, this encourages us to rethink how we can best identify the need to regulate new technologies.…”

“…A “feeding robot,” for instance, may be composed of a robotic wheelchair, an industrial arm, and a feeding function (Herlant, 2018) and may be difficult to classify in existing laws and regulations that cover wheelchairs, industrial arms, but not such a complex cyber-physical system. Moreover, current standards (e.g., ISO 13482:2014 Personal Care Robots), laws (e.g., Medical Device Regulation, 2017b), and proposed regulations (e.g., AI Act, 2021) which are often technology-neutral are oftentimes enacted at a time when practices (if any) are at early stages of implementation and impacts are still unknown, often resulting in dissonances about their protected scope (Fosch-Villaronga, 2019; Winfield, 2019; Salvini et al, 2021). 3 Providing developers with legal information that may be outdated or unclear may do little to help them integrate these considerations into their R&D processes and may have ulteriorly adverse effects once their technologies are put to use in practice.…”

A Taxonomy of Factors Influencing Perceived Safety in Human–Robot Interaction

“…Although policymakers have started to point out psychological consequences of human-machine interactions, both the HRI literature and the safety standards lack a comprehensive investigation of perceived safety towards an enduring presence of robots sharing a common space with humans [80]. As an example, the European Parliament report [31] considered psychological consequences of HRI: "you (denoting users) are permitted to make use of a robot without risk or fear of physical or psychological harm" (p. 23).…”

Towards Next Generation Cleaning Tools: Factors Affecting Cleaning Robot Usage and Proxemic Behaviors Design

“…Last, in addition to the acceptance level and the effect of COVID-19, robot proxemic behaviors design is also of great importance, as cleaning robots usually operate near humans. Unlike physical safety, which simply requires the robot not to physically injure humans (Asimov, 2004), human mental safety and comfort demands more from the robot, as it requires not just collision-free robot motions, but also consideration and respect for social norms observed in human-human interaction (Salvini et al, 2021). Proxemics, first defined by Edward T. Hall as the physical and psychological distancing from others (Hall, 1966), is one of the most well investigated social norms in robot proxemic behaviors design (Sisbot et al, 2007;Scandolo & Fraichard, 2011).…”