Summary of the ‘Pavement Overload Campaign’ by Living Streets re the use of robot delivery ‘vehicles’ on pavements.
This summary was put together for York Disability Rights Forum Access Group by Adepemi Ibiyemi, volunteer with York Human Rights City Network. It refers to the national campaign Pavement Overload by Living Streets.
Why This Matters
- Pavements are essential infrastructure for disabled people. For wheelchair and mobility scooter users, people with sight loss, people using walking aids, and many others, a clear pavement is essential for getting around independently.
- Pavements are already difficult to navigate because of parked cars, bins, street furniture, uneven surfaces and blocked dropped kerbs. Delivery robots could add another unpredictable obstacle.
- Living Streets’ campaign highlights that delivery robots are already operating in several UK towns and cities, despite there not yet being legislation specifically permitting their use on pavements or clearly defining their legal status.
The Impact on Wheelchair and Mobility Aid Users
- A wheelchair user cannot simply step around an obstruction. Moving around a robot may require reversing, turning, finding a dropped kerb or taking a longer and potentially less safe route.
- Delivery robots and wheelchairs may both need to use dropped kerbs, creating situations where there is not enough room for both to pass safely.
- People using powered mobility aids may need more time and space to stop or change direction.
- The campaign includes the first-hand experience of wheelchair user Emily Green, who describes a delivery robot crashing into her wheelchair and a second robot later colliding with her. Although she was not physically injured, she described the experience as affecting her sense of personal autonomy and safety.
Damage to wheelchairs can have serious consequences
- For many people, a wheelchair is their only means of independent mobility.
- Wheelchairs can be expensive and repairs can take considerable time.
- Damage could therefore mean someone is temporarily unable to work, study, attend appointments, go shopping or participate in their community, etc.
- This is also significant for young wheelchair users, where loss of mobility can also affect access to education and wider independence.
People With Sight Loss Face Different Risks
- Delivery robots are low to the ground, potentially making them difficult to detect.
- Someone using a white cane or guide dog may not be able to anticipate a robot’s movement or know that it is blocking their route.
- Unexpected movement or changes in direction could create difficulties for people with sight loss and their guide dogs.
- This demonstrates why accessibility cannot be judged from the perspective of one type of pedestrian. Different impairments create different barriers.
Independence and Dignity
- The issue is not only about whether someone is physically injured.
- Being forced to stop, turn around, ask for assistance or change route can mean losing independence and dignity.
- Disabled people already must plan journeys around inaccessible pavements. Emily Green describes having to plan routes carefully as a wheelchair user, while also being unable to know in advance where robots are operating.
- A pavement that is technically open but unpredictable or difficult to navigate is not necessarily an accessible pavement.
The Wider Concerns – Lack of Clear Safeguards
- The campaign raises concerns about the lack of a clear national framework governing pavement delivery robots.
- Living Streets cites a Bristol City Council response stating that there had been no approval process, licences, permits or agreements, and no risk assessments or conditions for robot operation there.
- For disabled people, this raises an important question: who is responsible for making sure these machines are safe and accessible before they enter everyday walking routes?
The Need for A Voice
- Decisions about new technology should not be made without the people who will be most affected by it.
- Disabled people should be involved before widespread deployment, not consulted only after problems occur.
- People with lived experience can identify barriers that may not be obvious in technical assessments.
- Accessibility should be a requirement from the beginning, not something added afterwards.
Convenience Must Not Come at The Cost of Access
- Delivery robots may provide useful services, including helping people who have difficulty leaving home to shop. Living Streets acknowledges this potential benefit.
- However, convenience for some should not create additional barriers for others.
- Before expanding their use, decision-makers should consider – Who benefits? Who could be disadvantaged? Can everyone safely pass the robots? What happens when a robot blocks an accessible route? Who is responsible if someone is injured or mobility equipment is damaged?
The Bottom Line
For someone who can simply walk around an obstacle, a delivery robot may seem like a minor inconvenience. However, for a wheelchair user, mobility scooter user or person with sight loss, it can mean stopping, turning around, finding another route or needing help.
That is why this is not simply a debate about new technology. It is about whether disabled people can continue to use their local streets safely, independently and with dignity.
Disabled people’s access to public space should come before commercial convenience.