On the Safety of Mobile Robots Serving in Public Spaces
Identifying gaps in EN ISO 13482:2014 and calling for a new standard
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 8064256 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Pericle Salvini (0000-0001-9602-6085, corresponding author), Diego Páez-Granados (0000-0002-6143-1432), Aude Billard (0000-0002-7076-8010) |
| Year | 2021 |
| Volume | 10 |
| Issue | 3 |
| Pages | 1-27 |
| Publication date | 2021-07-11 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 2573-9522 • E-ISSN: 2573-9522 |
| Publisher | Association for Computing Machinery (PUBLISHER • US) |
| DOI | 10.1145/3442678 |
| OpenAlex | W3148967004 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 10 |
| References cited | 13 |
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
Architectural engineering · Business · Certification · Computer security · Crowds · Human–computer interaction · Internet privacy · Political science · Proxemics · Public space · Robot · Computer Science · Engineering · Ethics and Social Impacts of AI · Human-Automation Interaction and Safety · Social Robot Interaction and HRI · Artificial Intelligence · Law
A Systematic Review of the Definitions for Social Robots in Regulation and Its Implications for Researchers and Developers
Unprompted Touch with Touch Surface Characteristics
Do you feel safe with your robot? Factors influencing perceived safety in human-robot interaction based on subjective and objective measures
Science for Robot Policy
Accounting for Diversity in Robot Design, Testbeds, and Safety Standardization
A Taxonomy of Factors Influencing Perceived Safety in Human–Robot Interaction
Anticipatory policy design for robots in public spaces
Regulating sidewalk delivery robots as a disruptive new urban technology
How can ISO 13482
Sharing the Sidewalk
| Unique citing works | 10 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 2,5 |
| Citation span | 2022 - 2026 (5) |
| Citation velocity | current |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 9 |