Sidewalk Robot Backlash: Neighborhoods Push Back Against Autonomous Deliveries

The once-novel sight of sidewalk delivery robots navigating urban landscapes is increasingly giving way to frustration and organized opposition in communities across the country. What started as a charming curiosity for some, like the author in their Chicago neighborhood spotting cheerful pink "Coco" bots and their green "Serve Robotics" competitors, has evolved into a significant concern for residents facing daily encounters with these autonomous vehicles.

In Chicago's Lincoln Park, a growing movement is pushing back against the increasing presence of these delivery bots. Josh Robertson, a local resident, initiated a petition titled "No Sidewalk Bots" after experiencing unsettling interactions with the machines. The petition has garnered over 3,300 signatures, with a substantial portion of signatories reporting specific incidents. These reports detail issues such as robots running over feet—a Serve robot weighing 220 pounds with a 15-gallon capacity—near-collisions, disruptive noise, and blocked entryways. In one alarming case, an individual required stitches after stumbling into a robot's visibility flag.

Robertson articulates a core sentiment shared by many: "Sidewalks are for people. Vehicles, in general, should be in the streets." His petition has highlighted a significant undercurrent of discontent regarding these strategically designed autonomous vehicles.

The companies behind these robots, such as Coco and Serve Robotics, argue that their machines are more efficient for short-distance deliveries than traditional cars. Coco CEO Zach Rash and Serve Robotics CEO Ali Kashani emphasize the technological advancements enabling these robots, including powerful onboard computing, improved battery life, and robust supply chains for components. Coco aims to operate a global fleet of over 10,000 vehicles, while Serve has rapidly scaled its fleet from approximately 100 robots at the start of 2025 to 2,000 by December of the same year. Both companies envision a future where robots handle the bulk of last-mile deliveries, offering a cost-effective alternative to human couriers, with Serve projecting delivery costs as low as $1 per trip at scale.

However, the promise of efficiency and lower costs is being met with practical challenges on the ground. The author recounts a personal experience where a Serve robot, named Shima, forced them to navigate a precarious path around a snowdrift, highlighting potential accessibility issues, particularly for those with strollers or wagons. The appeal of tree-lined sidewalks, cherished for their vibrant community activity, is now under threat of being altered by the constant presence of these machines.

The history of delivery robots in urban environments is not without precedent. San Francisco, an early adopter, implemented restrictive policies in 2017, limiting companies to deploying just three robots per firm and mandating human chaperones. Despite these early hurdles, the business case for sidewalk delivery robots remains strong, driven by the booming delivery economy where a significant majority of restaurant orders are consumed off-premises. For eateries and delivery platforms, robots offer a solution to the unpredictability and costs associated with human labor.

The safety protocols of these robots are a key point of discussion. While companies like Coco and Serve emphasize their vehicles' ability to stop safely to avoid collisions, a stark reminder of the risks came when a high-speed train in Miami struck and destroyed a delivery robot stopped at a crossing. The author notes that while Coco's robots tend to drive more smoothly, potentially due to closer human oversight, Serve's robots, more reliant on lidar and AI, can exhibit a stilted, unpredictable movement that causes unease.

Coco states that it has operated in Chicago for over a year without major incidents, prioritizing safety and community partnerships. A Serve spokesperson affirmed their commitment to working with city officials and stakeholders for responsible deployments. Yet, the experience of navigating around a robot that jerks unpredictably offers little comfort to pedestrians.

In Chicago, robot deployment is currently part of a pilot program, with licenses set to expire in spring 2027. City aldermen are actively seeking constituent feedback as companies like Coco and Serve seek to expand their operations. Robertson advocates for an immediate halt to the program, urging a data-driven approach to assess the true impact of these robots on emissions and congestion, questioning whether they replace car trips or bike trips, or simply add to the overall number of street traversals.

Concerns about the long-term implications, including what author Cory Doctorow terms "enshittification"—the degradation of platforms for profit—are also being raised. As investors like OpenAI cofounder Sam Altman back these ventures, the potential for robots to become rolling advertisements, as seen with Serve robots displaying ads, signals a commercialization of public space. The author concludes by reflecting on the cold Chicago winter, admitting that while the robots faced operational challenges, their absence was not particularly missed, underscoring the growing sentiment that the novelty has worn off, replaced by practical concerns about the evolving use of public sidewalks.