Food delivery robots are becoming an unlikely target on American sidewalks. These small, four-wheeled machines carry meals through city streets, but some people have been kicking them, tipping them over and recording the encounters for social media.
It’s easy to be curious about a robot bringing dinner to your door. Watching one steer through a busy neighborhood with a bag of food onboard is, in its own way, impressive. Still, the machines have also become a visible sign of how uneasy some people feel about artificial intelligence moving into everyday life.
In Philadelphia in late March 2026, an Uber Eats robot was kicked twice. The second kick reportedly sent it tumbling near a parking garage. The people involved eventually righted the machine, but the incident joined a growing collection of videos showing delivery robots being kicked or knocked over in cities including Los Angeles.
There’s something odd about seeing people take their frustration out on a machine that can’t argue back. Many of the robots move at walking speed, and some have digital eyes that make them look almost cartoonish. So what makes them such an easy target?
Some of the anger may have little to do with the robots themselves. For people worried about automation and their livelihoods, a machine rolling down the sidewalk can be a very visible reminder of work that might otherwise go to a person. Software can feel distant; a delivery robot is right there in the neighborhood.
For someone earning money through meal deliveries, each order handled by a robot could mean one fewer opportunity. Companies argue that automation can make deliveries more efficient, but workers may reasonably wonder what happens to their income as robot fleets grow.
That concern was at the center of a Philadelphia incident on Oct. 14. Police arrested Carolyn Marvin, a 78-year-old retired University of Pennsylvania professor, after she deliberately blocked an Uber Eats delivery robot. Marvin said she was protesting the replacement of human delivery workers with machines. Pennsylvania law requires delivery robots to yield to pedestrians in pedestrian areas. Her arrest followed her refusal to follow police instructions and brought attention to how people can protest the machines within the law.
Frustration over possible job losses is understandable. It doesn’t justify damaging someone else’s property, though. Companies bringing robots into neighborhoods should also recognize that some residents are already uneasy about automation.
Not every complaint is about employment. Sometimes the robots simply get in the way. In September 2026, video from Chicago showed at least a dozen Coco delivery robots gathered on a sidewalk near Lincoln Park. They appeared stuck as they tried to navigate around one another instead of getting on with their deliveries.
Coco said a deployment error caused several robots to reroute at once. The company said it resolved the issue within minutes and added safeguards to prevent a repeat. The scene may look funny at first glance. For someone using a wheelchair or otherwise needing a clear path, though, a sidewalk jam is a serious problem.
Other incidents have raised safety concerns. In May 2026, a delivery robot reportedly entered a crosswalk against the signal and was hit by a truck. The damaged robot continued moving afterward. It’s impressive that these machines can navigate busy streets at all, but if they can’t reliably handle crossings or stay clear of people, it’s fair to ask whether they’re ready for crowded sidewalks.
For most people, AI is something encountered through a phone or computer. A delivery robot makes the technology physical: it passes your apartment, waits at your crosswalk and shares the pavement you use every day. If someone is already worried about AI reshaping work and daily life, the robot can become a convenient focus for that frustration.
Social media can amplify the problem. A video of a robot being knocked over may attract a huge audience, and that attention could encourage copycat behavior. But viral clips can also make an uncommon event seem widespread.
In April 2026, Serve Robotics CEO Ali Kashani said the company had recorded mistreatment on fewer than 1% of roughly 100,000 trips. That figure reflects one company’s experience, not the entire industry. Even so, it offers some perspective: most deliveries apparently happen without anyone trying to topple the robot.
The companies are continuing to expand. Serve Robotics said it had deployed 2,000 robots by the end of 2025 and works with delivery platforms including Uber Eats and DoorDash. Coco and Avride are among the other companies pursuing growth.
The machines generally rely on cameras and sensors to navigate sidewalks and avoid obstacles. Customers follow a delivery through an app and unlock the robot’s compartment when it arrives. A robot handling a short trip could mean one less car on a crowded street, which is an appealing possibility. And when lunch shows up quickly, many customers may not mind what brought it.
But delivering food and making money from robot deliveries are two different things. Serve reported about $2.7 million in revenue for 2025 while also recording substantial losses. The companies are spending heavily to put robots on the street, and there’s no guarantee the business will become profitable soon. The machines still need maintenance, and people have to intervene when something goes wrong. Whether the savings will eventually outweigh those costs remains an open question.
City officials are also working through the rules. Glendale, California, approved a one-year pilot program in September 2026 that allows up to two delivery robot operators. The city requires companies to reach operating agreements before deploying robots on public streets and sidewalks.
Los Angeles is reviewing its own approach. In November 2025, the City Council called for an examination of existing delivery robot regulations, including their effects on pedestrian access and whether current rules adequately protect people using sidewalks.
Privacy is another issue. Delivery robots often use cameras to see where they’re going, which raises questions about what information they collect and how long companies keep it. Those details deserve clear answers. There are potentially useful applications, too: Coco Robotics has partnered with the accessibility app BlindSquare to share information about sidewalk obstacles and help people with visual impairments navigate more safely. That’s a worthwhile goal, provided the robots themselves don’t become obstacles.
If you come across a delivery robot, you’ll probably just walk around it and carry on. If one blocks your path or creates a safety problem, give it space rather than trying to move it. Look for the company’s name on the machine and report the issue to the operator. Some cities also accept reports about sidewalk obstructions through their 311 services.
If it’s safe to do so, note the location and time or take a photo. That may help the company identify the robot and investigate. Kicking it is a poor solution: deliberately damaging property can lead to criminal charges, even when that property has wheels and digital eyes.
There’s plenty to admire about a small machine making its way through a busy city with someone’s dinner. Faster deliveries and fewer car trips could be useful. But it’s also reasonable for people to worry about jobs, blocked sidewalks and how the technology behaves around pedestrians. Those aren’t minor concerns.
What’s less reassuring is that robots are appearing in greater numbers before cities and companies have settled basic questions. Who is responsible if one causes an accident? What happens if it blocks a wheelchair ramp? Companies should have clear answers before expanding their fleets. People who live in these neighborhoods should also have a say in how the machines are used. They’re the ones sharing the sidewalk.
