Delivery robots in Finland have already passed the thousand-unit mark, turning small autonomous vehicles into an increasingly ordinary presence on pavements and streets. According to the Finnish Transport and Communications Agency (Traficom), more than 1,000 light automated delivery vehicles are operating in Finnish cities, and their number is expected to increase as services such as Uber Eats expand their use. Their spread is also creating a practical question for Finnish traffic law: how should machines without a driver share urban space with pedestrians, cyclists and cars?
Delivery robots in Finland have their own legal category
The machines are not simply being tolerated while regulators catch up. Finland has already created a specific legal category for them.
Under the Finnish Vehicles Act, they are known as light automatic goods transporters (kevyt automaattinen tavarankuljetin). They are defined as remotely controlled electric vehicles equipped with an automated driving system, with a maximum continuous motor power of 1 kilowatt and a structural speed of no more than 15 km/h. The definition is set out in Finland’s Vehicles Act
Traficom also imposes technical requirements covering brakes, lights, reflectors, signalling devices and control systems. A robot must be able to stop if it collides with a person or obstacle, leaves its intended operating area, develops a safety-related fault or receives a stop command. Traficom lists the requirements for light automatic goods transporters
The regulatory framework has developed alongside the technology. More detailed technical rules entered into force in 2024, and Traficom has continued reviewing requirements as the use of the machines expands. Traficom said the rules would need to be regularly reassessed as automated transport develops
On the pavement, pedestrians come first
The unusual part of the Finnish system becomes clearer when the robots reach the pavement.
Finnish traffic law explicitly allows light automatic goods transporters to use pavements. But this does not give them the same freedom of movement as pedestrians. The law requires them to give pedestrians unobstructed passage, exercise particular caution and adjust their speed so that they do not cause danger or inconvenience. Section 52 of Finland’s Road Traffic Act sets out these pavement rules
In other parts of the road network, they remain subject to the relevant traffic rules for vehicles, including rules on yielding. Yle reports that the robots must comply with traffic rules despite their unusual classification
This means that an apparently simple encounter between a pedestrian and a delivery robot is already legally structured. The machine is not merely expected to avoid a collision. On a pavement, the pedestrian has priority over the robot’s movement.
As fleets grow, these small interactions could become one of the most visible ways in which automated technology enters everyday urban life. The question is no longer only whether a robot can navigate a street, but whether it can recognise and respect the informal rhythms of a space still designed primarily around people.
The company remains responsible for the machine
There is no person sitting inside the robot who can immediately be identified as its driver. Responsibility therefore moves elsewhere.
According to Yle’s reporting based on information from Traficom, responsibility for delivery robots rests with the companies operating them, which are required to monitor their machines. Finland does not currently have a separate licensing system specifically for these operators.
That arrangement makes remote supervision an important part of the model. Legally, the absence of a driver on board does not mean the robot operates without a responsible actor behind it.
The Vehicles Act also imposes requirements concerning the condition and safety of the machines themselves. The legal framework therefore treats automated delivery as a regulated transport activity even if the vehicle looks very different from a conventional car, van or bicycle. Finland’s Vehicles Act includes specific provisions applying to light automatic goods transporters
The harder liability questions have barely been tested
What happens after a more complicated collision is less settled in practice.
Finnish police have told Yle that deliberately driving into a delivery robot could potentially constitute criminal damage. But more difficult situations, such as an automated vehicle making an error that contributes to an accident involving another road user, have so far attracted relatively little legal scrutiny.
The reason is straightforward: there have not yet been enough serious incidents to establish a clear pattern through court cases or enforcement practice. Yle notes that serious cases remain too rare to provide clear legal precedents
It is therefore important to distinguish between two questions. Finland already has rules defining what these machines are, where they can travel and how they must behave around pedestrians. What remains less developed is how existing principles of liability will work when an automated system, a remote operator and another road user all play a role in the same incident.
For now, the experiment is largely unfolding through ordinary encounters rather than courtrooms. With more than 1,000 delivery robots already in Finnish cities, however, those encounters are becoming increasingly common. The next stage of Finland’s automated delivery system may be determined not by whether the technology works, but by how smoothly machines can become another regulated user of streets that were built for humans.
