4 ms·

Now companies can start legally innovating in a way they should have been able to do for the last few years. There's risk to drones - and companies can buy ins

Now companies can start legally innovating in a way they should have been able to do for the last few years. There's risk to drones - and companies can buy insurance to cover themselves. If they make a mistake, don't have insurance, and cause harm, they can be sued. I wonder how long before the black market of remote drone operations companies shows up. Then the FAA will demand more regulation.

afarrell 10y ago
> they can be sued This only works in a world when you assume that the person in question has 1) Assets sufficient to cover the cost of their negligence. 2) Will not die to avoid liability. Given that the liability for aerospace accidents can be quite high and that many people can choose to die without loss of human life, these assumptions aren't very sturdy.
- fdgdasfadsf 10y ago
  This is not a reason to restrict drones. This is yet another reason to reform the concept of companies as legal persons that human persons can use to absolve themselves from responsibility.
- wonder_er 10y ago
  If someone made a bad choice, hurt someone, and was sued and had all of their assets taken from them, that would be a great motivation for everyone else to get insurance. Insurance companies, being eager to not pay out, would adjust their premiums based on the riskiness of the drone driver. Carrying heavy payloads above people? If you mess up, the insurance company could pay out many millions. Your costs go up accordingly. Carrying a camera above fields for crop imagery? Almost no insurance risk, tiny premiums. There's no way for _regulation_ to cover the massive potential drone market without relying entirely upon a Procrustian Bed [0] form of "responding to the market". [0] http://www.dictionary.com/browse/procrustean-bed http://www.dictionary.com/browse/procrustean-bed Oh, and re: #2, the person killing themselves to avoid liability - I doubt they'd be that swayed by regulation in the first place. They've got other problems than a lack of insurance.
  - TheCoelacanth 10y ago
    I think the "people" killing themselves are meant to be corporations.
  - fdgdasfadsf 10y ago
    Now we all understand understand point 2 (companies are legal persons which can be dissolved easily absolving smart company owners of responsibility) how much of the rest of this post should be reconsidered/retracted?

afarrell 10y ago

> they can be sued This only works in a world when you assume that the person in question has 1) Assets sufficient to cover the cost of their negligence. 2) Will not die to avoid liability. Given that the liability for aerospace accidents can be quite high and that many people can choose to die without loss of human life, these assumptions aren't very sturdy.

fdgdasfadsf 10y ago
This is not a reason to restrict drones. This is yet another reason to reform the concept of companies as legal persons that human persons can use to absolve themselves from responsibility.
wonder_er 10y ago
If someone made a bad choice, hurt someone, and was sued and had all of their assets taken from them, that would be a great motivation for everyone else to get insurance. Insurance companies, being eager to not pay out, would adjust their premiums based on the riskiness of the drone driver. Carrying heavy payloads above people? If you mess up, the insurance company could pay out many millions. Your costs go up accordingly. Carrying a camera above fields for crop imagery? Almost no insurance risk, tiny premiums. There's no way for _regulation_ to cover the massive potential drone market without relying entirely upon a Procrustian Bed [0] form of "responding to the market". [0] http://www.dictionary.com/browse/procrustean-bed http://www.dictionary.com/browse/procrustean-bed Oh, and re: #2, the person killing themselves to avoid liability - I doubt they'd be that swayed by regulation in the first place. They've got other problems than a lack of insurance.
- TheCoelacanth 10y ago
  I think the "people" killing themselves are meant to be corporations.
- fdgdasfadsf 10y ago
  Now we all understand understand point 2 (companies are legal persons which can be dissolved easily absolving smart company owners of responsibility) how much of the rest of this post should be reconsidered/retracted?