4 ms·

It doesn't help that the drone community is full of people that do risky (not to themselves) stunts: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJgRuMXBHHI https://www.yo

It doesn't help that the drone community is full of people that do risky (not to themselves) stunts: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJgRuMXBHHI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJgRuMXBHHI

mindslight 6y ago
I'm not into drones myself so forgive me if I'm missing something obvious, but I'm a bit puzzled by all of these comments about safety. What exactly do you see as risky in that video? That drone is what, half a pound? It seems like the biggest risk is it hitting a pedestrian or cyclist (of which I did not see any), and could result in perhaps a single person needing to go the hospital. Meanwhile that video shows a bridge full of a hundred vehicles with one ton+ curb weights, driving at one another, piloted by what are most likely bored inattentive drivers. Due to the vehicle weights, there's extreme danger to pedestrians (over a hundred thousand causalities per year in the US, deemed acceptable). Due to the large difference between weight classes of vehicles, there's a significant risk to the passengers of those vehicles. And it's kept in line mostly by voluntary adherence to visual boundaries and an expectation that drivers will hit the breaks if the vehicles they're driving at change course.
- serf 6y ago
  >That drone is what, half a pound? It seems like the biggest risk is it hitting a pedestrian or cyclist (of which I did not see any), and could result in perhaps a single person needing to go the hospital. What happens when a half pound drone that's going 15+ kph hits an oncoming car windshield going many times that speed? >hundred vehicles with one ton+ curb weights, driving at one another, piloted by what are most likely bored inattentive drivers. what happens when you distract those drives with an aerial nuisance while they're trying to cross a bridge that offers no positive outcomes if the vehicle vector is changed? Things don't have to be universally safe to point out a safety flaw with a specific variable. Driving cars isn't safe, but doing something unsafe while compounded with distractions and possible bogeys is even more unsafe.
  - mindslight 6y ago
    > What happens when a half pound drone that's going 15+ kph hits an oncoming car windshield going many times that speed? My intuition says the drone would bounce off, being made of light material. In the worst case, it would crack the windshield and the driver would stop. > what happens when you distract those drives with an aerial nuisance Many people look at birds while driving with little notable effect. It feels like the distracting-traffic argument is really just a couching of the real gripe, which is more like "weird new thing bad". > Things don't have to be universally safe to point out a safety flaw with a specific variable Sure, but we can compare relative safety. It's a bit odd to pick on a slightly-unsafe activity due to its proximity to a much unsafer activity. In general anything involving an urban landscape is going to have traffic/buildings/infrastructure adjacent. And so if we go by a standard of possibly affecting those things, there would end up being no permission for anything new.
Ancapistani 6y ago
To be fair, those are some of the most skilled drone operators in the world, and you’ll notice that they never once flew over the roadway. I’m not excusing it, or saying there was no risk - but I will say that it’s not as risky as it seems at first glance.

It doesn't help that the drone community is full of people that do risky (not to themselves) stunts: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJgRuMXBHHI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJgRuMXBHHI

mindslight 6y ago

I'm not into drones myself so forgive me if I'm missing something obvious, but I'm a bit puzzled by all of these comments about safety. What exactly do you see as risky in that video? That drone is what, half a pound? It seems like the biggest risk is it hitting a pedestrian or cyclist (of which I did not see any), and could result in perhaps a single person needing to go the hospital. Meanwhile that video shows a bridge full of a hundred vehicles with one ton+ curb weights, driving at one another, piloted by what are most likely bored inattentive drivers. Due to the vehicle weights, there's extreme danger to pedestrians (over a hundred thousand causalities per year in the US, deemed acceptable). Due to the large difference between weight classes of vehicles, there's a significant risk to the passengers of those vehicles. And it's kept in line mostly by voluntary adherence to visual boundaries and an expectation that drivers will hit the breaks if the vehicles they're driving at change course.

serf 6y ago
>That drone is what, half a pound? It seems like the biggest risk is it hitting a pedestrian or cyclist (of which I did not see any), and could result in perhaps a single person needing to go the hospital. What happens when a half pound drone that's going 15+ kph hits an oncoming car windshield going many times that speed? >hundred vehicles with one ton+ curb weights, driving at one another, piloted by what are most likely bored inattentive drivers. what happens when you distract those drives with an aerial nuisance while they're trying to cross a bridge that offers no positive outcomes if the vehicle vector is changed? Things don't have to be universally safe to point out a safety flaw with a specific variable. Driving cars isn't safe, but doing something unsafe while compounded with distractions and possible bogeys is even more unsafe.
- mindslight 6y ago
  > What happens when a half pound drone that's going 15+ kph hits an oncoming car windshield going many times that speed? My intuition says the drone would bounce off, being made of light material. In the worst case, it would crack the windshield and the driver would stop. > what happens when you distract those drives with an aerial nuisance Many people look at birds while driving with little notable effect. It feels like the distracting-traffic argument is really just a couching of the real gripe, which is more like "weird new thing bad". > Things don't have to be universally safe to point out a safety flaw with a specific variable Sure, but we can compare relative safety. It's a bit odd to pick on a slightly-unsafe activity due to its proximity to a much unsafer activity. In general anything involving an urban landscape is going to have traffic/buildings/infrastructure adjacent. And so if we go by a standard of possibly affecting those things, there would end up being no permission for anything new.

Ancapistani 6y ago

To be fair, those are some of the most skilled drone operators in the world, and you’ll notice that they never once flew over the roadway. I’m not excusing it, or saying there was no risk - but I will say that it’s not as risky as it seems at first glance.