4 ms·
> I don't see how Prime Air is any less safe or efficient than sending thousands of five-ton metal boxes barreling down residential streets. Here's the differe
by 7Figures2Commas 13y ago
> I don't see how Prime Air is any less safe or efficient than sending thousands of five-ton metal boxes barreling down residential streets.
Here's the difference: there's a person directly controlling that five-ton metal box.
Even if you assume that a) the person behind the wheel of a delivery truck is arguably more fallible than a drone following a flight plan and b) a company operating a drone will have the same potential legal liabilities if the drone causes harm to property or an individual, you should not underestimate or ignore the comfort that being able to "blame" or hold a human being accountable provides.
> The response to Prime Air goes far beyond skepticism. It's incoherent, fanatical pessimism, and it's really dissapointing.
There are many commercial applications for drones that I don't see a whole lot of opposition to. These include agriculture, construction, mining and oil. Many if not most of these involve the use of drones in areas that are sparsely populated or where access is limited to authorized personnel.
The only thing that's incoherent and disappointing here is pretending that there's no difference between these "industrial" applications and applications that would inject drones into highly-populated areas, particularly those that are residential.
- JoeAltmaier 13y agoSuburban residential is very low-population-density, a few people per square mile, less during working hours. It wouldn't be hard to put a box next to your driveway where a copter could drop a package, and never get within a hundred feet of anybody. The real population density issue is downtown, during working hours. Even then folks are on the sidewalk or indoors. There's nobody on the roof for instance. Copters could drop a package into a chute, again without getting close to anybody.
- 7Figures2Commas 13y ago> Suburban residential is very low-population-density, a few people per square mile... It sounds like you're confusing "suburban residential" with "backwater rural." Census data[1] shows that there are a lot more people per square mile than you suggest. Even a small metropolitan area like Vernal, Utah, which has a population of just 25,224, has a population density of ~250 people per square mile. [1] http://www.census.gov/population/metro/files/CBSA%20Report%20Chapter%203%20Data.xls http://www.census.gov/population/metro/files/CBSA%20Report%2...
- ars_technician 13y agoYou do realize how big a square mile is, right? 250 people still leaves a lot of empty space.