4 ms·

People get knocked unconscious by baseballs. Should we license those too?

Klinky 11y ago
Is the skill level required to operate a baseball safely near a crowd the same as that of a drone?
Jtsummers 11y ago
Baseballs are not typically hit or thrown in the direction of unsuspecting individuals. If you're walking around a fairground you don't expect a quadcopter to land on your head.
- jMyles 11y ago
  You expect neither a baseball nor a copter. Either hitting you is offensive.
  - akerl_ 11y ago
    And when throwing baseballs into the air in crowded areas of folks not aware of flying baseballs becomes a frequent occurrence, we can look into ways to resolve that problem. Until then, lets focus on things that appear to be becoming a trend?
    - greggman 11y ago
      oh, because drones falling on people is a trend?
      - smtddr 11y ago
        This whole drone thing is new and people are flying them around crowds. So actually, yeah, the dangers of drones are a new trendy thing that does need to be looked at.
    - jMyles 11y ago
      It does happen - it happens all the time. Go to any reasonably sized college campus and FOIA their police and medical records and you'll find many instances of bystanders being injured by baseballs and frisbees every semester. However, students are by and large willing to put up with this side effect in order for the commons to still be a place to recreate. Precautions - for all sorts of flying things - is reasonable. And failing to take them is negligent and rightly bestows liability. But drones introduce nothing new in this respect.
- greggman 11y ago
  No they aren't just thrown, they are also hit, usually in unexpected directions. They hit people, they break windows, yet we don't ban them. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMmYIpmL48w https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMmYIpmL48w
  - Jtsummers 11y ago
    > No they aren't just thrown, they are also hit, usually in unexpected directions. They hit people, they break windows, yet we don't ban them. The post you responded to suggested restrictions [0]. Not bans. I said hit, along with thrown. Amusingly your video starts with a football being thrown. And most of these videos (haven't watched them all) are at sporting events or fields. The first ones are people standing on the sidelines of a football field not paying attention to the ball being thrown. It sucks they got hit, but that's not a spot to stand in and assume you'll be safe when the game or practice is going on. Most of the others seem to be spectators at games. They're in an area where they know this is a risk. That's the difference compared to drones flying over crowds. If the crowds don't realize it's overhead or expect it to be overhead that they can't even prepare for it to fall on them. EDIT: [0] However, it's my understanding that most of these incidents involving drones fall under the same rules/laws that already exist for model aircraft. I haven't researched this, just trusting my model airplane operating friends. So restrictions are probably already in place that should (if enforced or operators are responsible) reduce the risk to all involved. The problem is that, unlike model airplane operators, many of these new wave of operators are coming into on their own without the benefit of mentorship from the broader community to guide them. EDIT: https://www.faa.gov/uas/model_aircraft/ https://www.faa.gov/uas/model_aircraft/ Rules are already in place. That it's a copter or popularly viewed as a drone and not a model aircraft doesn't really change things. Hobbyists shouldn't be operating these around crowds. It's reckless.
    - simoncion 11y ago
      It's a damn shame that folks who are selling RC or autonomous *copters aren't also pushing hard for the drone purchasers to invest in an AMA [0] membership and become acquainted with the local model aircraft club. When I was growing up, the hobby shops in town wouldn't sell you a plane, copter, or kit for the same without verifying that you were an AMA member. [1] They understood that planes and copters can be quite dangerous in untrained hands. [0] http://www.modelaircraft.org/ http://www.modelaircraft.org/ [1] Not because they were required to, mind, but because it was a sound idea.
autokad 11y ago
your analogy would only make sense if you were hitting a baseball toward a crowd and surprised it hit someone
beedogs 11y ago
What a terrible, terrible analogy.
- greggman 11y ago
  Why? In both cases someone was negligent. Seems like the same laws should cover both. If I hit a ball into someone's head and give them a concussion why is that different than if I drop a drone on someone's head and give them a concussion? It seems like there's nothing special about the drone case. It's the same as the ball case. Same laws, same repercussions, same responsibility. Am I missing how it's different? Drones might be new but there's been RC planes and gliders for decades. Did those need special laws for crashing them or do we just use the same laws we use for bodily harm and/or property destruction?

Is the skill level required to operate a baseball safely near a crowd the same as that of a drone?

Baseballs are not typically hit or thrown in the direction of unsuspecting individuals. If you're walking around a fairground you don't expect a quadcopter to land on your head.

jMyles 11y ago
You expect neither a baseball nor a copter. Either hitting you is offensive.
- akerl_ 11y ago
  And when throwing baseballs into the air in crowded areas of folks not aware of flying baseballs becomes a frequent occurrence, we can look into ways to resolve that problem. Until then, lets focus on things that appear to be becoming a trend?
  - greggman 11y ago
    oh, because drones falling on people is a trend?
    - smtddr 11y ago
      This whole drone thing is new and people are flying them around crowds. So actually, yeah, the dangers of drones are a new trendy thing that does need to be looked at.
  - jMyles 11y ago
    It does happen - it happens all the time. Go to any reasonably sized college campus and FOIA their police and medical records and you'll find many instances of bystanders being injured by baseballs and frisbees every semester. However, students are by and large willing to put up with this side effect in order for the commons to still be a place to recreate. Precautions - for all sorts of flying things - is reasonable. And failing to take them is negligent and rightly bestows liability. But drones introduce nothing new in this respect.
greggman 11y ago
No they aren't just thrown, they are also hit, usually in unexpected directions. They hit people, they break windows, yet we don't ban them. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMmYIpmL48w https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMmYIpmL48w
- Jtsummers 11y ago
  > No they aren't just thrown, they are also hit, usually in unexpected directions. They hit people, they break windows, yet we don't ban them. The post you responded to suggested restrictions [0]. Not bans. I said hit, along with thrown. Amusingly your video starts with a football being thrown. And most of these videos (haven't watched them all) are at sporting events or fields. The first ones are people standing on the sidelines of a football field not paying attention to the ball being thrown. It sucks they got hit, but that's not a spot to stand in and assume you'll be safe when the game or practice is going on. Most of the others seem to be spectators at games. They're in an area where they know this is a risk. That's the difference compared to drones flying over crowds. If the crowds don't realize it's overhead or expect it to be overhead that they can't even prepare for it to fall on them. EDIT: [0] However, it's my understanding that most of these incidents involving drones fall under the same rules/laws that already exist for model aircraft. I haven't researched this, just trusting my model airplane operating friends. So restrictions are probably already in place that should (if enforced or operators are responsible) reduce the risk to all involved. The problem is that, unlike model airplane operators, many of these new wave of operators are coming into on their own without the benefit of mentorship from the broader community to guide them. EDIT: https://www.faa.gov/uas/model_aircraft/ https://www.faa.gov/uas/model_aircraft/ Rules are already in place. That it's a copter or popularly viewed as a drone and not a model aircraft doesn't really change things. Hobbyists shouldn't be operating these around crowds. It's reckless.
  - simoncion 11y ago
    It's a damn shame that folks who are selling RC or autonomous *copters aren't also pushing hard for the drone purchasers to invest in an AMA [0] membership and become acquainted with the local model aircraft club. When I was growing up, the hobby shops in town wouldn't sell you a plane, copter, or kit for the same without verifying that you were an AMA member. [1] They understood that planes and copters can be quite dangerous in untrained hands. [0] http://www.modelaircraft.org/ http://www.modelaircraft.org/ [1] Not because they were required to, mind, but because it was a sound idea.

autokad 11y ago

your analogy would only make sense if you were hitting a baseball toward a crowd and surprised it hit someone

beedogs 11y ago

What a terrible, terrible analogy.

greggman 11y ago
Why? In both cases someone was negligent. Seems like the same laws should cover both. If I hit a ball into someone's head and give them a concussion why is that different than if I drop a drone on someone's head and give them a concussion? It seems like there's nothing special about the drone case. It's the same as the ball case. Same laws, same repercussions, same responsibility. Am I missing how it's different? Drones might be new but there's been RC planes and gliders for decades. Did those need special laws for crashing them or do we just use the same laws we use for bodily harm and/or property destruction?