Hacker News Reader

Comment by Houshalter | Hacker News Reader

I hate this attitude. Many of the great technologies we have today were pretty dangerous and feared when they first appeared. I honestly think if electricity or automobiles were invented today, they would quickly be banned. Drones could be incredibly useful for many purposes and your proposal would basically kill them.

View on HN

The problem is that drones really are a nuisance to everybody except the drone flyer.

They are noisy. They get in the way. They can fall out of the air. etc.

The same problems apply to cars and airplanes and imagine the world if those were banned early on.

Airplanes are not a great example. Airplanes were very much a hazard until the FAA finally got serious ( PSA 182 is cited as a turning point: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PSA_Flight_182)

Cars, in fact, exhibited almost exactly the same kinds of problems we see in drones right now: http://amhistory.si.edu/onthemove/themes/story_86_1.html

In fact, cars caused far MORE fatalities and came under scrutiny very quickly.

The idea that past technologies somehow got adopted in an "unfettered, unregulated field" is bogus revisionism.

I'm not sure what your point is. My whole point is that cars and airplanes were incredibly dangerous and unregulated when they first were introduced. Thank god they weren't banned or sued out of existence as a knee jerk reaction. If cars or planes were invented today I have no doubt they would be unable to take off. I doubt anyone would even invest in such technology.

We now laugh at stories of cities that set car speed limits at 5 miles per hour and mandated an escort. But we are doing far sillier things today with every new technology.

I don't think anyone is proposing banning them. Among other things, many people are skeptical that they should be allowed to fly willy-nilly over everyone's private property. Which seems a reasonable question. After all, you can't typically drive and often even walk on someone else's property.

I do think there are special circumstances where drone delivery of medicine and other urgently needed items may very well make sense. One hour Amazon delivery of a USB cable and a Red Bull? Probably not.

Ok, so you own a drone and live in an apartment. You now can't fly it anywhere. That's in effect the same as a ban. There is literally 1 RC airfield within an hour drive of San Jose last time I looked into it. Most drone owners would likely not buy them if there was an actually-enforced law like that.

Or Dogs all that barking and pooping and if you unlucky attacking people.

Or babies, who grow up to be dog-owning drone pilots.

How would it kill them? Getting permission of property owners is a hindrance, sure, but I'm not willing to give up privacy rights for the privilege of flying drones wherever I want.

Its no different than hunting, where you already have to get a license and ask for permission before going on to private property.

How do you make a drone delivery service without having to get the permission of millions of property owners? If just a few don't consent your business is dead. It's absurd.

Hunting is actually taking resources from someone's property. A drone flying over your property doesn't harm you at all. Airplanes don't have to get permission from me to fly overhead. They can even legally take photos of my property if they want.

Just the other day some recreational pilot crashed in a field near me, and he didn't have to have a flight plan or anything. You don't even need a pilots license if it's something like an ultralight. Drones are vastly safety than that.

>A drone flying over your property doesn't harm you at all.

Until it falls on your head. Not to mention the gross privacy violations that this allows.

Light aircraft could always fly over your house and take pictures as far as I know.

But they couldn't hover just outside your window.. and unless I'm mistaken, they were forbidden from flying 1,000ft below the highest point in a half mile radius. And you need a pilot's license to fly.. and come to think of it, they're not remotely similar.

Technically you don't need a pilots license for certain kinds of aircraft. I don't know what the height restrictions are, but I see recreational pilots get away with flying less than that all the time. One just crashed and died near my house and could have killed someone.

But the point is that a small drone is orders of magnitude less dangerous than even the smallest aircraft. The regulations should reflect that and be far less strict on them, not more. I'm ok with height restrictions or regulations against hovering outside of someones window. That's probably already illegal under peeping tom laws anyway. If it's not it should be.

But banning them entirely is just a knee jerk fear to new technology. This has potentially immense utility for delivery and other applications, just give it a chance. Despite all the media fear mongering the number of people killed by drones is negligible after more than 5 years.

>How do you make a drone delivery service without having to get the permission of millions of property owners?

Maybe you can't. And that's just fine?

It's not fine. As we continue to resist new technologies our country will stagnate and others will outcompete us.

Right, because delivering expensive drinks to lazy yuppies is the most important thing in the world.

Drones can be the fastest way to deliver medicine in some situations.

Flying drones are noisy and create visual distraction. If they became very popular they could definitely harm me. Wreck a beautiful sunset with flying drones going by. Wreck peaceful outside activity with drone buzzing. Industrial and commercial areas, sure. Maybe not residential. It would be interesting if people would try small, slow, quiet, wheeled drones on sidewalks for local delivery. Probably illegal with current laws, but those could be modified.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com