What if the drone smashed into his windshield, the driver lost control of his vehicle, and drove off the bridge and died? What would it be then? Vehicular Manslaughter? Involuntary manslaughter? I truly do not understand why it's so hard to conceptualize that drones can be dangerous when not flown responsibly.
Drone crashes into car on Sydney Harbour Bridge.
- Thread starter Ziggy01
- Start date
So is inadvertently "pitting" a car when changing lanes. Not trying to defend the pilot, he's an idiot, and hopefully reading this thread on MavicPilots.
My point is cars are much more lethal than drones are, even if they fall from the sky. The latest study shows that falling drones are not fatal and designed to take the brunt of the impact, as evidenced in the video when it flew apart. Also the gimbal being in the motor, $5 says it fell in through a vent opening, probably the front.
rydfree
Well-Known Member
I call it the Beavis and Butthead mentality . They think everything is funny and consequences be damned . If it had hit a motorcyclists it very well could have been fatal .
It's only bizarre if you completely ignore the enormous difference in purpose and use of cars vs. drones.
If you don't deliberately blind your judgement this way, there's nothing odd about it at all.
You're very wrong on this.
A conpact, hard object the size and weight of the Mavic hitting someone in the head at 40mph could easily kill them.
Your point is completely invalid. There is so much you are either deliberately or ignorantly leaving out of your analysis as to render it utterly meaningless.
Dozens of differences between the two make critical differences in the risk. To point out one obvious one, when a car has a mechanical failure, it slows down, pulls over to the side of the road, and stops. The vast, vast, vast, vast majority of the time there is no risk to anyone.
A drone has a mechanical problem and drops from the sky. If the pilot was irresponsible and flying over people or cars, the risk of serious injury to an innocent bystander is very significant.
This is just ONE major difference. Perhaps you should think this through a bit more before continuing to defend your "drones are no more risky than cars" stance.
Plawa
Well-Known Member
the biggest crime in the article is claiming that two cars hitting each other at 70 km/h equals hitting a wall at 140 km/h ...
I never said drones are no more risky than cars, and I never said that they can't seriously injure someone. I said a fatality is highly unlikely, and a car crash into another car is much more likely to cause a fatality. I also never encouraged that people should fly over bridges and highways.
I've never heard of a car slowing down if it suffers a failure, unless you actually hit the breaks. But if the brakes were to fail, that can result in a runaway car. Driving a car requires responsible operating skills, just like flying a drone. If you can't fly a drone responsibly, then you shouldn't, and the same goes for driving cars. Though I would be all for requiring an operators license for drone operators, and then mounting on license ships to the drone that can be scanned from a mile away. That would make identifying illegal drones easier.
Don't think I saw a drone hitting a car there. Looked like a drone hitting some of the upper workings of the bridge and falling to its death onto the roadway.
Where it bounced off the pavement and into the car.
Where it bounced off the pavement and into the car.
@Cyberpower678 , I'm not sure I'm getting what point you're trying to make. Seems to be that cars can be far more lethal and dangerous than drones. If so, then, so what? Seems to be a completely irrelevant point to the subject at hand, which is about risk, not what is possible.
Again, I really don't see what important, relevant point you're trying to make here. It seems that you're trying to imply that, because cars can be misused in far more dangerous ways, there's nothing to worry about with drones flying close to cars on bridges, roads, etc. After all, the risk is trivial compared to cars.
Is that what you're trying to say?
As for the "car stopping by itself with mechanical failure", I'll ignore that idiocy. I assume you are an adult with sufficient experience operating a motor vehicle to understand exactly what I meant, and it wasn't that.
Again, I really don't see what important, relevant point you're trying to make here. It seems that you're trying to imply that, because cars can be misused in far more dangerous ways, there's nothing to worry about with drones flying close to cars on bridges, roads, etc. After all, the risk is trivial compared to cars.
Is that what you're trying to say?
As for the "car stopping by itself with mechanical failure", I'll ignore that idiocy. I assume you are an adult with sufficient experience operating a motor vehicle to understand exactly what I meant, and it wasn't that.
Guys (and maybe gals), what we all need to agree on as pilots, whether commercial or hobbiest, is that there are risks involved with flying these machines. Injury and damage can and will occur if flown irresponsibly. Ignorance is no excuse. If these type of accidents keep occurring, we will be required to have licenses to fly. It establishes some accountability.
I'm thinking we are talking past each other here, and I hope I'm not being called an idiot with my understand of motor vehicles. When someone posts on the internet I take the words literally. Driving a car has it's risk, and so do flying drones. Both are open to abuse, and both do get abused. Both are bad, and I don't like either. What I'm saying it's harder to kill someone with a drone than with a car. That's assuming you don't have a bomb rigged to one. Accidentally crashing your drone into traffic, or crashing your car in traffic can have the same consequences. This all goes back to the original point that drone incidents are more sensationalized then car incidents are. Yet drones get more restricted and cars don't.
In any event, I'm still saying the pilot was a major idiot and should be arrested.
Any other road debris e.g. bits of rubble or broken ratchet strap from a truck would have been similar incident and almost daily event.
All we actually see is a bit of plastic bouncing on the road - not death and mayhem.
Well. Take a look how "sensationalized" car incidences were back in the day.
1900-1930: The years of driving dangerously
1900-1930: The years of driving dangerously
I ride a motorcycle and I ride across the SHB often. A drone hitting me could easily lead to a fatality- mine.
I'm all for the previous posters ideas regarding registration and remote identification.
I really love this activity but idiots like this guy will ruin it for everyone.
I'm all for the previous posters ideas regarding registration and remote identification.
I really love this activity but idiots like this guy will ruin it for everyone.
So do I, but a drone hitting you is a ludicrously insignificant danger compared to all the other things might knock you off.
As I posted before a Mavic is just bits of plastic, it isn't going to do half as much damage as other heavy debris flying up after being run over by other vehicles etc.
Well, actually it's a flying deadweight.
I agree that the drone represents a risk to motorcyclists so far down the list as to be insignificant, right down there with being attacked by a polar bear, but the point really is that there are a lot of "mavericks" out there (and within this forum for that matter) who view them as a harmless toy which could never really do anyone any serious harm.
I think a story like this should be a wake-up call, rather than more fodder for those that prefer to see the potential risks as not worthy of consideration and the rules and regulations as a sport to flout.
I agree that the drone represents a risk to motorcyclists so far down the list as to be insignificant, right down there with being attacked by a polar bear, but the point really is that there are a lot of "mavericks" out there (and within this forum for that matter) who view them as a harmless toy which could never really do anyone any serious harm.
I think a story like this should be a wake-up call, rather than more fodder for those that prefer to see the potential risks as not worthy of consideration and the rules and regulations as a sport to flout.
We certainly have to simply disagree on this. I profoundly disagree.
The human element is being ignored in every one of these assertions. A random piece of road trash has no volition, does not move with intent and purpose. It doesn't try to follow you to get a "great video". There's no risk that a chunk of retread kicking up from the road is being controlled by some 12 year-old so that it follows you and, OOPS! Plows into your windshield.
People here are simply doing a very poor risk assessment of this (something I've done for a living in past work). To really understand the risk here, imagine as many drones flying around a roadway as cars trying to get "great shots" of those speeding vehicles.
Do you think there would be more crashes between cars due to poor handling and control of the vehicles, or drones crashing into cars (and other drones) because of poor handling and control?
Cars actually are very safe. VERY. The reason we don't see routine news about people being injured or killed by hobbyist drones buzzing freeways is because the incidence is extremely rare. It's not because drone are inherently much safer than cars.
Similar threads
DJI Drone Deals
1. Mini 2
2. Mini 3 Pro
3. Mini 4 Pro
4. Air 2s
5. Air 3
6. Avata 2
7. Mavic 3 Pro
8. Mavic 3 Classic
2. Mini 3 Pro
3. Mini 4 Pro
4. Air 2s
5. Air 3
6. Avata 2
7. Mavic 3 Pro
8. Mavic 3 Classic
New Threads
-
-
DJI mini 3 Fly More Combo for $499 US at Kenmore Camera
- Started by Zombie_Cutter
- Replies: 2
-
-
-
Forum statistics
