Guys, stop buying and flying quads when you don't know what you are doing. Especially over crowds or populated areas. This should be common sense.
RAW video link - http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/video?id=9270819
You need to be a member of diydrones to add comments!
Comments
Man, this thing can get really wild and put all users into trouble on the sight of a small quad wandering about over busy streets. I am sure government is watching every move from (reckless or non-reckless) individuals, coz a flying thing in public is anonymous and can do anything ( in theory). At least, that is what govt' may think of !!
Be careful, it can be powerful yet dangerous. So, we must use it with care!
It is the same thinking which leads people to be afraid of flying. Plane crashes are generally high profile. People who have never flown may feel apprehension about getting into a multiple ton metal tube which hangs in the air, and travels at hundreds of miles per hour. Those same people will drive around in a multiple ton metal box at significant fractions of a hundred miles per hour, and not think twice, because it is commonplace in their lives. I fly many times a year, and never give it any thought, because it has become commonplace in my life.
I have no doubt "drones" will become relatively commonplace, and accidents will occur. The response may be higher profile than a car crash, but not as high profile as airline crashes. More importantly, I think within a hundred years people will wonder why we ever made such a big deal out of these tools in the early parts of the 21st century.
Yes, but only because cars have been in existence for 100 years, and in widespread public use for 80 years with the result that our entire society and culture is built up around them. But if you really think about how different things would be if that were not true, you'd understand the point I'm trying to make.
Imagine the world if cars had only been invented today. We'd all be riding bicycles to get around, or maybe horses in rural areas, and we'd have much better mass transit. Cities would be even more densely populated, and clean and friendly. If you tried to bring a car into the world now, it wouldn't fit. People would be asking why we need cars, when all the other transport methods are working just fine. Cars would be considered dangerous, and I'm sure there would be huge lobby against them. Particularly in cities.
The dangers and damage they cause to our society today, is only accepted because they were invented 100 years ago when we were naive.
Yes, it's sort of a silly comparison to make because obviously, it is what it is, cars *were* invented 100 years ago and UAV's were not. But that doesn't mean that we should toss aside UAV's because we cannot yet dream of what benefits they may bring us 100, or even 10 years from now. That's what I'm trying to say. It's extremely short sighted to say that UAV's could never have the same utility benefits, and economic benefits, that cars do today. You don't know. I'm more of an optimist in this regard.
The way I see it, UAV's are just a special branch of robotics. We're a few decades late, but finally robots are getting very close to capability that will revolutionize our society. UAV's are just flying robots. They will play a big role.
But to restrict or ban UAV's today, simply because they are dangerous and of limited utility today is extremely short-sighted. I understand that you're not advocating for this, you're just stating what you see as the inevitable outcome. But I don't see it as inevitable. We can and must advocate for their adoption as a beneficial technology. We've accepted other technologies and products that are far more dangerous, and far less beneficial, such as guns, alcohol, tobacco, and Furbies.
Maybe America needs an nth amendment? "The right to bear drones."
Seriously? Blame Hobby King? Hobby King does not sell DJI. I do not think it's possible for a newbie to buy and fly anything from Hobby King. Nothing they have works out of the box. That's a good and a bad thing.
Again, I am not trying to say this means everyone should fly however they see fit. I am saying mitigating risks can help.
Smaller, lighter aircraft is one way to help mitigate risk.
Brent, I wonder if, in the early days of cars, people said, very few people will ever have a stake in those machines. What is to say people won't find uses for UAS that we haven't really given thought to yet? As the technology becomes cheaper and more available, I think we will see more people flying these. As example, I have a friend who likes the idea of a follow me feature on a quad to film him while he water skis. I have another friend curious about using then in deer hunting. These are people not really INTO the hobby. They are just people I interact with who are curious about the technology, and what it could do for them.
I read once that there was the thinking at one point that only maybe a few dozen computers would ever be needed in the world. I type this on my pocketable computer called a smartphone.
I didn't say they are not dangerous at all. I said they (Phantoms) are not really that much more dangerous than all the other hazards you are exposed to while standing on a sidewalk in NY.
The fact that the FAA has made it illegal to fly over crowds is not evidence that airplanes are more dangerous than cars. It's just that the FAA maintains a much tighter control over safety. If the FAA was responsible for car safety, we wouldn't be allowed to drive near sidewalks either.
Yes, Brian appears to have completely missed my point. ;)
Now... on the other hand of this argument, it's also true that the guy walking on the sidewalk who almost got hit by the Phantom, probably was not at any greater risk than the risk he accepted walking on the sidewalk of a busy street.
But that doesn't really matter. Perception is reality, and the perception is that people who fly these things over people are putting those people at undue risk. That's all that matters. The day after somebody is severely injured or killed, you will see an instant public outcry to ban them. That movement will ignore the fact that 100 other people died on that same day in traffic accidents, and how many others from smoking, poor eating, etc. etc. But logic doesn't matter, this is just an emotional reaction, and we all know exactly how that will go.
A friend of mine once said:
(paraphrase)
"If cars hadn't already been invented, they would never be allowed today. Can you imagine if the first car was invented today, and you were trying to sell the idea, and you were telling people: Yeah, we're going to take regular people, give them 10 hours of training, and then put them in control of these two tonne metal boxes, capable of speeds in excess of 60mph while travelling in opposite directions and cross-paths, in pedestrian areas and in bad weather, and the only thing stopping them from crashing into eachother is that the drivers will have to pay attention and try to avoid hitting things."
;)
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
-
5
of 6 Next