40 points by robotnikman 2 hours ago | 11 comments
wolvoleo 27 minutes ago
What goes up, must come down. Not always in a good way.

Or as we pilots say it, takeoff is optional, landing is mandatory.

I'm glad we don't permit this stuff where I live. And do we really need orders in 60 minutes? Next day in the pickup machine around the corner is good enough.

csense 44 minutes ago
There needs to be a legal means for property owners to keep drones off their property -- maybe some kind of "no trespassing" beacon that acts a machine readable "no trespassing" sign? -- and recourse to deal with unwelcome drones.

I was watching a YouTube bodycam video showing police interaction with a guy who got upset that a Walmart delivery drone test was being performed on his property without permission. He shot the drone with a shotgun. I forget if he was arrested on the spot, but I think he got in huge legal trouble -- apparently in the US, shooting at a drone is treated the same as shooting at a manned aircraft, and he might have ended up getting multiple years in prison.

Shooting a human trespasser has a pretty high legal bar, and rightfully so. Shooting a robotic trespasser seems like it shouldn't carry prison time, even if unjustified it should only carry financial penalties. Especially if the law doesn't specify any peaceful recourse to get rid of unwanted robots trespassing on your property.

gretch 20 minutes ago
> There needs to be a legal means for property owners to keep drones off their property

I agree. It should be the same one we use for helicopters and airplanes.

colechristensen 15 minutes ago
It is the same law, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Aviation_Regulations

But drones are classified differently and the rules need to be updated and tightened up, particularly drones for commercial purposes.

Spivak 15 minutes ago
If they fly low enough that I could hit them with a shotgun, they're on my property. This isn't true of planes and helicopters.

These things aren't planes or helicopters and poised to be much more invasive and annoying, why people act like they are just like a passenger airplanes flying a literal mile overhead is baffling. But to that end if Amazon started making deliveries by landing a fucking helicopter in my yard on the regular I would also want them banned.

crazygringo 20 minutes ago
> There needs to be a legal means for property owners to keep drones off their property

Does there? Why? There's no legal means to keep private aircraft (e.g. a Cessna) from flying over your property as long as they're over 500 feet. Then drones are below that, typically between 50-400 feet.

They're already not allowed to interfere with your property or privacy however. They can't hover to annoy you, or get close to snap pictures or whatever.

If you're concerned about accidents and safety, then the solution is safety regulation. But the idea that drones must keep track of which individual properties allow flight above and which don't, and try to navigate some around some kind of patchwork accordingly, is simply unpractical and unreasonable.

If drones turn out to be a general nuisance then cities/counties can ban them altogether or whatever as a collective decision, but the idea that individual property owners should be able to ban them is a terrible idea.

fsckboy 34 minutes ago
>There needs to be a legal means for property owners to keep drones off their property

no, there really doesn't need to be.

i'm not saying that i'm in favor of autonomous drones flying around, i'm simply not in favor of individual people getting their own say about everything we as a society do. democracy: live with the results

it's not shooting at drones that is the big worry, it's missing the drones, and shooting at things if the law doesn't give a peaceful alternate way to get your own way is also not "great" in the pantheon of ideas.

csense 17 minutes ago
> no, there really doesn't need to be

Bob the Bully doesn't like you. Whenever you leave your front door, Bob will fly his drone over your head while its onboard speaker continuously curses you out with TTS. Whenever you want to have a romantic moment with your boyfriend / girlfriend, Bob's drone will be watching through the nearest window.

If you ask Bob to stop harassing you, he'll laugh and curse you out in person. If you sue Bob, after thousands in legal fees the court system will say "You're SoL; there's no law that says Bob can't do what he's doing." If involve the police, they'll say "We can't do anything because no illegal activity is occurring." If you shoot down the drone, you'll be sent to prison like the guy in the video.

You only have one realistic option in this situation, "Just put up with it." This certainly seems like a bug in the law that ought to be patched.

crazygringo 9 minutes ago
That's already highly illegal, it's called harassment and invasion of privacy and there are laws against it. Laws specifically against voyeurism, unlawful video surveillance, harassment and stalking, intrusion upon seclusion, nuisance...
Spivak 13 minutes ago
This would easily meet the bar for a harassment complaint.
superb_dev 17 minutes ago
Drone are noisy and invasive. I know I’d be upset if the neighbor boy was flying his camera drone around my property. Amazon doesn’t get a pass just because they’re a corporation. There is all kinds of passive data gathering that a these could be doing
tartoran 19 minutes ago
I think there should be a way for people to have some kind of control when it comes with drones. Imagine there’s a air channel of commercial drones passing by your bedroom window, every 2-5 minutes. They’re noisy and you lose sleep over it. You want no recourse?
15 minutes ago
antonvs 27 minutes ago
> democracy: live with the results

The GP was suggesting that democratically, we could define "a legal means for property owners to keep drones off their property". Your comment is the one attempting to preempt democratic consensus.

thelock85 29 minutes ago
The presence and operation of drones on one’s personal property appears more corporatist in nature than democratic.
nomel 15 minutes ago
the current legal definition of property does not include the air above. it's what allows them to fly over.
delichon 45 minutes ago
Sustained winds in Dallas on Wednesday, Feb 4, were around 10–15 mph, with occasional gusts approaching ~30 mph. I wonder how well delivery drone station keeping works when the wind suddenly gusts by 20 mph.
robotnikman 2 hours ago
npilk 1 hour ago
As far as I can tell, Zipline are way out ahead in this space right now.
cmiles8 1 hour ago
This is the latest in a string of accidents with these drones crashing into things. Not good.

The earlier ones hit a crane which one could argue was an edge case as a temporary structure. This just hit a building which suggests something much more fundamentally wrong with the tech.

nomel 9 minutes ago
> This just hit a building

Please be specific on what you mean by "just"? From the article:

> Amazon told CBS Texas that it’s investigating the cause of the crash that happened Wednesday afternoon.

Did it hit a bird? Did the wind blow something into it? Was it a 0.01% occurrence of some hardware failure? Who knows. Design flaw?

Extrapolating a few crashes within this new tech use case to a some fundamental flaw isn't reasonable, at the moment.

ecosystem 1 hour ago
I wonder what the acceptable collisions/delivery needs to be for it to match last mile truck safety level (ie UPS trucks are big and run into things with non-zero frequency)
idle_zealot 1 hour ago
I'm sure there's a surprisingly high frequency of "acceptable" collisions if the bar is matching truck-inflicted property damage and injuries. Much like with replacing human drivers with computers, though, merely matching the cost and harms of the existing system is far from enough. Entrenched systems benefit from familiarity with the associated costs and risks, and from any structures built to mitigate them. New solutions have to be much better to gain acceptance.

Fortunately, automated systems can meet that higher threshold so long as we actually aim for it. If you aim for the lower "beats existing systems by some measures" bar then you make stupid decisions and tradeoffs like rushing to market or leaving out more capable sensors. We ought to try to make new technologies as good as possible. Sometimes the market will bet against that, but that's a tide that engineers should fight back against. Trucks kill too many people, and if drones kill half as many that's still unacceptable. We can do better.

computomatic 44 minutes ago
> merely matching the cost and harms of the existing system is far from enough

The new system needs to be better but that doesn’t necessarily mean safer.

For delivery, that could mean cheaper and faster and more convenient.

Autonomous vehicles are a special case because those accidents tend to cause death and serious injury. As long as delivery drones can avoid killing multiple people per year, they are probably fine to compete on other metrics.

doubled112 19 minutes ago
If Amazon handled it the right way, their drone smashing through your window could be a mere inconvenience.

In comparison to the way their delivery drivers drive down my sidewalk, I can see the drone being a safety win.

delecti 1 hour ago
People are more accepting when there's a person who can be punished. There's also the fact that society generally expects cars/trucks hitting things. A drone impact might be a more minor impact, but it's possible for it to hit things that are more shocking to the public if they get hit.
walt_grata 35 minutes ago
Vibe steering and navigating
freejazz 1 hour ago
>The earlier ones hit a crane which one could argue was an edge case as a temporary structure.

I would expect them not to fly into any kind of structure. That they'd hit a crane is pretty insane considering what the results of something like that could be.

hermannj314 1 hour ago
Zero? I think the expected number of collisions can be larger than zero. Jimmy Johns sandwich delivery by bicycle has resulted in more collisions than zero and that is arguably safe.

You are setting an impossible standard.

sejje 1 hour ago
I would expect the result to be the same as running into anything else: drone and any payload crash into the ground.

Drones are lightweight, they're not going to do much to heavy machinery. Basically the same as a brick wall.

The real fear is propellers hitting a human. The result is not good at all.

BurningFrog 20 minutes ago
I expect some kind of automatic drone parachute system to develop.
ncallaway 1 hour ago
Also drone and payload falling to the ground from any kind of height could cause serious injury or death if it falls on someone.
coldcode 50 minutes ago
Which is the argument against flying cars. Uncontrolled flying car crashes over populated areas could be catastrophic.
ares623 30 minutes ago
Easy, don't walk near buildings then! /s
DasIch 40 minutes ago
They weigh 80-85lbs and travel at speeds of around 50mph.

The impact would be quite serious, if they crash at speed but even falling on a car or a human would be quite serious, possibly deadly, even if the propellers don't spin.

rolph 1 hour ago
"Another clip shows the drone on the ground with smoke coming from it."

if true, its a matter of repetition, and probability, until the time one of these crashes starts something on fire.

hiddencost 52 minutes ago
Already safer than delivery vans.
bethekidyouwant 1 hour ago
“That’s not very typical, I’d like to make that point.”
davidhyde 1 hour ago
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3m5qxZm_JqM

Looks like they didn’t meet the minimum crew requirement on this one.

eichin 1 hour ago
Anyone else too news-aware and parsed "drone strike" as a verb the first time?
aleksiy123 1 hour ago
Yeah, "Amazon drone strikes North Texas" definitely evokes a different image.
hermannj314 1 hour ago
The solution space of maximum engagement and easily misinterpreted headlines overlaps quite a bit.
MengerSponge 40 minutes ago
escapecharacter 1 hour ago
“delivery above recommended speed”
gib444 57 minutes ago
[flagged]
netsharc 1 hour ago
Last paragraph:

> The Federal Aviation Administration opened an investigation into Amazon’s drone delivery program in November after one of its drone struck an Internet cable line in Waco.

Looks like the rest of that sentence has been cut off: "... but the company doesn't expect to be punished, since it spent $75 million dollars bribing President Trump in the form of the Melania movie.".