Woman Knocked Unconscious at Parade by Falling Drone | Hacker News Reader

Woman Knocked Unconscious at Parade by Falling Drone

spdblotter.seattle.gov

96 pointsDoubleguitars113 comments

As someone who has been working with "drones" for the past few years, I am sick to death of these people who do idiotic things like fly over a crowd of people.

It's frustrating that when something like this happens, people tend to blame the drone, not the pilot. When someone gets drunk and crashes their car, nobody blames the car.

I hope they find this guy and make an example of him.

And you need a driver's license to drive a car. You also aren't allowed to be drunk while driving.

These are arguments for restrictions, not against them

Where did I argue against restrictions? I would wholeheartedly welcome restrictions, as long as they are not draconian. But just so you know, there are already restrictions (in most countries) about where and how you can fly a quadcopter. People like this just choose to ignore them.

Sorry, misread your post.

I guess there might be a bit of a knowledge gap on the regulation end, let's hope that quadcopters and the like don't get too stifled because of this.

I don't know that we need 'restrictions' per se, but a 'drone license' sounds pretty reasonable to me, especially if the license fees are going primarily towards some kind of liability insurance.

They already have this, it's called AMA, and I'm a member: http://www.modelaircraft.org/membership/membership/overview....

Pretty sure it only covers you at AMA-designated sites, though, so might not help much for this use-case. That said, I'd never think to fly my relatively-small 450-class electric heli over a crowd. Then again, people would likely run screaming if I did, since they're much less tame/stable than quads, and pulling lots of pitch definitely creates the "blade thump" which you can feel in your chest even at this size (325mm blades, so ~30" blade disc).

One of the interesting differences: autonomous drones are already pretty common. Who gets in trouble if you buy something that is essentially an "aerial roomba" to patrol your estate, and then one day it shorts out and falls on someone?

I imagine the answer is, the legal owner of the device gets in trouble, and then the owner sues the manufacturer. The only problem comes when those happen to be the same entity. Renting/licensing autonomous drones that are flown-by-wire from the manufacturer's data-centre could make things much messier.

Yep, I'd think it'd be the owner held responsible first. IIRC robotic lawnmowers have been on the market for a few years. I've never heard of an incident off-hand, but I'd be surprised if no one has yet been injured by one, so there's probably a relevant court case out there somewhere. Anyone know how to search for something like that?

Do any licensing fees states charge go towards bettering the industry? I always think of ridiculous cosmetology licensing fees. Maybe someone can school me, but I doubt they go towards liability insurance.

Probably not, but there's always a first.

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

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.

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

I guess if I go to a drone race, I should expect that I might get hit by one. If I'm standing at a parade, for example, I don't expect to get hit with a baseball or a drone.

This is probably why we need "unnecessary" laws.

People like yourself think you're entitled to put others at risk. Common sense isn't sufficient.

I never said I'm entitled to put others at risk. I'm just suggesting the same laws that say I'm liable if I hit someone in the head with a ball or break their property should be enough for the drone case.

And, while apparently this case was a hit and run that's not special for drones. People crash their cars into things all the time and run even though they're supposed to have both a driver's license and car registration. People also throw balls (or rocks), break windows, and don't fess up. Doesn't seem like new laws are needed

So, after someone standing at a parade gets injured by a thrown or dropped baseball, do we need "unnecessary" laws to protect bystanders from carelessly released baseballs? Why or why not?

> 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/

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.

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/

[1] Not because they were required to, mind, but because it was a sound idea.

You expect neither a baseball nor a copter. Either hitting you is offensive.

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?

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.

oh, because drones falling on people is a trend?

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.

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

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

What a terrible, terrible analogy.

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?

There is a reason the FAA won't issue rules about drones instead keeping them restricted.

Flying things are dangerous. You don't just 'blame the pilot' and have all small aircraft unregulated, you strictly regulate who can fly them, the training they receive, and how they act – deviations from the rules involve severe consequences.

A drone doesn't have to be very big at all to impart serious permanent damage, promises of punishment for idiots isn't enough. We will very soon get to a point that selling to an unlicensed person will result in the seller accepting all liability for the buyer's actions. That will be the _only_ way to properly regulate drone usage. Otherwise, people are going to die... they probably will before the right regulations are in place.

Actually, no. With the high availability of PCB's and the upcoming ubiquity of 3D printers, the reality is that such overreaching restrictions as you propose would do nothing but slightly push the market back toward the realm of hobbyists.

Let's look at laser pointers--a good example since those with the strength to affect aircraft became commercially viable in the early-mid 2000's. They're affordable, and have a similar enthusiast following... and yet the incidences of lasers being pointed at aircraft per anum is surprisingly low, seeing as almost everyone gets caught, and the punishments are severe.

Trying to regulate technology in the manner you suggest would just incite people like me to be more interested in building and producing that which is unreasonably restricted--affecting public perception is far more reliable in terms of generalized safety from idiots and reckless negligence.

People like you aren't the target – if you can really manage to make your own flightworthy drone, you probably implicitly beat any potential requirements which would be tested with the licensing process. This is a parallel to the much reduced requirements if you build your own small aircraft – the ability to do it at all implies a certain level of competence.

Though licensing and thoroughly restricting using drones in any spaces besides your own property (which is sufficiently removed from others' property) is still a necessity and inevitable.

FAA has already released rules about drones. https://www.faa.gov/uas/model_aircraft/ One rules is to not fly near crowds. Of course these rules are for non commercial purposes only. Commercial use requires a license.

Meh. Come on. If it were just a camera on a long fiberglass poll that fell, it wouldn't be blame anyone. It would be a _mistake_, apologies would be said, and assuming nothing grave happened likely nothing would come of it.

The fact that it was a drone shouldn't have changed anything.

If the person had been waving around said pole camera in a reckless and out-of-control manner over peoples' heads, had crashed it into someone hard enough to knock them unconscious, then run away and left the scene without offering an apology, the outcome would have been the same.

As I tell my 4-year-old all the time, sure, the crash itself was an accident, but the pilot's behavior before and after the accident was not.

Why shouldn't it change anything? Are you saying that flying a drone over a crowd and putting a camera on a pole represent equivalent levels of negligence?

Point of fact, professional jib and crane ops do have to have liability insurance because they are liable if they hurt people.

quads props spin at 20k-40k speed. it was pure luck that quad crashed into building first, which probably shut it down, before crashing into woman. otherwise she could have very bad cuts too.

flying quads above people is big no-no. they can loose control for many different reasons.

If a person had operated his camera-on-a-stick unsafely, and it had fallen, I'd wager the operator would be blamed. Sure, it would be a mistake, but a preventable mistake.

"So I see you've got both duct-tape and bandaids holding this on; yeah, this is just a tragic accident."

Less energy in a falling selfie-camera than a drone falling from high enough not to get hit by a stick.

Thought experiment: replace "drone" with "gun" in your theoretical. I'm not saying you're wrong or right, though.

I agree that the guy is at fault here, one way or another.

That did make me think. I am all for the increased control of guns, but not so much for the control of drones.

I used to think the argument of 'guns don't kill people, people kill people' was utterly ridiculous, but I have to say the OPs argument sounded totally valid to me. It goes to show how your own biases can work against you when it comes to reasoning about arguments.

But as the irrational human I am, I still am for much stronger gun control, and maybe a little more regulation on drones - to quote the immortal Eddie Izzard:

'Guns don't kill people, people kill people - but I think having the gun helps.'

I've been swapping alcohol for guns lately. Thousands die every year in DUI accidents. But it's just accepted that prohibition (in the US, anyway) failed miserably and that it's the drunk driver's fault, not the bartender or the brewery or the beer.

These two aren't exactly equivalent things. There aren't very many autonomous guns. Guns don't tend to discharge when their batteries are low, nor do they discharge if the operator looks away for a moment. Of course we currently have drone laws, which were probably broken.

> I am sick to death of these people who do idiotic things like fly over a crowd of people.

> people tend to blame the drone, not the pilot.

I don't pay that much attention to drones, and to me this seems to be part of what drones are made for. Many of the popular drone videos I've seen were in situations where it could conceivably fall on someone.

Consumer/hobbyist drones are definitely going to get regulated. Drone enthusiasts need to get on top of this and work to ensure that they end up with a good regulatory scheme.

I think a good model would be the way radio is regulated.

In radio, there are consumer hand held transceivers that require no license on the part of the consumer. If you are, say, going camping and want radios for communications among your party, you can just go down to Walmart and pick up a set of these radios, and you are all set.

The manufacturers of these radios are regulated. The radios have to limit themselves to certain frequencies and power levels, and have to be certified by an FCC approved testing to meet all the FCC technical requirements.

These radios are all fairly low power, and operate on frequencies that usually are limited to dozens of miles range, so there aren't many ways that someone misusing these radios is going to cause much trouble.

For people who want to operate on frequencies that can propagate hundreds or thousands of miles, or who want to use high power, or who want to be radio technical geeks and hack their hardware or even build their own transmitters or RF amplifiers (note that all of these are activities where it is easy to cause trouble if you mess up), they can do that if they get an amateur radio license.

This is not a huge barrier. The entry level license (the technician class license) allows all the things I mentioned above, except it only allows limited access to the long distance frequencies, is pretty easy to get. The general class license, which opens up frequencies in all the amateur frequency bands, is a bit more difficult but still not too bad. (There's one more, the extra class license, that is a fair bit harder to get, but it doesn't open up any new capabilities--it just makes some more bandwidth available in some of the bands, and allows for callsign formats that are not available the other license classes).

Then there are various commercial licenses that become relevant for people setting up professional radio systems for business or industrial use. These are the kind of system that you aren't just going to decide you want and go out and buy. We're talking things where you are going to get radio pros to design your system, deal with getting the licenses you need, and setting things up.

An analogous scheme for drones could work something like this:

1. Simple drones that have limited range and altitude (probably enforced by software on the drone) and weight and carrying capacity can be bought and operated by anybody. For the average consumer who is looking for a fun toy to fly around their property, and occasionally use for something productive like checking to see if it is time to clean the gutters or finding out where the hell their frisbee went, this would be all they need. It would not be legal to modify these drones.

2. If you want to carry heavier loads, or go higher, or farther, or hack your drone's hardware or software (or build your own drones), you'd have to get an amateur drone license. These would be similar to amateur radio licenses in that they would not be too difficult to obtain--mostly they just ensure you are somewhat aware of the legalities of operating a drone and what you must do to operate responsibly.

3. If you want to operate commercially, or build or hack drones for others, or operate at long range or very high, you'd have to get a more comprehensive license.

Other than there being only two tiers, your proposal is very similar to what FAA regulations are.

> When someone gets drunk and crashes their car, nobody blames the car.

This is actually not true at all. Read newspaper headlines about car accidents; they're often in the form "Man killed by car", not "Man killed by another man". Even the NYT falls victim to this error.

Did you just totally make up this fact?

Because I'm pretty sure I've never seen a headline that said "Man killed by car".

Maybe, "Man killed by drunk driver"...

Google result from a search of "Man killed by car": http://imgur.com/ngs1Cwb

I wish I could make something up and have it instantly get 83,000 results on google https://www.google.com/search?q=%22man+killed+by+car%22&oq=%...

Just because that's what the headline says doesn't mean people were "blaming" the car.

So if a headline said "Man killed by falling rock", you assumption is that people blame the rock?

It's only a matter of time before unlicensed drones become banned. These incidents are going to keep happening over and over with increasing frequency, and then a law is going to be passed. Enjoy the wild west of drone flying while it still lasts.

Licenses don't stop people from being reckless, but they do help in creating a culture of educated safety. If anything they are good for banning you from operating the vehicle when you get caught breaking safety laws.

Sir, I'm going to need to see your drone license and registration...

All you have to do is make the seller of drone equipment legally liable for any and all damages for equipment sold to unlicensed operators. Investors and insurance companies will make sure the sellers require licensing, and the legal liability will keep users in check.

You don't need a license to purchase a motor vehicle. You are required by law to have insurance and registration to operate it, both requiring proof of a valid license. When you let your insurance or registration expire your license can be revoked, but that doesn't mean your vehicle gets revoked. Vehicles are property. Driving is the dangerous activity that requires licensing, not owning property.

Yes, you do.

Most states require dealerships to verify insurance (and if it isn't a state law it's usually dealership policy) before letting you drive a car off their lot – having insurance requires a license.

If the transaction isn't happening with a dealer you likewise still need a drivers' license to register the vehicle, and registration itself is a legal requirement.

heh... i am assembling racing "drone" right now. few parts from china through ebay, some bolts and 3D printed body, tape, solder and glue... I can tell you - it is pretty straightforward. No this kind of regulation help avoid accidents, but prosecuting reckless pilots using existing laws (what this dude did is prohibited already)

waves hand in front of officer:

"Those are not the drones you're looking for. Move along."

I don't know if the outcome will be licensing or not but certainly far more stringent regulations. I do fear that it's just a matter of time before someone is killed by a falling drone in this sort of situation and we'll find the story on the front page of every newspaper in the country. (And the popular reaction is going to be that some rich kid's toy killed someone.)

You're right, but I think the best case is for hobbyists to come together on some kind of, say, licensing scheme so the idiots can be forbidden to fly drones and the reasonable people permitted before we end up with some kind of knee-jerk reactionary approach to lawmaking, which appears to be the direction things are headed.

Except that licenses are pretty much by definition granted and enforced by the state. I do think the hobbyist community should have a clear set of safety principles. Such probably already exist but I'm not sure that they've really been codified and widely disseminated.

Terrible eye-witness account:

"Witnesses described him as an unshaven white male in his 20s, wearing a baseball cap, sunglasses, cut off shorts. He also reportedly had a * noticeable tattoo of a woman somewhere on his body *."

emphasis mine. If it was noticeable, at least they'd say which part of his body!

Probably means conflicting descriptions from witnesses. If he was seated and then left in a hurry it would also be easy for people to be confused about whether the tattoo was on his arm or leg.

Noticeable as in visible with the described clothing. People can remember seeing a tattoo without remembering whether it was arm or leg, etc.

It's the equivalent of a hit and run. The crime is the run part.

Finding out where on the body is half the fun! ;-)

sounds like majority of the folks on Hacker News... a javascript developer !

For more examples of people who should not be piloting drones: http://faildrone.com/

This is clearly the operators fault you're not supposed to fly over people, period. The majority of incidents of this type involve consumer level drones (DJI Phantoms are over represented with stupid people doing stupid things) Once you're in the DIY hobbyist space people tend to be much more safe about the way they operate their drones since if you are the type that will spend time to learn how to build a multi-rotor then you'll be more likely take the time to learn to operate it safely.

So how do we enforce licensing and how will ownership be tracked? Is it done at point of sale? And the tracking of ownership, via signal, of via registration?

And will liability insurance be required to fly over populated areas?

Eventually it will come to this, once the odds, caused by prevalence, point to the liabilities.

Flying airplanes, back at the birth of aviation, also didn't require licensing... Till too many barnstormers caused injury.

Perhaps also weight, range, as well as blade type can be considered with the requirements.

Just FYI - if you are into quads (or anything flying) or plan to - read short list of things you should not do - https://www.faa.gov/uas/model_aircraft/

(tl;dr; what happened in this news article is prohibited by existing law)

If my friend got knocked out by a drone and the dude came up to claim it, I would tell him as soon as the police get there he can claim it from them. I sure wouldn't hand it over "here's your drone back, sir!"

now imagine it was this one: http://i.imgur.com/Feek05g.jpg

Would she still have a head?

Adding new meaning to the term "Attack Drone".

When did the name switch to 'drone'. Was it privacy scaremongering post iraq/afghanistan that made the term enter public usage? Before that they might have called a remote controlled model helicopter, an rc plane, a quad copter or possibly even a uav

That last paragraph goes to show that regulations will be in place sooner than later. And of course, in Australia, there will be a yearly license and a fee... cause you know.

It's pretty sad that the owner of the $1200 flying machine is depicted as the perpetrator of a planned crime.

> It's pretty sad that the owner of the $1200 flying machine is depicted as the perpetrator of a planned crime.

No, he's depicted, accurlate, as the perpetrator of a crime. That crime was running after the accident.

This guy gives responsible drone owners a real problem.

If I crash my drone into something, I expect to be responsible for it. My homeowner's insurance includes coverage for injuries caused by my drone; a fact I verified specifically because I am responsible.

This guy just took off and ran. That's weak; criminally weak.

It's not a planned crime but we all know someone is going to accidentally get killed sooner than later. In fact, I'm on the record on HN 30 days ago when a jet almost hit a drone.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9630862

"It' only a matter of time before someone gets killed. The person responsible will be sorry and explain that he (it will be a he) didn't realize the repercussions."

    > accurlate

I was really really hoping that was a real word

wow your homeowners insurance covers that? i guess if i ever get one i'll have to add that on

It's not clear that he ran. Given that he clearly did not have control over the aircraft, it might have been well out of view.

Usually when you lose sight of a $1200 piece of technology, you go find it, and then attempt to recover it.

And then if you see it caused an injury and/or damage, you take responsibility and cooperate.

Absolutely. It's not clear how long the victim and/or authorities waited around for him to show up.

Might be not the best idea to do when you have an angry crowd around you. Second option is calling cops and possibly getting into trouble even if nothing happened. Very few people would actually do it, but that is the right thing to do when you've been risking flying over a crowd.

Angry crowd? I see no mention of an angry crowd. What we do know is the operator of the drone was careless and allegedly ran away from the scene of an accident.

Stuff hit people every day. People run away from it everyday, and sometimes get caught. But you only hear about it if its a toy "drone", and if possible, it's lacking details.

I beg to differ:

http://kxan.com/2015/06/23/3-more-rock-throwing-cases-report...

http://meredithaz.worldnow.com/story/28577622/teen-accused-o...

http://fox2now.com/2015/06/16/police-investigating-vehicles-...

http://www.kptv.com/story/28388107/two-in-custody-in-connect...

And that's just rocks thrown at cars. Just because you don't hear about it doesn't mean it's not reported, or that it doesn't happen often.

"on hacker news"

What would you prefer? The guy allegedly seriously injured someone due to what would appear to be clear negligence (flying it over a crowd and into objects) and then presumably fled the scene rather than try to retrieve his drone.

You'd prefer we all just... shrug and figure this stuff is going to happen and there's no reason to worry our little heads about it?

Isn't operating an RC helicopter over a parade already an FAA violation?

I believe s/he would prefer an accurate depiction of the incident.

What was inaccurate in the given depiction?

"perpetrator of a planned crime"

Where do you get "planned" from that? It looks similar to what I would expect if a cyclist, or car driver, or hot dog cart operator, through negligence, let the expensive rolling machine knock someone unconscious.

I imagine leaving the scene of an accident you caused might well be a crime.

It's funny manslaughter is not portrayed as a planned crime, but I suspect it would rightfully get the same tone that the crime in the article did; the pilot was really recklessly negligent which warrants the response.

I think some form of basic regulation and license is not unreasonable. Maybe it's free with an online test and registration.

What would that solve? what would registration do for that woman now? There needs to be mandatory insurance, just like on cars.

Well, for one you would have a line of communication to all drone operators through which you could work towards mandatory insurance, or establish some minimum training, etc. I don't think registration should be the bare minimum.

Deleted comment

If you accidentally hit someone with your car and drive away, people call the police then too.

I'm struggling to see a meaningful difference here. Giving someone a concussion is not a minor thing.

There's no mention of a concussion? The drone is 2 lbs. I don't know why he ran? Maybe the last thing he needed was a lawsuit, and eventual Judgement, or worse being overcharged by the DA? It all doesn't matter; she is o.k., and it looks like recreational drones will eventually be limited to ounces. We can go back to working about the faint smell of cigarette smoke?

Regarding concussion: this is dangerously wrong. To be knocked unconscious due to a head blow is by definition a Grade II concussion. The emerging consensus on brain injury is that even lesser concussions can have severe long term effects, especially additively (see e.g. NFL and NHL brain injury scandals).

No one needs a lawsuit. It's all about taking responsibility for your actions. Getting knocked unconscious is pretty serious.

This is the important thing - if this had been a badly kicked soccer ball that'd bounced off a building and hit someone in the head and knocked them down - what would the appropriate behaviour and response be?

You own up - apologise - and accept responsibility. The guy here should have done the same, this shouldn't be about "drones", it should be about not being a jerk and a coward.

"The drone is 2 lbs."

I'm failing to see your point here. Ever been on the receiving end of a baseball? Much lighter than a 2 lb drone, but I sure as poop don't wanna be hit with one.

What do you propose to be the lower limit where we should start worrying about the weight of something falling from the sky? And having established that, can we arrange for a time to meet up so I can drop something that's just a little lighter than that amount onto your head from a great height?

A rotor blade can potentially cut or blind people.

Sure, but to be fair - a bicycle, a skateboard, or a baseball are also all quite capable of inflicting serious injuries.

We as a society seem to be perfectly happy to assume the risks of children on bicycles - and allow then to use them in fairly uncontrolled fashions in pubic places - and that all works out fine. We handle motorcycles differently - and at least where I am are working out the sensible restrictions for "in between" categories - bicycles with more or less powerful electric or gas motors.

I find the "drone hysteria" annoying - in that it's manufacturing unreasonable "generalised risks" (like "cutting or blinding people") - without acknowledging the difference between a Clarkson CX10, a Parrot AR Drone, a 250 class quad, and a machine capable of lifting several pounds or more of payload. It's almost like trying to apply the same risks and restrictions on 18wheeler trucks, cars, and matchbox toys.

I don't really disagree with you but there are probably certain activities that we can generalize to a pretty wide of drones as being unsafe such as flying over a crowd of people. Just as we tend to have (albeit often informal and not always followed) rules around bicycles, skateboard, and baseballs. Those are all probably fine in most empty parking lots. Probably less so on a crowded city sidewalk.

The thing is - I suspect there are three or so orders of magnitude more of this style of quadcopter:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ybtq960nzf8dxl3/Clarkson%20CX10X.j...

Than the sort that'd have any real risk of knocking you out of they fell on you.

I fly this over the heads of my friends/family/colleagues all the time. I probably wouldn't fly one around a newborn, but I've had it batted out of the air by a 2 year old in full view of his laughing mother.

I've got some bigger-but-still-small "250" size quads too - all up ready-to-fly weights of around 300g. I'm more careful with those - but I've intentionally flown them into myself with no more protection than a tshirt - and it kinda hurts, but doesn't "injure" me (again, I suspect the mother of the aforementioned 2 year old would think differently if I unexpectedly hit them with one of these in the local park, but it's still in the frisbee or football kind of injury risk - not a "this'll definitely need an ambulance" category. And I at least tell myself I'm _much_ more in control of this than a football or frisbee in flight, and I _really_ don't want to hit anybody).

Calling 911 seems like an appropriate reaction when somebody gets knocked out by an object dropped on their head

Definitely. People should be seen by a doctor when they lose consciousness from a blow to the head, because of the risk of concussion (as well as other kinds of brain injury). Concussion can last for days or longer, and failing to rest puts the victim at greater risk of complications or re-injury.

http://www.cdc.gov/concussion/pdf/Facts_about_Concussion_TBI...

I wish I had a better source than that, because I found the advice on p. 4 kind of ambiguous (whether "should be taken seriously" is meant to make an emergency room visit more urgent or less urgent).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com