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
These are arguments for restrictions, not against them
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 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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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?