# They're Here



## Vladd67 (Dec 16, 2016)

Amazon Prime Air's delivery by drone just became a reality | The Passive Voice | A Lawyer's Thoughts on Authors, Self-Publishing and Traditional Publishing
Given the variable weather here in the U.K. I imagine that this will be a very limited service.


----------



## Dave (Dec 16, 2016)

I just have a few queries before I use it. Like how does this work exactly?

1) Do the people need to stay in? Given the number of neighbours' parcels we currently take in, I think that is unlikely to happen.

2)





> drones dropped off an Amazon Fire TV and bag of popcorn in the backyard of a customer near Cambridge, England


I wouldn't be very keen on them *dropping* my expensive, fragile purchase in a backyard.

3) Is the public GSP system really good enough for this to work? I've used several phone Apps where the position of things was not exactly where they were meant to be. Good enough if it is to find tree or statue in a park, but not good enough to deliver a parcel in the correct yard in a city. Even the military sometimes blow up the wrong targets with drones.


----------



## Alexa (Dec 16, 2016)

This could be only a fast option of shippment, intersting for those who are isolated from their neighbours. Probably the most expensive.


----------



## Nick B (Dec 16, 2016)

My dogs would eat anything that got dropped off in my garden. I like the idea, but if lots of people start doing it, the air will be full of drones surely...


----------



## Toby Frost (Dec 16, 2016)

The drones release a bit of paper that says "We tried to drop a present on you but you were out". One drone can deliver thousands of these per day.


----------



## Ursa major (Dec 16, 2016)

I suppose the idea is, that with a thirty-minute delivery time, one only requests this service if one knows one is going to be at the agreed... er... drop zone for the next... er... few hours....


----------



## Dave (Dec 16, 2016)

I saw the Amazon Fire TV advert today. Apparently, when you get the delivery, Jeremy Clarkson personally operates the drones (three at a time.) I guess it could be worse; it could be Hammond or James May driving them.


----------



## Ursa major (Dec 17, 2016)

That advert worries me. Only _one_ operator for a number of drones...?!


----------



## HanaBi (Dec 17, 2016)

Don't like the idea of drones flying over my head. Plenty of "what ifs" too.

What if a drone failed in mid flight and fell onto a busy road or populated area?
What if a drone was somehow hacked and redirected?
What if some sad git with an air gun tried taking potshots at one?
Seeing a drone overhead will it give potential thieves the idea of tracking it, waiting for it drop its contents in someone's back garden and then nick it??
What if you live in a block of flats/maisonettes?
What if it gets dropped in the wrong garden?

Lots of negatives that need to be addressed. But that said, I can see the potential. The idea of ordering/receiving items within an hour reminds me of a modern day "takeaway", but without the need to tip the driver!


----------



## Stuart Suffel (Dec 17, 2016)

So...NOT aliens then?


----------



## Dave (Dec 17, 2016)

@HanaBi People are already doing all those things you don't want, just to a lesser degree! Prisoners are getting drugs and mobile phones into jails using them. They are regularly being involved in near misses with aircraft. It is interesting that some countries have banned them, but isn't that like trying to stop the tide coming in? I'd agree that we certainly need action to monitor, control and police these activities.


----------



## HanaBi (Dec 19, 2016)

Facebook's internet drone crash-landed after wing 'deformed' in flight

"Facebook's internet drone crash-landed after wing 'deformed' in flight Autopilot fail led to too-fast descent that bent wing beyond tolerances"

Fortunately it didn't land in a populated area, but it's just a matter of time before one does.


----------



## Vertigo (Dec 19, 2016)

HanaBi said:


> Facebook's internet drone crash-landed after wing 'deformed' in flight
> 
> "Facebook's internet drone crash-landed after wing 'deformed' in flight Autopilot fail led to too-fast descent that bent wing beyond tolerances"
> 
> Fortunately it didn't land in a populated area, but it's just a matter of time before one does.



With proper regulation your last statement doesn't have to be any more likely than a normal airplane landing in a populated area. Remember this crash of the Facebook drone only happened during testing (which of course is why these things are tested) in location deliberately chosen for its lack of population and it was less than 20 feet above the ground and travelling at less than 30 miles an hour. Weighing less than half the weight of a smart car even if it had happened in a populated area it would have done far less damage than say a small light aircraft crashing.

Regulation on drones is urgently needed but let's still keep it in perspective.


----------



## HanaBi (Dec 19, 2016)

Vertigo said:


> With proper regulation your last statement doesn't have to be any more likely than a normal airplane landing in a populated area. Remember this crash of the Facebook drone only happened during testing (which of course is why these things are tested) in location deliberately chosen for its lack of population and it was less than 20 feet above the ground and travelling at less than 30 miles an hour. Weighing less than half the weight of a smart car even if it had happened in a populated area it would have done far less damage than say a small light aircraft crashing.
> 
> Regulation on drones is urgently needed but let's still keep it in perspective.



"Regulation" is the key factor here however. And you can have best regulation in the world along with the best safety procedures in a test environment.

But as we have witnessed with self-drive cars, they're not infallible, and accidents and fatalities have happened in the real domain.

Admittedly any new technology will always have its setbacks, otherwise we would have never landed men on the Moon. But the use of drones both in the public and private domains worry me, despite tight regulation


----------



## Dave (Dec 19, 2016)

HanaBi said:


> ...as we have witnessed with self-drive cars, they're not infallible, and accidents and fatalities have happened in the real domain.


Cars are safer today than ever. If you read a local newspaper from the 1920's or 1930's it is astounding the sheer number of serious car accidents reported with pedestrian casualties that we allowed and found completely acceptable. I'd say that driver-less cars with their anti-crash technology has the potential to make the roads safer still. I really don't see the safety aspect of the number of drones being a problem if they are *properly regulated*. Of course there are problems to overcome - people flying them at aircraft, people flying them too low - but people in cars speed and drive the wrong way up streets too. Let's face it, anything can become a danger if it is misused. They certainly need regulating, maybe even licensing.


----------



## Vertigo (Dec 20, 2016)

HanaBi said:


> "Regulation" is the key factor here however. And you can have best regulation in the world along with the best safety procedures in a test environment.
> 
> But as we have witnessed with self-drive cars, they're not infallible, and accidents and fatalities have happened in the real domain.
> 
> Admittedly any new technology will always have its setbacks, otherwise we would have never landed men on the Moon. But the use of drones both in the public and private domains worry me, despite tight regulation





Dave said:


> Cars are safer today than ever. If you read a local newspaper from the 1920's or 1930's it is astounding the sheer number of serious car accidents reported with pedestrian casualties that we allowed and found completely acceptable. I'd say that driver-less cars with their anti-crash technology has the potential to make the roads safer still. I really don't see the safety aspect of the number of drones being a problem if they are *properly regulated*. Of course there are problems to overcome - people flying them at aircraft, people flying them too low - but people in cars speed and drive the wrong way up streets too. Let's face it, anything can become a danger if it is misused. They certainly need regulating, maybe even licensing.


The current claim from Tesla is that despite the one fatal crash the statistics actually show their automatic drive cars to be much safer with a much reduced number of accidents per mile driven. Of course any accidents that happen whilst driving in the automatic mode will, at least for the time being, get so much press coverage that you could be forgiven for thinking that stepping into one is stepping into a death trap. However the statistics do seem to show that already the number of accidents per mile (including fatal ones) is way lower than manually driven cars.

Also, yes, the drones are not infallible but neither are the pilots of aircraft, or the aircraft themselves; they still regularly suffer from crashes. That's why I say we need to keep a little perspective on this.

And by the way I struggle to keep that perspective myself. I am very disturbed by the huge increase in the unregulated use of drones. This is a technology that is so open to abuse it is really quite staggering how long it seems to be taking some governments to bring regulation in. There are all sorts of issues:
- privacy; they have already been used and involved in court cases for snooping and outright voyeurism.
- safety; numerous close calls with other aircraft including passenger aircraft. A TV drone crashed and almost took out a skier in a downhill competition (no injuries).
- security; numerous documented cases of using them for smuggling across borders as well as into prisons.
- terrorism; they can easily be modified to carry and fire guns as well as bombs.

I think this Pandora's box is well and truly opened, but we must have regulation of something so open to misuse. However it's worth remembering the other side to this particular coin; there are an enormous number of beneficial possible uses of this technology beyond just the obvious military and delivery opportunities.


----------



## HanaBi (Dec 20, 2016)

Vertigo said:


> The current claim from Tesla is that despite the one fatal crash the statistics actually show their automatic drive cars to be much safer with a much reduced number of accidents per mile driven. Of course any accidents that happen whilst driving in the automatic mode will, at least for the time being, get so much press coverage that you could be forgiven for thinking that stepping into one is stepping into a death trap. However the statistics do seem to show that already the number of accidents per mile (including fatal ones) is way lower than manually driven cars.
> 
> Also, yes, the drones are not infallible but neither are the pilots of aircraft, or the aircraft themselves; they still regularly suffer from crashes. That's why I say we need to keep a little perspective on this.
> _
> ...



I think this was the point I was trying to purvey earlier, but obviously not all that well. 

I fully appreciate that all new technologies will suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, even for drones and self-drive cars. But it worries me beyond measure how drones could be used for all manner of things given the nature of some people who think it fun to spy on someone's bedroom; to fly too close to a plane; or to drop things on people or cars - just because they can, and without impunity given the lax ownership laws (at least over here in the UK)

Regulation, laws and restrictions are to be welcomed of course, but as we know people still break them because that's the nature of the beast


----------



## Vertigo (Dec 20, 2016)

It's a difficult one, I think. I wonder whether they should be required to have a transponder and ownership registered as with something like a car. At least then the owner of a close call with, say, an aircraft should be traceable.


----------



## Dave (Dec 21, 2016)

Safety test proposal for drone users - BBC News
Obviously, I don't know the exact plans and it sounds like they are still in discussion, but this doesn't sound strong enough.


----------



## HanaBi (Dec 21, 2016)

Dave said:


> Safety test proposal for drone users - BBC News
> Obviously, I don't know the exact plans and it sounds like they are still in discussion, but this doesn't sound strong enough.



Quote from article - "*The government says the drone industry could be worth billions by 2025.*"

That's all people will ever remember from that report. Everything else is secondary.


----------



## Mirannan (Dec 21, 2016)

Another problem with autonomous cargo drones (even more so autnomous vehicles) might be their potential for nefarious use. A self-driving taxi could easily be made into a (rather slow) GPS-guided missile. To avoid detection, stuff the HE into a tailor's dummy - although I imagine self-driving taxis will be quite intensively used as small freight vehicles, anyway, so an apparently empty vehicle wouldn't be all that suspicious. Especially as they will probably move around (to holding areas, perhaps?) when not in use, anyway.


----------



## Vertigo (Dec 21, 2016)

To be fair that's really not much more of a danger than using a courier to ship your bomb for you. I don't think you'll find any normal couriers will have the equipment/sniffer dogs required to check all their parcels for explosives.


----------

