> 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.

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).