upvote
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)
reply
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.

reply
> 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.

reply
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.

reply
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.
reply
> 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 of drone flight isn't reasonable, at the moment.

I suppose a safe alternative would be pneumatic tubes dug to everyone's door. But, only things that are economically feasible can exist in the world. So, instead of perfection, we're left with the iteration and compromise that is engineering, regulations and enforcement to bound it, and insurance to catch the edge cases.

A large part of the FAA regulation around drones is one based on existing in reality, and it's lack of perfection, which is how much damage they can do (this is what limits the weight and speed).

reply
>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.

reply
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.

reply
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.

reply
Also drone and payload falling to the ground from any kind of height could cause serious injury or death if it falls on someone.
reply
Which is the argument against flying cars. Uncontrolled flying car crashes over populated areas could be catastrophic.
reply
Easy, don't walk near buildings then! /s
reply
I expect some kind of automatic drone parachute system to develop.
reply
I think parachutes take more height to work properly, compared to building heights.

Maybe if they fly at much higher altitudes for most of the flight.

reply
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.

reply
Vibe steering and navigating
reply