Slashdot Mirror


A Power Outage In Silicon Valley Was Caused By A Drone Crash (mercurynews.com)

An anonymous reader quotes the San Jose Mercury News: A drone crashed into a high-voltage wire Thursday night, causing tens of thousands of dollars in damage and knocking out power to roughly 1,600 people for about two hours, police said... "The FAA has rules and regulations in place to prevent this exact type of incident from happening," said Mountain View police spokeswoman Katie Nelson. "We simply ask that people comply with the rules and that they operate drones safely and sensibly."
The town's city hall was without power -- along with the rest of the 1,600 homes -- prompting a Google software engineer to tweet that "drones are fun until someone flies one into high-voltage power lines." They added later that "apparently the owner 'fled in a white hatchback', which is the least dignified way that someone can flee, I think."

2 of 218 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Simple question by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I'll bite. I have a drone for the same reason as I own an assault rifle: for fun (the rifle is strictly for the range). And that most definitely is a good enough reason. Citizens shouldn't have to justify why they need or even just want drones (or guns); the onus is on the state to come up with reasons why we shouldn't have them. Now if the state wants to regulate these things because of problems, that's fine. Require a license. Require registration. Whatever. But a ban should be the last option, and should require both extremely strong reasons for a ban and proof that a ban is effective and the only effective measure. If you want to take these things from the thousands of responsible operators because of a single irresponsible asshat, then lets start banning knifes and cars too.

    --
    If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
  2. Re:Simple question by chuckugly · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I'm pointing out that (see above, I was right) the poster does NOT own an assault rifle. Owning an assault rifle (in the USA, where the drone story is based) requires a special tax stamp and around $70,000 minimum. They are no longer legal to manufacture or import for civilian use and therefore the supply is severely restricted. I found it highly unlikely a poster here takes a rifle worth a small fortune out to the range, and as it turns out I was right. He's verified this already, above.