Is a drone more dangerous than a car? - Jim
On 3 December 2013 12:29, Roger Clarke <[email protected]> wrote: > >> At 11:07 +1100 3/12/13, Bernard Robertson-Dunn wrote: > >>> Has anybody seen a discussion on liability and/or insurance for these > >>> autonomous things? > > >On 3/12/2013 11:31 AM, Roger Clarke wrote: > >> That's in the third paper in the series, for the first of which I > >> sent an RFC this morning, in case anyone didn't notice (:-)} > > At 11:53 +1100 3/12/13, Bernard Robertson-Dunn wrote: > >Roger, apart from you? > > A quick look in my current draft finds these tidbits: > >EC Regulation 785/2004 (EC 2004) stipulates requirements relating to > >accident insurance for aircraft weighing more than 20kg. This > >appears to apply to drones. > > [If I'd detected anything similar in FAA and CASA provisions, I'd > have included that in the draft as well. > > [Very few of the micro-drones in teenagers' stockings this Christmas > will be >20kg. And, at least within a campus area, a 1kg book could > be delivered with a sub-20kg drone as well. > > [Note too that there are various air traffic zones (described in > paper 3 in the series), around airports, and in inverse cones above > them, and across flight-paths at various altitudes. But the 400-foot > max altitude rule that applies across a lot of territory leaves > plenty of scope for action - and congestion, and accidents, and the > many failure-modes that drones exhibit. > > [What, me worry?? > > > >In the current context, no educational processes appear to be in > >place to communicate to drone manufacturers, retailers and > >commercial users that they need to undertake risk assessments, > >devise and implement appropriate safeguards, and establish > >appropriate commercial arrangements including public liability > >insurance. There does not even appear to be any current momentum > >towards encouraging hobby users to use drones within the context > >provided by model aircraft clubs. > > [I'm hoping to nail down the model aircraft situation more tightly. > > [I wouldn't fly a model aircraft without either being a member of a > club and working within their rules (which would provide me with > cover), or reading the public liability part of my house and contents > policy very, very carefully. > > [But I'm an old greybeard with an (admittedly dubious) reputation to > protect, and enough assets to be worth suing. What proportion of > drone users will take care to get (and pay for) public liability > cover of an appropriate kind? (Has anyone had a chat with AAMI or > NRMA about this?). > > > Here's another indicator of how loose analogous situations are: > >Satellite insurance is available for the launch, post-separation and > >in-orbit operation phases. The duration of cover is short, and it > >appears that the impact of space debris on other satellites may not > >be currently insurable. It appears that no impact of space debris > >on earth or in the earth's atmosphere has yet been the subject of > >litigation - although a couple of near-misses have already occurred, > >and the USSR compensated Canada for spacecraft-related nuclear > >contamination in 1978 - and insurance policies for satellites do not > >(yet) cover such risks. > > > -- > Roger Clarke http://www.rogerclarke.com/ > > Xamax Consultancy Pty Ltd 78 Sidaway St, Chapman ACT 2611 AUSTRALIA > Tel: +61 2 6288 6916 http://about.me/roger.clarke > mailto:[email protected] http://www.xamax.com.au/ > > Visiting Professor in the Faculty of Law University of N.S.W. > Visiting Professor in Computer Science Australian National University > _______________________________________________ > Link mailing list > [email protected] > http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link > _______________________________________________ Link mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link
