Comment by ggreer

Comment by ggreer 2 days ago

16 replies

Consider that drones substitute for cars and trucks driving through neighborhoods.

For the same payload delivered, ground vehicles cause significantly more property damage, environmental damage, and injuries/deaths.

jacquesm 2 days ago

That truck carries 500 packages. That drone one or two at best so to replace one truck you're looking at 100's of flights + return flights. And I'm not convinced the risks are lower.

  • jsheard 2 days ago

    Trucks also don't sound like a swarm of angry bees, in fact the all-electric fleet that Amazon uses around here barely sounds like anything at all. Drones would be a huge step backwards for noise pollution.

    • pixl97 2 days ago

      >Trucks also don't sound like a swarm of angry bees,

      Heh, you've not heard my neighbors riced out car then.

  • ggreer 2 days ago

    A truck travels a greater distance to deliver those 500 packages to the same locations, as it must take roads instead of flying in a straight line. And roads are much more likely to have people on them than a random patch of ground. Also the truck weighs several tons. The weight requires more energy to move stuff around, and has more kinetic energy than an 80lb drone.

    • throwawaylaptop 2 days ago

      You should really consider how much energy it takes to levitate an 80lb drone while flying across town, compared to how much energy it takes to roll an 8000lb van across town (even ignoring the fact that the van might deliver 100 packages while making it's way across town).

      • ggreer 2 days ago

        An 8,000lb van will be using fossil fuels and emit particulates from tire and brake dust. Unless it was incredibly efficient and electricity for the drones was coming from coal plants, the van would emit more pollution.

        But the biggest harm is people getting hit by vehicles. Delivery drones are much smaller and don't spend nearly as much time near people. Since drones can deliver stuff more quickly than large vans, they also substitute for individuals driving to a store to pick something up. So the total risk to pedestrians is even less than you might expect from eliminating many van deliveries.

        • jacquesm a day ago

          I'm not so sure that the numbers will bear out what you sketch here. If we assume a drone flight per package and we scale this up to get rid of all of the delivery vehicles the number of people hit by and killed by drones will rise substantially. Drones are immature tech at best and a 5 Kg drone will put you in the morgue on impact with a greater likelihood than an accident with a delivery van. Gravity has no brakes and a drone isn't going to be able to refuse its imperative when the tech inevitably fails. I think you have to watch out not to be so 'anti' one thing that you end up with another that is as bad or even worse. Maybe the solution isn't drones and not delivery vans either.

      • throwaway2037 2 days ago

        You raise an interesting point about energy per delivery. In you example, which one is lower per package? I assume the electric truck.

        • throwawaylaptop 2 days ago

          Considering the distance from one delivery to the next in a van is short, and the warehouse to town distance is split via a hundred packages, it just has to be the electric van. Maybe things will make more sense if the drone can carry 20 lightweight packages. But even then you gotta wonder how much energy it takes to hover/fight gravity the entirety of the trip.

malfist 2 days ago

The semi truck isn't driving through my backyard recording video of me. And I doubt the economics of scale make the truck more environmentally damaging than a drone delivering a single item

Gigachad 2 days ago

In my area packages are often delivered on what looks something like an electric golf cart. It's efficient, safe, and minimally disruptive.

appreciatorBus 2 days ago

It's almost as if .. if noise, property damage, enviro damage, injury and death.. are the problems, then we should regulate everything that do those things equally rather than trying to pick winners among various transport modes. But among other things, this would mean holding people responsible for the incredible damage anyone can do with a car and the people will not stand for being told they cannot go vroom vroom. Additionally since we refuse to regulate until there is a crisis, anything that is new automatically has an advantage over anything that is old, regardless of which causes fewer issues per unit of work (package delivery etc).

  • venturecruelty 2 days ago

    "I don't want a noisy neighborhood, but I want to drive my two-ton death trap that you can't see toddlers in front of and I also don't want to see any of my neighbors and also I want any object in the world deliverable within 24 hours."

    • throwaway2037 2 days ago

      I chuckled when I read this post. It is well written sarcasm. I will say observing some if the "individual driver vs. X wars" on HN (usually between North Americans), there are many who think this way.

    • potato3732842 2 days ago

      >"I don't want a noisy neighborhood, but I want to drive my two-ton death trap that you can't see toddlers in front of and I also don't want to see any of my neighbors and also I want any object in the world deliverable within 24 hours."

      I live in a noisy neighborhood with commercial truck thru traffic.

      I don't have any particular love for the noise or the trucks, but the kind of people who complain about noise and machines will mostly don't select to live here which is good because I find those people to be bad generally.