Originally Posted by
helonorth
Cars are supposed to be on the road. Helicopters, not so much.
Yes, this is the accepted convention. This could explain why the layman, faced with this unconventional situation, "voluntarily leant backwards" as if at risk of "being struck". The layman may be excused.
The learnt judge on the other hand could have chosen a more objective approach in assessing the actual risk. If enlightened by expert witnesses, the honourable judge could have (although confirming that despite the speed - or rather because of the speed of the helicopter - there almost being no risk, at least much less risk than in any conventionally accepted close encounter between cars and pedestrians), the judge could have focussed on the question whether the aircraft's trajectory was actually necessary in the context of the stated mission (it was not).
Coming back to the (generally accepted) risk of road carnage: With no way to go (because road bound) a small problem like a burst tyre or a broken axle can take out the pedestrian shown in the video. Or an oncoming car (I hear closing speeds of over 200 km/h with separation of sometimes as little as 2 m are common on public roads - that's normally only the stuff of the Thunderbirds aerobatics team) could have lost control, for example while avoiding a tractor pulling onto the road from a 'blind' driveway. And these things do happen, all the time.
Proof of this is not only the very high number of road accident victims in all countries, but more so the high ratio of 'innocent' pedestrians to victims who are passengers/drivers. In some countries that ratio is >30%.
This - despite the increasing number of low flying videos being posted on this and other pilot forums - is unheard of in aviation. I would be surprised if the ratio of 'innocent' people on the ground to crash victims inside the aircraft is even as high a 1%. In aviation we pride ourselves of rather risking the life of all people onboard by putting the aircraft in the drink than risking a single 'innocent' life on the ground by attempting an auto to land (the "they didn't sign up for it" moral dilemma).
Maybe the learnt judge should use the new moral high ground established in her landmark judgment to petition a law that requires cars to maintain a minimum of 500 ft lateral separation to any other car, pedestrian or building, other than for purpose of entering or exiting your own driveway. I guess
that would make a real difference to road kills.