[tcdent]

You're talking about technology that's only become realistic in the last couple years. Even then, there's probably nothing off-the-shelf that would serve the current need.

LAPD has been patrolling with helicopters for decades. I have yet to see a drone follow a car in high speed pursuit down the 5 at 100+ MPH.

[digdugdirk]

On the other hand, I have seen drones chase down F1 cars at 100+ MPH...

Realistically though, I agree with your sentiment. Solving this would drones would require a constant flock of something more akin to Predator drones.

The better question is - why do we allow high speed pursuit chases in the first place?

[hatthew]

As far as I'm aware, high speed drones tend to have quite short flight durations due to battery limitations. Drones that have the range to follow a fleeing suspect for a long time would probably have to be big enough that they could cause a fatal accident if they crash, and in that case I'd rather have a pilot on board. Better reaction time, no risk from jamming, much better field of view/awareness, decades of testing, etc.

[typewithrhythm]

Most of the small high speed drones are that size to fit under professional licencing requirements, often so that one racing spec can be viable across a wider area. Leading to significant competition in that size pushing down prices.

Rather than some inherent sized for safety idea.

Jamming might be interesting, I suspect that it's easy enough (and a much bigger crime) to follow a very loud jamming signal though.

Every practical metric a drone surpasses a helicopter; they are so much simpler to operate that you can easily offset any perceived downside with more drones. And you don't get a tested solution without trying it out.

[tcdent]

> why do we allow high speed pursuit chases in the first place?

AFAIK they've changed their tactics in recent years, but growing up around LA these we're like sporting events on TV. It's a guilty pleasure, but almost everyone I know tuned-in and watched the chase.

[phantasmish]

Their popularity for viewers (even more so now with YouTube, but they’re long been a staple of live news and late night tv) and the fact that police like any excuse to do “badass” things are big parts of why they still happen. They’re a pretty bad idea. Endangering lives (including bystanders) over mostly relatively-minor crimes.

But people love ‘em, and if you point out what a bad idea they are people label you “soft on crime” (as happens with a lot of plainly good policy)

[asdff]

Why do we need to follow a car in a high speed pursuit and force it to go 100mph on uncontrolled streets is the better question

[sokoloff]

The person “forc[ing] it to go 100mph” is in the car being chased.

[asdff]

Chased by what? It isn't a lion they are running from. It is a police interceptor egging them on to go 100mph.

[sokoloff]

I think they’re overwhelmingly being chased by a police vehicle after a lawful request to pull over and stop.

The fleeing driver is choosing to turn that lawful stop into felony fleeing/eluding if they choose to attempt to flee at triple digits.

[phantasmish]

This is very much an “it takes two to tango” situation.

Without both of:

- A driver willing to flee the cops.

- A cop willing to chase at dangerous speeds

The high-speed chase doesn’t happen. Both make it happen.

[kevin_thibedeau]

The MQ-8 would be cheaper to operate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_MQ-8_Fire_Sco...

[scottyah]

In what way would that be cheaper to operate? You'd just replace a pilot with a few pilots and a few teams of software engineers. Maybe fuel savings?

[robotnikman]

Pretty sure these can't be bought by municipalities. Would make more sense to operate them though.