3 ms·

The current and proposed restrictions on drones seem insane to me. To see why, do the reversal test.[1] Imagine if single-prop planes didn't exist, and drones

by chroma 11y ago

The current and proposed restrictions on drones seem insane to me. To see why, do the reversal test.[1] Imagine if single-prop planes didn't exist, and drones were already used for productive purposes. Courier drones deliver packages in minutes. Construction drones monitor work sites and inspect structures for safety. Police drones scout and warn people near any crimes in progress. Ambulance drones alert drivers and secure intersections so emergency vehicles can respond faster. Some even deliver life-saving equipment or medicines. People have personal drones to follow them on bike rides or runs, carrying supplies and lighting the way at night. Etcetera. Now imagine someone wanting to restrict these drones so that a few people can use cloth-winged planes that run on leaded gasoline. It would be a joke, right? Except, it's not. It's the world we live in. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reversal_test https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reversal_test Edit: I'm talking about general aviation, not civil aviation. Airliners and drones operate at very different altitudes. Except near airports, there's ≈0 risk of a collision. Many find my example too skewed in favor of drones, but I think I've been rather conservative. Due to restrictions, there are many applications that haven't been explored. In all likelihood, the "killer app" for drones has yet to be invented.

dogecoinbase 11y ago
This is a great example of how the reversal test is fundamentally question-begging -- you propose an idealistic version of the future (ignoring the reality of drones falling out of the sky and injuring people, preventing firefighting efforts, and invading people's privacy by hovering outside their apartments with cameras), and assert that it's desirable. Of course it's desirable, you made it up to support your point!
- chroma 11y ago
  My point is that the current and proposed rules are centered around preserving general aviation. Nobody is seriously proposing restricting general aviation to the benefit of drones, despite the fact that it would almost certainly be better for the vast majority of people. Because of CYA syndrome, it's generally easier to pass new laws that to repeal them. If drones actually start causing the problems you suggest, it makes sense to restrict them in specific ways. But preventative legislation kills countless beneficial uses.
  - sokoloff 11y ago
    Drones are already doing/have already done the things dogecoinbase listed in his parenthetical. He's not fear-mongering some possible future state, but referencing issues that have already happened with drones.
    - chroma 11y ago
      Drones would have to be much more troublesome than they currently are to justify the current or proposed restrictions. Every time a drone causes a problem, there's a story about it. Could you imagine if the same were true for private aircraft? Or cars? Newspapers would have to be much thicker. Every day in the US, 100 people die from cars. 15 are pedestrians. I'm flabbergasted that people worry about drones falling on them, then they go outside and think little of walking next to giant metal boxes zooming by. Can't they see how mistaken their priorities are?
- tomswartz07 11y ago
  I see your point, and I admit that incidents have occurred where they have prevented firefighting efforts and have fallen, injuring people. I'm not going to comment on the 'invasion of privacy' part, as it's a strawman; there are no cameras that are easily available on these devices that can 'hover outside someones apartment' and spy on them any more reliably than a cell phone on a stick. However, and this is a very important distinction; these are the small majority of all RC flights by all amateur pilots. I agree that there should be stiff fines for those that break the regulations. I do not agree, however, that everyone should be subject to some crazy ill-advised extra regulations.
davidmr 11y ago
I really don't see even the remotest of relevance of said test to the situation at hand. Airplanes do exist, they carry millions of people a day, and governments must issue and enforce regulations to ensure their safety. It doesn't seem like a stretch of the imagination to envision a drone flown by someone without training flown into a jet engine or the blades of a helicopter because they weren't required to be aware of FAA airspace restrictions. Aircraft are already heavily regulated, so I don't even see your point.
semi-extrinsic 11y ago
> People have personal drones to follow them on bike rides or runs, carrying supplies and lighting the way at night. Have you heard of these recent groundbreaking inventions called the "backpack" and the "headlamp"? I gather they last a lot longer before needing a recharge, can carry a lot more weight, and that they work much better when there are obstacles such as trees around.
- chroma 11y ago
  If you've ever tried to run with a backpack or headlamp, you'd know it's a giant pain. Headlamps bounce up and down (no matter what sort of straps you have), often becoming dislodged. It's enough of an annoyance that I don't use a headlamp when running at night. Backpacks also bounce around, and their inertia messes with your running form. If you use a chest strap to secure the pack better, you'll have a harder time breathing. And there's the problem of sweat. By the end of the workout, your backpack is going to be sweaty and gross. Unless it's waterproof, things inside will be as well.
  - semi-extrinsic 11y ago
    When I lived closer to work I used to run every day both ways, 12km in total, so 60 km per week. (Nowadays I run with my child in a jogging stroller, so I don't need a backpack, and it's a hilly 8km one way so I don't do it every day.) Now I always wore a backpack with a chest strap like you said, and I never had a harder time breathing than normally. It wasn't a giant pain. And I didn't have problems with getting the things inside the backpack sweaty. For reference, this is a 13 liter standard cheap daytrip backpack. If you want to get fancy, Salomon do a vest-like backpack that has a good rep in ultrarunner crowd, with literally no bounce whatsoever. My experience with headlamps is more limited, but have you tried the type with the battery pack not on your head? The key to reducing bounce is reducing sprung weight.

by chroma 11y ago

dogecoinbase 11y ago

This is a great example of how the reversal test is fundamentally question-begging -- you propose an idealistic version of the future (ignoring the reality of drones falling out of the sky and injuring people, preventing firefighting efforts, and invading people's privacy by hovering outside their apartments with cameras), and assert that it's desirable. Of course it's desirable, you made it up to support your point!

chroma 11y ago
My point is that the current and proposed rules are centered around preserving general aviation. Nobody is seriously proposing restricting general aviation to the benefit of drones, despite the fact that it would almost certainly be better for the vast majority of people. Because of CYA syndrome, it's generally easier to pass new laws that to repeal them. If drones actually start causing the problems you suggest, it makes sense to restrict them in specific ways. But preventative legislation kills countless beneficial uses.
- sokoloff 11y ago
  Drones are already doing/have already done the things dogecoinbase listed in his parenthetical. He's not fear-mongering some possible future state, but referencing issues that have already happened with drones.
  - chroma 11y ago
    Drones would have to be much more troublesome than they currently are to justify the current or proposed restrictions. Every time a drone causes a problem, there's a story about it. Could you imagine if the same were true for private aircraft? Or cars? Newspapers would have to be much thicker. Every day in the US, 100 people die from cars. 15 are pedestrians. I'm flabbergasted that people worry about drones falling on them, then they go outside and think little of walking next to giant metal boxes zooming by. Can't they see how mistaken their priorities are?
tomswartz07 11y ago
I see your point, and I admit that incidents have occurred where they have prevented firefighting efforts and have fallen, injuring people. I'm not going to comment on the 'invasion of privacy' part, as it's a strawman; there are no cameras that are easily available on these devices that can 'hover outside someones apartment' and spy on them any more reliably than a cell phone on a stick. However, and this is a very important distinction; these are the small majority of all RC flights by all amateur pilots. I agree that there should be stiff fines for those that break the regulations. I do not agree, however, that everyone should be subject to some crazy ill-advised extra regulations.

davidmr 11y ago

I really don't see even the remotest of relevance of said test to the situation at hand. Airplanes do exist, they carry millions of people a day, and governments must issue and enforce regulations to ensure their safety. It doesn't seem like a stretch of the imagination to envision a drone flown by someone without training flown into a jet engine or the blades of a helicopter because they weren't required to be aware of FAA airspace restrictions. Aircraft are already heavily regulated, so I don't even see your point.

semi-extrinsic 11y ago

> People have personal drones to follow them on bike rides or runs, carrying supplies and lighting the way at night. Have you heard of these recent groundbreaking inventions called the "backpack" and the "headlamp"? I gather they last a lot longer before needing a recharge, can carry a lot more weight, and that they work much better when there are obstacles such as trees around.

chroma 11y ago
If you've ever tried to run with a backpack or headlamp, you'd know it's a giant pain. Headlamps bounce up and down (no matter what sort of straps you have), often becoming dislodged. It's enough of an annoyance that I don't use a headlamp when running at night. Backpacks also bounce around, and their inertia messes with your running form. If you use a chest strap to secure the pack better, you'll have a harder time breathing. And there's the problem of sweat. By the end of the workout, your backpack is going to be sweaty and gross. Unless it's waterproof, things inside will be as well.
- semi-extrinsic 11y ago
  When I lived closer to work I used to run every day both ways, 12km in total, so 60 km per week. (Nowadays I run with my child in a jogging stroller, so I don't need a backpack, and it's a hilly 8km one way so I don't do it every day.) Now I always wore a backpack with a chest strap like you said, and I never had a harder time breathing than normally. It wasn't a giant pain. And I didn't have problems with getting the things inside the backpack sweaty. For reference, this is a 13 liter standard cheap daytrip backpack. If you want to get fancy, Salomon do a vest-like backpack that has a good rep in ultrarunner crowd, with literally no bounce whatsoever. My experience with headlamps is more limited, but have you tried the type with the battery pack not on your head? The key to reducing bounce is reducing sprung weight.