5 ms·

If you're a C-SPAN junkie like me you look forward with christmas-morning glee to the call-in episodes about drone laws. There is exactly one type of person wh

If you're a C-SPAN junkie like me you look forward with christmas-morning glee to the call-in episodes about drone laws. There is exactly one type of person who wakes up at 5am to hold the line for 30 minutes to ask a question about drones, and it is (you guessed it) local yokels who are planning to shoot a drone down and looking for permission. The anti-vaxxers know more science words but the anti-drone crowd is much more entertaining.

threeseed 11y ago
Please don't associate anti-vaxxers with the anti-drone crowd. People have actually gotten sick and died from preventable diseases caught from unvaccinated children. And I can't imagine many people are suggesting drones be banned. But many including myself believe they do need to be regulated and situations like this are why.
- matheweis 11y ago
  All due respect, but I think op is accurate... I say this as an immunocompromised individual fully understanding the weight of your analogy. Many of the recently enacted regulations are driven by fear and hyperbole, with very little understanding of the technologies and real risks involved. This is in fact the very same position from which the anti-vax crowd pleads their cause. Further, drones are very capable of saving lives, and many recently enacted regulations are actively preventing their involvement in life-saving activities that would otherwise have been both safe and legal. I could go on for paragraphs about how the current regulations in the US in particular are a complete joke that do absolutely nothing to improve the safety of drone operations - and in some cases actually encourage riskier ones.
- jjoonathan 11y ago
  "Regulated" can mean anything from "enforcement of reasonable precaution" to "banned on the basis of irrational fear." Existing regulations already meet the former standard IMO -- it's not like the drone operator was operating legally and will get away scott-free even if caught. > A Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) spokesman said it was "totally unacceptable" to fly drones close to airports, and anyone flouting the rules can face "severe penalties, including imprisonment" Calls to "regulate" are then actually calls to increase bureaucratic barriers and harshen penalties, which will likely have a disproportionately large impact on legitimate applications of the technology and a disproportionately small impact on those who choose, as this drone operator did, to break the rules.
  - taspeotis 11y ago
    > Existing regulations already meet the former standard The article implicitly makes this point, too. > Steve Landells, from the British Airline Pilots Association (Balpa), said it had been "only a matter of time before we had a drone strike". He called for greater enforcement of existing rules. (Emphasis mine.)
    - jjoonathan 11y ago
      I'd say it explicitly makes the point too :-) > Flying a drone near an airport can already be punished with up to five years in prison, and rules also forbid taking them above 400ft (122m) or near buildings and crowds of people.
    - Daviey 11y ago
      He was on BBC Radio 4 this morning, claiming that BALPA is setting up a project to do testing similar to that of bird strikes on aircraft, such as windscreens. However, he did put emphasis on avoiding through education - rather than just testing impact.
  - pyrale 11y ago
    A call to regulate can be understood both as asking for new law, and asking for a better enforcement of existing law.
- chrismcb 11y ago
  Situations like what? An unidentified object may have hit Apache, doing no damage. Perhaps we should understand what Hartland before going on a witch hunt.
fapjacks 11y ago
Weird. I do that, too.

threeseed 11y ago

Please don't associate anti-vaxxers with the anti-drone crowd. People have actually gotten sick and died from preventable diseases caught from unvaccinated children. And I can't imagine many people are suggesting drones be banned. But many including myself believe they do need to be regulated and situations like this are why.

matheweis 11y ago
All due respect, but I think op is accurate... I say this as an immunocompromised individual fully understanding the weight of your analogy. Many of the recently enacted regulations are driven by fear and hyperbole, with very little understanding of the technologies and real risks involved. This is in fact the very same position from which the anti-vax crowd pleads their cause. Further, drones are very capable of saving lives, and many recently enacted regulations are actively preventing their involvement in life-saving activities that would otherwise have been both safe and legal. I could go on for paragraphs about how the current regulations in the US in particular are a complete joke that do absolutely nothing to improve the safety of drone operations - and in some cases actually encourage riskier ones.
jjoonathan 11y ago
"Regulated" can mean anything from "enforcement of reasonable precaution" to "banned on the basis of irrational fear." Existing regulations already meet the former standard IMO -- it's not like the drone operator was operating legally and will get away scott-free even if caught. > A Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) spokesman said it was "totally unacceptable" to fly drones close to airports, and anyone flouting the rules can face "severe penalties, including imprisonment" Calls to "regulate" are then actually calls to increase bureaucratic barriers and harshen penalties, which will likely have a disproportionately large impact on legitimate applications of the technology and a disproportionately small impact on those who choose, as this drone operator did, to break the rules.
- taspeotis 11y ago
  > Existing regulations already meet the former standard The article implicitly makes this point, too. > Steve Landells, from the British Airline Pilots Association (Balpa), said it had been "only a matter of time before we had a drone strike". He called for greater enforcement of existing rules. (Emphasis mine.)
  - jjoonathan 11y ago
    I'd say it explicitly makes the point too :-) > Flying a drone near an airport can already be punished with up to five years in prison, and rules also forbid taking them above 400ft (122m) or near buildings and crowds of people.
  - Daviey 11y ago
    He was on BBC Radio 4 this morning, claiming that BALPA is setting up a project to do testing similar to that of bird strikes on aircraft, such as windscreens. However, he did put emphasis on avoiding through education - rather than just testing impact.
- pyrale 11y ago
  A call to regulate can be understood both as asking for new law, and asking for a better enforcement of existing law.
chrismcb 11y ago
Situations like what? An unidentified object may have hit Apache, doing no damage. Perhaps we should understand what Hartland before going on a witch hunt.

fapjacks 11y ago

Weird. I do that, too.