Comparing drones and cars is also very disingenuous given that cars and driving are heavily regulated and relatively well understood by people since they are an

Comparing drones and cars is also very disingenuous given that cars and driving are heavily regulated and relatively well understood by people since they are an integral part of day to day life almost all over the world, while drones are still mostly seen as harmless toys and the vast majority of people operate and treat them as such. How many people take a car for a spin on a working airport runway because all that asphalt means it's a good place to have fun with the toy, especially without a driver's license or any idea of the rules of driving? Because plenty of people do it with drones. A better comparison would have been with laser pointers, another thing many people think is just a harmless toy. > Of course for the latter [cars] we even have demonstrable harm, not only aggressive overregulation This goes way beyond disingenuous. Do we have to wait for the harm to happen before considering regulation? There's a lot of truth in the popular wisdom that "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" so I'm curious what's a solid argument to suddenly demand being reactive rather than proactive especially when it comes to lives. I mean other than the one making my point above, that people want to play with "the toy".