6 ms·

As a RC plane flying hobbiest my greatest fear is from over reaction to fools like this one. Yes he did the wrong thing. And he's been charged. The present laws

As a RC plane flying hobbiest my greatest fear is from over reaction to fools like this one. Yes he did the wrong thing. And he's been charged. The present laws seem fine. The big danger is from over-reaction and then just a law outright banning all civilian use. This is my worst case scenario. When me and my friends fly it's a day trip. We travel to a remote location, or a large open flying field. We don't fly over people, or sporting events. We check local regulations over places banned from model flying. Where I am (Australia) there are areas where it is not allowed at all. All the inner city areas are off limits except for a few allocated fields. It's all handled at the local council level. Different councils are different. We fly under the 400ft ceiling and give way to all other aircraft (Hear a real plane? Bring yours down.) We don't need any permits. I usually don't crash but I have in the past, and I know that I might. Components fail. Radio links can have issues. And then there's the wind and the elements. So we take all the due precautions. I don't want people to ban my hobby because some fools take this new piece of tech and without much experience act recklessly with it. It's a danger with anything. There are young hoons who burn their tyres in the middle of the night on some corner. Don't ban driving. Or the car. Or all civilian uses of the car. Let's all keep our heads screwed on.

yeukhon 13y ago
Please before raging at me look at what I said. Flying in a dense area is dangerous. Flying in a rural area (or if you want, open field somewhere remote) is fine. So you took the wrong direction. My comment is not foolish at all. We just need to ban in the city. Even 100 ft is dangerous. This is not foolish. And importing the argument "ban driving" is certainly foolish because we do have regulations on driving. You can't drive above certain speed and can only drive if you have a permit (if you get caught without a license you get into trouble). You can only drive in a specific designated area called roads. In essence, if you want to fly within the city like central park. Okay. But it needs to be regulated. Why? Anyone can build a monster copter flying and the next thing is either this copter cut someone's head off or a crash. It is like 3D printing a gun. Without regulation we don't really know who is responsible for what. So a permit seems reasonable. A little law enforcing the consequence, classifying the accident is crucial. Do you want me to pull out news or video showing people's head got cut off flying copter? If you do that in an open field the danger can be minimized (more space to run away), but in a dense metro area (think about 42th street) is harder. So No. Read my comment carefully before you make your comment (part of it on ban flying copter in the city).
- nknighthb 13y ago
  > we do have regulations on driving You don't want regulations on RC aircraft, you want to ban them. But you know nothing about them. I have a small RC helicopter, I could run it into a baby's face at full power and it'd barely tickle. You've gotten your ideas from media sensationalism of extreme incidents. I could just as easily use your arguments to say "ban bicycles" because someone fell off one and died, or ran into a little old lady and killed her. That's actually far more common than anyone being injured by RC aircraft.
  - pak 13y ago
    You're not quantifying correctly. Car accidents and bicycle accidents are currently more common than RC aircraft accidents partly because RC use is so uncommon. If you throw in a denominator of operator-hours, the picture likely changes. You should also account for the foresight and preventability afforded to potential victims. From the perspective of a pedestrian or property owner on the ground, it is a lot easier to anticipate and avoid an accident with something moving horizontally than something falling out of the sky. I can avoid stepping into a crosswalk if I anticipate a taxi will run the red light. I can't anticipate something falling on my head. There are many reasons you might want to ban RC in an urban area besides safety. There's reasonable expectations of privacy for example; I don't think residents of apartment buildings would be amused by drones with cameras tapping on their windows. There's noise considerations. If there are drones flying unexpectedly between buildings and down streets, it's unsightly and distracting. Let's keep them in the suburbs or rural areas where less people will be affected by these externalities.
    - nknighthb 13y ago
      How do you anticipate a bicycle hitting you from behind? > There's reasonable expectations of privacy for example There is nothing reasonable about an expectation of privacy when your curtains are open. > There's noise considerations. More ignorance, more overreaction. Many RC aircraft are nearly silent, and we have noise ordinances for the rest. But I promise, you won't hear most RC aircraft over the din in Manhattan anyway. > unsightly According to whom? > distracting Oh look, an actual problem to be addressed. Why not talk about that? Oh, right, because it's just a post-hoc rationalization for an initial knee-jerk reaction. > Let's keep them in the suburbs or rural areas where less people will be affected by these externalities. You mean where the majority of people, especially children, will have no opportunity to play, experiment, and learn. We already have laws to control the externalities. The NYPD is investigating this guy for reckless endangerment. That should be more than enough.

yeukhon 13y ago

Please before raging at me look at what I said. Flying in a dense area is dangerous. Flying in a rural area (or if you want, open field somewhere remote) is fine. So you took the wrong direction. My comment is not foolish at all. We just need to ban in the city. Even 100 ft is dangerous. This is not foolish. And importing the argument "ban driving" is certainly foolish because we do have regulations on driving. You can't drive above certain speed and can only drive if you have a permit (if you get caught without a license you get into trouble). You can only drive in a specific designated area called roads. In essence, if you want to fly within the city like central park. Okay. But it needs to be regulated. Why? Anyone can build a monster copter flying and the next thing is either this copter cut someone's head off or a crash. It is like 3D printing a gun. Without regulation we don't really know who is responsible for what. So a permit seems reasonable. A little law enforcing the consequence, classifying the accident is crucial. Do you want me to pull out news or video showing people's head got cut off flying copter? If you do that in an open field the danger can be minimized (more space to run away), but in a dense metro area (think about 42th street) is harder. So No. Read my comment carefully before you make your comment (part of it on ban flying copter in the city).

nknighthb 13y ago
> we do have regulations on driving You don't want regulations on RC aircraft, you want to ban them. But you know nothing about them. I have a small RC helicopter, I could run it into a baby's face at full power and it'd barely tickle. You've gotten your ideas from media sensationalism of extreme incidents. I could just as easily use your arguments to say "ban bicycles" because someone fell off one and died, or ran into a little old lady and killed her. That's actually far more common than anyone being injured by RC aircraft.
- pak 13y ago
  You're not quantifying correctly. Car accidents and bicycle accidents are currently more common than RC aircraft accidents partly because RC use is so uncommon. If you throw in a denominator of operator-hours, the picture likely changes. You should also account for the foresight and preventability afforded to potential victims. From the perspective of a pedestrian or property owner on the ground, it is a lot easier to anticipate and avoid an accident with something moving horizontally than something falling out of the sky. I can avoid stepping into a crosswalk if I anticipate a taxi will run the red light. I can't anticipate something falling on my head. There are many reasons you might want to ban RC in an urban area besides safety. There's reasonable expectations of privacy for example; I don't think residents of apartment buildings would be amused by drones with cameras tapping on their windows. There's noise considerations. If there are drones flying unexpectedly between buildings and down streets, it's unsightly and distracting. Let's keep them in the suburbs or rural areas where less people will be affected by these externalities.
  - nknighthb 13y ago
    How do you anticipate a bicycle hitting you from behind? > There's reasonable expectations of privacy for example There is nothing reasonable about an expectation of privacy when your curtains are open. > There's noise considerations. More ignorance, more overreaction. Many RC aircraft are nearly silent, and we have noise ordinances for the rest. But I promise, you won't hear most RC aircraft over the din in Manhattan anyway. > unsightly According to whom? > distracting Oh look, an actual problem to be addressed. Why not talk about that? Oh, right, because it's just a post-hoc rationalization for an initial knee-jerk reaction. > Let's keep them in the suburbs or rural areas where less people will be affected by these externalities. You mean where the majority of people, especially children, will have no opportunity to play, experiment, and learn. We already have laws to control the externalities. The NYPD is investigating this guy for reckless endangerment. That should be more than enough.