3 ms·

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 fin

by 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.
    - pak 13y ago
      Your emotions are coloring your ability to seriously consider how the 99% of urban dwellers who couldn't care less about being able to fly RC aircraft would feel about them being ubiquitous. I don't need to anticipate a bike hitting me from behind on the sidewalk because they are illegal there, and in the street, I look around (horizontally!) like every other pedestrian. I think that you also fail to understand how things like space, privacy, quietness, accountability, and yes, aesthetics are shared resources in a city that have to be carefully balanced among ALL people, not just an emotional or sarcastic 1%. To manage those concerns take resources, like police, city council members, and licensing. Perhaps you would volunteer to test and license every operator and RC aircraft in the NYC for noise, safety, and flight-worthiness? And to respond to all of the reckless endangerment complaints that will happen anyway? No? Then I guess it will eventually cost me money. And no, I don't think every future reckless operator of an RC aircraft will be dumb enough to record his face on takeoff. It would seem that being able to control them from thousands of feet away, operator unseen, makes it a little harder to police than, say, a hit and run motorist, and the police already have plenty of problems catching them. But perhaps you are ready to volunteer your time and money to solve that problem as well. Many people choose to live in the suburbs and rural areas (many more than in places with the density of Manhattan, for sure). There are already many different opportunities for kids there that don't exist in the city (why, my kid would like to ride his pony and his ATV on the streets, and go skeet shooting! why can't he?) I shed no tears for the sad future children of Manhattan who will be utterly deprived of the opportunity to fly their RC drones down avenues with hundreds of pedestrians. There are literally millions of square miles in the rest of this country where you can do that at a fraction of the risk. And if their parent really cares, they can drive ten miles into Jersey or upstate and do it in a large open park, the way any responsible person already does today.
- coldtea 13y ago
  >I have a small RC helicopter, I could run it into a baby's face at full power and it'd barely tickle. That sounds very reassuring. Have you tried it?
angersock 13y ago
Very simply, the odds of a drone falling out of nowhere and beaning me on the head are quite small, even if once they become popular. Now, banning drones above a few hundred feet in a landing path for an airport, sure, but let's not kid ourselves that we're significantly helping anyone else. Regulating urban drone usage by hobbyists doesn't do anything significant to help, and just dissuades people from having fun and learning. Besides, you're not going to stop the cops or people with enough money/pull from doing it anyways. I'd rather not let the .gov cite FAA regs when nailing protesters, for example.
- martin-adams 13y ago
  >> Very simply, the odds of a drone falling out of nowhere and beaning me on the head are quite small, even if once they become popular. Don't forget to consider the odds of it falling on someone else, especially in a populated area. I'm not sure banning is the right solution as there are responsible hobbyists and enthusiasts who will be caught out.
retrogradeorbit 13y ago
Firstly, your comment is not what I called foolish. I was referring to the original act. Secondly, I'm not raging at all. I'm quite calm. That is what I'm actually asking for. Calmness. With regards to driving not being related because of it 'having regulations', RC model plane flying has regulations too. Ones I abide by. You say it needs to be regulated. Guess what? It is. I've even talked to my local ranger about the regulations. I think if you look at it you're actually over reacting a little. If you are worried about "copter cut someone's head off", what about someone who chops someone's head off without first getting "a permit"? What will you do then? There will always be foolish people doing foolish things. And there are laws and consequences. Have you actually looked at your local regulations regarding RC plane flying?
- yeukhon 13y ago
  if I did seem over reacted, my apology. Let's refine restriction then. This news is probably not too old for some local people. http://blogs.wsj.com/metropolis/2013/09/05/remote-control-helicopter-kills-man-in-brooklyn/ http://blogs.wsj.com/metropolis/2013/09/05/remote-control-he... http://www.ntv7.com.my/7edition/local-en/FREAK_ACCIDENT_18_MONTH_OLD_GIRL_KILLED_IN_REMOTE_CONTROL_HELICOPTER_MISHAP.html http://www.ntv7.com.my/7edition/local-en/FREAK_ACCIDENT_18_M... In both accident, a giant, powerful RC aircraft killed people. Is this the kind we should ban? From the veteran perspective, how do we go about regulating these? Should these be regulated? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SpveweAqGYM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SpveweAqGYM http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/rc-helicopter-general-discussions-129/9679284-girl-hit-rc-heli-update.html http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/rc-helicopter-general-discus... Can these be flying in the city? In a small park? Even for a tiny toy aircraft, it could go wild and hit pedestrian, or a moving vehicle and might cause some unnecessary injury.
  - retrogradeorbit 13y ago
    Wow. Those stories are shocking! I notice they're both helicopters. I've always found quads and helis scary (dangerous combined with difficult to fly) and I fly RC planes exclusively. The regulations need to recognise both ends of the continuum. The regulations applying to a high powered RC model helicopter should be quite different to those that apply to something like a parkzone mini vapor. But both are considered RC aircraft. The regulations are outdated too. But not only in the high-powered end, but also the low powered and new micro end. I am not allowed to fly the mini vapor (or any other RC aircraft) in any park in my electorate. But there are many of small park flyers that are very safe. As is often the case, the law struggles to keep up with the pace of technological change. It's really modern lipo battery tech that has enabled this change. Both at the high end, with large craft using 12 cell lipo batteries (50 Volts and capable of delivering hundreds of Amps for short periods), and at the low end with minture 1 and 2 cell micro lipos. Regulations could have categories based in part apon things like: - peak power output of battery/motor system - material of craft's construction (EPO foam vs balsa or even aluminium) - size, orientation and exposure of propellors and blades (ducted fans vs multiple large horitonal rotors) - weight of aircraft - top speed of aircraft
moocowduckquack 13y ago
Do you want me to pull out news or video showing people's head got cut off flying copter? There is a weight class. There are already regulations. People have been flying RC aircraft for fun in cities perfectly happily for a long time and accidents are rare. Most of the aircraft weigh very little. If flying RC aircraft were a particularly dangerous activity then you would expect there to be many injuries when people gather to fly them, but there are not and certainly I have never heard of anyone getting their head cut off.

by yeukhon 13y ago

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.
  - pak 13y ago
    Your emotions are coloring your ability to seriously consider how the 99% of urban dwellers who couldn't care less about being able to fly RC aircraft would feel about them being ubiquitous. I don't need to anticipate a bike hitting me from behind on the sidewalk because they are illegal there, and in the street, I look around (horizontally!) like every other pedestrian. I think that you also fail to understand how things like space, privacy, quietness, accountability, and yes, aesthetics are shared resources in a city that have to be carefully balanced among ALL people, not just an emotional or sarcastic 1%. To manage those concerns take resources, like police, city council members, and licensing. Perhaps you would volunteer to test and license every operator and RC aircraft in the NYC for noise, safety, and flight-worthiness? And to respond to all of the reckless endangerment complaints that will happen anyway? No? Then I guess it will eventually cost me money. And no, I don't think every future reckless operator of an RC aircraft will be dumb enough to record his face on takeoff. It would seem that being able to control them from thousands of feet away, operator unseen, makes it a little harder to police than, say, a hit and run motorist, and the police already have plenty of problems catching them. But perhaps you are ready to volunteer your time and money to solve that problem as well. Many people choose to live in the suburbs and rural areas (many more than in places with the density of Manhattan, for sure). There are already many different opportunities for kids there that don't exist in the city (why, my kid would like to ride his pony and his ATV on the streets, and go skeet shooting! why can't he?) I shed no tears for the sad future children of Manhattan who will be utterly deprived of the opportunity to fly their RC drones down avenues with hundreds of pedestrians. There are literally millions of square miles in the rest of this country where you can do that at a fraction of the risk. And if their parent really cares, they can drive ten miles into Jersey or upstate and do it in a large open park, the way any responsible person already does today.
coldtea 13y ago
>I have a small RC helicopter, I could run it into a baby's face at full power and it'd barely tickle. That sounds very reassuring. Have you tried it?

angersock 13y ago

Very simply, the odds of a drone falling out of nowhere and beaning me on the head are quite small, even if once they become popular. Now, banning drones above a few hundred feet in a landing path for an airport, sure, but let's not kid ourselves that we're significantly helping anyone else. Regulating urban drone usage by hobbyists doesn't do anything significant to help, and just dissuades people from having fun and learning. Besides, you're not going to stop the cops or people with enough money/pull from doing it anyways. I'd rather not let the .gov cite FAA regs when nailing protesters, for example.

martin-adams 13y ago
>> Very simply, the odds of a drone falling out of nowhere and beaning me on the head are quite small, even if once they become popular. Don't forget to consider the odds of it falling on someone else, especially in a populated area. I'm not sure banning is the right solution as there are responsible hobbyists and enthusiasts who will be caught out.

retrogradeorbit 13y ago

Firstly, your comment is not what I called foolish. I was referring to the original act. Secondly, I'm not raging at all. I'm quite calm. That is what I'm actually asking for. Calmness. With regards to driving not being related because of it 'having regulations', RC model plane flying has regulations too. Ones I abide by. You say it needs to be regulated. Guess what? It is. I've even talked to my local ranger about the regulations. I think if you look at it you're actually over reacting a little. If you are worried about "copter cut someone's head off", what about someone who chops someone's head off without first getting "a permit"? What will you do then? There will always be foolish people doing foolish things. And there are laws and consequences. Have you actually looked at your local regulations regarding RC plane flying?

yeukhon 13y ago
if I did seem over reacted, my apology. Let's refine restriction then. This news is probably not too old for some local people. http://blogs.wsj.com/metropolis/2013/09/05/remote-control-helicopter-kills-man-in-brooklyn/ http://blogs.wsj.com/metropolis/2013/09/05/remote-control-he... http://www.ntv7.com.my/7edition/local-en/FREAK_ACCIDENT_18_MONTH_OLD_GIRL_KILLED_IN_REMOTE_CONTROL_HELICOPTER_MISHAP.html http://www.ntv7.com.my/7edition/local-en/FREAK_ACCIDENT_18_M... In both accident, a giant, powerful RC aircraft killed people. Is this the kind we should ban? From the veteran perspective, how do we go about regulating these? Should these be regulated? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SpveweAqGYM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SpveweAqGYM http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/rc-helicopter-general-discussions-129/9679284-girl-hit-rc-heli-update.html http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/rc-helicopter-general-discus... Can these be flying in the city? In a small park? Even for a tiny toy aircraft, it could go wild and hit pedestrian, or a moving vehicle and might cause some unnecessary injury.
- retrogradeorbit 13y ago
  Wow. Those stories are shocking! I notice they're both helicopters. I've always found quads and helis scary (dangerous combined with difficult to fly) and I fly RC planes exclusively. The regulations need to recognise both ends of the continuum. The regulations applying to a high powered RC model helicopter should be quite different to those that apply to something like a parkzone mini vapor. But both are considered RC aircraft. The regulations are outdated too. But not only in the high-powered end, but also the low powered and new micro end. I am not allowed to fly the mini vapor (or any other RC aircraft) in any park in my electorate. But there are many of small park flyers that are very safe. As is often the case, the law struggles to keep up with the pace of technological change. It's really modern lipo battery tech that has enabled this change. Both at the high end, with large craft using 12 cell lipo batteries (50 Volts and capable of delivering hundreds of Amps for short periods), and at the low end with minture 1 and 2 cell micro lipos. Regulations could have categories based in part apon things like: - peak power output of battery/motor system - material of craft's construction (EPO foam vs balsa or even aluminium) - size, orientation and exposure of propellors and blades (ducted fans vs multiple large horitonal rotors) - weight of aircraft - top speed of aircraft

moocowduckquack 13y ago

Do you want me to pull out news or video showing people's head got cut off flying copter? There is a weight class. There are already regulations. People have been flying RC aircraft for fun in cities perfectly happily for a long time and accidents are rare. Most of the aircraft weigh very little. If flying RC aircraft were a particularly dangerous activity then you would expect there to be many injuries when people gather to fly them, but there are not and certainly I have never heard of anyone getting their head cut off.