Drones for photography (Page 16): I think the unequal enforcement of drug laws is a huge problem. And the thing about throwing people in jail for drug offenses is this: WE have to pay...

CHOLLY Loc: THE FLORIDA PANHANDLE!

Bobspez wrote:

Cholly I agree with 99% of what you say. Except the drug laws create criminals, they don't protect us from them.
Bob

I think the unequal enforcement of drug laws is a huge problem. And the thing about throwing people in jail for drug offenses is this: WE have to pay for them. And I can think of much better ways to spend my hard earned money...

CHOLLY Loc: THE FLORIDA PANHANDLE!

Violameister wrote:

Your stance suggests you trust your elected representatives to come up with a rational regulation scheme. But if you have no ideas, or concepts of what should be done, you have no basis for choosing wisely the one who will do the regulating. I submit that whatever is wrong in our legislatures is because those doing the voting are ignorant of the issues, as you so proudly claim to be in this case.

Again, you seem to think an irrational approach to this issue decides the merits of an argument for better regulation of potentially dangerous products.

IT DOES NOT.

The fact that actual harm has already been done is proof that more regulation is needed. PERIOD.

CHOLLY Loc: THE FLORIDA PANHANDLE!

Unfortunately this thread has totally devolved into a discussion about politics, when in fact, it seems a Civics lesson is in order.

Since this is neither the place or the time to rehash what you guys SHOULD have learned in junior high/middle school, let me just repeat what was said earlier: turn off your right-wing radio.

Thinking that this is a police state or that the government has taken away ANY of your rights is the direct result of exposure to people willing to frighten you for ratings and political power. A view that is COMPLETELY divorced from reality.

SERIOUSLY... you guys need to come out of your caves and see the world as it is; not as the charlatans and hucksters try to scare you into thinking it is. :(

Violameister Loc: michigan

CHOLLY wrote:

Again, you seem to think an irrational approach to this issue decides the merits of an argument for better regulation of potentially dangerous products.

IT DOES NOT.

The fact that actual harm has already been done is proof that more regulation is needed. PERIOD.

Objects that have done actual harm, and therefore need more regulation: Automobiles, Backyard Grills, Dogs, electric outlets, roller skates, skis, buses, trucks, sewing kits, axes, hammers, (I could go on, but you get the idea) And, because quadcopters are already regulated, but continue to cause harm they are (in this context) just like the items in the list. The quadcopter is not a brand new device with no restrictions and now needs some. It has them, just like the items mentioned, and nevertheless harm sometimes comes. I can think of one regulation that might be helpful: A warning label that lists guidlines for safe flying, such as not above crowds, not above 400 feet, not near airports.

Interesting that you first say "better regulation" and later say "more regulation". I certainly agree with "better". But you seem to equate "more" with "better" and that is clearly false. We have seen the "more is better" fallacy regarding regulation too often over the years.

CHOLLY Loc: THE FLORIDA PANHANDLE!

First off, ALL of the things you listed above actually ARE REGULATED.

Secondly, more/better are NOT mutually exclusive.

Finally, it is completely irrelevant WHEN a product came to market if it has recently become a public threat or health and safety hazard.

And quad copter HAVE done just that.

Time for regulation.

Violameister Loc: michigan

CHOLLY wrote:

First off, ALL of the things you listed above actually ARE REGULATED.

SO ARE DRONES. (sorry about the caps) That was exactly my point, and that is the fact you seem to be missing in all this. My original complaint was that I cannot fly in perfectly safe places (like unpopulated areas of national parks) due to excessive regulation. I cannot use my drone to make a buck (again, due to excessive regulation.) Maybe that will change, but, we will see.

It is not because of lack of regulation that we see stupid behavior. Very few things are as heavily regulated as "illegal drugs" (or legal drugs, also, for that matter) and yet we see lots of stupid drug related behavior.

What is not needed in both scenarios is "more regulation". What is needed is "smarter or better regulation". And for that to happen we need smart people like you (and the rest of the UHH group) to make intelligent suggestions for the brainless politicians and bureaucrats to follow.

CHOLLY Loc: THE FLORIDA PANHANDLE!

I haven't missed any points at all in this discussion. It should be obvious that this technology needs to be regulated, and the reasons why are equally obvious.

Macronaut Loc: Redondo Beach,Ca.

CHOLLY wrote:

I haven't missed any points at all in this discussion. It should be obvious that this technology needs to be regulated, and the reasons why are equally obvious.

I think you have. There are already laws, regulations and rules in place. You can make a million more and only the people that follow them will suffer. Regardless of how many law or regulations you put in place, people will be people and there will "always" be those few that will disregard them. Also, enforcement is another issue.

CHOLLY Loc: THE FLORIDA PANHANDLE!

No... YOU folk who say there are already laws in place are the ones who are missing the point.

Bill, you sir, are an experienced R.C. aviator who has years as a hobbiest under your belt. YOU understand when and where to fly... but the average person flying drones for the first time doesn't know ANY of the things you do... and there is NO requirement that they learn.

THAT HAS TO CHANGE... especially while this "fad" is still in it's infancy.

Now is the time to address this issue.

Violameister Loc: michigan

CHOLLY wrote:

No... YOU folk who say there are already laws in p... (show quote)

Ah! A glimmering of hope. Are you perhaps suggesting that new flyers receive instruction? Are you suggesting licensure?

joto9d7 Loc: Laguna Hills

And, So, we come back to question:

Is There a reason for us to want more laws that restrict photography?

Macronaut Loc: Redondo Beach,Ca.

Violameister wrote:

Ah! A glimmering of hope. Are you perhaps suggesting that new flyers receive instruction? Are you suggesting licensure?

I do know that hobby grade R/C cars, trucks, boats, aircraft, helis, drones, etc. include instructions on joining AMA and checking for local laws and regulations in the box when you purchase them. Of all the millions sold, you only here of a few incidents here and there. I wish statistics were the same for people texting and driving :|

I personally still have yet to see "any" R/C aircraft of any kind flying where they are not supposed to in and around my surrounding area.

Violameister Loc: michigan

Flyextreme wrote:

I do know that hobby grade R/C cars, trucks, boats, aircraft, helis, drones, etc. include instructions on joining AMA and checking for local laws and regulations in the box when you purchase them. Of all the millions sold, you only here of a few incidents here and there. I wish statistics were the same for people texting and driving :|

I personally still have yet to see "any" R/C aircraft of any kind flying where they are not supposed to in and around my surrounding area.

It has not been a problem around here either.

Your example of texting and driving is against the law in every state that I know of, yet people keep doing it. And there are tons more of those, causing tons more injuries/deaths than quadcopters; this shows the ineffectiveness of mere laws when dealing with irrational people. It is exactly this demonstrated ineffectiveness of laws in these situations that make me want to hear what "regulatory solutions" Cholly is proposing that he thinks will work.

CHOLLY Loc: THE FLORIDA PANHANDLE!

Flyextreme wrote:

I do know that hobby grade R/C cars, trucks, boats, aircraft, helis, drones, etc. include instructions on joining AMA and checking for local laws and regulations in the box when you purchase them. Of all the millions sold, you only here of a few incidents here and there. I wish statistics were the same for people texting and driving :|

I personally still have yet to see "any" R/C aircraft of any kind flying where they are not supposed to in and around my surrounding area.

EXACTLY MY POINT!!! :thumbup:

This "new" technology has allowed every Tom, Dick, and Harry with a credit card to buy one of these things to do "whatever tickles their fancy". Problem is, SOME of them are idiots and others are just plain up to no darn good.

Sure; there are people who want to and WILL do things right... but with that won't be the case with every new owner. And we have already seen the negative consequences of people doing stupid things with this technology. And I don't just mean flying quad copters near fire fighting aircraft. Remember the kid in New England who fired a handgun mounted to a drone in flight?

So yeah; there is a definite need to regulate this technology. Not because of photographers... but because there are fools out there who will abuse it.

As I have said before, the good must suffer because of the bad. :(

Macronaut Loc: Redondo Beach,Ca.

CHOLLY wrote:

EXACTLY MY POINT!!! :thumbup: br br This "ne... (show quote)

You are still missing the point.

you can top off landfills with laws and regulations until the cows come home but, that will not stop people breaking those laws, disregarding regulations or just being stupid with "anything".