Once again, the parasitic government seeks to stamp out innovation in the name of protecting its supposedly helpless citizens. Do they really think Amazon wants one of its drones crashing into an airliner or a backyard birthday party?
These things can be regulated effectively by the market, and by private insurance. It’s really sad that hardly anybody in America understands freedom enough anymore to see that. Has everyone (including NAMIC spokesmen) been so brainwashed in the government schools that they think companies would fly drones around willy-nilly, exposing themselves to lawsuits and negative PR that could bankrupt them practically overnight?
We don’t need any more “help” from the pests in DC. Tell them to buzz off.
Your comments are short-sighted. I don’t want to open my door and walk into a drone going 100 mph. trying to deliver a package to my neighbor. While companies would not intentionally try to injure others, this is still a new endeavor and like Crain says it will evolve over time. I like the idea of having a trained pilot instead of some nitwit that decides they know how to operate one of these things. Anything going 100 mph can easily injure someone or damage someone’s property.
Respectfully Libby, you have not addressed my argument at all. Your second sentence makes me wonder whether you even read what I wrote. Would any company risk this? Would its insurance company let it?
Amazon wouldn’t want nitwits flying its drones any more than a manufacturing company would want a nitwit running a multi-million-dollar CNC machining center.
You assume, as do most gullible Americans, that the only effective regulation is regulation by politicians: grandstanding buffoons who are always in bed with the industries they regulate.
Respectfully, Roland, I think I did. Of course no corporation would want to injure people or property, but that doesn’t stop it from happening. As far as their insurance company “letting” them, if it’s not covered (aircraft) the insurance company has taken on no risk. That also doesn’t stop someone from flying one uninsured. Especially if there is no-one regulating them.
Do you know that people are currently using drones for their business? Doing site inspections and roof inspections. Do you think they have had proper training? I don’t know and neither do you.
It’s the equivalent of letting a 10 year-old get behind the wheel and letting the “market effectively regulate it.” That’s absurd. Sure, carriers could put an exclusion in for all uninsured drivers. What happens when the 10 year-old still gets behind the wheel and kills someone? How does that help society?
I’m sorry, but some exposures need regulating. I don’t care who does it, but usually it’s the government.
Ah yes, the government waves its magic regulatory wand and all bad behavior ceases. That is what the blowhard politicians would have us believe they are capable of. But have they been able to stop drug abuse after 100 years of prohibition? Have they been able to end underage drinking on college campuses? Government regulators are parasites and miserable failures who maintain – at our expense – the illusion that they are making our lives better.
“Of course no corporation would want to injure people or property, but that doesn’t stop it from happening.” So you believe that having government regulations will make them REALLY REALLY not want to injure people or property, and THAT will stop it from happening? Nonsense. The threat of a fine is nothing compared to the threat of going out of business because of liability and bad press – pressures that we as consumers place on all sellers.
As far as 10-year-olds go, what vehicle owner would allow this? The property owner always has the utmost incentive to prevent misuse of the device, whether it be a car or a drone. Law or not, I wouldn’t let a child drive my car down a busy interstate, would you? Likewise, no responsible company’s management would let unqualified people fly its drones. As for irresponsible companies, by definition they’re not going to obey laws anyway, just as irresponsible parents don’t care what the law says they can’t let their child do.
Of course, accidents can happen. Just ask the loved ones of those who have died on public roads. There, your beloved institution of government has been in charge of safety for my entire life, during which time hundreds of thousands have perished. I can’t drive my family anywhere without being threatened by idiots who have no intention of operating their vehicles safely. And where are the government cops? Nowhere to be found. What pathetic failures.
February 25, 2015 at 11:53 am
Derrick says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Drone Pilots for recreational use should not be licensed but perhaps certified. Drone pilot for commercial use should be licensed. I might add with your point of view you would need to license everyone involved then. A Drone could simply fall out of the sky and hit you on your front doorstep. Rules should pretty much be the same for both. Permission should be given for any drone use over someone’s property if it has any surveillance equipment at all, permission to fly the drone under so many feet above the property in addition to receiving package by drones versus a truck. It should be 100% against the law to prices people into accepting drone use at the expense of their privacy. Let the lawsuits start over people flying surveillance drones over other people’s property.
Roland – Multi-million dollar corporations would certainly be more careful when it came to exposing themselves to serious liability issues in regards to drones. However, as a pilot who has spent countless dollars, time and effort AND who was almost killed in my own open cockpit airplane by a “freelance” business person operating a drone who had zero aeronautical knowledge and no license or permit to be operating the drone, I feel that that person should be regulated in the same way that I am as a licensed pilot through the Federal Aviation Administration. It just makes the sky safer for everybody. Flying and aviation are similar to insurance in the sense that it is all about risk management and mitigation.
Yes, there are regulations in regards flying too close to other aircraft with a drone….but as I said, this person had no aeronautical knowledge or training nor did it seem that he really cared about anything other than “getting some good shots”. Pretty scary stuff when its your butt in the seat several hundred feet above the ground.
So the existing law did not prevent the incident that almost killed you, correct? You are making my argument for me. You wrote, “I feel that that person should be regulated in the same way that I am as a licensed pilot through the Federal Aviation Administration.” If that person is in the habit of ignoring existing regulations like the one that prohibited him – with threats of severe penalties, I presume – from flying his device so close to you, then what makes you think he will obey additional regulations?
This superstition, that politicians and bureaucrats can make bad behavior disappear – poof! – by passing new laws and regulations, is baffling to me. How can intelligent people continue to believe this fairy tale?
February 20, 2015 at 12:33 pm
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
If the person flying the drone had no training, it seems likely that they did not know the laws to begin with. If that person was forced to pass a test proving they know the rules, I believe there is a better chance of that person adhering to the laws as they’d know what the rules are.
February 17, 2015 at 7:59 am
Cid says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
If read literally, the requirement for visual line of sight would mean you can’t use them for building damage inspections as, the instant you fly it inside a damaged building, it becomes against those rules.
Or if you’re even simply trying to get photos of a roof rather than have someone take a risky climb onto a roof, the instant the size of the building obscures your view of the drone, bang, against the rules.
The roof inspection is still a possibility, you would just have to move around the building. I think a court test would then allow a case law exception to inside of the building. Evolving law like any other when innovation occurs.
Once again, the parasitic government seeks to stamp out innovation in the name of protecting its supposedly helpless citizens. Do they really think Amazon wants one of its drones crashing into an airliner or a backyard birthday party?
These things can be regulated effectively by the market, and by private insurance. It’s really sad that hardly anybody in America understands freedom enough anymore to see that. Has everyone (including NAMIC spokesmen) been so brainwashed in the government schools that they think companies would fly drones around willy-nilly, exposing themselves to lawsuits and negative PR that could bankrupt them practically overnight?
We don’t need any more “help” from the pests in DC. Tell them to buzz off.
Your comments are short-sighted. I don’t want to open my door and walk into a drone going 100 mph. trying to deliver a package to my neighbor. While companies would not intentionally try to injure others, this is still a new endeavor and like Crain says it will evolve over time. I like the idea of having a trained pilot instead of some nitwit that decides they know how to operate one of these things. Anything going 100 mph can easily injure someone or damage someone’s property.
Respectfully Libby, you have not addressed my argument at all. Your second sentence makes me wonder whether you even read what I wrote. Would any company risk this? Would its insurance company let it?
Amazon wouldn’t want nitwits flying its drones any more than a manufacturing company would want a nitwit running a multi-million-dollar CNC machining center.
You assume, as do most gullible Americans, that the only effective regulation is regulation by politicians: grandstanding buffoons who are always in bed with the industries they regulate.
Respectfully, Roland, I think I did. Of course no corporation would want to injure people or property, but that doesn’t stop it from happening. As far as their insurance company “letting” them, if it’s not covered (aircraft) the insurance company has taken on no risk. That also doesn’t stop someone from flying one uninsured. Especially if there is no-one regulating them.
Do you know that people are currently using drones for their business? Doing site inspections and roof inspections. Do you think they have had proper training? I don’t know and neither do you.
It’s the equivalent of letting a 10 year-old get behind the wheel and letting the “market effectively regulate it.” That’s absurd. Sure, carriers could put an exclusion in for all uninsured drivers. What happens when the 10 year-old still gets behind the wheel and kills someone? How does that help society?
I’m sorry, but some exposures need regulating. I don’t care who does it, but usually it’s the government.
I meant an exclusion for all unlicensed drivers…
Ah yes, the government waves its magic regulatory wand and all bad behavior ceases. That is what the blowhard politicians would have us believe they are capable of. But have they been able to stop drug abuse after 100 years of prohibition? Have they been able to end underage drinking on college campuses? Government regulators are parasites and miserable failures who maintain – at our expense – the illusion that they are making our lives better.
“Of course no corporation would want to injure people or property, but that doesn’t stop it from happening.” So you believe that having government regulations will make them REALLY REALLY not want to injure people or property, and THAT will stop it from happening? Nonsense. The threat of a fine is nothing compared to the threat of going out of business because of liability and bad press – pressures that we as consumers place on all sellers.
As far as 10-year-olds go, what vehicle owner would allow this? The property owner always has the utmost incentive to prevent misuse of the device, whether it be a car or a drone. Law or not, I wouldn’t let a child drive my car down a busy interstate, would you? Likewise, no responsible company’s management would let unqualified people fly its drones. As for irresponsible companies, by definition they’re not going to obey laws anyway, just as irresponsible parents don’t care what the law says they can’t let their child do.
Of course, accidents can happen. Just ask the loved ones of those who have died on public roads. There, your beloved institution of government has been in charge of safety for my entire life, during which time hundreds of thousands have perished. I can’t drive my family anywhere without being threatened by idiots who have no intention of operating their vehicles safely. And where are the government cops? Nowhere to be found. What pathetic failures.
Drone Pilots for recreational use should not be licensed but perhaps certified. Drone pilot for commercial use should be licensed. I might add with your point of view you would need to license everyone involved then. A Drone could simply fall out of the sky and hit you on your front doorstep. Rules should pretty much be the same for both. Permission should be given for any drone use over someone’s property if it has any surveillance equipment at all, permission to fly the drone under so many feet above the property in addition to receiving package by drones versus a truck. It should be 100% against the law to prices people into accepting drone use at the expense of their privacy. Let the lawsuits start over people flying surveillance drones over other people’s property.
Roland – Multi-million dollar corporations would certainly be more careful when it came to exposing themselves to serious liability issues in regards to drones. However, as a pilot who has spent countless dollars, time and effort AND who was almost killed in my own open cockpit airplane by a “freelance” business person operating a drone who had zero aeronautical knowledge and no license or permit to be operating the drone, I feel that that person should be regulated in the same way that I am as a licensed pilot through the Federal Aviation Administration. It just makes the sky safer for everybody. Flying and aviation are similar to insurance in the sense that it is all about risk management and mitigation.
But wasn’t it already illegal for him to fly his drone so close to your plane?
Yes, there are regulations in regards flying too close to other aircraft with a drone….but as I said, this person had no aeronautical knowledge or training nor did it seem that he really cared about anything other than “getting some good shots”. Pretty scary stuff when its your butt in the seat several hundred feet above the ground.
So the existing law did not prevent the incident that almost killed you, correct? You are making my argument for me. You wrote, “I feel that that person should be regulated in the same way that I am as a licensed pilot through the Federal Aviation Administration.” If that person is in the habit of ignoring existing regulations like the one that prohibited him – with threats of severe penalties, I presume – from flying his device so close to you, then what makes you think he will obey additional regulations?
This superstition, that politicians and bureaucrats can make bad behavior disappear – poof! – by passing new laws and regulations, is baffling to me. How can intelligent people continue to believe this fairy tale?
If the person flying the drone had no training, it seems likely that they did not know the laws to begin with. If that person was forced to pass a test proving they know the rules, I believe there is a better chance of that person adhering to the laws as they’d know what the rules are.
If read literally, the requirement for visual line of sight would mean you can’t use them for building damage inspections as, the instant you fly it inside a damaged building, it becomes against those rules.
Or if you’re even simply trying to get photos of a roof rather than have someone take a risky climb onto a roof, the instant the size of the building obscures your view of the drone, bang, against the rules.
Very limiting compared to the uses.
The roof inspection is still a possibility, you would just have to move around the building. I think a court test would then allow a case law exception to inside of the building. Evolving law like any other when innovation occurs.
Dang it…there went my Amazon order! How do I explain it to them to get a replacement?