Laws against driving though town at 100 mph haven't stopped some people from doing it, but I think most of us would agree that being able to impose fines for such a dangerous act is a good idea. Without making laws against driving too fast, there's no legal means to punish someone for doing so.
What's happening with drones is that some people are proving that they cannot be trusted to take safety and the rights of others into consideration, so regulations will be created that allow penalties to be applied for specific types of operation. It will still be up to the legal system as to when someone is penalized. If the public wasn't expressing alarm at some of the ways drones are being used, regulators wouldn't be writing regulations to restrict their use.
The problem isn't driving too fast, it's causing accidents. Rather than analyzing all the factors that lead up to an actual damaging action, I think we should focus on the damaging actions. It doesn't matter if Bruce Jenner was distracted, he caused an accident that killed people.
Just because some people can't be trusted doesn't mean we need to create more government jobs for us to pay for and ways to incriminate average people. People will still misuse them. Target them rather than everyone.
They mess up nearly everything they do. Let's not open the door for them to grow and cause more problems through more regulation. We're slowly creating our dystopian future by asking big brother to handle everything.
Walk in to a major university's law library and try to wrap your head around how many laws exist looking at all those books.
Laws against driving though town at 100 mph haven't stopped some people from doing it, but I think most of us would agree that being able to impose fines for such a dangerous act is a good idea. Without making laws against driving too fast, there's no legal means to punish someone for doing so.
What's happening with drones is that some people are proving that they cannot be trusted to take safety and the rights of others into consideration, so regulations will be created that allow penalties to be applied for specific types of operation. It will still be up to the legal system as to when someone is penalized. If the public wasn't expressing alarm at some of the ways drones are being used, regulators wouldn't be writing regulations to restrict their use.
The problem isn't driving too fast, it's causing accidents. Rather than analyzing all the factors that lead up to an actual damaging action, I think we should focus on the damaging actions. It doesn't matter if Bruce Jenner was distracted, he caused an accident that killed people.
Just because some people can't be trusted doesn't mean we need to create more government jobs for us to pay for and ways to incriminate average people. People will still misuse them. Target them rather than everyone.
They mess up nearly everything they do. Let's not open the door for them to grow and cause more problems through more regulation. We're slowly creating our dystopian future by asking big brother to handle everything.
Walk in to a major university's law library and try to wrap your head around how many laws exist looking at all those books.
No argument here. In one of the libraries in this City, namely the Brooklyn Public Library on their second floor in the business science and technology sections is a good collection of law books that cover the majority of laws available here in New York State.
I once pointed out the famously archaic one regarding a velocipede and a red flag operator to keep from frightening the horses. (Especially since those velocipedes could go from 0 to an amazing 20 miles per hour and the horses were stuck at 5.) Its still on the books as in most of the many states. I'd like to see what happens when someone points to the logic behind enforcing it.
Now is anyone going to ask me what a velocipede is?
The fun part of it is that if you had your red flag operator in front of your velocipede today, one of you or both of you would probably be ticketed for violating a number of other laws on the books.
The law should be updated so it only applies when herding velociraptors!
There are probably two good reasons to regulate things in the eyes of a government: 1) if you regulate it, you can tax it; 2) if you regulate it, and someone causes harm with an unregulated "it", you are not liable and have done your part to protect the public. (regulated owners causing harm can be fined) ...oh yeah and 3) regulated "its" are easier to find and confiscate should you need to.
Public stupidity is like water, it seeks a common level.
And both of you are right. And sadly you've managed to miss the meaning.
A velocipede was the name for the very first US made motor cars. Ford Model A for example. I do not believe any exist outside of their museum, but there are enough for film makers. Oddly enough in two John Wayne films we see them.
And both of you are right. And sadly you've managed to miss the meaning.
A velocipede was the name for the very first US made motor cars. Ford Model A for example. I do not believe any exist outside of their museum, but there are enough for film makers. Oddly enough in two John Wayne films we see them.
And both of you are right. And sadly you've managed to miss the meaning.
A velocipede was the name for the very first US made motor cars. Ford Model A for example. I do not believe any exist outside of their museum, but there are enough for film makers. Oddly enough in two John Wayne films we see them.
As I recall from history classes, and being something of a fan of the Duke, I recall both were used. Yes those ugly bikes were called that. But so were early motor cars.
You need to fire your fact checker. As Publison pointed out (the chores of moderation never end! ), a velocipede is a human powered vehicle with two or more wheels.
There were actually two Model A Fords, the first, from 1903-1904 which, I agree would be a very scarce sight outside of a museum. Then there was the classic and more popularly known Model A Ford from 1926-1931 (think the end of the roaring '20s, flappers, rumble seats and lots and lots of people buying cars that turned into hot rods in the 50's and 60's).
And I don't think I missed your point, there are many archaic laws (in some areas, as a gentleman, pay attention to where you are walking in relation to you lady friend and the curb if it is raining).
My point was that laws are generally added without regard to any laws already in existence so you could well be in compliance with one law; such as having a flagman accompany your velocipede while you are in violation of a more modern law; perhaps obstructing traffic in some way.
The comparison to ultralights is a little misleading. One of the issues with drones is that they're small, which makes them difficult to see from, say, a helicopter. Ultralights are much more highly visible, hence easier to avoid.
-Phil
Agreed, it also carries a pilot, and most of them value their life enough to avoid doing really stupid things.
I didn't read the wikipedia article so I don't know if it is mentioned there, but as 'pede' in 'velocipede' is Latin for 'foot' it's likely that the word was only ever used for a human powered vehicle and not a motor powered car. But who knows, people through the ages will misinterpret just about anything. I recently saw the sentence 'decimated half the population' in an article about the plague.. I don't think the author *really* wanted to say 'killed one out of every ten of half the population'.
I had never considered the (now listed as archaic) more literal meaning if decimated until you pointed it out. To think of all the important things we try to express with words.
You need to fire your fact checker. As Publison pointed out (the chores of moderation never end! ), a velocipede is a human powered vehicle with two or more wheels.
There were actually two Model A Fords, the first, from 1903-1904 which, I agree would be a very scarce sight outside of a museum. Then there was the classic and more popularly known Model A Ford from 1926-1931 (think the end of the roaring '20s, flappers, rumble seats and lots and lots of people buying cars that turned into hot rods in the 50's and 60's).
And I don't think I missed your point, there are many archaic laws (in some areas, as a gentleman, pay attention to where you are walking in relation to you lady friend and the curb if it is raining).
My point was that laws are generally added without regard to any laws already in existence so you could well be in compliance with one law; such as having a flagman accompany your velocipede while you are in violation of a more modern law; perhaps obstructing traffic in some way.
No, I won't be asking you what a velocipede is.
I already did.
I was using the term as applied by the film makers. Ideally someone did create some excellent copies of those early Fords, one was seen in a Star Trek Voyager episode. And in those two John Wayne films.
They are indeed. Les mentioned that to the duo at Six just a few minutes ago,
I most certainly do not think any of the group here does the things that the Feds are worried about. I'm more peeved at the group who'd use one to study a property near mine, and stray over where I live.
That's why I borrowed an idea regarding taking down one of those things.
All of you are familiar with the term bird strike and that's especially what the Feds are worried about, especially since someone's rig crashed on an unoccupied stand area during the recently completed tennis matches at the stadium near here. Problem surfaced regarding tracking it and then its owner down.
I should think that RSN* all such birds will be wearing N numbers like regular aircraft do soon.
I suspect that a registration system will become a joke in the same way that licensing of GMRS radios are and the CB radios used to be. The Feds (FCC in this case) stopped any enforcement of the rules as millions of people are/were in violation by not having a license and not using the radios in compliance with the law. Similarly lasers pointers of more than 5mW are illegal, yet many million green ones are over that limit and the Feds do nothing to enforce that.
Enforcement only comes about when someone interferes with a commercial or public service radio operation, points a laser at a plane in flight, or flys a drone into a crowd. I predict that virtually no one will register their drone and nothing will be done about it.
That person has a vested survival interest in checking the weather, observing traffic, doing a good pre-flight check, respecting others in the same air space, and making sure that the flight will achieve a successful landing.
With drones of all sorts,
pushing the limits may just add to the thrill while the financial losses are far less than the cost of an ultralight aircraft and your potential hospital stay.
With rights come responsiblities. After all rights are about defining your role in a community. If you want rights without respecting your community, you are off in the weeds... a despot or sociopath.
One big problem with hobby drones is that the operator may fly the device out of range of radio control and then it wanders into being a hazard to all.
I still maintain that a flying device controlled via radio by an operator is an RC plane, alternatively an RC helicopter/quadcopter, whatever. There are no requirements to register RC planes (not in the US, not in western Europe). Just calling them "drones" shouldn't require new laws. I could tentatively agree on different regulations for an RC plane flying out of visible range, steered via remote camera. A real drone should be robotic though.. or AI and beyond, like the drones in the Culture novels (by Iain M. Banks)
Well, the official sites refer to regulation of 'unmanned aircraft', so forget the debate between drones and remote controlled aircraft. If a person is not on board, it appears to be targeted for regulation, possibly including registration.
I just feel that I should be able to fly commercial air flights without fear of one of these being sucked into an engine during take-off or landing.
The comparison to ultralights is a little misleading. One of the issues with drones is that they're small, which makes them difficult to see from, say, a helicopter. Ultralights are much more highly visible, hence easier to avoid.
Small aircraft can be very difficult to see when flying. Ultralights even more so. Yes, an ultralight is easier to see than a small "drone" but the ultralight is hard enough to see that it doesn't really matter. Neither is "easy" to see. Pilots must learn to scan the sky for other aircraft, it can be surprisingly difficult to spot them. Especially when they are the same altitude as you - blending with the horizon, and more especially when they are pointed at you presenting little more than a thin line to see.
The big difference is that in the Ultralight there is a pilot who's life depends upon not getting run down by another aircraft. When they do something stupid it is generally easy to find out who they are and hold them accountable. In the case of RC aircraft, you are supposed to have your contact information written on the aircraft. I'm pretty sure that the people doing that now are in the minority.
Comments
The problem isn't driving too fast, it's causing accidents. Rather than analyzing all the factors that lead up to an actual damaging action, I think we should focus on the damaging actions. It doesn't matter if Bruce Jenner was distracted, he caused an accident that killed people.
Just because some people can't be trusted doesn't mean we need to create more government jobs for us to pay for and ways to incriminate average people. People will still misuse them. Target them rather than everyone.
They mess up nearly everything they do. Let's not open the door for them to grow and cause more problems through more regulation. We're slowly creating our dystopian future by asking big brother to handle everything.
Walk in to a major university's law library and try to wrap your head around how many laws exist looking at all those books.
-Phil
-Phil
No argument here. In one of the libraries in this City, namely the Brooklyn Public Library on their second floor in the business science and technology sections is a good collection of law books that cover the majority of laws available here in New York State.
I once pointed out the famously archaic one regarding a velocipede and a red flag operator to keep from frightening the horses. (Especially since those velocipedes could go from 0 to an amazing 20 miles per hour and the horses were stuck at 5.) Its still on the books as in most of the many states. I'd like to see what happens when someone points to the logic behind enforcing it.
Now is anyone going to ask me what a velocipede is?
I thought it was, and the response was back dated ten minutes?
I had heard of the requirement to have a guy walking in front of automobiles (locomotives) in the early days. But never for velocipedes.
The law should be updated so it only applies when herding velociraptors!
There are probably two good reasons to regulate things in the eyes of a government: 1) if you regulate it, you can tax it; 2) if you regulate it, and someone causes harm with an unregulated "it", you are not liable and have done your part to protect the public. (regulated owners causing harm can be fined) ...oh yeah and 3) regulated "its" are easier to find and confiscate should you need to.
Public stupidity is like water, it seeks a common level.
A velocipede was the name for the very first US made motor cars. Ford Model A for example. I do not believe any exist outside of their museum, but there are enough for film makers. Oddly enough in two John Wayne films we see them.
Wikipedia disagrees. It is human powered.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocipede
As I recall from history classes, and being something of a fan of the Duke, I recall both were used. Yes those ugly bikes were called that. But so were early motor cars.
You need to fire your fact checker. As Publison pointed out (the chores of moderation never end!
There were actually two Model A Fords, the first, from 1903-1904 which, I agree would be a very scarce sight outside of a museum. Then there was the classic and more popularly known Model A Ford from 1926-1931 (think the end of the roaring '20s, flappers, rumble seats and lots and lots of people buying cars that turned into hot rods in the 50's and 60's).
And I don't think I missed your point, there are many archaic laws (in some areas, as a gentleman, pay attention to where you are walking in relation to you lady friend and the curb if it is raining).
My point was that laws are generally added without regard to any laws already in existence so you could well be in compliance with one law; such as having a flagman accompany your velocipede while you are in violation of a more modern law; perhaps obstructing traffic in some way.
No, I won't be asking you what a velocipede is.
Agreed, it also carries a pilot, and most of them value their life enough to avoid doing really stupid things.
I had never considered the (now listed as archaic) more literal meaning if decimated until you pointed it out. To think of all the important things we try to express with words.
I already did.
I was using the term as applied by the film makers. Ideally someone did create some excellent copies of those early Fords, one was seen in a Star Trek Voyager episode. And in those two John Wayne films.
Thanks for keeping us in order Dave.
I most certainly do not think any of the group here does the things that the Feds are worried about. I'm more peeved at the group who'd use one to study a property near mine, and stray over where I live.
That's why I borrowed an idea regarding taking down one of those things.
All of you are familiar with the term bird strike and that's especially what the Feds are worried about, especially since someone's rig crashed on an unoccupied stand area during the recently completed tennis matches at the stadium near here. Problem surfaced regarding tracking it and then its owner down.
I should think that RSN* all such birds will be wearing N numbers like regular aircraft do soon.
---
RSN* means Real Soon Now.
here from the US Department of Transportation (DOT)
here from the Federal Avation Administration (FAA)
the official press conference can be found:
here on YouTube
They'll be your best (most accurate) places for information.
Enforcement only comes about when someone interferes with a commercial or public service radio operation, points a laser at a plane in flight, or flys a drone into a crowd. I predict that virtually no one will register their drone and nothing will be done about it.
That person has a vested survival interest in checking the weather, observing traffic, doing a good pre-flight check, respecting others in the same air space, and making sure that the flight will achieve a successful landing.
With drones of all sorts,
pushing the limits may just add to the thrill while the financial losses are far less than the cost of an ultralight aircraft and your potential hospital stay.
With rights come responsiblities. After all rights are about defining your role in a community. If you want rights without respecting your community, you are off in the weeds... a despot or sociopath.
One big problem with hobby drones is that the operator may fly the device out of range of radio control and then it wanders into being a hazard to all.
I just feel that I should be able to fly commercial air flights without fear of one of these being sucked into an engine during take-off or landing.
Small aircraft can be very difficult to see when flying. Ultralights even more so. Yes, an ultralight is easier to see than a small "drone" but the ultralight is hard enough to see that it doesn't really matter. Neither is "easy" to see. Pilots must learn to scan the sky for other aircraft, it can be surprisingly difficult to spot them. Especially when they are the same altitude as you - blending with the horizon, and more especially when they are pointed at you presenting little more than a thin line to see.
The big difference is that in the Ultralight there is a pilot who's life depends upon not getting run down by another aircraft. When they do something stupid it is generally easy to find out who they are and hold them accountable. In the case of RC aircraft, you are supposed to have your contact information written on the aircraft. I'm pretty sure that the people doing that now are in the minority.