U.S. to make drone registration mandatory for certain models

13»

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 59
    chadbagchadbag Posts: 1,475member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jfc1138 View Post

     



    And so you're arguing, since car accidents happen, there's no need to register cars or license drivers because that won't "prevent accidents".

     

    And I disagree. "prevent", not entirely, reduce, most arguably. And a registration program that includes an educational component just like when traffic regulations are reinforced at license application and renewal times, will prevent some accidents, or when at registration invitation or renewal vehicle safety items are checked for compliance with safety rules: functioning brakes, headlights, brake lights etc. No one is setting up to confiscate my car, lol..  That holds for motor vehicles, manned aircraft or anything else where "accidents" happen. At registration a bit of testing that makes sure people have knowledge of where and in what manner it is safe to operate those devices, like only outside a certain distance from airports or wildfire suppression  activities is a proven way to add a measure of safety to user's operation: like traffic regulations being retaught. 




    Registration and licensing does not prevent accidents in terms of keeping malfunctioning cars off or unqualified people off the road.  Most car accidents are with licensed and registered cars.  Those people who are unlicensed and unregistered want to drive, they do.  Mandatory safety inspections also are only a tax on the law abiding.   Those whose cars won't pass don't get them and drive anyway.

     

    I am not saying that you should not register cars or license drivers.  I am saying that that does not prevent accidents.   It may have other benefits.

     

    There may be other reasons to require licensing and registration of vehicles, but preventing accidents is not one of them.

  • Reply 42 of 59
    chadbagchadbag Posts: 1,475member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jfc1138 View Post

     

    Like when traffic regulations are reinforced at license application and renewal times.


     

    I've never lived in a state that reinforced traffic regulations at license renewal time.   You stand in line, take a new picture (some times), and pay the fee.   My state had a mail-in license renewal program for a while where every other renewal could be done by mail.   The only thing that is marginally beneficial is  the eye test -- most places probably make you retake the eye test.   Though if you fail, nothing stops you from driving unlicensed anyway.  Which is what people do who need to drive and don't have a license anyway.

  • Reply 43 of 59
    jfc1138jfc1138 Posts: 3,090member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by chadbag View Post

     



    Registration and licensing does not prevent accidents in terms of keeping malfunctioning cars off or unqualified people off the road.  Most car accidents are with licensed and registered cars.  Those people who are unlicensed and unregistered want to drive, they do.  Mandatory safety inspections also are only a tax on the law abiding.   Those whose cars won't pass don't get them and drive anyway.

     

    I am not saying that you should not register cars or license drivers.  I am saying that that does not prevent accidents.   It may have other benefits.

     

    There may be other reasons to require licensing and registration of vehicles, but preventing accidents is not one of them.


    It certainly prevents some accidents when the renewal safety check (in my state and most others I'm familiar with safety checks are mandatory at the time of vehicle registration renewal). detects an unsafe condition such as worn brakes etc..  Many of the items on renewal safety checks are there to prevent unsafe conditions, i.e. conditions that make accidents more likely such as burned out headlamps that reduce driver vison, worn out brakes that extend braking distances etc. And, again, when they renewal process includes refresher training operator behavior is improved, preventing operator error accidents, not all, but some number. Ignorance may be bliss but it's also dangerous....

  • Reply 44 of 59
    chadbagchadbag Posts: 1,475member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jfc1138 View Post

     

    It certainly prevents some accidents when the renewal safety check detects an unsafe condition such as worn brakes etc..  Many of the items on renewal safety checks are there to prevent unsafe conditions, i.e. conditions that make accidents more likely such as burned out headlamps that reduce driver vison, worn out brakes that extend braking distances etc.




    I'd like to see data that shows that accident rates went down after a state instituted a safety check.

     

    And the registration has nothing to do with the safety check, by which I mean, you could mandate a safety check without having registration of the vehicle.  It is just administrative convenience to tie them together.

  • Reply 45 of 59
    jfc1138jfc1138 Posts: 3,090member

    "I'd like to see data that shows that accident rates went down after a state instituted a safety check."

     

    So you're proposeing untrained drivers driving unmaintained vehicles would lead to no change in accident rates? because safe driving has nothing to do with driver training or knowledge of traffic rules such as speed limits? And a maintained vehicle with operating brakes and headlights is just as likely to be in an accident as a vehicle with no brakes or headlights?

     

    I disagree. So I maintain my vehicles so the brakes work, the tires have tread and the headlights and brake lights function as they should and all things my state checks annually through their safety check program. Because a well maintained vehicle IS safer to operate.

     

    Of course not some universal cure, but the demand for perfection is just the usual stale obstruction tactic. Will this program be instituted for safety? That will depend on the structure which has yet to be worked out. Simple registration for a record on file somewhere and I'll agree: pointless paper exercise like taking off our shoes in airports. But if they wish it can be structured as a safety program.

  • Reply 46 of 59
    Originally Posted by zoetmb View Post

    Frankly, I think you're delusional. If people weren't so damned irresponsible, these regulations wouldn't be necessary, but they are.

     

    Hear hear! Finally someone who understands. This is what so many people fail to comprehend as being the difference between marxists and paleoconservatives. People look at both sides and think they see psychopaths who want a totalitarian government on one side and hypocrites who pretend they don’t but actually want big government on the other.

     

    The conservative viewpoint is that government exists only to protect the people–protection of the self. If a task performed by the government is not in defense of the rights, health, safety, or freedoms of its people, it should no longer be performed thereby. If people were to, individually, take personal responsibility for their actions, many regulations could be removed entirely, as they would not even be needed. Marxists, on the other hand, have no faith in the ability of any individual to take personal responsibility (because they project their own inadequacies on others), and so demand of the government protection from any and all actions they deem, not bad, but contrary to their own personal will–protection from the self.

     

    Violation of the second amendment?   If you want to take the second amendment literally, then you have to include the phrase "A well regulated Militia,...." as part of its meaning (which the Supreme Court chose to ignore).


     

    I’m confused how you got the above so well but fail to comprehend this. I’ll restate the amendment.

     

    A well balanced breakfast being necessary to the start of a healthy day, the right of the people to keep and eat food shall not be infringed.

     

    Who has the right to food: A well balanced breakfast or the people?

     

    The only assertion based in either law or linguistics itself the left could possibly make is that ‘well-regulated’ refers to a demand of personal responsibility in the care and handling of firearms, as the right thereto shall not be infringed. Thus the only possible debate on the topic of the second amendment is whether the government–federal or state–has the right to revoke a specific individual’s firearms, temporarily, on the grounds that he is unable to regulate his behavior therewith.

     

    The systematic revocation of personal responsibility is responsible for much of the evil of the last 70 years.

  • Reply 47 of 59
    boltsfan17boltsfan17 Posts: 2,276member

    What I hate about this is I'm sure the majority of drone owners out there aren't doing stupid things such as flying a drone near the incoming flight path of a major airport. It's the idiots out there who give everyone else a bad name. I figured something like this was coming. Just a few months ago, there was a brush fire and Cal Fire couldn't do a retardant drop because some moron was flying a drone over the fire. It's crap like that which forces the government to start these ridiculous regulations. 

  • Reply 48 of 59
    Originally Posted by Boltsfan17 View Post

    ...a brush fire and Cal Fire couldn’t do a retardant drop... ...flying a drone over the fire.



    Honestly, that just tells us we ought to use drones for that. Of course make them liquid fueled, but imagine how much closer you could get without having to worry about operator safety.

  • Reply 49 of 59
    boltsfan17boltsfan17 Posts: 2,276member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

     



    Honestly, that just tells us we ought to use drones for that. Of course make them liquid fueled, but imagine how much closer you could get without having to worry about operator safety.


    I'm actually surprised they aren't using drones now to monitor fires. Using drones to fight fires is a great idea. I wonder if there is anything in development for that? 

  • Reply 50 of 59
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by chadbag View Post



    <snip>

    I am not saying that you should not register cars or license drivers.  I am saying that that does not prevent accidents.   It may have other benefits.

     

    There may be other reasons to require licensing and registration of vehicles, but preventing accidents is not one of them.


     

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jfc1138 View Post

     

    It certainly prevents some accidents when the renewal safety check (in my state and most others I'm familiar with safety checks are mandatory at the time of vehicle registration renewal). detects an unsafe condition such as worn brakes etc..  <snip>


     

    If you don't mind me chiming in, you both have some valid points. My home state didn't have safety checks, just emissions (at the time, may have changed), and the state I moved to requires both annually. The safety check in reality is just intended to make sure that one is not trying to renew a junk auto. I have seen quite a few people 'squeak through' inspections and then not bother with maintenance. As well, I have seen people that have there car registered in someone else's name, because they have too many points, and no license. That being said, to the best of my knowledge, the majority of vehicle crashes are caused by poor driving habits (texting, sleep deprivation, drinking/drugs, other distractions). Many, if not the majority of jurisdiction's don't require licensing/registration/inspection/insurance to drive a vehicle, as long as one is on owner approved private property. These are required when driving on public roadways. The real reason for such laws and regulations is not to reduce accidents by any significant amount by the existence of said laws, but to reduce accidents by way of being held culpable. Some people are going to act irresponsibly regardless, with no forethought of consequences. That's the idea behind registration and insurance. 

     

    Will it work with UAV's? Maybe, maybe not. I am not going to buy into this 'It will save lives' argument, but if you were to crash it in your neighbor's yard and dent the roof of their car, who should pay the deductible? Obvious to me. That's where I can start to see some value in the registration concept. Jane Doe discovers a UAV crashed on her car leaving a dent, and knowing that her neighbor Bob Average is a pilot, she sues him and wins. So Bob pays for the damage, while the UAV was owned and piloted by Joe Public, a block away.

     

    Just some things to think about... :)

  • Reply 51 of 59
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Boltsfan17 View Post

     

    I'm actually surprised they aren't using drones now to monitor fires. Using drones to fight fires is a great idea. I wonder if there is anything in development for that? 


     

    Yes. Quick Google search pulled up an article from the Seattle Times regarding that.

  • Reply 52 of 59
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

     
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by nagromme View Post



    Mine sounds like a noisy box fan, has a reliable range of maybe 100 feet, and can't carry anything but it's own toy-caliber camera.



    And it's much less likely to hurt anyone or anything than a typical R/C aircraft is, since it's so easy to control.



    Now, when you get up to something bigger and more powerful, sure, laws are needed.



    And yes, the constitution DOES grant the power to regulate aircraft. Thank goodness.




    "Drone" regulation (almost 99 out of 100 times what is meant is actually "quadrocopter", not "drone") is most certainly a state matter and there is no allowance for Federal regulation in the Constitution. This isn't a matter of interstate commerce and the ceiling for these smaller craft are below 1,000 feet. Of greater concern is the role of law enforcement and the military deploying "drones" for surveillance and spy craft without a warrant.

    I understand your states rights sentiment, and also understand your sentiment about LEO or the military using them to spy without a warrant.

     

    But when it involves flying anything, be it a drone, quadcopter, RC helicopter, RC plane, etc. anywhere near an airport or near the flight path of a Federally regulated aircraft, it very much is an FAA issue.

  • Reply 53 of 59
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Boltsfan17 View Post

     

    What I hate about this is I'm sure the majority of drone owners out there aren't doing stupid things such as flying a drone near the incoming flight path of a major airport. It's the idiots out there who give everyone else a bad name. I figured something like this was coming. Just a few months ago, there was a brush fire and Cal Fire couldn't do a retardant drop because some moron was flying a drone over the fire. It's crap like that which forces the government to start these ridiculous regulations. 


    This can be said for many things.

     

    A majority of gun owners don't shoot people. A majority of car owners don't run people over. A majority of airplanes don't crash. A majority of food doesn't give you food poisoning. A majority of lithium ion batteries don't explode or catch fire.

     

    Yet there are regulations and rules for all of these things.

     

    I am not taking sides, just stating the reality of the world we live in.

  • Reply 54 of 59

    I really want a drone, but all this stuff scares me :(

  • Reply 55 of 59
    stevehsteveh Posts: 480member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jfc1138 View Post





    And yet cars are registered and operators are required to be licensed: so, great point! Happy to see your support.

    They're only registered if they're operated on public roads. (Vehicle registration is primarily an income stream for state governments, the last holdover from the old possessions taxes, which are otherwise long gone.)

     

    Similarly, operators are only required to be licensed to operate vehicles on public roads.

     

    Your support weakens just a bit...

  • Reply 56 of 59
    chadbagchadbag Posts: 1,475member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Boltsfan17 View Post

     

    What I hate about this is I'm sure the majority of drone owners out there aren't doing stupid things such as flying a drone near the incoming flight path of a major airport. It's the idiots out there who give everyone else a bad name. I figured something like this was coming. Just a few months ago, there was a brush fire and Cal Fire couldn't do a retardant drop because some moron was flying a drone over the fire. It's crap like that which forces the government to start these ridiculous regulations. 




    Why would the drone over the fire prevent them from dropping the retardant?   If the drone is not supposed to be there, or it is in the public interest to override your property rights to your drone, just drop the retardant and if the drone is damaged or destroyed, work it out later, or too bad for the drone owner if he was not supposed to be there in the first place.

     

     

    No one that I have seen is claiming a God given right to fly a drone (multi rotor or whatever you want to call them) any where and every where with impunity.   Laws restricting or regulating use around public airports, disaster areas, etc. are probably reasonable.   Registration of drones however is not supported in this.

     

    Requiring registration of drones does NOT make them more safe, does not prevent them from being used illegally or against regulations or around airports or disaster areas.  Registration does not solve the problem that they seem to be claiming is the reason for the registration.

     

    If you want to make a law that says that you have to put your name and number on the drone somewhere so culpability in case of accident can be determined, that can be done without registration.     The only real reason for registration of drones (or firearms, or typewriters, or whatever) is so that someone in the government can make a list for future reference if they decide they don't want you to have them for some reason.  And I cannot think of any reason that would be valid so it would probably be for some no-good reason that they decided you should not have them.

  • Reply 57 of 59
    chadbagchadbag Posts: 1,475member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jfc1138 View Post

     

    "I'd like to see data that shows that accident rates went down after a state instituted a safety check."

     

    So you're proposeing untrained drivers driving unmaintained vehicles would lead to no change in accident rates? because safe driving has nothing to do with driver training or knowledge of traffic rules such as speed limits? And a maintained vehicle with operating brakes and headlights is just as likely to be in an accident as a vehicle with no brakes or headlights?

     

    I disagree. So I maintain my vehicles so the brakes work, the tires have tread and the headlights and brake lights function as they should and all things my state checks annually through their safety check program. Because a well maintained vehicle IS safer to operate.

     

    Of course not some universal cure, but the demand for perfection is just the usual stale obstruction tactic. Will this program be instituted for safety? That will depend on the structure which has yet to be worked out. Simple registration for a record on file somewhere and I'll agree: pointless paper exercise like taking off our shoes in airports. But if they wish it can be structured as a safety program.




    I did not say untrained drivers driving unmaintained vehicles is safer.  I said requirements for a legal safety check don't lower accident rates.   You would learn the rules of the road and maintain your vehicle anyway, regardless of the laws and regulations, as would almost everyone.  You don't need to pay for a safety check to learn that or do that.   And those who don't, won't regardless of the law.   

     

    Please show me data that accident rates went down in a state that previously had not had safety checks and then instituted them.

  • Reply 58 of 59
    boltsfan17boltsfan17 Posts: 2,276member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by chadbag View Post

     



    Why would the drone over the fire prevent them from dropping the retardant?   If the drone is not supposed to be there, or it is in the public interest to override your property rights to your drone, just drop the retardant and if the drone is damaged or destroyed, work it out later, or too bad for the drone owner if he was not supposed to be there in the first place.

     

     

    No one that I have seen is claiming a God given right to fly a drone (multi rotor or whatever you want to call them) any where and every where with impunity.   Laws restricting or regulating use around public airports, disaster areas, etc. are probably reasonable.   Registration of drones however is not supported in this.

     

    Requiring registration of drones does NOT make them more safe, does not prevent them from being used illegally or against regulations or around airports or disaster areas.  Registration does not solve the problem that they seem to be claiming is the reason for the registration.

     

    If you want to make a law that says that you have to put your name and number on the drone somewhere so culpability in case of accident can be determined, that can be done without registration.     The only real reason for registration of drones (or firearms, or typewriters, or whatever) is so that someone in the government can make a list for future reference if they decide they don't want you to have them for some reason.  And I cannot think of any reason that would be valid so it would probably be for some no-good reason that they decided you should not have them.


    What do you think would happen if a drone hits the rotor blades on a helicopter? During that fire, there were actually 5 drones up in the sky over the fire. That's a recipe for disaster like a midair collision. The fire department didn't want to take that risk, especially with the winds and smoke. 

  • Reply 59 of 59
    chadbagchadbag Posts: 1,475member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Boltsfan17 View Post

     

    What do you think would happen if a drone hits the rotor blades on a helicopter? During that fire, there were actually 5 drones up in the sky over the fire. That's a recipe for disaster like a midair collision. The fire department didn't want to take that risk, especially with the winds and smoke. 




    OK, I was assuming there was altitude separation and the concerns were other than that.  I stand corrected if that was the case that they were in the same altitude space.

     

    However, it is not a problem solved in the least by registration.

Sign In or Register to comment.