Councilmen Introduce Bills Strongly Regulating UAV Use in NYC 68
A reader passes on this excerpt from an Ars Technica article: On Wednesday Councilman Dan Garodnick introduced a bill to the New York City council seeking to ban all use of drones except those operated by police officers who obtain warrants. A second, parallel bill introduced by councilman Paul Vallone would place more stringent restrictions on drone use but stop short of banning drones for hobbyists and companies altogether. Both bills have been passed to the city's committee on public safety. An all-out ban on drones within the metropolis would be a quite wide-reaching step, especially as the Federal Aviation Authority (FAA) seems poised to adopt more permissive rules, with respect to commercial interests in particular. Earlier this year, the FAA formally granted six Hollywood companies exemptions to drone ban rules. A couple of months later, the FAA granted similar exemptions for construction site monitoring and oil rig flare stack inspections.
The article explains that Vallone's bill is less restrictive, and rather than propose an outright ban "lists 10 instances where operating a UAV would be illegal, including at night, out of the operator's eyesight, or above 400 ft high. Outside of those conditions, hobbyists and commercial interests would be free to fly drones."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Nobody's talking about these being 'rights'. There are existing laws for privacy violations and 'peeping toms', there's absolutely no reason or need for heavy-handed over-regulation just because it's new technology. Everything in life can be used for good or for ill, they need to be addressed on a case-by-case basis, not just blanket-banning the entire industry just because of some politician's twisted mind.
hooray for the government (Score:1, Insightful)
I'm so glad our benevolent overlords are here to keep us safe!
Banning things like UAVs, guns, and large sodas is definitely the best way to keep citizens (who are all too stupid to make their own decisions) healthy.
But thank goodness cops can still use guns and UAVs; they never abuse their power, and are always fully trained, so we know nothing could possibly go wrong!
Never mind educating and empowering them to make their own decisions, who has time for that?! No, we citizens want to be spoon fed. And as
Re: hooray for the government (Score:2, Insightful)
If gun bans work, then please explain Chicago.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. Let's look at Chicago.
Such as this graph: http://d35brb9zkkbdsd.cloudfro... [cloudfront.net]
Seems Chicago isnt the hotbed of crime it's been made out to be.
Their gun ban was in effect from 1982 to 2010, when it struck down.
The recent uptick in homocides occured -AFTER- the gun ban was struck down,
so if there is any correlation to drawn (and im not saying there is), its not the one you are trying for.
Chicago homocides peaked in early 90s, with the increase and subsequent decrease matching the peak in crime around teh co
Re: (Score:2)
Gun bans do work and work well.
Not really. Ask any of the dead people in Chicago, where despite very (and even unconstitutionally) severe restrictions, the local thuggery manages to shoot itself up quite regularly. On the other hand, you've got places where guns are readily available (legally) and routinely carried in cars and on person, and which have very low violent crime rates. It's not about guns, and it's never been about guns. It's about culture and law enforcement. Chicago has a violent subculture and no interest in dealing with
Re: (Score:2)
UAVs and guns have pretty obvious externalities. Why wouldn't you want to regulate them?
Re: (Score:1)
Ah yes, "externality", the magic word employed by the nanny state. It has the most effect when used incorrectly.
Pollution from coal plants or vehicle emissions is an externality. The crap you list above is not an externality.
Re: (Score:2)
Guns are an externality. If 5% of the population is walking around with a concealed weapon, the muggers and stranglers won't know that I don't have one and I'll enjoy the deterrent despite not contributing anything.
UAVs are potentially an externality because they can do physical damage anonymously for the cost of the UAV.
One of these objects is not like the others ....
Re: (Score:2)
UAVs are potentially an externality because they can do physical damage anonymously for the cost of the UAV.
Yeah, just like a brick thrown from an overpass or a 40th-floor window - and that costs a fraction of the price of a single UAV battery. Why aren't you in favor of banning bricks? Or would you be happy with simply registering, with photo ID and fingerprints on file, the ownership of all objects that have enough mass to be dangerous?
Re: (Score:2)
externalities
You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.
But it sure does make you sound like an eager moral relativist.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Never said they were. I do think they are (a part of) the best solution for these problems.
The outright ban may be, but the ban on going to high, flying out of sight or flying at night?
Look, either the city needs to license drones and/or drone pilots, or they need to limit the damage that can be done.
Re: (Score:2)
And when you die in a fiery plane crash as an idiot UAV operator flew too close to a jet and got pulled into the engine during landing. Never mind that is illegal to operate there drone pilots can do it all.
I saw a drone video from inside a firework display and al I could think of does that idiot realize he is flying through a flak field and if just one firework hits the drone that drone is free falling back to the ground. Sure fireworks are poor flak by shooting cardboard, but Murphy is a tough bastard.
Re: (Score:2)
Further, not everything landing at an airport is as large or as robust as a commercial jet aircraft. A light plane could easily be severely damaged by a small UAV. Likely, no - I've been in small planes hit by birds - we've survived but it's not a given.
UAVs have no business anywhere in a controlled airspace unless they are under control of a qualified operator AND other pilots know it's in the air. Now, that doesn't answer the question whether somebody should (or shouldn't) be allowed to play with their
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
oh please.
stow your insanity for a moment.
differing classes of rules based on size and type make sense.
and standard "congested area" rules are just common sense.
licenses or other certs in specific circumstances also make sense.
unregulated use by an unlicensed individual in a city like NYC means eventually someone will fly a 100+lb drone down Park Avenue and have it crash on someones head.
or worse two of them due to collision.
public safety/endangerment rules always in place would largely cover a lot of it, b
Re: here's a better idea. (Score:2, Insightful)
The problem is that everything in politics revolves around money. These guys get to the top using money and create laws based on money. So, sorry. If you have enough money to buy yourself the laws you want you likely don't care about flying a drone in a park.
Re: (Score:2)
and when some idiot not using it properly crashes it into someones head, or downs a jet?
is it still then perfectly reasonable activity?
or will you suddenly realize that some common sense regulation might be perfectly reasonable?
Outside those conditions? (Score:2)
I hope he meant "inside" or possibly "under" those conditions. I'm normally not that hung up on grammar but this is the opposite of what was probably meant.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the construction is correct. The proposed legislation lists conditions under which UAV flight is banned, rather than allowed. So, you need to be outside those conditions to be OK.
Should let them work inside parks. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
just like those designated "free speech areas" the government likes to set up, right?
Re: (Score:3)
Where is it in the constitution that flying a drone is a protected right?
Ah, another person who never went to school, or certainly wasn't paying attention.
Your rights are not defined in the constitution. The constitution exists to limit the government's power to interfere with your liberty. Some of those liberties are so important that they are also mentioned by name (the right to liberty that by definition includes the right to speak, assemble, protect yourself, etc). Only leftist idiots think that it's the government that grants you your rights. That's 100% Nanny State bac
Re: (Score:2)
Specifically, it can only do so if it thinks it's for the best ("general welfare") or might have any effect whatsoever ("interstate trade").
The government doesn't grant people rights, but it oversees and manages the web of institutions which enforce them. The property rights right wing so adores don't mean a thing in a jungle.
Re: (Score:2)
No, like those concrete path thingies that people follow with their fantastical "horseless carriages"
Re: (Score:2)
Which means that it is totally reasonable to restrict drones, but not at all reasonable to restrict speech.
What's next - you gonna bring up hitler?
Re: (Score:3)
Oh good grief people read the article,
basically a grandstanding city Councilman introduced a statute making it illegal to operate a UAV anywhere it is all ready illegal to operate a UAV!
Re: (Score:2)
depends on the definition of "express authorization". Is "It's not against FAA regs if you avoid these situations" an express authorization, or does it take a piece of paper signed by the FAA saying "you are allowed to fly drones"?
Re: (Score:2)
Well yes I understand that, yet when Jan Brewer down in Arizona did the same thing with immigration it was a BadThing(Tm).
Never mind drones (Score:1)
Where is the Slashdot poll?
Seems legit (Score:1)
Frank this seems to be one of the more reasonable approaches to regulating UAV usage (The permissive bill that is). It makes sense that as a hobbyist you wouldn't want to fly a drone at night/out of sight/above 400 feet. Visibility of a drone's surroundings is already difficult, let alone in tougher situations.
Re: (Score:2)
So that would preclude FPV . FPV is an acronym meaning "First Person View". A person referring to "flying FPV" is referring to piloting their model aircraft from a first person perspective onboard. This is accomplished by means of tiny video cameras and wireless RF links. The typical FPV plane consists of many components that must work well together to get the job done. In this case the drone may be out of sight (behind a tree), but the person flying the mulit-rotor vehicle may have a better view than if he was flying by sight.
Remotely controlled aerial vehicle must be under direct visual observation at all time per FAA regulations.
FAA has sole jurisdiction (Score:5, Insightful)
In the United States the Federal Aviation Administration is the entity with jurisdiction over all airspace SURFACE to SPACE*
This has been discussed on slashdot so many times in the last year wrt drones and FAA authority that it's beating a dead horse.
NY Councilmen can posture and mumble and pass laws all day long but they have no authority over the air.
E
* Note that this includes surface to 400ft which some people believe is magically exempt from regulation... except the FAA has recently shown it's not.
Re: (Score:3)
I've noticed that Democrats are more likely to "pass a law" on the "issue du jour" than they are to either rationally consider whether a new law is really necessary or to hold LE and the courts accountable for enforcing the existing applicable laws.
Re: (Score:2)
buzzwords getting out of control.
Says the A.C. drone [google.com] ("2. a person who does no useful work and lives off others." and "3. a remote-controlled pilotless aircraft or missile.") who doesn't know how to use a dictionary.
UAV? (Score:1)
Did anyone else think "Urban Assault Vehicle" at first?