Discussion in 'Weekly Poll' started by Chrissie_Lay, Mar 22, 2016.
This week we ask you to vote on the question - Do you think drones should be banned?
Only if it's the ones in Parliament...
Is it just me or are we living in a society that thinks that anything slightly out of the ordinary or that gets misused even in the most minor way should be banned outright and immediately - if not sooner...
I think they should be licensed so that there is a clear line of accountability both in terms of their safe use and the circumstances of use to which they are put.
I think there is a case for licencing of drones and drone operators, with perhaps a requirement to pass a test of competency in their operation. An outright ban would be excessively totalitarian though.
I think they should be registered and carry that number large enough to be read from the ground.
For commercial use they already are. What appears to be the problem is a lack of awareness or apparent enforcement of the current CAA rules. Brief summary of which (don't quote me!) is cannot be flown within 50m of any people, structure, vessel etc. over which the operator is not in control (reduces to 30m on take off and landing), and line of sight must be maintained at all times.
I understand this is already the case, at least for commercial usage. Extending it to private use would be analogous to licencing for bicycle riders.
Agreed - the idea of allowing a total novice to fly these things around, unsupervised, is madness.
I somehow doubt that anyone who was unlucky enough to have one of these hit them on the head, would view an outright ban as 'excessively totalitarian'.
Why does a photography mag/site have such an obsession about drones?
While licensing drones above a certain size/weight for use in public spaces would be preferable, who is going to police this? The 50m rule is itself a moot point, if that were taken literally then no-one should be permitted to fly any urban/built up area.. I frequently read of drones being used for unlawful purposes - ie smuggling items into prisons etc - I always assume these are not the sub-£100 jobbies available in stores, and are these users bothered about any sort of regulations anyway?
In this day and age and considering whats happened in Belgium, they should be banned, already they are being used to drop things into prisons, I also saw one on display at the photo show what a magnificent drone that was.......but oh dear if that fell into the hands of a terrorist....although these flying machines was never meant to be used as a weapon they could easily be used as one, these modern day drones should only be used by the armed forces and the police, yes they should be banned....
Showing my age I guess, but I find them a noisy nuisance. Encountered one buzzing overhead while on a quiet walk, completely spoilt my enjoyment of the occasion. Then there are stories of people being injured etc and, perhaps most alarmingly, drones in the flight path of aircraft.
Banned, probably not, there's plenty of legimate applications, but their use needs to be strictly controlled.
Probably because most of 'em have a camera?
If you put your mind to it, probably almost anything could be used as a weapon. It would be trivial to design a bomb trigger out of a PIC microcontroller and a couple of transistors - does that mean that semiconductors should be banned too?
Are you allowed to down them if they hover over your property? while you are in your garden enjoying a BBQ on Sunday afternnoon! no I have not got a gun and never had one but I am quite good with a catapult.....watch this space......
A ban on all drone would be impractical.
There are too many useful purposed that a drone can fulfil , for a ban to be other than partial or unenforceable.
However privately flown Drones should be inherently "Safe" and unable to cause harm if they were to strike people or property. If they were to lose power they should automatically feather to a soft landing, or have the capability of deploying a parachute or other soft landing mechanism.
The question of Privacy and nuisance should be covered by existing legislation, with an addition covering view points, such as exists for long lenses.
Their should be a "total flight weight" limit, above which all drones and operators must have a full commercial licence. ( even if used privately)
It is inevitable that some drones will lose control, become unstable or crash. Their design and use should encompass this possibility as to ensure a safe outcome.
Criminal and terrorist use of drones is also inevitable, whatever regulations are put in place. New specific laws to cover this are probably futile.
As someone who has been knocked down by a bicycle on a Zebra crossing in broad daylight, and several times hit by cyclists on pavements, I think that that would also be a good idea.
As a secondary function?
Will we get repeated items on car dash cams, or evens cars themselves with built-in cameras?
Well a lot of drones are sold first and foremost as photographic tools - several at the NEC this week, and also I've not been to a general business show recently without at least one company offering drone photography. I would say that it's really more the primary function of most of them, or at least as important as anything else. So I think it would be quite bizarre if there weren't stories about them in AP.
Dashcams, though, are very much secondary devices, aren't they?
Obviously. Also cars, fertiliser, nails and naturally any kind of knives. And the internet, mobile phones, paper and pens, freedom of movement, freedom of thought and cats. Cats could certainly be weaponised.
Surely you jest - have you ever seen one of those little buggers lie on its back and look at you as if it wants its stomach stroking, only to latch into your hand with all four sets of claws whilst trying to gnaw your fingers down to the bone?
I think you'll find that cats are already weaponised.
Separate names with a comma.