Why does almost everyone hate drones?

<p>I think there are parallels between some "street photographers" who take the view the photographer is always right, especially when adverse or controversial situations arise, and some drone operators who are not capable of thinking through and understanding (or just don't care about) the consequences of their actions. In the first case it's usually more a matter of ethics, in the second it's about law/public safety, and in both it's not being able to put one's self in others' shoes.</p>

<p>I'm probably restating what others said, but simply recent irresponsible and thoughtless usage, as well as occasional invasions of privacy, real or perceived, I thiink are the primary reasons (within the context of photography) you see an outpouring of negativity about drones. Plus, as with many other things, people comment negativly and get more publicity much more often ( the old pile on theory) than with positive comments.</p>

<p>It is far easier to be irresponsible with flying machines that don't carry a pilot, need little space to land, and are of a size that prevents them from carrying identifying numbers visible from a distance. It is horrifying to argue, as Matt has, that no one has died yet. Do we have to wait for an airplane to be brought down by one of these things? Real harm was done by the drones that caused fire-fighting planes to divert from their targets.<br>

<br />I see good reasons to have photographic drones, but they should be be under strict regulation. Users should be required to carry insurance or a large deposit to cover at least part of the damage they can do.</p>

 

<p>>>> It is far easier to be irresponsible with flying machines that don't carry a pilot, need little space to land,...<br /> <br /> Hector is spot-on. It's far easier to be irresponsible with drones which enjoy much greater usage (and rate of adoption) than RC model airplanes due to their ease of use, stable control, and much lower bar to entry and operator proficiency. Comparing drones to RC controlled model airplanes, which have been around for 50+ years, is not a good or very relevant comparison. I have seen drones in busy retail districts in San Francisco flying close to people and over busy streets with cars, likely making videos. I have yet to see a RC model airplane operate in similar circumstances (but obviously don't deny it has not happened), or interfering with firefighting operations.<br /> <br /> I'm not and I suspect many/most people are not anti-drone. Like Glenn I'm an engineer (systems/hardware) and appreciate the technology as it's pretty neat and advanced at the systems level - when used responsibly. I am against drone operators who act irresponsibly, without thinking about consequences, or not being able to put themselves in the shoes of others, thus acting selfishly.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>It is horrifying to argue, as Matt has, that no one has died yet.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm not arguing it, Hector. I'm pointing it out. These are both tools and recreational items. Millions of them are in use. Pointing out that we haven't seen them involved - despite literally millions and millions of hours in the air, in any calamities yet is meant to provide some perspective. I'm comparing it to the thousands of people who die (or kill other people) every year doing other recreational things, or using other tools. The point is that the hysteria in this area is more than a bit over-wrought.<br /><br />That doesn't mean that I think idiots getting in the way of first responders should be cut any slack. But that's true whether they're getting in the way by not pulling over in traffic when a fire truck is on the way to a scene, or when protesters blocking a street prevent a quick response to someone's heart attack, etc. And that's the other point: there are already laws about interfering with first responders on the scene. There are already regulations on the books about not blocking an ambulance in traffic, but of course that doesn't prevent it from happening - it just provides a mechanism for prosecution after the fact. Same thing is true, already, if you're interfering with firefighting while taking aerial photos, <em>or</em> by any other means.<br /><br />I had a nice long chat about this very topic with the flight crew of one of our state's 10 fancy medevac helicopters. One of them (and several of his colleagues) fly RC aircraft, and have since they were kids. They all play with multirotors ("drones") just to keep up with the technology. In thousands of hours of flying, they've had one person in their line of sight (well out of the way) flying an RC machine that might have been a problem if it hadn't ducked out the way: it was a fixed-wing RC glider with a pretty good wing span.<br /><br />One of their real problems, when flying in emergency situations? People on the ground shooting video of their landing and/or hoist-rescue operations. We're talking about people ducking under the police tape surrounding their LZ at crash or law enforcement scenes, as they shoot smartphone video to post on social media. It's an epidemic, apparently - reckless people doing stupid things with cameras for boasting rights... and no drones required for that to be a problem, as it turns out. Which is why regulations won't stop a small number of dumb people from doing dumb things while trying to take pictures, just like it never has.<br /><br />Yes, some insurance for a professional using a camera-carrying UAS doing production work is a good idea. Of course, those people already have liability insurance anyway. Recreational users - millions of them with hundreds of millions of hours in the air - have so far proven to be far, far less dangerous to others than are, say, people riding mountain bikes (most of whom have no liability insurance, but who cause injuries and even deaths every month). Just like most enthusiast photographers don't carry insurance despite the possibility that someone might trip on their camera bag and break their neck when they stop on a narrow path to shoot a nice landscape.<br /><br />If you think people flying a 4-pound plastic toy helicopter carrying a camera the size of a pack of gum should be making a substantial deposit against possible damage, there are a LOT of other demonstrably dangerous people and activities that should get your attention first!</p>

<p>I think the videos and photos of areas that have been photographed <em>ad nauseum</em> now have a different and unusual viewpoint because of drones. They have made photography and videography interesting and fresh again. Who hasn't enjoyed viewing them on YouTube? </p>

<p>The hexacopter put to use by Tom Mabe: <a href="

<p><strong>Why does almost everyone hate drones ?</strong> The short answer is: politics, death and destruction !<br>

As we are not allowed to discuss such things, let's discuss photography instead. I'm all for it.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>the only fruit that doesn't require washing</p>

</blockquote>

<p>What?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>the only fruit that doesn't require washing</p>

<p>What?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>LOL. Yeah! I was feeling kind of bad for the orange, the lemon, the grapefruit, the watermelon . . .</p>

<p>Though I've started washing all those before peeling to get rid of possible ecoli and other bacteria that can transfer from the skin of fruit when cutting and peeling.</p>

<p>Oh, . . . and the <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/news/drones-dogs-detect-fungus-laurel-wilt-killing-avocado-trees-in-florida/">AVOCADO!</a> [Watch the video at the top of the page, which begins after a brief, obnoxious ad.]</p>

<p>Here are some samples of candidates for step #2 in my last post:</p>

<p>http://www.msn.com/en-us/video/downtime/watch-rogue-drones-meet-their-demise/vi-BBlEOa8?ocid=EIE9HP</p>

<p>Sure enough, Mr. Kahn. There's ample evidence, in those short clips, of: <br /><br />1) Newbie users flying into the side of a building<br />2) Newbie users out-flying their batteries and coming down where they don't mean to<br /><br />That scene of the larger octocopter tilting and falling into the stands at a sporting event happened about three years ago. Someone rented the unit to shoot some event coverage, and didn't know how to use it. Just like if they'd rented a truck with a camera crane or a lighting mast, and failing to rig/balance properly, had it topple over into the stands. And that's my point: for every event like that, we can find a thousand other mis-haps that involve something other than camera drones, some of which are fatal accidents involving more familiar things ... and so, lacking the novelty, also lacking press hysteria and other people who can't stop themselves from pretending to confusing the equipment with military aircraft for political reasons, etc.<br /><br />What this entire area needs is more education. Somewhat more for the users (especially the newbies), and a LOT more for the general public who seem to get most of their information from incredibly bad sensationalist journalism.</p>

<p>Sure, Matt, you can find a lot of other mishaps, like this one: <a href="

What makes the drone incidents unique is that they provide their own video from the point of view of the impact. That's bound to generate interest - at least for a time.</p>

<p>What's worrisome isn't so much the idiocy involved, but the result of the crash. Maybe the FAA should require drone pilot training and licensing, like motor vehicle departments require driver licensing?</p>

<p>No. Not more government regulation interfering with our freedoms. Pilot training and licensing is overkill. Another government boondoggle and expense for the taxpayers. Aren't we tired of that? Just how many people have be hurt and killed by camera drones? Have people sued the operators? That's the way it should be handled. Limit areas like near airports. Use a little common sense. This isn't exactly like driving a two ton vehicle at 60 mph.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>No. Not more government regulation interfering with our freedoms. Pilot training and licensing is overkill. Another government boondoggle and expense for the taxpayers. Aren't we tired of that? Just how many people have be hurt and killed by camera drones? Have people sued the operators? That's the way it should be handled. Limit areas like near airports. Use a little common sense. This isn't exactly like driving a two ton vehicle at 60 mph.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I thought we were going to discourage purely political posts. The moderator above already spoke to making our posts photo-related and not wandering afield into pure politics. This post, Alan, is putting him in the unnecessary position of having to delete in order to keep within the confines already clearly set out, something all of us would prefer not to have to happen. If you want self regulation instead of regulation from authority, which seems to form the basis of your argument, then self regulate! [When Alan's post is deleted, I hope mine will be, too.]</p>

<p>Alan there are already some programs for pilot training and licensing of 'drone' aircraft, one of them at the university in my home town. It's the inevitable result of the commercial use of anything that flies. This is something I've been looking at getting involved in and have tried to see where the regulators are going. I think Matt has a much more informed point of view than most of us here. This type of aircraft is news because so many operators are using so little sense. Traditional RC aircraft have generally required instruction to learn to fly and that means getting involved with a local club and being taught to fly in a safe and responsible manner. Multicopters have not required this instruction and the operators aren't being taught any responsibility. As a lifelong RC pilot as well as a private pilot for many years I've watched some UAV operations in some questionable situations over large crowds where I would never consider operation of anything else I fly. Regulations or not, this activity is going to grow because there is growing demand for it. UAVs are not going away, there are going to be more and more of them and we are going to have more photographic options because of it.<br>

<br />Rick H.</p>

Fred. First, The OP question is a political question. It

is not a question about the aesthetic qualities of

cameras used on drones. Second, since this

question directly effects how and when photographers

can use their cameras, it is exactly the kind of thing

that should be discussions in this forum.

 

Finally my first post did discuss the aesthetic rationale

for drones.

<blockquote>

<p>Not more government regulation interfering with our freedoms.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, fine then. I'll simply come back and say that many government regulations are put in place in order to sort out competing freedoms among the population. I believe, in fact, many government regulations have enhanced my own freedom . . . and I'll leave it at that. </p>

<p>Though it's possible this post will also evaporate, I think it's necessary to point out that even a discussion of this technology that is truly limited to photo/videographic applications can and must include discussion of the surrounding legal, philosophical, and political issues.<br /><br />See other recent discussions on this forum that have involved (for example) a photographer that has shown work that revolves around peering into people's apartment windows in NYC. Very reasonably, that <em>photography</em> and art discussion was also a discussion about privacy, the First Amendment, the laws of physics surrounding light on window glass and curtains, how long a lens is too long under which circumstances and if that even matters, whether civil or criminal courts may or may not play a role, whether local statutes bear, and so on. In <em>that context</em> all of those were very much photographic comments. If someone had said, in such a conversation, "But I hear that cameras with long lenses are also used by special forces when they call in drone strikes on ISIS convoys!" then that deliberately off-topic side bar, classic trolling really, is inappropriate to the topic despite using the word "lens."<br /><br />It's reasonable to point out that we have, already in place, every law necessary to deal with idiots of all stripes. Those who buzz crowds in an urban setting in order to get certain kinds of overhead shots without taking sensible precautions? There isn't a jurisdiction in the country that doesn't have reckless endangerment laws under which said idiot could be held responsible in the event of an injury ... just like we don't need special new "zip line regulations" on the off chance that a video team that decides to string up an ad hoc cable-cam between two office windows makes a mistake and drops their rig onto people in the crowd. Yes, that's an observation that some call political (because it points out that enforcement of existing laws would do the job, and that's a position contrary to what some people prefer), but it's completely germane when it comes to the topic at hand.<br /><br />Photographers choosing to exploit this incredible new technology absolutely do have to acquaint themselves with the existing laws (local and otherwise) and the FAA's rules (which may or may not apply), and thus they must also become familiar with the media and political landscape that shapes those things. Those photographers may (shockingly!) also have an opinion about the adequacy and appropriateness of those rules, of the public's mis/understanding of them, and have well reasoned reactions to other photographers' calls to regulate their fellow photographers. There have been plenty of reactionary idiots out there that would LOVE to see new regulations around street photography, and plenty of people right here on PN (some in this thread) who in turn make very on-topic but what some might call "purely political" objections to such limits.<br /><br />As long as we're focused on all of these issues as they relate to photo/videography, I don't see how they'd be considered off topic. I'd consider them very topical, and vital.</p>

<p>Matt, I agree with you and wish we weren't so restricted. But we are.</p>

<p>Here's my thinking. If we're talking about drones or we're talking about a photographer peering into someone's apartment to make photos, let's talk about those things. But, if we're talking about drones and we add more generic and universal politically-charged statements, statements that are debated ad nauseum everyday on FOX and MSNBC, statements such as <em>"</em><em>Not more government regulation interfering with our freedoms,"</em> then we've moved beyond the photo- or drone-related discussion. If there's a specific problem with potentially damaging regulations over drones, I'd be more than interested in hearing that in this discussion and it would seem like fair game. Pretty much all the points you and others have made have been within the purview of the subject being discussed. But I think what's been declared out-of-bounds is someone's more universal and much less specific and relevant ideological take on government regulations. I know it's a fine distinction but I also think most people can see that difference and probably modulate their comments accordingly.</p>

<p>>>> It's reasonable to point out that we have, already in place, every law necessary to deal with idiots of all stripes.</p>

<p>But sometimes general existing laws aren't enough, especially from a deterrence or *educational* perspective. For example, the crime of assault (loosely, the threat of creating imminent harmful contact with another) has enhancements for special situations; i.e. assault on a police officer/firefighter, assault on a minor by an adult, aggravated assault, etc. Brandishing a weapon in it's most basic form is an assault. Assaults with battery when directed at certain groups and motivated by hate have resulted in special laws, not just for punitive after-the-crime purposes, but to let people know that certain behavior is especially unacceptable in society.</p>

<p>I live in/near busy flight corridors with multiple nearby airports with aircraft flying at less that 10,000 feet. Apparently some drone operators have not thought things through with respect to consequences here and in other areas. A law with consequences that deals with that kind of behavior should cause operators to *first* think about what they are doing before any flight is contemplated in situations like this. Ditto with drone operators wanting to get spectacular video of massive fires but in the process interfere with firefighters and air tankers trying to save lives and property.</p>

<p>Personally I do hate drones - invasive, dangerous and largely unnecessary. Championed by naive optimists everywhere.</p>

<p>I'm reminded of the guy who tied weather balloons to a garden chair and rose to a height of 15,000 feet. I thought he would be celebrated as a folk hero but instead he was prosecuted.</p>

Drones are a new way to impinge on our right to have a private space. Not that they are only, or mostly, used to peep. But they can, and we do not know what to do about that. There's no defence, apart from acquiring some surface to air weaponry (but they say that's illegal). And apart from not appearing where drone users can see us, i.e. limit our freedom. Hence (no defence apart from limiting ourselves - the pain is still ours) the unease.

<p>Paparazzi with long lenses and little respect for personal private life (such as one can normally assume as valid when on one's own property) made life a bit miserable for the famous or rich. Now drones enable similar less than gracious photography and intrusion. Not by all drone users, to be sure, but by some. If we can have regulations regarding the way one drive's a car, where and how and with what limitations, then we can certainly foresee a need for control of drone use, including that of photography. The technology, not very elaborate, is a good innovation, but get to work on regulating it for the safeguard of personal liberties, municipal and state governments!</p>