Slashdot Mirror
California Legislation Would Require License Plates, Insurance For Drones (arstechnica.com)
An anonymous reader writes: A pair of legislators in California have introduced separate pieces of legislation aimed at further regulating the nascent drone industry in the name of safety. Assemblyman Mike Gatto wants inexpensive insurance policies sold with drones, and also wants those drones to be outfitted with tiny license plates. He said, "If cars have license plates and insurance, drones should have the equivalent, so they can be properly identified, and owners can be held financially responsible, whenever injuries, interference, or property damage occurs." Another bill, put forth by Assemblyman Ed Chau, wants to require drone owners to leave contact information in the event of a crash. Chau also made parallels with cars: "If you lose control of your drone and someone gets hurt – or someone else's property gets damaged — then you should have the same duty to go to the scene of the accident, give your name and address, and cooperate with the police." The bills follow a number of incidents during 2015 in which drones damaged people and property, or simply got in the way of other operations.
Just in case they damage other people's property, the following things will also be required to have insurance and little license plates: RC aircraft/cars, baseballs, tennis balls, frisbees, nerf darts, shuttlecocks, boomerangs, bullets, your child's bike, and your child.
Well, why not the aeronautical equivalent for the bigger ones, at least.
Sure, it's easy to mock and say "because California", but this time the boys from the land of nutjob legislation have a point.
I impulse-bought a cheap drone I came across in the store to see what the fuss was about; no GPS or fancy self-guidance, just a remote control.
Damn, that thing was hard to control at first, and I used to fly jet fighters - albeit a long time ago.
So perhaps this is actually a better suggestion than the FAA "self-registration" scheme.
Over a certain weight, you have to produce ID and included in the price is the registration fee and insurance for a year.
If I get my head stoved-in by somebody's out of control drone, at least the medical is covered...
Yeah I really don't see this being bad, it is strangely coherent for legislators.
...
Sure, I'll be that guy.
For certain weight classes, why not? If we start going above 3kg and you lose control of one of these, that's a small bowling ball hurtling back down toward the ground. For RC cars, you're on a 2D field. If you stall, you stall on your spot in 2D space and that's that. When you're playing in 3D on Earth, stalling means moving elsewhere, not staying put in the air (air friction without gravity) or maintaining the same velocity with no ability to course correct (space). Generally, that "elsewhere" is a location downward from wherever your drone or RC plane loses control.
I would personally think safety courses should be required for devices where the mortality risk is high, not just the risk of injury or minor property damage. Think 10+kg model airplanes.
Viable Slashdot alternatives: https://pipedot.org/ and http://soylentnews.org/
Except for the entire issue of a license plate itself. Either it's going to be too small to read at the normal range the drone will be sighted at, or too damn big and heavy to allow the drone to operate.
I still don't see why people are so freaked out over the toy R/C Aircraft getting more popular these days, despite some idiot changing the name to 'drone'.
You know they've been flying those things since before I was even born.