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.
...turn signals, mirrors, and a working horn.
It's about revenue. Anything CA can do to get a bit more revenue - it will do.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
"...and also wants those drones to be outfitted with tiny license plates"
:-D
One word... LOL!
Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
States have always tried to regulate their own airspace, and the FAA keeps having to smack them down.
Seriously, if it's in the air states have no control.
So lets pretend that we've just completed writing this code, as opposed to having just completed sabotaging it -Altera
I don't think they really understand the drone market. It would be cheaper to restart the shuttle program than making and enforcing this law.
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.
And which of these has the least regulation? And which has the higher chance of injuring or killing someone? Amazing that they want license plates and insurance for "model aircraft", but apparently you can buy a gun and just start shooting it, no safety classes, no training, not even a seatbelt required.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
"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."
Don't drone operators *already* have to accept liability for damage/injury caused by their drone? With registration already mandatory, why will tiny little license plates improve anything? Those that are responsible will register their drone and will take responsibility for its operation. Those that are not responsible will just buy or print a fake "license plate" (or more likely, skip the license plate entirely) and fly their drone into a car and then walk away.
Cali just wants your money, it's not unheard of to have 1000 dollar yearly car registrations there. Honestly, you can get a drivers license in California even if you aren't a US citizen or can't even read English words on road signs. The state of California will bleed you dry, they don't care if you are safe, it's all for the money. Insurance fees, taxes, flight testing school... blah blah blah Do what I did 8 years ago, move out of California.
Let's put the IRS in charge of them all just like healthcare...! After all the government is only here to help and make everything better...
"If you like your Drone, you can keep your Drone."
I think this makes more sense than the damn public registry thing the FAA wants - I think it makes sense that the drone should have some contact info on it even just for return to the owner in the event of a loss. Damage and injuries are pretty unlikely in most cases I think, I don't think insurance should be required but there should be some guidelines on penalties and things like that for the courts to follow in the event of disputes. I think this would be okay - mail off some registration card thats included with every drone to the state, they mail back a printed sticker with your info on it and how to go through a return or claim process through some agency, and you slap it on your drone - I think that seems reasonable and it's better for privacy than some damn public listing of every drone owner. It should be on need-to-know (aka someone has a claim or a drone was lost and found), not a privacy punishment simply for owning such a device. You could get a little revenue out of it, maybe it's $10 for the registration and that can just be included in the purchase price - the funds go partly to funding the bureaucracy for the registrations.
This should work about as well as gun-free schools that have, like, TOTALLY prevented mass shootings.
I'm sure well meaning ( though creating another infrastructure for managing that means more revenue for gov't agencies ) but you're already liable for damage you do. But what about baseballs or a Frisbee through a window? Dog digging up your lawn or cat scratching the hood of your car?
Drones are under attack since they are new and pricey. If someone has the extra money to buy one it pisses people off. If the baseball broke your window or dented your car people would naturally, be pissed off. But if it's a drone? Hell, that's an automatic excuse to over-react.
[Understandable, given]...that California is infamously-corrupt, that those in government want to curtail the public's ability to observe their actions, so that when questions from the public about government actions/policies/procedures/etc arise, what they tell us does not have to match what they do.
Of course, very few of those in government have a problem with government using the same technology to enable them to observe anybody they wish as long as "Department 'A'" (FISA courts, etc) gives permission to "Department 'B'" (TLAs and other government security/intelligence/law-enforcement departments & agencies).
It's all about keeping as many people as possible from thinking about the fact that the *only* use the surveillance web they have already built and continue to expand domestically is suited for is political/societal control through blackmail and/or planting fabricated evidence of a crime.
A horrific 'Weapon of Mass Oppression".
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
Those that are not responsible will just buy or print a fake "license plate" (or more likely, skip the license plate entirely) and fly their drone into a car and then walk away.
and if the owner of the drone can be traced by other means, what then?
The geek's willingness to amp up a routine civil case into a criminal one is astonishing.
Drones were fun while it lasted
you should have the same duty to go to the scene of the accident
Stupid idea from politician not engaging brain.
In a car (in most places) you are required to not-leave the scene of the accident, and (most places) that requirement only applies when driving on a public highway (or equivalent concept). In most cases the crash site is on, or very nearly on, public property. This won't be the case with drones, at all. The crash site may be inaccessible, dangerous to access, illegal to access or just plain private property, and drone pilots already have been TTFO at gunpoint trying to do what he requires.
Someone should ask this guy if his law gives drone pilots the _right_ to go to the scene of an accident (think similar powers to the NTSB...) as well as the duty, if so why is he giving every Joe drone-pilot such power, and if not how are they supposed to carry out their duty?
Will the insurance already provided to AMA members and FAA registration be sufficient or are they trying to grab more $$$?
$2.5 Million Liability Umbrella
$25,000 Medical Coverage
$1,000 Fire and Theft Coverage
-- Brought to you by Carl's JR
Everyone is against it until they catch a drone to the knee and can't find the person responsible.
To their credit, the folks bringing the guns haven't been there before, so they didn't get a chance to see the signs.
All the kids and teachers know about the signs, so they don't bring their weapons with them.
Suborbital [spaceflight] is the special olympics of spaceflight. - Rei
Are people getting injured from rogue drones? Has there even been an unusual amount of property damage?
Why is the legislature trying to regulate something that is potentially a non-issue? What happened to the old days when legislatures wrote laws in response to case rulings and tried to solve demonstrable problems instead of imaginary problems?
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
States have always tried to regulate their own airspace, and the FAA keeps having to smack them down. Seriously, if it's in the air states have no control.
California taxes the owners of "real" aircraft, there are no FAA objections. California is generally dealing with ownership, the FAA generally dealing with operations. California would seem to be legally clear to require owners to license and insure their drones.
My sides, they're exploding!
Hey I should send them a letter suggesting drone owners be required to get tattoos across their foreheads so everyone knows they're dronefags and can stay away. Go fly your toys in your stepmom's basement, losers! XD XD XD
this is crazy..
is california so hard up??? /. even a real news outlet any more?
Is DHI really that lame???
Is
oh the horror..
How about we pass a law that money must be lost in any of these regulations such that the state or county would have a negative incentive for enforcement. If we force people to purchase insurance it will be like car insurance and offer no real protection to the injured while generating money for the government and private companies as well. Try getting smacked by a car and see just how little a 10,000 dollar injury and loss of wages policies do for you. They are worthless. Example: Mary is hit by a car. Here immediate medical treatment costs over $700,000. Further, she will be in a medical type of nursing home for the rest of her life with a current monthly charge of $9,000 per month and she will also have high medical bills every month for as much as eighty years before she passes. She also can not ever work and her children will need ongoing care until they are 21. The court awards may 30,000,000 million dollars. the lawyer gets ten million and the court costs come to about $50,000. The insurance company is only liable for $10,000 total and the driver has a minimum wage job. Courts in my state rarely go beyond the insurance policy limits. Mary will not have money for the care she needs for more than ten years. Her kids are screwed. Mary dies from lack of quality medical care.
If I can snag your drone while it's over my property, I can keep it.
This is why we cant have nice things.
Assemblyman Mike Gatto wants inexpensive insurance policies sold with drones, and also wants those drones to be outfitted with tiny license plates.
Since the Feds are already requiring the second part of this one can only assume that California smells money, as this is charged at POS I'm assuming that the whole idea amounts to an additional $1+ drone sales tax. I really doubt that there are any insurance companies in the world that will provide inexpensive drone coverage for "$1 or so" and be expected to pay out for a paint job on someone's brand new Lexus because it got scratched.
Also none of the articles mention if the indoor 0.5 pound or less drones still need license and insurance, which the Feds DO NOT currently require.
This is a good example of why I hate our 24/7, 90-second segment, pandering for ratings, news cycle. RC aircraft have been around of a long time... literally decades before the media took notice of them. And the FAA and the AMA have a long history of mutual respect, self-regulation, and generally not being asses. There were always the occasional morons, but no amount of regulation will prevent that. But now CNN is calling remote controlled aircraft "Drones". It does nothing but drive up artificial hysteria. Combine the scary word that invokes images of Predators dropping Hellfires into wedding parties full of civilians with the small minority of operators that are morons, and you get a sensational news story that riles people up into a "we gotta regulate it" frenzy.
Even dumber are the comparisons to cars. If you're going to use automobiles as your yardstick, how about licensing and requiring liability insurance for bicycles instead? The comparison is far more apt. They are both passenger vehicles. They share the same roads. And there's a whole lot more potential for injury with bicycle mishaps than there is with drones. And the bicycle community in California is filled with far more arrogant, reckless, law-flouting, "screw everybody but us" types than the RC aircraft community. (Just google for "critical mass" for a fine example of what I mean.)
Imagine all the people...
Wouldn't the concept of federal supremacy and the fact that the FAA is already chartered with this responsibility by congress prohibit California from enforcing such regulations?
While the Academy of Model Aeronautics(AMA) would absolutely love for there to be a mandate that requires or promotes their insurance, the insurance itself would not provide the coverage needed for most drone operators. AMA policy and AMA insurance require that you fly only at AMA approved fields. At these fields the only risk would be crashing into the crowd or fellow AMA members or into their cars. In other words, a very low risk.
On the other hand, most drone flyers are flying form their backyards and driveways and parks. These areas are not covered by AMA insurance and if you were to try to make a claim, it would be denied.
Remember, the goal of insurance companies is not to protect you. Their goal is to take your money and give nothing back.
A pair of legislators in California have introduced separate pieces of legislation aimed at grabbing more money from the state's citizens...
FTFY
This space unintentionally left blank.
There shouldn't even be license plates on cars. Cars can be manufactured with permanent ID numbers right out of the factory. Getting a title reissue would tie a person to the ID. The whole state plates system is a big revenue scam. And now they want to do it to drones? This keeps up much more and I guarantee they will soon be requiring us to register every computer b/c "cyber-security".
:T:R:A:N:S:
Fortunately, you are incorrect. AMA insurance also provides coverage of AMA approved fields, as long as you follow the safety guidelines.
If Amazon and Dominos and whoever else are going to be peppering the sky's of metro areas with autonomous delivery drones, I don't think it is unreasonable for those companies to be required to have some type of insurance policy to cover the inevitable but unexpected accidents, things caused by birds or weather or malfunction or LiON battery fires or who knows what else. I sure do not think my home insurance should take a hit because a bird flew into an Amazon drone over my house and it crashed through my skylight.
I also don't think it is unreasonable to require an identification mechanism for an autonomous drone. If you are going to make the insurance claim process work, you need to be able to trace a drone to its owner.
From a property damage risk perspective we lived across the street from a park. Stay sports stuff ended up in the yard from time to time. One window was broken from a basket ball. Might need. More license plates here.
Oh give me a fucking break.
This is just a fucking revenue scam. Nothing more.
I think we're well past "blood from a stone" and now working on "blood from nothing".
Greedy fucks...
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
To their credit, the folks bringing the guns haven't been there before, so they didn't get a chance to see the signs.
The laws prohibiting firearms within, what is it, 1000 feet of schools have been in effect for how many years? And got flogged around the media outlets like there was no tomorrow as the solution to armed violence at schools when they were enacted, so the likelihood that they didn't know that just having a gun there was illegal. But if they've already decided that they're going to shoot someone, do you really think that the illegality of carrying the gun where they intend to carry out the shooting is going to deter them? All the 1000-foot exclusion zone does is make them confident that they're unlikely to encounter someone who can shoot back -- lots of defenseless targets.
Last I checked, my homeowners policy covers liability due to model aircraft. The personal liability part of the policy excludes aircraft, but the exclusion itself has an exclusion for model aircraft that do not carry passengers or cargo. So why should I pay an extra cent or dollar or whatever?
Of course insurance on model aircraft is tiny because, despite all the noise, they aren't a big liability issue. While a few have been dropped on people (mostly by idiots), that's a very, very few. The larger camera drones have caused some slightly bigger problems, like that power outage in California.. but that was a commercial drone and would be covered under the business's insurance.
The FAA gets its panties in a bunch every time an airline pilot sees a balloon or a light or a GA aircraft or even an actual unmanned aircraft. The media has a fit every time someone crashes one without any damage to anything. But that's just hysteria.
" If we start going above 3kg and you lose control of one of these"
But you're never in control are you, the drone self flies! So wouldn't it make sense to regulate the drone software not the flyer (I'm not going to call them pilots because they're not).
So check the software auto lands on a low battery, check it doesn't fall out of the sky for no reason, check its battery and electronics are reliable enough, check it obeys no fly zone rules.
No auto fly software? Well then 50 feet height limit, no heavier than (TBD).
Pity there was never an amendment stating your God given right to fly a drone.
The irony is US can "control" so called drones, but guns?? Drones can fly into your backyard, but guns just kill.
Guns.
California has long been in the total control of one political party. The Democrats have super-majorities in both the state senate and the state assembly (the entire legislative branch), they have the governor, the lieutenant governor, the atty general, sec state, etc (the entire executive branch) and had those two branches for so long that they have appointed nearly all the judges (total control of the judicial branch, less the relative handful of elected judges in the state). California has TOTAL one-party rule. Yeah, we briefly had the "governator" (a celebrity who while technically a Republican, was after the previous Democrat governor jacked-up the car taxes and did nothing while the state suffered rolling blackouts. The "governator" won, not as a Republican (which he is, but at the left-edge of the party while married into the Democrat Kennedy family) but as a celebrity and an "action hero". Schwarzenegger mostly went along with the Democrat legislature to the point of even granting a pardon to murderer Esteban Nunez, "the son of Fabian Nunez, California's most powerful Democrat and a political ally to the governor" (here's the obligatory CNN link) and was barely a political hiccup.
When one party has THAT much political power (to the point of being able to totally ignore the other party and their voters for decades) they tend to lose any sight of the very CONCEPT of a there being any limit to their power and authority. It's made worse when the people with that power are "progressives" with an ideology that rejects the idea of limiting government authority and power, so that there is absolutely no internal pushback on even the craziest overreaches. No other party in modern history has had the level of political power over a state that the Democrats have over California.
For safety, what CA really needs is a law requiring drone operators to wear a helmet.
Weaponize your drone. Once it's weaponized, the FAA cannot regulate - it has to be covered by the BATFE, and all they can legally do is stand by and watch. Any regulation will undoubtedly run afoul of the 2nd amendment, which states that owning any weapon for any reason whatsoever is a God-given* right to every American.
*This was added in the 1950s, along with the motto and the pledge. Don't go look; just trust me that it's there.
I can see why we need to treat drones/quadcopters the same way. Something needs to be done to stop the mass carnage that they are causing.