Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

California Legislation Would Require License Plates, Insurance For Drones (arstechnica.com)

Posted by Soulskill on from the and-don't-operate-one-while-wearing-flipflops dept.

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.

19 of 151 comments (clear)

  1. Future legislation will require... by jerk · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...turn signals, mirrors, and a working horn.

    1. Re:Future legislation will require... by Bearhouse · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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...

    2. Re:Future legislation will require... by Barny · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah I really don't see this being bad, it is strangely coherent for legislators.

      --
      ...
      /me sighs
    3. Re:Future legislation will require... by gcnaddict · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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/
    4. Re:Future legislation will require... by thesupraman · · Score: 2

      Well, how about the take on a more serious actual problem and require license plates, registration, insurance, and a proficiency test (to get a road license) for pushbikes?

      I mean, they are reasonably often involved in real accidents, a proportion of which are their fault (lets not get in to an argument about what ratio).
      Property damage happens, people are injured and killed, reasonably often.

      If Cars and Motorcycles are required to follow rules to use the public roads, why not pushbikes?

      Any no, I am most certainly not anti-pushbike, I just wonder why they have free use of roads when other road users are regulated and taxed for the same use.

    5. Re:Future legislation will require... by meerling · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    6. Re:Future legislation will require... by Pikoro · · Score: 2

      Hmm. I remember when there was a biggish earthquake in 1989 and the state voted to raise sales tax from 6% to 7.25% in order to pay for repairs to the SFO area. I also remember something along the lines of "this will only be active until the repairs are complete". I seem to remember it being active well into... well, it's currently 7.5%. It never went away. The parent is spot on.

      --
      "Freedom in the USA is not the ability to do what you want. It is the ability to stop others from doing what THEY want"
  2. Not going to happen by EmperorArthur · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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
    1. Re:Not going to happen by k6mfw · · Score: 2

      FAA has jurisdiction from the ground up. There are aviation people that can answer this better with links to actual FARs. There can be controlled airspace and uncontrolled airspace but latter doesn't mean "nobody is in control." "Controlled" means under active ATC direction. Getting back to Calif making laws for drones, I say this ./ entry should have been labeled "good-luck-with-that dept."

      --
      mfwright@batnet.com
    2. Re:Not going to happen by Obfuscant · · Score: 2

      FAA has jurisdiction from the ground up within a prescribed and fairly small range of any airport, outside of that range the FAA's jurisdiction has not ever extended to anything below 500 feet.

      For FAA to be able to regulate to the ground their jurisdiction has to extent to the ground. TFRs often (almost always?) extend from the ground up -- and TFRs are almost never within "a fairly small range of any airport".

      This is not an issue of whether FAA has authority to regulate from the ground up, it is an issue of California requiring registration and identification of aircraft. FAA already requires registration and marking of UAV except those below a certain weight (and has much more stringent registration rules for commercial and heavy ones). CA is being redundant in requiring "license plates".

      But they are joining other states that require registration and duplication of existing FAA activities. Oregon, for example, has had a long-standing pilot registration requirement, and has just enacted a registration for UAV. Idiots.

  3. Only drones? by Sperbels · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Only drones? by DaHat · · Score: 2

      At the very least I would like to see bikes require to have visible license plates and drivers who are licensed and insured if they are to ride on the same roads as motorized vehicles, for the same reasons we require both for cars.

      --
      Help Brendan pay off his student loans
    2. Re:Only drones? by russotto · · Score: 2

      How many people run outside with their shotgun to shoot down baseballs, tennis balls, etc?

      Not many, but when the trap machine has been broken for a few weeks, you do what you have to.

  4. Re:Unnecessary regulations by DaHat · · Score: 2

    That hasn't stopped them from trying to regulate things they don't understand before. Right now they are trying to ban the 'bullet button' as their previous ban on detachable magazines was so effective, just look at how great their gun regulation did at stopping the San Bernardino terrorist attack.

    --
    Help Brendan pay off his student loans
  5. Isn't this already the case? by hawguy · · Score: 2

    "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.

  6. Re:Drones and Cars and Guns by oic0 · · Score: 2

    Out of those three? Cars. Cars cause more deaths than guns per year. Accidental gun deaths are far far far lower than accidental car deaths (505 vs 35369). They only get ckose when you count murder and suicides.

  7. Re:It's all about the money! by tsqr · · Score: 2

    Cali just wants your money, it's not unheard of to have 1000 dollar yearly car registrations there.

    Well yeah, if your car is brand new and you paid over $138,000 for it. Otherwise, not so much.

    I'm with you, though, on the ease of getting a driver license. I have personally witnessed people taking tests at the local DMV office being allowed to use "translators" who were openly coaching them on the correct answers.

  8. Re:Go to the scene... by Sowelu · · Score: 2

    If you're flying some big 10 pound commercial octocopter and it falls from the sky over a crowd of kids, but you didn't see exactly where it landed--I'd say you have a moral obligation, and quite possibly a legal one, to go take responsibility for whatever happened instead of driving off before you get caught.

  9. What about supremacy by crbowman · · Score: 2

    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?