UK To Require Drone Registration And Safety Exams (bloomberg.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

UK To Require Drone Registration And Safety Exams (bloomberg.com)

Posted by EditorDavid on Sunday July 23, 2017 @07:10AM from the flight-plans dept.

An anonymous reader quotes Bloomberg: Drones will have to be registered and their users required to pass safety tests under new rules to be announced by the U.K.'s Department for Transport... Registration will be mandated for owners of drones 250 grams (8.8 ounces) or larger after research found that drones as small as 400 grams (14 ounces) could damage the windscreens of helicopters. Other security measures like "geo-fencing" -- GPS-based technology programmed into drones to prevent them from flying into sensitive areas such as prisons and airports -- are also under consideration, according to a statement from the department.
The BBC points out that "There is no time frame or firm plans as to how the new rules will be enforced and the Department of Transport admitted that 'the nuts and bolts still have to be ironed out.'"

"The UK government says 22 incidents involving commercial airliners and drones were investigated between January and April of this year," adds TechRadar, "with police unable to trace the owners of the drones -- one of the reasons for the new legislation."

62 of 97 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Be careful by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-23 07:19 · Score: 2, Insightful

Mandatory registration is usually the first step toward criminalization.
1. Re:Be careful by jareth-0205 · 2017-07-23 07:49 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Mandatory registration is usually the first step toward criminalization.
  Eh? We do registration and licencing for cars/driving, and there's a fairly clear parallel here. Unless you think driving licences are an unacceptable curtailment of your freedom, I can't get worked up about this. There's plenty of terrible things that the government are doing to rile against, this isn't one.
2. Re:Be careful by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-23 07:56 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Step away from the bong, dude. You've had enough already.
  You already have a driver('s) license, and your automobile already has a government issued tag that requires periodic inspection, and you're required to purchase insurance for damage that your vehicle may cause whether you're behind the wheel or not. Aside from the "self-driving cars are going to take our freedomz!" nut-jobs, nobody's claiming that they're going to criminalize driving. (When level 5 self-driving cars are mainstream, it'll just cost you an arm and a leg to insure your personal "human operated" automobile.)
  Drones are a legitimate threat to public safety. Mandatory registration is a first step towards accountability for damages, and it will make it easier to file civil and criminal charges against negligent drone owners / operators. As long as you follow the rules, nobody's coming for your drone.
3. Re:Be careful by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-23 07:59 · Score: 1
  
  Mandatory registration is usually the first step toward criminalization.
  Like cars, for example.
  Oh, wait.
4. Re:Be careful by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · 2017-07-23 08:48 · Score: 2
  
  Agreed. If anything, this change is well overdue. Unfortunately, there is plenty of evidence that a significant number of people buying drones don't know the legal rules for operating them and are doing so in ways that are dangerous, invade people's privacy, etc.
  Given that there have already been multiple near-miss incidents close to major airports, for example, it's obvious that we've basically just been lucky so far, and the consequences when that luck runs out will be very bad.
  
  --
  If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
5. Re:Be careful by ShanghaiBill · 2017-07-23 09:14 · Score: 1
  
  We do registration and licencing for cars/driving
  No registration or license is needed to own or drive a car. These are only needed for use on public roads.
6. Re:Be careful by ColdWetDog · 2017-07-23 10:00 · Score: 2
  
  Given that there have already been multiple near-miss incidents close to major airports, for example, it's obvious that we've basically just been lucky so far, and the consequences when that luck runs out will be very bad.
  While I agree that licensing of drone pilots is a Good Thing, let's not get carried away. The risk to the airspace from consumer level drones is real, in reality pretty modest and certainly not to the point of 'multiple near-miss incidents close to major airports'. The actual number of real UAV incursions into the airspace is pretty low. There are lots of 'sightings' and 'incidents' which typically are ludicrous on their face (altitude 10000 feet, 4 foot diameter object, speeds over 100 mph) or just reported with insufficient information (the 'plastic bag' incident at Heathrow last year as an example).
  UAVs are capable of intersecting other aircraft and therefore are appropriately regulated, but we can leave the Sturm Und Drang to the Kardashians.
  
  --
  Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
7. Re:Be careful by BlueStrat · 2017-07-23 10:01 · Score: 1
  
  Mandatory registration is usually the first step toward criminalization.
  
  It's already a crime to trespass, voyeur, and damage people's property.
  Yes, but it's trespassing, voyeurism, and damage to other people's property on the internet!!...err...with a drone!!
  Sorry, bit of a meme-stream crossing, there.
  Strat
  
  --
  Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
8. Re: Be careful by mSparks43 · 2017-07-23 10:10 · Score: 1
  
  I'd be more worried about the swans.
  far more numerous, and its a prison stretch if you accidentally fly into one and kill it. Them birds all belong to beth.
9. Re: Be careful by FlyHelicopters · 2017-07-23 15:12 · Score: 1
  
  Not to the ground... close to it, but in most places 200ft over your property is yours.
10. Re:Be careful by BlueStrat · 2017-07-23 15:21 · Score: 2
  
  Seriously, though get over your meme-centered life, and recognize that people do have problems with the operation of drones, and addressing them is going to lead to some restrictions.
  Why? Because crying "freedom" over being an ass makes a fool out of you.
  Yes, because making *another* law to make something that's already illegal...illegal...makes perfect sense. /s
  Strat
  
  --
  Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
11. Re:Be careful by CaptQuark · 2017-07-23 18:25 · Score: 2
  
  Step away from the bong, dude. Drones are a legitimate threat to public safety.
  B.S. The word "Drones" is a catch-all word that can mean anything from a nano-quadcopter the size of a beer coaster to a 5-foot octocopter big enough to lift a person. It also refers to autonomous fixed-wing aircraft. Just because someone labels something a Drone doesn't make it dangerous.
  
  A multi-rotor helicopter that weighs 8 oz is no more dangerous than a Frisbee.
  
  ---
12. Re: Be careful by GNious · 2017-07-23 23:13 · Score: 1
  
  Link to British law stating this?
13. Re: Be careful by jeremyp · 2017-07-23 23:46 · Score: 1
  
  A cricket ball weighs between 5 1/2 and 5 3/4 ounces. This law will be for drones that weigh more than 8 ounces. Also drones tend to have more sharp edged rotating blades than a cricket ball.
  So I call your post as bs.
  
  --
  All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
14. Re:Be careful by drinkypoo · 2017-07-24 00:15 · Score: 1
  
  A multi-rotor helicopter that weighs 8 oz is no more dangerous than a Frisbee.
  That's bullshit. Frisbees don't start fires when crashed into brush in a mode that keeps the rotors spinning. They also don't tend to be able to take out an eye.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
15. Re: Be careful by mSparks43 · 2017-07-24 00:31 · Score: 1
  
  a swan weighs upwards of 11kg. so i see your 8 onces/220 grams and wonder just how much bubble wrap you need to cover yourself in to get up in the morning.
  must be a terrifying experience for you every time you go to the park, even the ducks must have you filling your trousers with excrement from the shear terror of their size.
16. Re:Be careful by coofercat · 2017-07-24 01:37 · Score: 1
  
  ...and the proposed regulations only target flying vehicles over 250grams.
17. Re:Be careful by cayenne8 · 2017-07-24 02:31 · Score: 1
  
  On the other hand....
  It is NICE that in the US, the courts rejected the FAA's authority to require registration of non-commercial drones in the US recently.
  I just got my DJI Spark to start learning, and I don't have to bother registering it...quite nice.
  
  --
  Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
18. Re:Be careful by MercTech · 2017-07-24 05:27 · Score: 2
  
  Hobby drones do not have to be registered. Hobby drones have limits on weight, payload capacity, cannot be flown over another person's property without permission, and are not allowed to be flown in public areas where people congregate or out of sight of the operator. Hobby drones may not be used for commercial purposes. See https://www.faa.gov/uas/ for actual regulations and training requirements.
  Any drone that you want to operate out of sight of the operator, carry a decent payload, actually be useful; must be registered and licensed by the Federal Aviation Administration in the U.S. This is required for the public safety.
  Do you really want a bozo flown drone buzzing the airport and taking out a passenger aircraft? To be a licensed drone operator, among other things, you have to pass the equivalent of the Civil Aviation ground school where you learn where it is legal to fly and who needs to be notified of flight paths and height restrictions on the operation of a drone. There are already several precedents in case law confirming that if someone flies a drone over your property without permission you are within your rights to take down the drone. Nope, your teenage daughter can't be drone perved while sunbathing in the back yard without legal recourse.
  
  --
  NRRPT/RCT
19. Re:Be careful by CaptQuark · 2017-07-25 18:24 · Score: 1
  
  Go find an 8oz multi-copter and look at it. The battery is about the size of a stick of gum. The props are usually behind a bumper and made of soft plastic. If a prop is obstructed, it just draws more current until the battery is exhausted. It doesn't cause it to burst into flames.
  
  Frankly I would be more worried about being hit with a kite than a mini multi-copter.
  
  ---
20. Re:Be careful by drinkypoo · 2017-07-25 23:48 · Score: 1
  
  Frankly I would be more worried about being hit with a kite than a mini multi-copter.
  I would as well, except that kites are quite predictable.
  There's still lots of little bitty quads with exposed props.
  I didn't say it was a serious danger, but they're still more potentially dangerous than a frisbee.
  It only takes a teeny tiny little battery to catch a bunch of plastic on fire.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Don't worry... by hcs_$reboot · 2017-07-23 07:23 · Score: 1

It's only for the Brits, because they drive on the left.

--
Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
1. Re:Don't worry... by quetzyg · 2017-07-23 07:50 · Score: 1
  
  It's only for the Brits, because they drive on the left.
  No it's not. Similar measures are being proposed to be implemented in Portugal. And I reckon more countries will follow suit, soon.
2. Re:Don't worry... by CanadianMacFan · 2017-07-23 08:30 · Score: 2
  
  Well if people weren't idiots when flying them then we wouldn't need to have to get registered and have laws in place. Governments are almost always reactive. They are writing these laws because people are flying drones into the flightpaths of planes (which even if it doesn't cause harm to the plane it causes the pilots to react), using drones to deliver contraband into prison areas, and generally fly them into areas where they shouldn't.
  There are plenty of people that are using them responsibly. However enough of the people aren't that the governments feel that they needs to step in. All it will do is take away the excuse that people didn't know but won't stop them from behaving like idiots, like driving.
3. Re:Don't worry... by donaldm · 2017-07-23 13:54 · Score: 1
  
  It's only for the Brits, because they drive on the left.
  Go to countries like India, South Africa, Zimbabwe, Tialand, Singapore, Indonesia, Japan, Australia, New Zealand just to name a few and they all drive on the left. I suppose the question to ask is why do you drive on the right?
  
  --
  There ain't no such thing as proprietary standards only proprietary formats. Standards are by definition open.
4. Re:Don't worry... by hcs_$reboot · 2017-07-23 18:58 · Score: 1
  
  just to name a few
  That's mostly it, actually :-) List
  
  --
  Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
5. Re:Don't worry... by jabuzz · 2017-07-23 21:30 · Score: 2
  
  Anyone driving on the right is doing so at the behest of Maximilien Robespierre. Well it is a product of the French Revolution where peasants walked on the right and the aristocrats drove their coaches on the left (you always walk on the opposite to the vehicular traffic). As such driving on the left was a quick way to get yourself identified as an aristocrat and your head chopped off. This convention was then spread by Napoleon. The British Isles, and much of the empire spared this tyranny kept to the left as had been the convention since antiquity.
A knife is dangerous.. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-23 07:27 · Score: 1

..yet I don't need to register those.
1. Re:A knife is dangerous.. by jareth-0205 · 2017-07-23 07:52 · Score: 2
  
  You also aren't permitted to carry more than a small pocket knife unless you have a good reason (eg you just bought it, you're transporting it, etc). So while you don't have to register it, there are laws against just keeping dangerous items around.
2. Re: A knife is dangerous.. by oobayly · 2017-07-23 08:01 · Score: 1
  
  Everything is relative. We have on of the highest murder rates in Europe, yet the murder rate is quarter of that in the USA. Because of our strict gun controls*, crime involving knives is going to be higher - it's the next best weapon. They're also something really available in households for on-the-spur domestic attacks.
  * Gang members actually have to share a single firearm in places because of the cost and lack of availability.
3. Re: A knife is dangerous.. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-23 08:08 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Why does Vermont, with no gun controls, have a lower murder rate?
  Why does Venezuela, with a total gun prohibition, have some of the worlds highest murder rates?
4. Re: A knife is dangerous.. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-23 08:26 · Score: 1
  
  Because Venezuela is a shit hole with a tonne of problems.
  Same reason USA has such an abnormally high gun homocide rate.
  Why does it have over 100x the gun murder rate (per capita) of UK? Too many guns.
5. Re: A knife is dangerous.. by dunkelfalke · 2017-07-23 09:00 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  Mostly because nobody lives in Vermont. It has the same amount of inhabitants as a large town but lower population density than many villages. It is kind of difficult to kill someone if there if you have to drive for half an hour just to find a potential victim.
  
  --
  "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
6. Re: A knife is dangerous.. by Hognoxious · 2017-07-23 09:03 · Score: 1
  
  I'd rather be shot at in the US because you can have a gun too and shoot back (and a knife).
  
  I agree. If someone wants to shoot you they arrange a time and you face off in the street and see who can draw fastest
  This is something the nanny-state hoplophobes just don't get. You'd think they've never seen a cowboy movie.
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
7. Re:A knife is dangerous.. by ShanghaiBill · 2017-07-23 09:26 · Score: 1
  
  You also aren't permitted to carry more than a small pocket knife unless you have a good reason
  This is also true in America. Carrying a concealed knife is illegal in California. California bans some types of knives entirely, such as a knife that is balanced and can be thrown, so even having a knife in your kitchen is illegal unless it is asymmetrical.
8. Re:A knife is dangerous.. by jon3k · 2017-07-23 10:51 · Score: 1
  
  Depends on the state with California usually being the most restrictive when it comes to gun/knife regulations.
9. Re: A knife is dangerous.. by KGIII · 2017-07-23 13:04 · Score: 1
  
  The majority of my firearms aren't even known to the government. I'm not subversive, nor the militia type, but it isn't required. I don't even know of a mechanism with which to let them know.
  Not important, but I figured you might wish to be factually accurate in the future.
  
  --
  "So long and thanks for all the fish."
10. Re: A knife is dangerous.. by dunkelfalke · 2017-07-23 18:52 · Score: 1
  
  It is a well-known fact that crime rate is proportional to population density.
  
  --
  "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
11. Re: A knife is dangerous.. by quenda · 2017-07-23 19:09 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Why does Vermont, with no gun controls, have a lower murder rate?
  Actually, for a rural white state, the murder rate in Vermont is high. It is comparable to some of the more violent European countries such as France, which are plagued with urban decay, ethic violence and terrorism.
  But the obvious answer is that states with more gun crime introduce stronger gun control. Is it not obvious? You have the causation backwards.
12. Re: A knife is dangerous.. by DNS-and-BIND · 2017-07-23 23:43 · Score: 1
  
  Venezuela is not a shit hole, that attitude is just ridiculously outdated anti-socialist programming still functioning long after its usefulness has gone. Stop calling it that.
  
  --
  Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
13. Re:A knife is dangerous.. by drinkypoo · 2017-07-24 00:13 · Score: 1
  
  California bans some types of knives entirely, such as a knife that is balanced and can be thrown,
  Wrong, and also wrong. You cannot sell throwing knives in the state of California, or carry them, but you can own them and keep them at your home and transport them in the trunk of your vehicle. The knives which are banned entirely are those designed specifically for concealment, like lipstick knives, or cane swords; spring-loaded knives, like switch blades; and also butterfly knives, which yes is a stupid restriction, as is the restriction on switch blades.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
14. Re:A knife is dangerous.. by cayenne8 · 2017-07-24 02:36 · Score: 1
  
  A gun is dangerous, and you need to register that.
  Where the fuck do you live that you have to register a firearm????
  I've never had to register a fire arm, and hell, many of them were private purchases from individuals, not even requiring a background check or waiting period...no record of the transaction by any govt official or office.....
  
  --
  Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
15. Re: A knife is dangerous.. by Hognoxious · 2017-07-24 05:42 · Score: 1
  
  Why do you think a line through two arbitrarily chosen points proves anything?
  Why did rubbish like that get modded up?
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
16. Re: A knife is dangerous.. by mjwx · 2017-07-25 00:24 · Score: 1
  
  Why does Vermont, with no gun controls, have a lower murder rate?
  Why does Venezuela, with a total gun prohibition, have some of the worlds highest murder rates?
  So Vermont is a developing country with a recent history of civil war and unrest?
  
  Here in the UK, we have sensible gun control and a much lower rate of murder and violent crime. Vermont is a large state with low population and still does worse than London.
  
  --
  Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
17. Re: A knife is dangerous.. by dddux · 2017-07-25 10:55 · Score: 1
  
  Pair guns with a badly constituted society and you get USA. Gun control is necessary, but the society should be more friendly towards poor people for it to work.
  
  --
  "It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." - Jiddu Krishnamurti
if droners had acted responsibly.... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-23 07:37 · Score: 1

If drone flyers had acted responsible, this would not be necessary.
They didn't, and now it is. Do not complain droners, you made your own bed to sleep in.
UK should require registering of shopping bags by citizenr · 2017-07-23 07:39 · Score: 1, Interesting

because last drone scare turned out to be one.

--
Who logs in to gdm? Not I, said the duck.
There are drones and then there are drones... by __aaclcg7560 · 2017-07-23 07:41 · Score: 1

Casey Neistat did a video review of the DJI Spark drone. Unfortunately, he can't fly it in New York City since he's under investigation by the FAA. I guess NYC is a no fly zone with the Trumps out of town.
1. Re:There are drones and then there are drones... by NewtonsLaw · 2017-07-23 09:55 · Score: 1
  
  The FAA decided that Casey had no case to answer because (apparently) the YouTube videos were insufficient evidence to conclusively prove he broke the regulations. I have a feeling however, that if he wasn't a big-name YouTuber and well connected politically, the FAA may have formulated a slightly different position.
2. Re:There are drones and then there are drones... by __aaclcg7560 · 2017-07-23 10:49 · Score: 1
  
  The FAA decided that Casey had no case to answer because (apparently) the YouTube videos were insufficient evidence to conclusively prove he broke the regulations.
  I wasn't aware that there was a resolution by the FAA. Casey is still filming his drone shots outside of NYC.
Re:You know what else needs a safety exam? by MightyMartian · 2017-07-23 07:59 · Score: 1

Do you often go on to public forums seeking homosexual encounters?

--
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
"drones" by YrWrstNtmr · 2017-07-23 08:01 · Score: 2

AKA "toy RC aircraft".
Why was this not required before?
1. Re:"drones" by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-23 08:27 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Because in the past, before stabilization controllers became cheap and common place, it took a great deal of skill to fly an RC aircraft.
  It cost hundreds of dollars for a machine capable of flying anywhere near high enough to bother anyone or anything. Unless you were a skilled pilot or in some sort of club with a simulator, you would probably wreck one before even getting it off the ground. Thus breaking your hundred dollar toy in seconds.
  Thus the only, small number of people capable of flying RC planes were typically those that respect the hobby, aircraft, etc. They were knowledgeable, talented, skilled, and many times wealthy/educated type of folks.
  With gryo sensors, cheap micro controllers, etc, RC Helicopters IE Drones allowed every day Joe to fly an RC craft with very little risk of wrecking it. There is very little risk of it becoming a money sink due to lack of talent. This opens the door to snot head punks kids, frat boys, and every other kind of low life scum being able to fly these things. Which is why now we're at the point of registering them.
  It's the same thing with cars really. As they became cheaper, more reliable, and easier to use, more people used them. And as less able people used them, there came the need to hold people responsible for their stupidity.
2. Re:"drones" by CanadianMacFan · 2017-07-23 08:33 · Score: 1
  
  Because they behaved better.
3. Re:"drones" by serviscope_minor · 2017-07-23 08:40 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Why was this not required before?
  Most legislatures don't sit around thinking up new laws in a vacuum, they are on the whole pretty reactive not proactive.
  So, essentially the advent of cheap, high capacity, high power li-po batteries for the power supply, high strength neodynium magnets and amazing MOSFETS for power control, remarkably good, cheap 9 axis IMU chips (3mm by 3mm) and cheap 2.4GHz radio comms have made making plug-and-play drones viable. CPU power hasn't had much to do with it, you can run the control loops on a couple of ATMegas.
  But the point is these things are (a) very cheap and (b) fly themselves for everything but direction (even that if they also have GPS).
  Previously, RC planes were (and still are) much, much more expensive, much more specialist bits of kit. They required many many months of dedication, lots of money, and nice big wide open spaces and the sort of user community of knowledgeable people who would tell you how to get going. Helicopters were that times about 20. Phenomenally hard to fly, experts only.
  Now any idiot can go to maplin, buy a drone and be flying it where they want in the time taken to unbox it and charge the batteries. So, it's gone from "expert only" to "any idiot can do it" and so many idiots are doing it.
  Previously the RC aircraft community was very small and very well behaved. Now it is large, and with enough ill behaviour that it's attracted the notice of the MPs.
  Kinda means the system works.
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
4. Re:"drones" by 0123456 · 2017-07-24 02:53 · Score: 1
  
  And why will 'sociopathic dickheads' take any more notice of this law than any other?
  The British government is just proving yet again that they're a bunch of authoritarian retards. Anyone who wants to cause mischief with a drone will just build their own.
5. Re:"drones" by mjwx · 2017-07-25 00:30 · Score: 1
  
  AKA "toy RC aircraft".
  Why was this not required before?
  Numbers and capabilities.
  
  Previously, powered RC aircraft ownership was significantly smaller and most toys were not powerful enough to be used at heigts and ranges where they could be a problem for commercial air traffic. RC aircraft that were large and powerful enough to present an issue to commercial aviation used to be extremerly expensive and/or a lot of effort to construct, this limited them to a small number of enthusiasts.
  
  The capabilities you find in a modern sub US$1000 drone used to cost the same as a small car. This means a lot more people are buying them as toys rather than serious hobbies or for professional purposes.
  
  I find it hard to be outraged by this, by bringing registration and licensing, they're legitimising their use rather than banning them. We license people to drive, we register our cars, hell, we even have to get them inspected yearly... there's no shortage of motor vehicles in the UK.
  
  --
  Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Re:Geofencing by NewtonsLaw · 2017-07-23 10:05 · Score: 2

Regulators are *way* out of their depth on this issue.
Firstly, there are already regulations in place that make it illegal to endanger person or property using a drone. With this in mind therefore, those who *do* endanger person or property are obviously doing so out of ignorance or arrogance.
Just making more regulations does *nothing* to address ignorance or arrogance so it shows a lack of intelligence on the part of regulators.
What is needed is:
1. education (this addresses the issue of ignorance)
2. enforcement (this addresses the issue of arrogance).
Simply expecting that by making more regulation, those who are presently unaware of the regs or who choose to thumb their nose at them, will change their behavior is an incredibly naive perspective.
In the case of drones, the regulators are operating from their own position of ignorance. They are not au-fait with the technology or the culture and therefore they are trying to solve symptoms not causes.
The very first thing the regulators need to do is to draw a distinction between the idiot-droners (ie: those who buy a GPS-assisted camera drone from eBay and go fly it at the airport) and the responsible and traditional model fliers who have been safely flying remotely controlled aircraft, helicopters and multirotors for many decades. Without drawing this distinction, any regulation will be excessively punitive to the responsible fliers whilst having little effect on the idiot-droners.
It strikes me that the bureaucrats working on drone rules are more interested in "being seen to do something" rather than coming up with fair, reasonable, effective, workable solutions to the problem.
Let's remind ourselves of one very small but important fact when putting the drone issue into perspective:
Never, at any time, anywhere in the world, has a recreational multirotor drone been responsible for a single human death.
Compare that with other items which are not required to be registered and require no qualification to own or use but which have been responsible for countless deaths: knives, bats, bicycles, alcohol, tobacco, etc.
Surely there are much bigger problems worthy of the attention of regulators than some innocent RC model fliers?
I did a video rant on this for anyone who might be interested or who wants to put a face to this post: VLog on UK drone rule changes.
Re:Geofencing by zippthorne · 2017-07-23 10:47 · Score: 2

Frankly, I'm suspicious of even the numbers. Firstly, 22 incidents over a four month period in a country of 60 million doesn't seem like very much, but I'm even suspicious of that number. Is there actual evidence in 22 cases of drone involvement, or is it more like 22 cases of a pilot "seeing something whiz by fast" and calling it a drone instead of a goose.

--
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
Three point turn by jfdavis668 · 2017-07-23 12:04 · Score: 1

This is like getting a driver's license. Just add a three point turn to the test. That will cut down the number of users.
Re: Geofencing by Corbets · 2017-07-23 18:07 · Score: 1

Isnâ(TM)t education *exactly* what this legislation looks to address? Itâ(TM)s even in the summary: the users have to pass a mandatory safety test.
So Iâ(TM)d say this addresses one of the needs you pointed out (which, incidentally, I agree with) and is ok in my books.
Re:Geofencing by 0123456 · 2017-07-24 02:51 · Score: 1

I don't know whether it's still the case, but British maps used to omit the most important military and government sites. Rumour had it that the Soviet spies used to drive around the country looking for buildings that didn't exist on the maps, on the assumption that they must be important (though, frankly, I'd have expected them to compare satellite photos to maps instead).