From UAS VISION

Two California lawmakers have introduced two separate bills this week that would further regulate drones in America’s most populous state. If passed, one of the new state laws would require “tiny physical or electronic license plates” and inexpensive insurance, among other requirements. A second bill would compel drone pilots who are involved in incidents that damage property or injure people to leave their contact information—similar to what drivers must do following auto accidents.

The proposed laws are in response to a series of unfortunate mishaps involving drones across the Golden State in 2015: there were some unmanned aerial vehicles that got in the way of firefighting efforts, while another crashed into power lines in Hollywood, and yet another hit a baby in Pasadena.

The first bill, which was authored by Assemblyman Mike Gatto (D-Glendale), would require drone pilots to hold “inexpensive ($1, or so) insurance policies sold at the point-of-sale”—a press release compared it to automobile insurance.

Gatto’s bill, which has yet to be formally introduced with actual legislative text in the state assembly, would also require that all GPS-enabled drones “of a certain size” have an “automatic shut-off technology that would activate if approaching an airport.”

“I think 2015 showed us that in the era of democratized aviation, certain types of incidents will be fairly common,” he told Ars. “More and more people are buying these and that’s great. This is just like the 1920s when more and more people were buying cars, but I just think that we need some basic rules going forward.”

He expects the bill to be introduced next week.The second bill, written by Assembly member Ed Chau (D-Monterey Park), aims to counter “hit and run” drone accidents by ordering drone pilots to leave their identifying information in a conspicuous place at the scene of the accident.”Unfortunately, as the number of drones in the air will only increase in the coming years, we are going to see more and more accidents,” Chau said in a statement. “And even with world-class safety features and training, accidents are still going to happen, just like on our roadways. If a drone breaks down, runs out of power or crashes into something, the operator needs to do the responsible thing and come forward and identify himself to the victim and to the police. This bill will make that responsibility the law.”

Full article here

Views: 859


Admin
Comment by Thomas J Coyle III on January 19, 2016 at 10:15am

It is probably only a matter of time before more States follow California's lead requiring hobby sUAS operators to license their drones for operation within their home State and carry liability insurance much like the owners of cars do.

Regards,

TCIII AVD

Comment by titeuf007 on January 19, 2016 at 2:02pm

it s a joke! you can buy almost all kind of firearms but you need a license for drone in you country..it s so crazy lol

Comment by Darius Jack on January 19, 2016 at 2:45pm

Inexpensive $1 drone' s pilot's insurance per day
makes it another drone tax.

Automatic shut-down technology should be discussed at DIYDrones and DIY websites since Flight Termination System (FTS) is already implemented and undder control in case of passenger aircraft.

Not sure how automatic shut-down should work in case of small model
drones.
Can DIY 3DR implement Automatic Shut-Down (ASD) into new firmaware ?

The first bill, which was authored by Assemblyman Mike Gatto (D-Glendale), would require drone pilots to hold “inexpensive ($1, or so) insurance policies sold at the point-of-sale”—a press release compared it to automobile insurance.
Gatto’s bill, which has yet to be formally introduced with actual legislative text in the state assembly, would also require that all GPS-enabled drones “of a certain size” have an “automatic shut-off technology that would activate if approaching an airport.”

Comment by Gary McCray on January 19, 2016 at 2:49pm

Unfortunately,

The public and the politicians and the media have essentially created a new type of entity.

The "DRONE" and in so doing separated it from all other consumer products.

These are not reasonable or rational laws based on experience and actual need, but rather are based on media hype and hysteria.

Bicycles are involved in thousands of accidents every year and they don't have to have insurance, once again, there is no proportion and the reaction is completely out of line with the actual expreienced or likely danger.

A bicycle rider gets killed on a highway it probably even won't make the front page of the local paper, but somebody gets a cut from a Phantom and it makes the national news.

Lets also not forget that with the new equally over the top FAA registration requirement, the information will already be available, so Chau's claim is utterly redundant.

I think I was born on the wrong planet sometimes.

Comment by DG on January 19, 2016 at 4:07pm

This is what's going on behind the scenes. Always follow the money.

https://www.yahoo.com/tech/exclusive-amazon-reveals-details-about-1...

And how will you keep these drones from interfering with air travel?

Well, we’ve proposed to regulators around the world, including the FAA, a certain kind of an airspace design that would keep the drones separated from the aircraft.

We were thinking: Manned aircraft above 500 feet. Between 400 and 500 feet there’d be a no-fly zone — a safety buffer. Between 200 and 400 feet would be a transit zone, where drones could fly fairly quickly, horizontally. And then below 200 feet, that would be limited to certain operations. For us, it would be takeoff and landing. For others, it might be aerial photography. The realtors, for example, wouldn’t need to fly above 200 feet to get a great shot of a house.

How have the FAA and NASA reacted to this proposal?

I think they welcome the thinking that has gone into it. So I’m hopeful that this will spur discussions about exactly how to get this right.

How does this proposal, the layers idea, differ from what NASA’s working on?

It’s with a similar goal in mind. We presented this proposal at a NASA conference, and we’re of the same mind. We need to figure out this airspace.

My impression is that the FAA and Amazon haven’t exactly seen eye to eye on your plan.

In deference to the FAA, or in sympathy with the FAA, it turns out that they have a limited ability to regulate amateur drones, but they have full powers to regulate commercial drones. To my way of thinking, at least, that imbalance doesn’t make sense.

At the very least, they ought to be treated the same, to give the FAA the same authority to regulate both amateur and commercial drones. Arguably, you would want to regulate the amateurs even more, because they have less training, their drones are less sophisticated, and so forth. So certainly that part of law needs to be clarified, at a minimum.

We believe that they must begin, in earnest, planning for the rules that are more sophisticated, that go to the kinds of operations that Amazon Prime Air will encompass. And other countries already are doing this.

Well, what happens if the technology is ready, everything’s ready, but the FAA still doesn’t have regulations in place for Amazon?

Well, we have customers all around the world, of course. There’s no reason why the United States must be first. We hope it is.

Comment by Chris Card on January 19, 2016 at 6:52pm

In regards to 'Gatto's bill'   {I've posted the same text on MilutiRotorForums.}

That legislation proposal is certainly not well thought out!
It seems more like an attempt to get ones name associated with a piece of legislation.
Thanks to the FAA's trampling of the section 336 everyone that this 'Mike Gatto' is worried about already has a license plate, after a fashion.
The use of the term "drones" in this context is broad & ambiguous. The FAA uses SUAS.
Imagine "drones" falling out of the air because of GPS glitches.
How would it help the case for safety if ones "drone" was a sailplane?
I think the insurance think is a wank too. The "drones" , used for recreation, are more equivalent to bicycles or pedal equipped e-bikes not automobiles.

Although I'm from Canada and this wouldn't directly affect me...not right away... It would set a terrible precedent and be the ruin for a great many.
 

Comment by David Drysdale on January 20, 2016 at 11:47am

Gary McCray has it 100% correct. Another way to look at it is 10 people a day drown in pools or lakes. But a drown hit a power line and a kid every one panic.   

Comment

You need to be a member of DIY Drones to add comments!

Join DIY Drones

© 2019   Created by Chris Anderson.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service