Erk. My home town, Berkeley, wants to establish a "no drone zone"

Silly political gestures (banning model airplanes with cameras!) are par for the course in Berkeley, where I live and the 3D Robotics Bay Area offices are located. Thankfully, they usually don't pass or aren't enforced.

From Patch.

Even as the Alameda County Sheriff’s Department considers buying an unmanned aerial vehicle, Berkeley City Council will discuss declaring the city a No Drone Zone.

Arguing that drones are unsafe and pose a threat to civil liberties, Berkeley’s Peace and Justice Commission is recommending that the city council adopt a resolution this month proclaiming:

"1. Berkeley a No Drone Zone and instructing the City Attorney to perform the necessary legal tasks to transform this declaration of a No Drone Zone into an Ordinance for the City of Berkeley wherein drones are hereby banned from airspace.

2. That drones will not be purchased, leased, borrowed, tested or otherwise used by any agency of the City of Berkeley over the City of Berkeley, including drones in transit.

3. That exemptions will be made for hobbyists to continue to fly remote controlled model aircraft in specified areas, away from dwellings and the urban cityscape of people and buildings as long as those devices are not equipped with any kind of camera or audio surveillance equipment."

It’s not clear what the “legal tasks” establishing Berkeley as a No Drone Zone would be, of if such an ordinance could be enforced. While the Federal Aviation Administration is still drafting the rules that would regulate what the agency calls unmanned aircraft systems, local law enforcement agencies and other institutions across the country are taking steps to acquire and deploy drones.

Earlier this month, Alameda County supervisors opted to examine the merits of a cop-operated drone in more depth before approving the purchase of the $31,000 laptop-sized flying machine the sheriff said he needs.

(image from No Drones Illinois)

Well, the Berkeley ordinance prohibits FPV entirely. Fail. This is what happens when you allow non-technical lawyers try to regulate something they don't understand. Since I'm from Berkeley I have a healthy disrespect for the local government, it's almost entirely ineffective, corrupt and full of it's own importance, rather than a desire to actually serve the public in reality. (By the way, this is coming from somebody who is generally liberal, so they don't even have that excuse).

As for Mr Meister's comments, I will politely disagree with him on his end points, while agreeing that testing is good, and piloting skills are also a good thing. However, saying that AP's are bad because they are making bad pilots is like saying you should learn how to drive in a formula 1 car. AP's are a valid tool, but one that even the airline pilots are now coming to grips with how to use properly, in order to preserve their own skills.

It would be more constructive to say, hey, here's a plan on how to use this stuff properly. Make it easy to do the right thing, and it'll be done.

What has been entirely ignored in this debate is what *kind* of camera is on the drone? If it's a gopro or similar, I really don't give a damn where it is because it's so wide angle I'm just an unidentifiable speck unless it's close enough for me to grab and take home (cool, new camera!). If it's a 20X HD spy cam, on the other hand, that's a problem. Also if I have a wide angle FPV cam on the plane, it gives me another tool to fly it safely without presenting any sort of privacy issues. So if that becomes illegal, we've reduced safety for no valid reason.

Finally, I'll note that, as a pilot, I understand the reasons behind the regs for a hard deck over populated areas for small planes, and I agree with them. But a 5 pound model aircraft is a much lesser threat, and should be treated more liberally. The "safety at all costs!!!" mentality has cost this country enough. It becomes a danger to itself and others by removing the practice of acting and living, and managing risk sensibly.

You need to be a member of diydrones to add comments!

Join diydrones

Comments

Jay Bryon December 11, 2012 at 4:47pm

Well, the Berkeley ordinance prohibits FPV entirely. Fail. This is what happens when you allow non-technical lawyers try to regulate something they don't understand. Since I'm from Berkeley I have a healthy disrespect for the local government, it's almost entirely ineffective, corrupt and full of it's own importance, rather than a desire to actually serve the public in reality. (By the way, this is coming from somebody who is generally liberal, so they don't even have that excuse).

As for Mr Meister's comments, I will politely disagree with him on his end points, while agreeing that testing is good, and piloting skills are also a good thing. However, saying that AP's are bad because they are making bad pilots is like saying you should learn how to drive in a formula 1 car. AP's are a valid tool, but one that even the airline pilots are now coming to grips with how to use properly, in order to preserve their own skills.

It would be more constructive to say, hey, here's a plan on how to use this stuff properly. Make it easy to do the right thing, and it'll be done.

What has been entirely ignored in this debate is what *kind* of camera is on the drone? If it's a gopro or similar, I really don't give a damn where it is because it's so wide angle I'm just an unidentifiable speck unless it's close enough for me to grab and take home (cool, new camera!). If it's a 20X HD spy cam, on the other hand, that's a problem. Also if I have a wide angle FPV cam on the plane, it gives me another tool to fly it safely without presenting any sort of privacy issues. So if that becomes illegal, we've reduced safety for no valid reason.

Finally, I'll note that, as a pilot, I understand the reasons behind the regs for a hard deck over populated areas for small planes, and I agree with them. But a 5 pound model aircraft is a much lesser threat, and should be treated more liberally. The "safety at all costs!!!" mentality has cost this country enough. It becomes a danger to itself and others by removing the practice of acting and living, and managing risk sensibly.
Drone Nerd December 11, 2012 at 10:28am

I will create "no strong wind" areas, to flying around with my drones in peace... Lol...

Sad these agenda issues.
Patch Thompson December 11, 2012 at 6:47am

Maybe the next employee you hire at 3DR should be a lobbyist???? There must be a few, here in the ranks of DIYDrones.com, no?
Szabó József December 11, 2012 at 4:10am

Recently protested against the construction of the railway.
Jack Crossfire December 11, 2012 at 3:35am

It would signify economic inequality.
Crashpilot1000 December 11, 2012 at 2:37am

Rediculous. How about a no sat zone? Current sattelites can read the newspaper in berkeley and see the stains in your laundry.

So long

Kraut Rob
Szabó József December 11, 2012 at 12:09am

drone phobia

of 2

This reply was deleted.