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)
Comments
A couple good articles out today about this:
Berkeleyside
SF Chronicle
How about a hemp powered Drone?
lolololol. I can hear it now,"Dude, that's like a invasion of my privacy and stuff. What if life they see what I'm growing and stuff. That's just not right man. I'm gonna talk to my professor about this tomorrow and we're gonna make some flyers for sure." Sorry to stereo type Berkley. but, bhaaaaaaaaa. This is awesome.
Firstly Crashpilot hit the nail on the head here. Google earth and other similar sat viewers are way beyond what we UAV hobbits can do. Then the fact nearly everyone now days has a mobile camera and recording device is really no different either. Its all what perspective you view it in really. For example what are they worried about mostly. apart from safety of course? Invasion of privacy? I have eyes but I don't go looking into peoples bedroom windows and this is also illegal. So why not just outlines some sensible laws much the same for UAVs.
Oops. Can't edit.
Replace "terminologically" with "terminology".
Thanks Spell checker.
A bunch of our perceived issues stem from the fact that my/our little Homemade Quad is getting lumped in with the Global Hawks and LEMV's we build at work, in many of these discussions/proposals.
As a society, we've not developed the linguistics yet to clearly delineate between a surveillance drone with a 3 week loiter and a 100 ton lift capacity, and a 900 gram 10 minute flight toy (toy used for dramatic effect, no offence to quad owners).
The FAA knows the difference and set forth the standards for "Operating as a Model". But so far as I can see, they are the only ones who "Get It".
Perhaps the best thing we could do, would be to advocate a new terminologically to separate hobbyists Air Craft from the Big Boys. Stop calling anything under 5lbs a UAV for example. Maybe if "Micro-Drone" were commonly used?
IE: "No, it's not a UAV, it's a Micro-Drone". "If it were an UAV, it would be large enough to carry a man, hence the designation Un-Manned Arial Vehicle".
If we can develop a separation or delineation like this, distance the hobby, or "Micro-Drone community" from the fear of Predator and X47 Drones in our Air Space, that would be a good thing. We need to be able to say, that a law that bans a LEMV over the Superbowl, isn't applicable to a quad orbiting a fishing contest or Motocross race.
Does that make sense? I know it's a big ego boost to claim that you fly a Drone, or UAV, and I've said it myself. But maybe that's not so self-serving. Maybe we need to start advocating a separate classification?
Is anybody interested in actually doing anything about this? It's a public meeting. Alternatively, the police might like to have a protest that is kind of on their side for once?
@Alex, no danger of a Brookstone in Berkeley! As the Berkeley "Daily Planet" commented, "The Berkeley City Council development policy has created a thriving retail district. Unfortunately, it's in [neighboring community] Emeryville."
There's a great interview with one of the Peace and Justice Commissioners here, on another topic.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-march-10-2008/marines-in-berk...
Gi wish govt would wake up to them selves
First of all, there are enough laws to cover any, and everything, a plane, copter, quad what-ever, can do.
Smash into an airliner? Last I heard that would be illegal.
Peek into windows with a camera? Pretty sure you can't do that either.
Smash a windshield? Smack someone in the head? I may be way off base here, but I wouldn't do either of those with a base ball bat, and I haven't heard of any anti-bat laws lately, even though it's a favored weapon of street hoodlums.
Point is, we have enough laws.
-
1
-
2
of 2 Next