Separate names with a comma.
Sign up for a weekly email of the latest drone news & information
Discussion in 'News' started by shaun27, Oct 22, 2014.
Doesn't this boil down to the same old argument about banning anything? Even if they do, it won't stop criminals. "Drones " are even more easily built than firearms if you have an electronics background.
I think their usefulness is overstated.
Let's face it, they are noisy and have fairly short flight times. I was chatting with a RAF pilot about their appearance in war zones and his opinion was that a 2KG payload and 10 minute flight duration would limit the danger to troops etc.
As an aerial reconnaissance tool, the level of detail is fairly low - unless you bolt a longer lens on and improve the stability. Using them as a look out is never going to work, as they are just too noisy!
You're right, media never talk about these 2 key points, noise and poor zooming capabilities, leading to misinformation of the public, wrong opinions, possibly agressivity towards drones and their operators.
More scaremongering from the governmental propaganda channel. I have been flying RC aircraft for 27 years now, a 50cc petrol aircraft can carry far more weight than a multirotor...maybe they will scare the people into wanting a ban of all RC aircraft!
There is more scaremongering on this board than all media outlets combined lol (not really but % wise yepp)
Here in the US if a story does not create fear then no one will care.
It is not in the media's interest to point out the Phantom's, or similar UAVs, weaknesses or limitations such that there's nothing to worry about (fear) 'here'.
its not looking good
They put together the strap line now.
Drones which could seriously injure or kill are being flown over cities and towns across England
Still doing that trick of implying they are dangerously heavy - it's "up to 20kg" now :lol:
Putting it together, they want you to believe that terrorists, poachers or train robbers are now able go out and buy an "up to 20kg" drone "which could seriously injure or kill" for £300 - and some new laws will stop this terrifying new danger obviously.
Think of the children, and what about the kittens.
I think this guy said it all, that BBC article mixes things that have nothing to do with each other, and as pointed in a complete anarchy. The only threat here is the lost link or mechanical failure leading to possible injuries, which treated correctly could do more than 2 lines and really educate the reader, rather than doing this ridiculous analogy to privacy violation, terrorist threats or train robbing! It is really time to inform the public on what our "hobby" drones can't do instead of pointing what they (im)possibly could do, if , if and if.... Unfortunately, once again the information is not treated neutrally and the person who wrote this article has no clue whatsoever of what he or she is talking about.
I understand the hysteria and we'll all just have to ride it out as society, thru our governments, decides what will be allowed or tolerated.
But having said that... to be credible you must surely have to admit there is a likelihood of injury if [even] a bare-bones P2 @1000g were to fall and hit you, a family member, or pet.
I wonder if anyone has ever been killed by a falling drone.
A large one filming a sport event did hit a competitor causing minor injuries.
http://www.cnet.com/news/drone-falls-ou ... s-athlete/
Banning guns from law-abiding citizens only give power to the criminals and for government takeover of a country. A government may want to use drones to spy on citizens but not the other way around.
A P2 to the head at terminal velocity will surely cause a little pain, maybe even a concussion. So will a golf ball. I can hit a golf ball pretty **** far. And my aim sucks. Where are all the headlines about the grievous risk to golfers getting whacked in the head?
I usually find logic in your replies. But this one seems to be a bit of a non sequitur.
First I think you vastly underestimate the pain or injury from a falling P2. But that's just dueling opinions.
With regards to golf balls...
it's not news when someone on or around a golf course sustains a ball related injury. That's where it happens. My guess is what few stories may be published, you don't look for it or notice.
A 1999 CNN article says:
"According to government statistics, more than 300,000 people have suffered serious golf injuries over the past few years. Many of these required hospitalization; others were fatal." [http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/diet.fitness/9905/21/golf.injuries/]
Let me toe that non-sequitur line again: golfers don't wear hard hats.
I've spent 30 years working in an internationally known trauma center. A golf ball can debilitate you, causing such a sever head injury that you're in a vegatative state the remainder of your life. Rare, yes. Unheard of, No.
I have no doubt that getting hit with a free falling Phantom, even without camera and gimbal, could be fatal under the right circumstances. Under not so right circumstances, it could cause permanent injury.
No fear mongering here, just experience with objects hitting people's heads.
First of all, it's good to see a discussion going. I mentioned this on another forum (RC Groups) and now it sits about 10 pages back with 2 replies.
Second of all, I am wondering where you van buy a Phantom for £300. I'm assuming they are speaking of people selling old Phantoms because new ones are more like £350.
Third of all, we are all in agreement then? The news is going overboard about the dangers of our hobby. It would a good idea for us to promote our hobby and show that it is perfectly safe (In the right hands at least)
Finally, did anyone read 'The Sun' newspaper before this news hit TV? They had an article too, talking crap about drones as well.
You should be able to read the article if you zoom in to this page, or download the image and zoom in.
CNN? Looks like another example of the news going overboard, lol
Not sure I'm in agreement.
The danger is never the hobby or the a/c. It's the people.
Like many devices or technologies drones can be used for good or evil and responsibly or carelessly and recklessly.
Legal or not, flying a drone or specifically a Phantom, DJI's lowest tier product and components, over people without their knowledge or consent does present risk. Not only possible injury to the people below but legal and civil liabilities to the pilot or indiviual reponsible for operating it.
So what does it matter?
That is all I'm saying.