Welcome to PhantomPilots.com

Sign up for a weekly email of the latest drone news & information

What's More Dangerous, a P2V Quad or this?

Discussion in 'Phantom 2 Vision Discussion' started by Qwadjok, Apr 5, 2014.

  1. Qwadjok

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2013
    Messages:
    118
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Minneapolis, Minnesota
    Here in Minnesota legislation is trying to get passed by uninformed paranoid state legislatures. This is the language they are sneaking into the bill that PhantomDave has been watching closely.

    1.22 Sec. 2. [624.75] PRIVATE USE OF DRONES.
    1.23 Subdivision 1. Definitions. (a) For the purposes of this section, the terms in this
    1.24subdivision have the meanings given them.
    2.1(b) "Dangerous weapon" has the meaning given in section 609.02, subdivision 6.
    2.2(c) "Drone" has the meaning given in section 634.40, subdivision 1, paragraph (b).
    2.3(d) "Person" means an individual, partnership, corporation, association, or other
    2.4legal entity but does not include the state or a political subdivision.
    2.5 Subd. 2. Prohibition on use of drone. A person is guilty of a felony if the person
    2.6uses a drone to capture images of an individual on public or private property without the
    2.7permission of the individual and the owner of the private property or appropriate public
    2.8authority.
    2.9EFFECTIVE DATE.This section is effective July 1, 2013, and applies to offenses (How can legislation be backdated and made retroactive) This is a joke.
    2.10committed on or after that date.

    Now ask yourself this. What is more dangerous in the air and kills many people, a DJI quadcopter 22 inches in diameter and that most fly below 400 feet or hot air balloons that rise to 5,6 or 7000 feet and can explode, get caught in power lines, hit trees and crash to the ground. Or how about airshows. My God there are many around the world that end in horrific crashes and even into crowds of people. And, how about the Indy 500, Daytona and many other car races that crash into crowds. The list goes on and on. WARNING These videos may be disturbing. Watch at your own risk.

    [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wlbTYFWrnI[/youtube]

    [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ph25M_WRSoA[/youtube]

    [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TycvklvJcAA[/youtube]

    [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAZcO89nMPs[/youtube]

    [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DiETI5-Pvw8[/youtube]

    [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RH8f-nYxw1Q[/youtube]

    There are dozens of these types of disasters worldwide, and in the US yet lawmakers do not outlaw these aircraft from flying around crowds, over homes, owners making money by selling tours and photographers taking photos and videos from them. They all fly in federal airspace.

    It's terrible that this ever happens. State legislatures would spend better time looking at how to regulate this type of industry and the dangers associated with it then to waste valuable time trying to legislate the hobby RC owner. imho :idea:

    QJ
     
  2. Visioneer

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2014
    Messages:
    287
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Louisville, Ky, USA
    Gee, do they already have a law making it a felony to do this with a hand held DSLR? I suspect not - 'cause it'd never hold up in court, as this one won't. Likely just a BS proposal by some legislator trying to curry favor with some voters, "See, I tried".
     
  3. OI Photography

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2013
    Messages:
    5,542
    Likes Received:
    17
    Location:
    Clarksville, TN
    When I read that section of the bill I literally laughed out loud. I even tried to verify it wasn't a lingering April Fool's joke :roll:
     
  4. Qwadjok

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2013
    Messages:
    118
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Minneapolis, Minnesota
    Nope, not a joke. Read PhantomDave's posts on this subject, he has been following it closely here in Minnesota.

    QJ