Drone nearly hits police officer

[Zeke]

The stupidity of some people is astounding.

Arizona News

Arizona Breaking news, local stories, and On Your Side investigations from the state’s largest television newsroom.

www.azfamily.com

 

[BigAl07]

That was really close. And everyone is shocked we are facing stricter regulations??

 

[Starz]

This is a good example of why altitude is your friend.
Safety first!

 

[Andrex]

Bit bemused as to why I get the following message...?:

451: Unavailable
The page you are attempting to access is not available in your country.

 

[xspwhite]

It looked like one of those toy ebay drones. Probably some kid. I dont see how regulations would prevent it from happening again.

 

[Deleted member 93449]

It didn't look all that close to me. Close in my mind would be if the officer had to take or perceived they had to take some action to avoid a collision with the drone. The officer was riding in the street and the drone was over the sidewalk.

 

[Zeke]

It didn't look all that close to me. Close in my mind would be if the officer had to take or perceived they had to take some action to avoid a collision with the drone. The officer was riding in the street and the drone was over the sidewalk.

I watched this on the news this morning, and it looked like the drone crossed left to right in front of the officer. But even so, does that matter? At the end of the day, the drone community gets another black eye - parsing what actually happened doesn't change that fact.

 

[Zeke]

It looked like one of those toy ebay drones. Probably some kid. I dont see how regulations would prevent it from happening again.

I agree - But like gun control, the people making the laws don't care about such nuances. Their answer to everything is more laws and restrictions. I shared this simply to illustrate what's happening with drones, not to suggest that we need more regulations - although sadly, that will probably be the outcome.

 

[sar104]

And once again - the usual responses. It was just a toy, it wasn't that close, regulations won't help etc., etc.. It was a drone hovering at head height over the sidewalk of a busy road. How about advocating for some responsibility by drone users rather than making excuses and deflecting?

 

[BigAl07]

And once again - the usual responses. It was just a toy, it wasn't that close, regulations won't help etc., etc.. It was a drone hovering at head height over the sidewalk of a busy road. How about advocating for some responsibility by drone users rather than making excuses and deflecting?

I agree. Constant denial and deflection is a DISSERVICE to our community. We should be condemning that operator and anyone who supports that type of action.

It appears to be a Mavic type UAS. hovering pretty close to head height, almost in the line of traffic on a HIGHWAY!! How, in what world, is that remotely acceptable actions?

 

[Deleted member 93449]

I watched this on the news this morning, and it looked like the drone crossed left to right in front of the officer. But even so, does that matter? At the end of the day, the drone community gets another black eye - parsing what actually happened doesn't change that fact.

I've watched it several more times and the drone came straight down the block over the sidewalk and no evasive action was required. As for the black eye, the black eye is the result of the media characterizing the incident as a drone "nearly hits" an officer.

 

[xspwhite]

And once again - the usual responses. It was just a toy, it wasn't that close, regulations won't help etc., etc.. It was a drone hovering at head height over the sidewalk of a busy road. How about advocating for some responsibility by drone users rather than making excuses and deflecting?

The point is that if someone is going to fly a drone in the middle of the road, then making more laws isn't going to stop them. People that do things like this have no regards to any laws because they dont feel that it applies to them. Condemning them only feeds into the enjoyment they got out of breaking the law in the first place. I think this was probably some kids monkeying around with the lack of adult supervision, but I wouldnt be surprised if it wasn't one of these stay at home youtube dads ether.

How about tuffer laws against parents that dont properly supervise their kids. More drone laws wont stop these situations from happening, it just adds more expense and burdens on people who do follow the laws.

 

[BigAl07]

I've watched it several more times and the drone came straight down the block over the sidewalk and no evasive action was required. As for the black eye, the black eye is the result of the media characterizing the incident as a drone "nearly hits" an officer.

It was hovering in place VERY near the edge of traffic. No evasive action required and for that we say "Thank goodness".

What would constitute a "near miss" or "close call" in our industry? By my non-calibrated guestimates it was about 3'-4' from the officer's head at it's closest point. Granted it probably wouldn't have brought any harm to the officer (so long as it didn't hit eyes etc) what if he has taken evasive action out of reflexes and had an accident?

How close is too close to our industry? At what point is it safe to say, "That was reckless behavior!"?

If we can't condemn our own for reckless behavior we can't be too shocked when those outside of our industry scream for actions which will mean more restrictions.

 

[sar104]

The point is that if someone is going to fly a drone in the middle of the road, then making more laws isn't going to stop them. People that do things like this have no regards to any laws because they dont feel that it applies to them. Condemning them only feeds into the enjoyment they got out of breaking the law in the first place. I think this was probably some kids monkeying around with the lack of adult supervision, but I wouldnt be surprised if it wasn't one of these stay at home youtube dads ether.

How about tuffer laws against parents that dont properly supervise their kids. More drone laws wont stop these situations from happening, it just adds more expense and burdens on people who do follow the laws.

Which "more laws" are you referring to?

 

[Paulf10]

You can’t regulate stupidity and you can’t create laws to control people who don’t follow them.
You can however make the punishment fit the crime and enforce existing laws.

 

[Zeke]

You can’t regulate stupidity and you can’t create laws to control people who don’t follow them.

Amen.

 

[pross]

Bit bemused as to why I get the following message...?:

451: Unavailable
The page you are attempting to access is not available in your country.

Thats how a lot of US sites dealt with European privacy law, they just block Europe entirely.

 

[Jeff A]

You can’t regulate stupidity and you can’t create laws to control people who don’t follow them.
You can however make the punishment fit the crime and enforce existing laws.

I hate over regulation but there are a lot of idiots withy drones. There does need to be suitable punishment for these offenses.

 

[DroningOn]

You can’t regulate stupidity and you can’t create laws to control people who don’t follow them

The “smart“ people who support such rules/regulations/laws know this. They promote them to control the law abiding. It has nothing to do with safety, it’s all about the control.

 

[xspwhite]

Which "more laws" are you referring to?

Years ago when I lived in the city I wanted a RC airplane or helicopter. I never bought one because I knew you cant really fly around the city because of the population/people and stuff.

After moving to the country I bought a drone because we have plenty of space to fly. I dont see why they simply just dont make a law that prohibits all remote control aircraft from flying in any city limits. If caught you go to jail plain and simple.

If the area you are in doesn't look like this, then you dont fly.