Another reason to hate on drones

[mavic3usa]

I'm on a photo site, and a few times people said things like "drones are creepy" when I shared aerial photos of abandoned barns or farm houses. Not sure why, but when I asked if, instead, I'd stood on a ladder with a regular camera, would that be less creepy, they usually didn't answer.

Agreed. I hate it when people associate those terms yet they can't rationally explain why. Sometimes they get their ideas from the drone community. Drone pilots often characterize their drones as "dangerous" even though a drone has never killed anyone or significantly damaged any property. I get it, sometimes the flight excite a "terrifying" experience or a crash triggers a sign of relief that this didn't happen over the freeway or a crowded park. But just like when a car crash happens as a fender bender at a stop light instead of into a crowded bus stop, no reason to look down on the car/drone and claim it's "dangerous" and therefore should be allowed to operate in the area.

The drone is not perfect and when it doesn't respond perfectly, drone pilots need to stop calling it a "dangerous" drone. When the drone crashes, drone pilots need to stop claiming to be lucky they didn't kill someone. Otherwise, bystanders won't want to be in and around them.

 

[RangerEd]

Insurance company uses drone footage to deny coverage.

One more reason for the Kens and Karen’s to pitch a fit at the sight of a drone.

"peeping tom" only wouldn't fly in California. You can't take images of a private property without owner's permission and then use those images in commercial enterprise; this would be considered illegal.

 

[thomasoes]

Very odd . . . can you imagine insurance companies would do this for all their 'customers' ?
I mean he's not had a claim with them for (was it) 15 years, so why'd they do this flight over, or use google maps / find other aerial imaging to check his property out ?

It just makes no economic sense they could / would do this for every client, even on a random basis.

It might make more sense to check out peoples greater acreage type properties, more isolated, not visible from the road, high fire risk areas etc, to assess risk.

I did read in the comments that some had insurance companies ask the client (householder) to take pics of various spots around their home FOR THEM !!
To be used to assess risk . . . if they didn't they'd not renew.

So the US forum member base is huge, anyone there ever had such a thing happen to them ?
Might be the next insurance profit maximising brainstorm idea, even if it makes little sense.

With all the tyres in his property of a fire had started and the tyres caught fire the company would not have paid his claim

 

[MARK (LI)]

No way of knowing really but most likely someone reported the situation to the insurance company or there was something else going on that has not been revealed. I know back in the day when I sold insurance, the only time we would do this type of investigation is if we received a report (this was pre-drone days lol).



Very true! There is not enough time in the day or resources. So, as I said most likely a result of being reported

How would someone get his insurance company information to report him?...can that be done?

 

[GFields]

How would someone get his insurance company information to report him?...can that be done?

I'm not sure. However, back when I sold insurance we often received reports about properties that may be out of compliance or a fire hazard. The people making these reports would most likely contact all the leading insurance companies in the area (my guess). If the address is in our database as a client, we would go and investigate.

 

[MAvic_South_Oz]

With all the tyres in his property of a fire had started and the tyres caught fire the company would not have paid his claim

It’s hard to catch tyres on fire, and it’s shaky ground for homeowners to be on with insurers if that’s something they will start to do to reduce so called risks.

I mean how many keep some timber, garden sheds with fuel power tools and fuel containers, boats with fuel etc etc.
Much higher risk items.

Edit - and maybe some days they’ll be looking for drone owners to eliminate from holding a policy due to lipo fire risks !!??)

 

[NightFlightAlright]

This has nothing at all to do with drones. Not one thing. The news story is bull####, this was based on satellite footage which anybody can check on Google.

 

[RodPad]

This has nothing at all to do with drones. Not one thing. The news story is bull####, this was based on satellite footage which anybody can check on Google.

I agree, but the op made the title "Another reason to hate on drones"

I assumed later that the news media was the focus on why people hate drone's, If I'm missing something let me know.

I'm assuming you have read all the posts so far?

I did get curios he has posted seven times, been a member for more than a year.
I really think he did a wake up call, on the news media, and insurance company's Etc.

Let me know, if I'm out of line.

Rod ..

 

[NightFlightAlright]

I agree, but the op made the title "Another reason to hate on drones"
I assumed later that the news media was the focus on why people hate drone's, If I'm missing something let me know.
I'm assuming you have read all the posts so far?

Did not read all the posts, however I did watch the new story on channel 7 and it's entirety.

It's such BS yellow journalism it's gross.
As it happens, I refer to myself as a "recovering journalist".
This kind of crap is why.

 

[Melvoid]

Agreed. I hate it when people associate those terms yet they can't rationally explain why. Sometimes they get their ideas from the drone community. Drone pilots often characterize their drones as "dangerous" even though a drone has never killed anyone or significantly damaged any property. I get it, sometimes the flight excite a "terrifying" experience or a crash triggers a sign of relief that this didn't happen over the freeway or a crowded park. But just like when a car crash happens as a fender bender at a stop light instead of into a crowded bus stop, no reason to look down on the car/drone and claim it's "dangerous" and therefore should be allowed to operate in the area.

The drone is not perfect and when it doesn't respond perfectly, drone pilots need to stop calling it a "dangerous" drone. When the drone crashes, drone pilots need to stop claiming to be lucky they didn't kill someone. Otherwise, bystanders won't want to be in and around them.

Exactly. And I still can't figure out exactly what's "creepy" about getting a great shot of an old barn from the air.

 

[NightFlightAlright]

Drone pilots often characterize their drones as "dangerous" even though a drone has never killed anyone or significantly damaged any property. I get it, sometimes the flight excite a "terrifying" experience or a crash triggers a sign of relief that this didn't happen over the freeway or a crowded park.

What idiot cognitive-dissonance poster-child drone pilot calls drones “dangerous”??!!

Oh good chaos … I suppose some of the enterprise drones might give you a scrape, but a mavic or mini… that we hand launch and hand catch???

Definitely safer than lawn darts… oh bad example… safer than driving a car on the freeway without a seatbelt. Safer than crossing the street in an urban area on a pogo stick. Safer than a job as a taxi driver in Zimbabwe. Safer than flying an airplane that’s past it’s TBO. Safer than a fork lift operator that’s been sniffing glue… well okay those were all bad examples.

Safer than trimming your beard with a Norelco.

(Actual estimated risks as presented pulled out of thin air, just like the idea that somehow some plastic weighing less than a pound would cause any actual injury, though a blade did once give me a scrape when I was hand catching, my cat has injured me more playing fetch.)

 

[RodPad]

What idiot cognitive-dissonance poster-child drone pilot calls drones “dangerous”??!!

Oh good chaos … I suppose some of the enterprise drones might give you a scrape, but a mavic or mini… that we hand launch and hand catch???

Definitely safer than lawn darts… oh bad example… safer than driving a car on the freeway without a seatbelt. Safer than crossing the street in an urban area on a pogo stick. Safer than a job as a taxi driver in Zimbabwe. Safer than flying an airplane that’s past it’s TBO. Safer than a fork lift operator that’s been sniffing glue… well okay those were all bad examples.

Safer than trimming your beard with a Norelco.

(Actual estimated risks as presented pulled out of thin air, just like the idea that somehow some plastic weighing less than a pound would cause any actual injury, though a blade did once give me a scrape when I was hand catching, my cat has injured me more playing fetch.)

OMG!

That post is awesome!

You went way past my twisted humor.

Rod ..

 

[Meta4]

What idiot cognitive-dissonance poster-child drone pilot calls drones “dangerous”??!!

I don't think that any do.
I took that to be one of the Chat GP AI generated posts that member sometimes posts.

 

[RPerry]

I live in a remote area of California and many people have lost their insurance due to our many fires. Mainly the Paradise fire that destroyed the entire town. I filmed a large portion of the aftermath of that fire and it was heartbreaking to see. The insurance companies are not about protecting their clients, they are about making money and if they perceive you as a potential liability, they will drop you. I've done a lot of aerial work for insurance companies and that is what they are looking for, potential liabilities.

 

[mavic3usa]

I don't think that any do.
I took that to be one of the Chat GP AI generated posts that member sometimes posts.

"...however the sheer number of people in NYC and the inconsiderate and dangerous things that drone operators do pose too much of a haard to allow flying drones in NYC."

This is the latest news out of New York City Concerning the Flying of Drones…

REMOTE POSSIBILITIES City institutes rules and fees aimed at controlling drones New York Daily News ∙ 22 Jul 2023 ∙ BY MICHAEL GARTLAND Drone operators will have to be licensed by the feds and pay a fee under rules announced Friday by NYPD Commissioner Edward Caban and Mayor Adams (below)...

mavicpilots.com

 

[Melvoid]

What idiot cognitive-dissonance poster-child drone pilot calls drones “dangerous”??!!

Oh good chaos … I suppose some of the enterprise drones might give you a scrape, but a mavic or mini… that we hand launch and hand catch???

Definitely safer than lawn darts… oh bad example… safer than driving a car on the freeway without a seatbelt. Safer than crossing the street in an urban area on a pogo stick. Safer than a job as a taxi driver in Zimbabwe. Safer than flying an airplane that’s past it’s TBO. Safer than a fork lift operator that’s been sniffing glue… well okay those were all bad examples.

Safer than trimming your beard with a Norelco.

(Actual estimated risks as presented pulled out of thin air, just like the idea that somehow some plastic weighing less than a pound would cause any actual injury, though a blade did once give me a scrape when I was hand catching, my cat has injured me more playing fetch.)

HEY!!! I had a cat that fetched, too! Cool!!!

 

[Meta4]

"...however the sheer number of people in NYC and the inconsiderate and dangerous things that drone operators do pose too much of a haard to allow flying drones in NYC."

This is the latest news out of New York City Concerning the Flying of Drones…

REMOTE POSSIBILITIES City institutes rules and fees aimed at controlling drones New York Daily News ∙ 22 Jul 2023 ∙ BY MICHAEL GARTLAND Drone operators will have to be licensed by the feds and pay a fee under rules announced Friday by NYPD Commissioner Edward Caban and Mayor Adams (below)...

mavicpilots.com

In post #21 you suggested that drone pilots say that drones are dangerous.
That's what people are reacting to.

 

[NightFlightAlright]

I don't think that any do.
I took that to be one of the Chat GP AI generated posts that member sometimes posts.

ChatGPT: a pathological liar with the confidence of PT Barnum and the veracity of a politician…

 

[jackpg]

Insurance company uses drone footage to deny coverage.

One more reason for the Kens and Karen’s to pitch a fit at the sight of a drone.

In Florida they keep an eye on things like your roof and trees over your house or striking distance. If your roof is around the fifteen year age they will require you to put on a new roof. Same with trees, many oaks in our area had to be cut back or down. If you want insurance this is part of it.

 

[EssenYVR]

No way of knowing really but most likely someone reported the situation to the insurance company...

How would a neighbor know what insurance company to contact? Seems much more likely that a disgruntled neighbor would file a report with the city in the hopes that there's some sort of code violation. Contacting the insurance company certainly isn't the first thing that comes to my mind. But then, the idea of reporting someone without first trying to settle the issue directly with the neighbor also seems a bit asinine to me...