Ignoring no fly zones.

[mavic3usa]

Because society hasn't passed any. The question was about constitutionally protected rights, not what is currently allowed.

Just as you do not have a right to own and operate a motor vehicle, you have no right to own a camera and take pictures.

Should a state decide to ban cameras, make ownership illegal and punishable, and outlaw taking photographs, they certainly can.

You have no more right to a camera than you do to an Internal Combustion Engine powered leaf blower, which have been banned in CA. There aren't battery-powered blowers in Home Depot in CA because you have a right to leaf blowers... It's because the public would not accept such a ban.

Just as when, how, and where a leaf blower is used can be strictly regulated, so can a camera.

I say this in jest but gosh, this is what happens when you live in a state like Cali too long. You start to think the government can jus ban everything and The Right to Pursue Freedom and Happiness is just a worn out promise from a bunch of old men long ago who are out of touch; the local government have so blinded their own citizens. No wonder most people in that state are "unhappy."

"Sure, you have to right to freedom of the press but we can ban the newspapers and the cameras and the typewriters and the pens and...." it's call "infringing."

 

[mavic3usa]

BTW, please go over the photographer's board and tell them they are using their cameras because the government is letting them, they have no rights; it's all privileges. I think they can respond better than I.

 

[mavic3usa]

I'll not overload this thread with a bunch of links that no one will read so I post this one, please tell me if you simply don't agree with or not, no worries:

If Stopped for Photographing in Public

Taking photographs and video of things that are plainly visible in public spaces is a constitutional right—and that includes transportation facilities, the outside of federal buildings, and police and other government officials carrying out their duties.Unfortunately, law enforcement officers...

www.acludc.org

 

[DARKSeifer]

You're right, it's 16.6J... I forgot that J is kg based, not fundamental SI units.

That said, doesn't change the qualitative aspect of the analysis... A Neo hitting you at 35mph imparts the same energy as an Avata 2 at 20mph, in a potentially smaller contact patch with a correspondingly higher specific Impulse.

Are you unconcerned about an Avata 2 striking someone in the face horizontally at 20mph?

Same question for a Neo at 35...

The Neo can only reach that speed in manual mode, which nearly no one will use because it's quite difficult to learn, and you need to buy the FPV controller separately.

For example, I have an Avata and always fly it with the motion controller. Tried a few times with the simulator and the FPV controller, but that's all, the motion controller is so lazy that there is little reason to grind the FPV controller unless you want to dive, roll and flip.

The little people that will fly the Neo in manual mode already learn FPV on a DIY drone, so probably will know what they are doing, the rest will fly it in sport mode at most.

 

[Cafguy]

Bottom line If you go to this park and fly you can get fined by the local Government. If you go down the street and fly over -You can get fined (VLOS) By the Federal government. I suppose its your choice. BUT Its a choice you will be making. You say its not legal ( and this is not only California but most places in our country.) I think its kinda dumb myself. If you would like to be the one to hire the legal team after you have been fined GO for it I may even chip in a few bucks What I myself can't afford to do is hire attorneys to challenge the City or State. and this is the biggest reason for some of these laws. Who can afford the Fight?

 

[tstr14]

Bottom line If you go to this park and fly you can get fined by the local Government. If you go down the street and fly over -You can get fined (VLOS) By the Federal government. I suppose its your choice. BUT Its a choice you will be making. You say its not legal ( and this is not only California but most places in our country.) I think its kinda dumb myself. If you would like to be the one to hire the legal team after you have been fined GO for it I may even chip in a few bucks What I myself can't afford to do is hire attorneys to challenge the City or State. and this is the biggest reason for some of these laws. Who can afford the Fight?

What typically happens in cases like this where someone challenges the 'authorities' and those authorities know they will lose in court, is they will either offer a small fine or magnanimously offer to drop the charges. Only if you are willing to take the matter to court are you likely to succeed in having a law ruled void. You are right - only if you either have deep pockets or an organization backing you will you be able to fight the good fight. Perhaps worse is the fact that even if you win, there are no damages, monetarily or otherwise, to those who made the illegal law other than perhaps having to pay court costs and legal fees, none of which comes out of their pocket, so those same people can enact a new law, equally illegal to hamper your flying rights and make you start all over.

 

[Droning on and on...]

The Neo can only reach that speed in manual mode, which nearly no one will use because it's quite difficult to learn, and you need to buy the FPV controller separately.

I see. So therefore it's not possible for a Neo to cause serious injury? Is that your claim?

 

[hank970]

Presuming the airspace is not legitimately restricted, the 'idiot below' is showing the proper level of contempt for another level of ******** rule that has absolutely nothing to do with safety. Well done him, and I find myself rather hoping he a) flew and b) got away with it. Of course I would rather that c) was the case, and that the rule was properly challenged and subsequently reviewed / revised / thrown out as the bureaucratic over-reaching completely unnecessary nonsense it so obviously is ! Imagine trying to ban smoking outside !! And yet they do try that too... unbelievable ! I hope no-one ever goes in their stupid park , and even more that whoever is responsible for the regulation of it in this Orwellian style is kicked out of office at the earliest possible convenience !

Honestly - if I saw that sign at the gate of a park I was visiting, I would leave in disgust, post a horrible review of it on trip adviser, pointing out the discrimination, and then never return for any reason. Good; that's today's disproportionate rage successfully dissipated; recrudescing equanimity in the flux... now

I'm not familiar with that park and its purpose, but the reference to the Korean Peace Bell makes me wonder if it's a place where authorities are trying to maintain an atmosphere of quiet reflection. If so, then the presence of a drone might be a noisy intrusion on the level of decorum that other visitors rightfully expect in such a place. I note also that the sign offers a phone number for those seeking additional information. A quick call might reveal the rationale behind the restrictions.

Just because someone invents a new toy, and just because others pay good money to buy those toys, doesn't and shouldn't oblige land managers and others to accommodate their unrestricted use. It's why, regardless of our religious beliefs or the lack thereof, we generally agree that it's inappropriate to ride skateboards in cathedrals.

Citing FAA regulations is futile. The agency is concerned only with safety, not esthetics or the quality of visitor experience. Whether someone leaves a place in disgust, threatens to never return, and plants sour grapes is their choice, but if they choose to enter and stay, then they should at least respect and honor the proprietor's wishes while there. As always, militant attitudes and open defiance are seldom helpful.

 

[AMann]

16.4K joules a Neo?

A Neo weights 135g and can fly at a maximum of 8m/s in Sport mode. That's 4.3 joules, which is basically nothing unless you strap razor blades to it.

Cars kill pedestrians every day, yet they can move in close vicinity of people, drones haven't killed anyone yet because they just don't have enough mass to cause anything significant, specially <250g drones.

Actually, several people have been accidentally killed by recreational remote controlled helicopters and planes. And mass is insignificant- a 250g drone can easily kill someone if it is going 200mph (relative to the victim), so although it would be extremely rare to happen, a 200mph collision with a plane, a wingsuit or standard skydiver or a race car driver can do it.

 

[AeroJ]

As always, militant attitudes and open defiance are seldom helpful.

I do realise this of course. And it's not even in my country - I shouldn't even care as much as I evidently do.

But huge lists of 'don't do this and that' signs that are always appearing in every single beautiful space we have never fail to irritate me, especially when they forbid things that people come to parks specifically to do and which they seem ideal for) and if all people have to do is put up a ******* bell and mark their spaces as places of peace and reflection that gives YET ANOTHER hugely general excuse for custodians to ban us from their land - as if they haven't already got a ludicrous amount of leeway to do it for manifold other reasons (a lot of which aren't justified and / or haven't been voted in or even shown in advance to relevant / affected communities either). Arbitrary 'Additional rules' like this contribute to the constantly (and worryingly fast) ever-shrinking of available spaces for us, and further relegate us to tedious fields of no visual interest. It's a bloody outrage, and I won't apologise for calling it out as such. It seems to be all I can do, so that's what we get, productive or not !!

 

[Droning on and on...]

...if all people have to do is put up a ******* bell and mark their spaces as places of peace and reflection that gives YET ANOTHER hugely general excuse for custodians to ban us from their land

You either grossly misunderstand the true situation here to characterize it that way, or you're knowingly trivializing it, which is exactly the sort of antisocial attitude I've been pushing back against here.

It seriously weakens your argument.

The idea that this bell was casually placed there to justify prohibiting drones is the sort of attitude that gets drones banned.

Understanding the serious significance of this, well, shrine is what leads those on the other side of the argument to be flexible and compromise. Perhaps if those in charge were presented with a compromise proposal, drones on the 3rd Saturday of each month, the policy might change.

"I know my rights!" has a good chance of getting the no-TOAL perimeter moved just far enough out so you violate VLOS to fly over the park – at which point fulminating about rights is pointless.

 

[AeroJ]

You either grossly misunderstand the true situation here to characterize it that way, or you're knowingly trivializing it, which is exactly the sort of antisocial attitude I've been pushing back against here.

It seriously weakens your argument.

The idea that this bell was casually placed there to justify prohibiting drones is the sort of attitude that gets drones banned.

I didn't say they 'invented' the shrine to prevent drone flights, merely speculated that it might give other custodians similar ideas, which always ends up in yet more places we can't fly. In the same way their signs show consideration for dog walkers (yes you can do it, but they must be on leads), I want to know why our community is not shown similar levels of consideration, rather than being banned outright. I wouldn't feel anything like the level of resentment I do towards signs and rules like this if there were a few guidelines to follow for drone use, but no, you just can't do any of that here. And I constantly struggle to see why religious rights should trump other ones !

 

[Droning on and on...]

I want to know why our community is not shown similar levels of consideration, rather than being banned outright.

That one's easy, as unfair as it is. As a constituency, we're tiny. In a system that uses democracy to guide policy, we're non-existent. We can safely be ignored, abused, disparage, criticized, etc. No one but us cares. We don't have some sort of sympathetic hook, like a person with some disability, to amplify our voices through good will advocacy.

There are probably fewer wheelchair bound folk than drone enthusiasts. But there are wheelchair ramps everywhere. Heck, the law requires it. Why is that?

The non-drone public doesn't care about us, and to a degree find us annoying. Pounding the table about rights and airspace jurisdiction will get you nowhere.

I wouldn't feel anything like the level of resentment I do towards signs and rules like this if there were a few guidelines to follow for drone use, but no, you just can't do any of that here. And I constantly struggle to see why religious rights should trump other ones !

Well, all I'm trying to get across here is anger over this reality won't change it. Accepting the situation for what it is, and working respectfully with others might.

Why do drones get completely banned so often? Because the people making the rules generally hear nothing from the drone community when those rules are being drafted, but it's a pretty good chance someone opposed to drones has complained. Probably hundreds of complaints.

Someone that wants to fly there might get a change to the rules by attending a city council meeting, with other pilots in tow for support, and suggesting a compromise. Show respect and understanding for those that want to use it without drones around. Put them in the position of being the uncompromising hardhead.

There's a reasonable chance the 2nd and 4th Saturday, 4 hours before sunset until sunset, can be drone times. For example.