Instant No Drones Sign.

[Player-Pe]

This area (Hidden Falls in Auburn, CA) was a great place to hike & fly drones. Sadly, it has just recently changed it's policy and is prohibiting drone flying in the remote area. Bummer

 

[mavic3usa]

Another park off-limit based on a city code or ordinance.

 

[TonyPHX]

So apart from negative connotations, where is the science that makes people determine this? Authoritarians are the worst.

 

[Droning on and on...]

Geez, did anyone bother to check the Placer County Code?

I did. Here's PCC 12.24.020(A):

12.24.020 Prohibitions.
A. Motorized Vehicles.
1. No person shall operate a motorized vehicle of any type outside designated
roadways or parking areas in any PRA. Parking, driving or stopping any vehicle on turf areas is
prohibited at all times unless approved by the enforcement official.
2. No person shall park a motor vehicle in areas designated for equestrian parking,
except those vehicles transporting horses.

That's it. nothing about drones. The sign is in error, probably wishful interpretation by either a private citizen who made the sign, or a park official that doesn't like drones and is playing a bit fast and loose with the PCC.

Go fly there with a printout of the entire 12.24.020 section (not just (A)).

 

[mavic3usa]

Geez, did anyone bother to check the Placer County Code?

I did. Here's PCC 12.24.020(A):



That's it. nothing about drones. The sign is in error, probably wishful interpretation by either a private citizen who made the sign, or a park official that doesn't like drones and is playing a bit fast and loose with the PCC.

Go fly there with a printout of the entire 12.24.020 section (not just (A)).

Yeah I check it. That sign is absolutely and completely enforceable and if you fly your drone there and you show the police a piece of paper, you'll likely still get in trouble. Local agencies like cities and counties are KNOWN to post code that SUPPORT their directives, not spell it out exactly. For example, NO DRONES and then list the TRESPASSING code which means if you fly a drone there against their wishes, they will invoke the trespass code. But the trespassing codes doesn't list drones expressly. Because there's a bunch of things that are prohibited in that park, they can't list everything.

The purpose of the code is not always to point you to where that code tells you exactly what you can and cannot do. The purpose of the code is to point out that "we decide" what goes and what doesn't go when it comes to conduct in the park. That's the idea with that section. As a result, 9 out of 10 drone flyers won't bother to fight that battle and the sign has done it's job. That's the problem.

I 100% agree, Plakkker county is play fast and loose. But you will be trespassed. It's their way of controlling drone without expressed "drone controlling code" which can be challenged.

IMHO, I've seen this before.

 

[Droning on and on...]

@mavic3usa, you say you "checked it". I think you're being less than forthcoming here. Back that up... what did you consult other than your imagination?

I went to the source.

 

[mavic3usa]

@mavic3usa, you say you "checked it". I think you're being less than forthcoming here. Back that up... what did you consult other than your imagination?

I went to the source.

I googled a bunch of links (here's just a snippet of my search history) and I quickly figured it out thru my experience with similar legal matters so it's just my opinion on this, not legal advice. Wasn't difficult for me to figure out what they are doing.

 

[Felix le Chat]

Yeah I check it. That sign is absolutely and completely enforceable and if you fly your drone there and you show the police a piece of paper, you'll likely still get in trouble. Local agencies like cities and counties are KNOWN to post code that SUPPORT their directives, not spell it out exactly. For example, NO DRONES and then list the TRESPASSING code which means if you fly a drone there against their wishes, they will invoke the trespass code. But the trespassing codes doesn't list drones expressly. Because there's a bunch of things that are prohibited in that park, they can't list everything.

The purpose of the code is not always to point you to where that code tells you exactly what you can and cannot do. The purpose of the code is to point out that "we decide" what goes and what doesn't go when it comes to conduct in the park. That's the idea with that section. As a result, 9 out of 10 drone flyers won't bother to fight that battle and the sign has done it's job. That's the problem.

I 100% agree, Plakkker county is play fast and loose. But you will be trespassed. It's their way of controlling drone without expressed "drone controlling code" which can be challenged.

IMHO, I've seen this before.

Very similar 'codes-that-aren't-really-codes' in many UK town and borough parks & public spaces. No specific bye-law regarding drones, which can be challenged by asking for a Judicial Review and judges ruling... but threats to hammer the drone flier under civil regulations covering trespass. The attitude being that if they can't stamp their authority one way: they'll find a back door to sneak in and hit you.
Sadly, I've had a lot of experience with this low level post-pissing kind of bureaucracy over the last 5 years and the one conclusion I've reached is that the people LOCAL people vote into low office quickly become as small minded as the rest of the turd-skinning weasels sitting round council tables.

 

[Roofdrone]

I have run into this many times and at least in California.... the law may allow drones in an area (parks, rec. area, etc) but can be overruled by the person in charge of said park.

 

[Melvoid]

This area (Hidden Falls in Auburn, CA) was a great place to hike & fly drones. Sadly, it has just recently changed it's policy and is prohibiting drone flying in the remote area. BummerView attachment 174489

I have a "Question Authority" bumper sticker. We could stick it to this sign.

 

[Melvoid]

This area (Hidden Falls in Auburn, CA) was a great place to hike & fly drones. Sadly, it has just recently changed it's policy and is prohibiting drone flying in the remote area. BummerView attachment 174489

They forgot to include the "No Fun" regulation.

 

[Luckyguy9]

The sign is a best effort representation of the code. (A graphic summary shall we say)

For space reasons, not every prohibited activity will appear on the sign,

BUT any prohibited activity on the sign MUST be actually delineated in the code.

Without the code to back it up, any error on the sign is unenforceable.

 

[mavic3usa]

The sign is a best effort representation of the code. (A graphic summary shall we say)

For space reasons, not every prohibited activity will appear on the sign,

BUT any prohibited activity on the sign MUST be actually delineated in the code.

Without the code to back it up, any error on the sign is unenforceable.

Which activity are you referring to, "drone flying?"

The code says no motorized vehicles and the government believes that includes drones as well as 500 other types of "motorized vehicles." Are you suggesting every single type of motorized vehicle needs to be called out in the code for it to be enforceable? Great, you might be able to argue it in court but I doubt you can make that case to law enforcement on the ground. Like I said earlier, they can always trespass you regardless (which is a different, even more vague code btw).

Much of this is irrelevant. My point is 9 out of 10 drone flyers won't fly here based on what they see on the sign. Most of us are law-abiding citizens and unless you are looking to challenge the law, simply fly elsewhere. Which usually means the park remains free of drones. The 1 out of 10 drone flyers who go ahead into the park and fly will do that anyway regardless what the sign says or what the code "specifically points out." The government knows this which is why it is posted this way and so they win and we lose (another spot).

Of the thousands of other visitors who see that sign and go enjoy the other park's non-prohibited activities, they remember this the next time they go to drop a thousand dollars on a drone when they start to see signs posted all over the state prohibiting drones whether it's backed up by code or not. Some of us will go ahead and buy the drone anyway and navigate our way to freedom and fun while most are deterred, put off, and can't be bothers and tend to go to places where they feel welcome. Have you ever seen a sign posted that says "drones welcome, please fly here!" One of those places is Red Rock and drone flyers go there, they flock there. The day they allow limited usage in National Parks is the day I get my lifetime pass.

 

[Droning on and on...]

I have run into this many times and at least in California.... the law may allow drones in an area (parks, rec. area, etc) but can be overruled by the person in charge of said park.

I never said authorities don't abuse power. Happens every day in all sorts of situations.

Not sure what point you all are trying to make here... Authorities abuse power?

Certainly not that drones are prohibited in the park in question, because clearly they are not, according to the Placer County Code posted. Some unknown person's incorrect sign makes no difference.

By the logic you all are using a Park official can post a sign prohibiting Jews, citing some county ordinance that says nothing of the sort, and we'd all have to follow it.

I will acknowledge, however, that it is in fact true that government is out to get the paranoid.

 

[Droning on and on...]

Which activity are you referring to, "drone flying?"

The code says no motorized vehicles and the government believes that includes drones as well as 500 other types of "motorized vehicles."

Prove this statement. Are motorized wheelchairs prohibited?

 

[Luckyguy9]

I never said authorities don't abuse power. Happens every day in all sorts of situations.

Not sure what point you all are trying to make here... Authorities abuse power?

Certainly not that drones are prohibited in the park in question, because clearly they are not, according to the Placer County Code posted. Some unknown person's incorrect sign makes no difference.

By the logic you all are using a Park official can post a sign prohibiting Jews, citing some county ordinance that says nothing of the sort, and we'd all have to follow it.

I will acknowledge, however, that it is in fact true that government is out to get the paranoid.

If the park is a public place, that's open to the public during delineated hours, you can't be charged with trespass during those hours by simply being there.

You could be cited for a noise violation if you're playing loud music, or disorderly conduct based on your behavior, or littering, but you're not trespassing in a public place during open hours.

If the sign says "no drone flying", it has to be backed up by code. When you fly your drone, if an official feels you committed an infraction of code, they will write you a citation, and they have to cite the code that you violated on the citation. (For ex. 127.43 and there are boxes on every citation or ticket that have to be filled in that you're accused of violating.)

 

[mavic3usa]

Prove this statement. Are motorized wheelchairs prohibited?

That statute gives them to ability to decide what constitutes a motorized vehicle and what doesn't. Usually there is a definition somewhere in the law but the absence means we have to rely on their intent. In accordance with the ADA, it is likely motorized wheelchairs would enjoy some type of limited exception and that's what discretion is for. Very likely to stand up in court if challenged, too. Out in the field, in the outback, with me in one of those things blasting off the trail/path, loud engine no stickers, not disabled....I would be ticketed. So it all depends. But you know this, you live in Cali. Everything depends on what your government want to do or not do, it matters not much what is written in the code. That's why that code is so sloppy.

In this case, the government intents to cover drones when they put a picture of a drone upon the sign next to the code (that doesn't mention drones) and said no drones, that's obvious what the sign means. Honestly, it's not really a defense on site to challenge who created that sign, under what authority, and their intent (drones, UAV but not helicopters or RCs, etc) which gets us back to the real point I made in my previous post.

Is it prohibited? I dunno, you have to fly/ride/drive to find out.

 

[mavic3usa]

If the park is a public place, that's open to the public during delineated hours, you can't be charged with trespass during those hours by simply being there.

You could be cited for a noise violation if you're playing loud music, or disorderly conduct based on your behavior, or littering, but you're not trespassing in a public place during open hours.

If the sign says "no drone flying", it has to be backed up by code. When you fly your drone, if an official feels you committed an infraction of code, they will write you a citation, and they have to cite the code that you violated on the citation. (For ex. 127.43 and there are boxes on every citation or ticket that have to be filled in that you're accused of violating.)

Law enforcement will ask you to land your drone and tell you they don't want you to fly in the park and leave immediately. When you are told to leave and you don't, you get a trespass warning. If you remain and receiving a trespass warning, you get locked up.

You were asked to leave a public place during normal business hours for breaking the park rules. The rules say no drones, no skateboards, no bbqs, no fireworks. If you break one of the rules, you can be cited for breaking the rules, or you can be asked to leave instead. Parks are allowed to post rules that based on time, place, and manner which means flying a drone likely can be properly considered even when the park is open. But if I don't know how to cite someone properly for flying a drone based on the park rules (meaning you cannot claim reckless flying or noise or flying over the tennis court instead of designated spot), then which is why you don't get cited for flying the drone, instead you are asked to leave the park.

If you push back and demand to know why you are being asked to leave a public place, you will be told because you are breaking the rules established at the public place (whether the rules are "fair" or not). Remember, this is the public park, not the street corner, the sidewalk, or the steps of city hall. I honestly think you would have a good case if that "no drones" sign did not exist and you were approached otherwise. But that sign....bad news; if you see that sign, best not to fly there unless you want the attention.

 

[Roofdrone]

All very interesting,. The California (I live in Calif.) law says that a supervising manager (person in charge) of an area like a park for instance can post a no drone rule EVEN if the actual sign is not posted. And... the physical posting of a sign is NOT required. I am pro drone so don't get mad. I hate the BS too. But it has been my unfortunate experience that trying to argue with the government can be costly just to end up loosing. And it might be your opinion that the person making the rules is abusing power but.... that is not what the rest of the public thinks. Someone probably complained and the manager responded, that's all. So we are the minority and must suffer like the other minorities in our country suffer. Just my 2 cents... I have developed thick skin so take a shot if you must. LOL

 

[EssenYVR]

So apart from negative connotations, where is the science that makes people determine this? Authoritarians are the worst.

Call me naive, but I doubt the local authorities are scouring their jurisdiction looking for ways to restrict people's activities. It seems far more likely to me that they've received some complaints which led them to take action.