More Mavics in the air in the U.S.

[WEOTN]

You just can't sell something like this to the masses. They're just opening up a can of worms now. I can just see a bunch of nine year olds getting these for Christmas.

They're going to shoot their eyes out!!!!

Heh, I got a BB gun at 9, a Sheridan pellet gun at 10, a .22 bolt action at 12. The world is still spinning, no one died, no one was hurt. Responsible parenting is key. Maybe that's what's really wrong with the idea? Kids can be fine if brought up well. Parents on the other hand....

 

[Doecliff]

your responsible for your 9 year old. If you buy him a MP and he crashes it then your the dummy. Its no different than if the adult crashed it himself which no one is questioning so its kind of a pointless argument. No one here gets to decide who is allowed to buy a mavic as much as it seems some of you would like to do exactly that.

 

[Egika]

Heh, well there is a difference. If your kid kicks a football in someone's face, no authority is going to come and change the rules on who is allowed to kick a football, how hard, or even threaten to take footballs away.

All it will take is a few high profile drone mistakes before Congress cracks down on their usage in the USA. "A nine-year-old child using his father's drone caused a traffic accident, tragically killing a mother of four and her two children."

Just saying.

You are right.
But isn't this strange?
So many things and ways to hurt other people are accepted in our society.
Just drones are evil??
Why not treat a drone induced accident in the same way as another 9 year old throwing stones at moving cars? I can't see the difference. Both is wrong.

 

[jbar55]

your responsible for your 9 year old. If you buy him a MP and he crashes it then your the dummy. Its no different than if the adult crashed it himself which no one is questioning so its kind of a pointless argument. No one here gets to decide who is allowed to buy a mavic as much as it seems some of you would like to do exactly that.

We're just commenting on the potential impact of widespread adoption. You say "no one here gets to decide." As I said earlier, a few bad incidents and actually Congress could decide. Just like many states require proof of training to acquire a concealed weapons permit, states or the federal government could regulate the use of drones as well.

 

[jbar55]

You are right.
But isn't this strange?
So many things and ways to hurt other people are accepted in our society.
Just drones are evil??
Why not treat a drone induced accident in the same way as another 9 year old throwing stones at moving cars? I can't see the difference. Both is wrong.

Yes, but because it is not practical to regular certain items once they are widespread, as the influence of that lobby grows. There is a huge gun lobby which helps to prevent new regulations. There is no huge drone lobby, so it would be easier for local or state legislatures to put forth regulations. For example, various states have sought to ban drone flights OVER someone's property, regardless of how high you are. There are all sorts of regulations being considered -- and the more bad press there is, the easier it is to pass regulations.

It doesn't matter if that's "right" or "wrong" - It is just reality.

 

[Doecliff]

Fair enough but there's not a lot you can do about it. The MP is more expensive and has better safety features like collision avoidance so Its less likely to be the one giving drones a bad name. There are tons of cheap drones out there with cameras that you can get for less than $100 that are far more likely to be abused than the MP. Think of what cell phones did for photography. Used to be that you had to invest a lot of time, money and effort into creating high quality professional photos. Now any drunk frat boy with the latest cell phone can get and awesome photo that compares with what professional could do. Its the Same thing with drones, you used to have to really be into this hobby, spend a lot of time, money and build your own if you wanted a high end drone. Now you just whip out the CC and your in the air getting great shots that same afternoon.

 

[thekaijin]

Fair enough but there's not a lot you can do about it. The MP is more expensive and has better safety features like collision avoidance so Its less likely to be the one giving drones a bad name. There are tons of cheap drones out there with cameras that you can get for less than $100 that are far more likely to be abused than the MP. Think of what cell phones did for photography. Used to be that you had to invest a lot of time, money and effort into creating high quality professional photos. Now any drunk frat boy with the latest cell phone can get and awesome photo that compares with what professional could do. Its the Same thing with drones, you used to have to really be into this hobby, spend a lot of time, money and build your own if you wanted a high end drone. Now you just whip out the CC and your in the air getting great shots that same afternoon.

Just because there isn't a lot we can do about it doesn't mean we can't care and have an opinion. And I agree with above - Congress CAN do a lot about it and I think they will if the worst case scenario happens, which is bound to happen if we give 9 year olds drones, unfortunately.

That said, the same thing could happen with a reckless 40 yr. old pilot.

 

[jbar55]

I guess the reason some people here are annoyed (not that it matters) with the Cos

Fair enough but there's not a lot you can do about it. The MP is more expensive and has better safety features like collision avoidance so Its less likely to be the one giving drones a bad name. There are tons of cheap drones out there with cameras that you can get for less than $100 that are far more likely to be abused than the MP. Think of what cell phones did for photography. Used to be that you had to invest a lot of time, money and effort into creating high quality professional photos. Now any drunk frat boy with the latest cell phone can get and awesome photo that compares with what professional could do. Its the Same thing with drones, you used to have to really be into this hobby, spend a lot of time, money and build your own if you wanted a high end drone. Now you just whip out the CC and your in the air getting great shots that same afternoon.

I think the reason some of us fret about the Costco decision (not that it matters) is because they are selling the BIGGER more sophisticated drones, i.e. Mavic, etc. It was inevitable. But per your example above, the small drones that most kids buy are less likely to cause a safety incident than the bigger drones that have more power, range, weight, etc. If the bigger drones were more of a specialty item (i.e., purchasable online, etc.), then the adoption would be slower. Ever notice when you buy a $30 jacket from Costco, you think, "Wow, this jacket looks great and its so cheap!" Then, you suddenly notice that 1 out of 3 people on the street are wearing your exact same jacket. haha. Well, that's what they will do to the Mavic!

 

[Doecliff]

I'm not a Costco guy so I wouldn't know. It is true that the easier they are to acquire and more common they become the more likely they could be abused. But they will also become more accepted as part of everyday life too. Once you start to see them delivering packages and assisting with other duties people may start to ignore them as well. Were a long way from that but I think there's less negative perceptions of drones then we think. Most people I come across are interested and have never really seen one and are not biased in a negative way. When pagers first came out if you had one people thought you were either a drug dealer or a doctor, then it was the same with cell phones. Plus most people are smart enough to realize its not the drone itself rather the jerk behind the controls that's the problem. Although that doesn't really matter with our dim witted,short sighted politicians today.