Interesting article. But written from what viewpoint?
The majority of drone fliers (I object to the term 'pilot'... because none of us are) are never in a position to fly in a similar manner to light or commercial aircraft pilots, where there is the potential for encountering other powered flights.
First of all: I'm pretty sure that's why there's a 100' buffer zone between the lower operational altitude of privately owned light aircraft and the max AGL regulation for standard drone operation, so the likelihood of encountering other non-drone air traffic
should be negligible (apart from idiots on both sides of the fence)
Secondly, BVLOS (apart from similar idiots) is restricted to certified operations and should
not be in the purview of any non-commercial drone operator.
Thirdly, most drone flights (photographic or video) are usually limited to a self-restricted range and altitude commensurate with achieving the necessary shots and are not linear 'point a to point b' jaunts requiring both take off and landing clearance from different ATM controllers. They do not require radio skills, the ability to read sectional maps, or any of the other disciplines required by 'traditional' pilots.
Flying a camera drone is in no way comparable to flying a light aircraft... or even flying a large fixed wing drone BVOLS and above 400' AGL. The established Aviation Authority quadcopter rulebook states simply "...keep out of the way of real aircraft flown by real pilots.." Which is both fair enough and eminent common sense.
The question is simple. Who gains from convincing drone fliers that they absolutely need to be trained and certified to a similar level to 'proper' pilots when they'll never be treated with equality? The answer is just as simple - the individual who is offering the 'accredited' training courses.