UK Drone pilot gets $1,900 fine

[MS Coast]

The DUI racket is a scam on the American driver.

In 2022, 13,524 people died in alcohol-impaired driving traffic deaths in the United States. That's roughly one death every 39 minutes.

Drunk Driving | NHTSA

Get resources on ways to prevent drunk driving and alcohol-impaired crashes along with national drunk driving statistics and facts.

www.nhtsa.gov

 

[paulhackerllc]

I just had a request to unpload my flight logs , license , drone serial number etc for a flight with my mini pro near a neighborhood where a Karen who reported me lives. It wasn't a restricted area but I'm getting the third degree .
Just because you don't crash doesn't mean you can fly as you like.

I love Cork. Don’t tell me there is a “Karen” living in Cork.

 

[mavic3usa]

In 2022, 13,524 people died in alcohol-impaired driving traffic deaths in the United States. That's roughly one death every 39 minutes.

Drunk Driving | NHTSA

Get resources on ways to prevent drunk driving and alcohol-impaired crashes along with national drunk driving statistics and facts.

www.nhtsa.gov

...which basically tells me the current methods for enforcing DWI laws are a complete failure and should be scrapped for something that works better but this won't happen because the current process is super profitable, it's favorable to law enforcement, and it provides the illusion that something is being done about the problem. Only recently have the people begin to push back and I predict the total collapse of DWI implementation if something drastic doesn't change in short order.

I don't drink and I have never had a drink in my life yet I am at risk of receiving a DUI midday on a Tuesday morning and getting arrested about the same as the drunks that plague our roads at 2am on Saturday night; how is that even possible? I think it is appalling there are so many fatalities yet the authorities have done nothing [effective] to drive those numbers down, clearly the current process in place is not working.

No way do I want them involved in the enforcement of drone regulations; no thank you!

 

[MS Coast]

...which basically tells me the current methods for enforcing DWI laws are a complete failure and should be scrapped for something that works better but this won't happen because the current process is super profitable, it's favorable to law enforcement, and it provides the illusion that something is being done about the problem.

Ok, here's yet another government conspiracy. This one is a coordinated effort across all the 50 states and designed to allow people to be killed in order to write more DUI citations.

Only recently have the people begin to push back and I predict the total collapse of DWI implementation if something drastic doesn't change in short order.

And another prediction of catastrophe brought on by the government treating citizens badly.

I don't drink and I have never had a drink in my life yet I am at risk of receiving a DUI midday on a Tuesday morning and getting arrested about the same as the drunks that plague our roads at 2am on Saturday night; how is that even possible?

And more evidence that government has singled you out for special mistreatment. What indications do you have that the police are considering arresting you on false DUI charges?

You argue that "government" is too aggressive in citing DUI violations, but then say that they're not doing enough. And again, no drone-related content other than a reminder that you don't want state and local law enforcement involved drone law enforcement.

 

[mavic3usa]

Ok, here's yet another government conspiracy. This one is a coordinated effort across all the 50 states and designed to allow people to be killed in order to write more DUI citations.

It didn't start that way but after a series of changes over the years, that's the way it ended up. So not a conspiracy and not a coordinated effort but that's what happens when you pass a law and it turns out to be ineffective the way it is is poorly put together, and then you have to find way to keep justifying it. Finally the people enforcing it eventually start to abuse it when they find out they can use it for their own personal gain. If I could get the state to pass a law that says no government official shall misuse the DUI process for their own personal gain and if they do, it's a felony with a mandatory 5 year prison sentence (this is for deterence), would you support such an additional to the DUI laws? This will help to ensure innocent people don't get abused and drunk drivers continue to be taken off the street no impact. Are you ok with that or will you fight to block it because you don't believe in protecting people from official oppression?

And another prediction of catastrophe brought on by the government treating citizens badly.

Not a prediction; actually I think we are already there. For the most part, the citizens have had enough and have already started to push back in the form of lawsuits. My point is if this isn't reversed soon, it will lead to even more disappointment for everyone involved. Meaning, we'll never get to the end goal which is to keep the streets safe. Drunk drivers will continue to drive will impeach and rack up dozens of repeated violations and innocent motorists will have their lives turned upside down if they should happen to meet up with someone in the wrong place at the wrong time. Will you join me and together we can eliminate the abusers from both sides and get on with completing the job done and get those numbers downward trending?

And more evidence that government has singled you out for special mistreatment. What indications do you have that the police are considering arresting you on false DUI charges?

No me singled out but "we." Everyone (like me) who doesn't drink or do drugs can now get a DUI on our record without have taken a single drink. There are lots of us so no not ME singled out but WE million'd out; I speak for a LOT of people. I have personally seen it happen; people take blood test and drugs tests at a police station and the results show ZERO. One or two is a mistake, thousands is malfeasance.

You argue that "government" is too aggressive in citing DUI violations, but then say that they're not doing enough.

Agressive is the wrong word and that's not my argument. Cheat and dishonesty comes to mind. Trying to make quotas, setting up checkpoints only as an excuse to increase the numbers, giving a pass to your friends and co-workers, working with law firms and judges to game the system is not what I call "doing enough" to fix the problem.

No way do I want them involved in the enforcement of drone regulations; no thank you!

no drone-related content other than a reminder that you don't want state and local law enforcement involved drone law enforcement.

I think I've made the link to how this relates to drone law enforcement. If you want me to go into it more in-depth other than to "mention it" for the 10th time, I can tell you how just like with DUI enforcement, innocent drone flyers will be swept up in the evolving process. Zero drone ordinance (local) violations (as it should be) in 2024 and then 2,000+ drone ordinance violations in 2027 (unacceptable) is what will happen if we allow this; that's my prediction.

 

[tstr14]

In Michigan, the typical cost of a first offense DUI is between $7,000 and $12,000. The arresting party gets $500 and the rest is court cost and attorney fees, so the real benefactors are the attorneys. I don't really see it as a play for money.

The worst law currently in many states is the red flag law, in which you are guilty until proven innocent. If you are unfamiliar with red flag laws, look them up. In most cases, anyone can call the police and say you are a threat, after which you can expect a bunch of blue clad, semi-hostile company. Written correctly, to protect personal rights, these laws wouldn't be so bad, but few if any, are so written.

 

[mavic3usa]

In Michigan, the typical cost of a first offense DUI is between $7,000 and $12,000. The arresting party gets $500 and the rest is court cost and attorney fees, so the real benefactors are the attorneys. I don't really see it as a play for money.

The worst law currently in many states is the red flag law, in which you are guilty until proven innocent. If you are unfamiliar with red flag laws, look them up. In most cases, anyone can call the police and say you are a threat, after which you can expect a bunch of blue clad, semi-hostile company. Written correctly, to protect personal rights, these laws wouldn't be so bad, but few if any, are so written.

Plenty of attorneys willing to split their take with anyone who can bring in more business to them. It's called kickbacks.

In Michigan, I believe anyone who refuses the FST will get a civil penalty (small fine) so I'm pretty sure anyone can be tricked into believing they have to submit and it goes from there.

 

[Meta4]

I don't drink and I have never had a drink in my life yet I am at risk of receiving a DUI midday on a Tuesday morning and getting arrested about the same as the drunks that plague our roads at 2am on Saturday night; how is that even possible?

Good question ... How is it possible?
Or is it really possible?
I find that difficult to believe.

I think it is appalling there are so many fatalities yet the authorities have done nothing [effective] to drive those numbers down, clearly the current process in place is not working.

Then start lobbying for your police to have breathalyser equipment in their patrol vehicles rather than using antiquated, time-consuming and ineffective 1950's field sobriety tests.
Lobby for your police to be able to set up roadside random breath test stations in likely spots at likely times to catch offenders.
Those solutions have been used in other countries for 50 years.
That hasn't eliminated the issue completely but it has effectively reduced the numbers of drunk drivers on the road.

 

[Meta4]

Cheat and dishonesty comes to mind. Trying to make quotas, setting up checkpoints only as an excuse to increase the numbers, giving a pass to your friends and co-workers, working with law firms and judges to game the system is not what I call "doing enough" to fix the problem.

Is this really happening or just an unfounded conspiracy theory?

 

[Cymruflyer]

Laws against driving while holding a cellphone with a reasonable fine (like $25) are ok; no problem.
Laws against driving while holding a cellphone with a fine of $1300 zero tolerance on the first offense where there is no other laws broken are repugnant and are a direct affront to the freedom of movement and the right to travel with interference that all citizens enjoy.

The DUI racket is a scam on the American driver. Exactly the reason why I try to keep state and local governments out of drone legislation. Only bad things will happen for the drone flyer. This is what I believe.

Sorry but NO... Making fines so cheap means people take the risk and talk or text on their phones, because they probably won't get caught, but if they do, well.. it's only 25 bucks, so no big deal. People will feel it is worth the risk, until they kill someone. But someone needs to die before they feel it is too risky to use the phone. Making the fines higher and enforcing them, means people won't have to die before these ******** put down their phones while driving.

THAT is the reason fines need to be much steeper and yes for the first offense. Do it once, get a steep fine, do it a second time and lose your license. A few of these going around the news and people will sit up and take notice. That will greatly deter the repeat offender who thinks they are fine driving and texting, just like the drunk who feels they are perfectly fine to drive after many drinks.

To say they broke the law, but no other laws were broken, and a steep fine is repugnant, well that is simply another stupid statement. It's like saying that he was doing 85mph in a flashing light school zone of 20mph, but no kids had yet come out of school, and he had his seat belt on, so no other laws were broken therefore, give him a warning. But to fine him heavily would be repugnant, you seem to think. Or doing 140mph in a 65mph zone but there were no other cars around, so just give him a warning, because that would be repugnant to hit him with a heavy fine.

You are not allowed to make a call or text, therefore, there is no reason to have the phone in your hand while driving. Stuck in traffic like you suggested, well just ask your phone to send a text, no need to have it in your hand to do that. Suggesting anything else, is stupid.

You keep saying the DUI check points are a scam, yet you still don't offer up a reason as to why. Driving while trying to text is plain dangerous. Driving while holding a phone and having a conversation is also dangerous. You only have one hand on the wheel and a person can become very involved in a conversation, and pay less attention to driving and more to their conversation.

Taking a quick drink or eating a sandwich is not the safest thing to do while driving. However, unlike a phone conversation, you do not get engrossed in that action. Plus, these are brief moments during your driving. Some conversations can take 10-20-30 mins or more, and herein lies the distraction to a driver, especially if it is a heated or intimate conversation.

A cop has had advanced driver training with recurrent training plus, he is not on his radio for long periods of time, as he drives. I would expect that he is also not on the radio very frequently. A driver who texts and makes phone calls is probably on the phone far more often and will lack concentration of actually driving the vehicle, while on their phone. That in itself, is a very big difference between your suggested comparisons. Your argument does not hold water.

 

[mavic3usa]

Sorry but NO... Making fines so cheap means people take the risk and talk or text on their phones, because they probably won't get caught, but if they do, well.. it's only 25 bucks, so no big deal. People will feel it is worth the risk, until they kill someone. But someone needs to die before they feel it is too risky to use the phone. Making the fines higher and enforcing them, means people won't have to die before these ******** put down their phones while driving.

THAT is the reason fines need to be much steeper and yes for the first offense. Do it once, get a steep fine, do it a second time and lose your license. A few of these going around the news and people will sit up and take notice. That will greatly deter the repeat offender who thinks they are fine driving and texting, just like the drunk who feels they are perfectly fine to drive after many drinks.

To say they broke the law, but no other laws were broken, and a steep fine is repugnant, well that is simply another stupid statement. It's like saying that he was doing 85mph in a flashing light school zone of 20mph, but no kids had yet come out of school, and he had his seat belt on, so no other laws were broken therefore, give him a warning. But to fine him heavily would be repugnant, you seem to think. Or doing 140mph in a 65mph zone but there were no other cars around, so just give him a warning, because that would be repugnant to hit him with a heavy fine.

You are not allowed to make a call or text, therefore, there is no reason to have the phone in your hand while driving. Stuck in traffic like you suggested, well just ask your phone to send a text, no need to have it in your hand to do that. Suggesting anything else, is stupid.

You keep saying the DUI check points are a scam, yet you still don't offer up a reason as to why. Driving while trying to text is plain dangerous. Driving while holding a phone and having a conversation is also dangerous. You only have one hand on the wheel and a person can become very involved in a conversation, and pay less attention to driving and more to their conversation.

Taking a quick drink or eating a sandwich is not the safest thing to do while driving. However, unlike a phone conversation, you do not get engrossed in that action. Plus, these are brief moments during your driving. Some conversations can take 10-20-30 mins or more, and herein lies the distraction to a driver, especially if it is a heated or intimate conversation.

A cop has had advanced driver training with recurrent training plus, he is not on his radio for long periods of time, as he drives. I would expect that he is also not on the radio very frequently. A driver who texts and makes phone calls is probably on the phone far more often and will lack concentration of actually driving the vehicle, while on their phone. That in itself, is a very big difference between your suggested comparisons. Your argument does not hold water.

We'll just have to agree to disagree. I feel like we are having the same argument that I had (and won) some 20 years ago. It's the same tired talking points used to justify. It went something like this (see video below for 15+ years ago) and it hasn't changed in forever; can't believe we are still talking about it. And now we're trying to apply this [failure] to drones? We just don't like excessive laws, too many laws, and ineffective laws that don't work other than the scoop up innocent people, create a tax on the vulnerable population and a source of revenue and have very little impact on the problem (unless you are telling me it's mostly solved by now).

I would like to fix the problem and lower the fatalities, too but giving more power to the government, harsher penalties, and zero tolerance is not the way to do it IMO. I like the way hundreds of jurisdictions have done it in the past and still doing it now but I still think you can't legislate your way to fixing stupid. I believe in tackling it mostly from a technological way.

I have carried on with this topic because I believe the same should be applied to our drones. Not more drones laws, not harsher penalties, not more enforcement officers. Again, I understand how the excessive laws pass in the EU but Americans will never go for it. Because we believe in personal responsibility to stop people from killing each other and do the right thing; we don't pass a bunch of government laws and bloat the government and extract a bunch of exorbitant fines to try to control the people; that's unacceptable. Makes no sense to fight the technology when we can adapt to it.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies