Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

U.S. proposes to allow drone operation at night, over people

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 202 posts

Re: U.S. proposes to allow drone operation at night, over people

#131

Post by cm2187 »

mbrumlow wrote: post #91
reaperducer wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My point, I guess, cities, townships, what have you, don’t care about noise. Cities, townships, what have you, will care about whatever their active constituents tell them to. It took a few years, but a neighborhood organization managed to get a crackdown on motorcycle noise in Chicago. I don't know if it worked because I moved away before it went into effect. But there was a ton of press coverage for a very long tim…

> My point, I guess, cities, townships, what have you, don’t care about noise. I think the poster was referring to active constituents. But I think you are wrong. I don't know of anybody who wants a loud car or bike trekking by their house. But yet it still happens over and over. It is unclear if enough "active constituents" are not complaining or they are ignored.

I don't but I know some people are delighted at the sound of some sport cars.

Re: U.S. proposes to allow drone operation at night, over people

#133

Post by cm2187 »

black-tea wrote: post #121
bigmattystyles wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tangent: I don’t think I’ve ever been more incensed than when I learned Harley Davidsons are quiet out of the factory and people make them loud. And while I can get a ticket for something trivial, I’ve never heard of someone getting a ticket for riding a motorcycle or car that’s obnoxiously loud and can be heard a mile away. My point, I guess, cities, townships, what have you, don’t care about noise.

There is an electric BMW that has a loudspeaker in a fake exhaust pipe to make it sound like a petrol engine to people outside of the car. I think the negative effects of noise pollution are underestimated. It's never properly taken into account when people plan things. Part of it is many people don't understand just how soul destroying it can be (yet).

It's like drawing a horse on an early petrol engine car...

Re: U.S. proposes to allow drone operation at night, over people

#134

Post by cm2187 »

jsty wrote: post #122
black-tea wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is an electric BMW that has a loudspeaker in a fake exhaust pipe to make it sound like a petrol engine to people outside of the car. I think the negative effects of noise pollution are underestimated. It's never properly taken into account when people plan things. Part of it is many people don't understand just how soul destroying it can be (yet).

> has a loudspeaker in a fake exhaust pipe to make it sound like a petrol engine This is however exceptionally helpful for blind people navigating near a road. I haven't seen the BMW in question so it might be unnecessarily loud, but electric cars are often so quiet you could barely hear one coming.

But should blind people rely on sound to cross in the first place? Many european cities are pushing for more cycling. Bicycles are pretty much totally silent and can go as fast as a car typically goes in a busy city.

Re: U.S. proposes to allow drone operation at night, over people

#135

Post by aedron »

cronix wrote: post #41

One thing the drones really need to do before being deployed en masse (besides safety) is to become relatively silent. They are quite loud. I can hear a single one from about 1/2 mile away. I can't imagine what it will be like if many are flying all over, at all times. It will be like everybody is living next to an airport - something I consciously choose to not live close to due to noise pollution. Quality of life w…

Maybe if they fly them high enough? Or maybe wind would become a problem.

Also, dedicated drone corridors that are over roads or uninhabited areas, so at least only cars would be hit in case one of them drops out of the sky.

Re: U.S. proposes to allow drone operation at night, over people

#136

Post by [deleted] »

abakker wrote: post #114
bigmattystyles wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tangent: I don’t think I’ve ever been more incensed than when I learned Harley Davidsons are quiet out of the factory and people make them loud. And while I can get a ticket for something trivial, I’ve never heard of someone getting a ticket for riding a motorcycle or car that’s obnoxiously loud and can be heard a mile away. My point, I guess, cities, townships, what have you, don’t care about noise.

FWIW, California changed the minimum ticket for noise violations on vehicles to $1000 this year. They are apparently cracking down on it, as they have abolished the “fix it ticket” that used to allow the vehicle to be repaired and then the ticket is commuted. Now, the officer must fine you.

[deleted]

Re: U.S. proposes to allow drone operation at night, over people

#137

Post by Shivetya »

bigmattystyles wrote: post #66
cronix wrote: post #41

One thing the drones really need to do before being deployed en masse (besides safety) is to become relatively silent. They are quite loud. I can hear a single one from about 1/2 mile away. I can't imagine what it will be like if many are flying all over, at all times. It will be like everybody is living next to an airport - something I consciously choose to not live close to due to noise pollution. Quality of life w…

Tangent: I don’t think I’ve ever been more incensed than when I learned Harley Davidsons are quiet out of the factory and people make them loud. And while I can get a ticket for something trivial, I’ve never heard of someone getting a ticket for riding a motorcycle or car that’s obnoxiously loud and can be heard a mile away. My point, I guess, cities, townships, what have you, don’t care about noise.

Oh please, I have owned two new ones, the last in 2017. They are not exactly "quiet" as new but not nearly as loud as those who straight pipe. After market pipes certified for road use still must meet Federal law. Plus recently as for more current models the EPA slapped HD with fines and future penalties over the modification of the engine and exhaust which really has cut down on the noise because HD will void your warranty with the EPA blessing if you use unapproved modifications which includes exhaust. Plus Harley isn't unique in attracting drivers/riders who make their exhaust system obnoxiously loud and yes they annoy many of their fellow HD riders too - they get to ride in the back of the pack.

Plus if you are in California look up AB1824 which changed the loud exhaust regulations to assess a fine in every case. Used to be if you got pulled you could simply produce a receipt stating you fixed the loud exhaust and pay no fine but people were skirting that with obvious success. So yes, governments do care. Some HOA and Condo association ban all motorcycles because of noise.

Now with regards to drones, noisy little suckers. The other issue is a private citizen is heavily restricted where they can even fly them. State parks are off limits in most states, any place where people gather of course is out, you can even be blocked from flying them on your property by many HOA and Condo associations (mentioned them before for similar reasons).

Locally to me, Cobb County Georgia has an association for model aircraft that may support drones. They have their own field put in with tax dollars but "maintained" by user fees. Don't even think of using it until you pony up to two different organizations and an initiation fee and such. Yet places which are set aside for the legal use of drones may end up being this way unless the industry adapts.

My father's recent DJI purchase did not automatically include the propeller guards, seems there is good profit in selling replacement blades. It definitely is noisy and I would expect research into blade technology can remedy some of that, surely the military has already done so.

Re: U.S. proposes to allow drone operation at night, over people

#138

Post by icebraining »

jstplanecurious wrote: post #89
toufiqbarhamov wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the ground? To an extent, but it would be expensive to deploy and maintain. On the drone? No, you’re adding weight and reducing available power.

I thought iancmceachern asked a really good question. I was curious if it could work even theoretically. I read the Wikipedia article on Active Noise Control. The third paragraph under Explanation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_noise_control#Explanati... mentions that if it's at the source, it needs to be just as loud as the source (as opposed to being by the ear, in which case even a whisper might be enough).…

I believe I read that fan noise is chaotic, and hence impossible to cancel. Don't quote me on that, though.

Re: U.S. proposes to allow drone operation at night, over people

#139

Post by daliusd »

gweinberg wrote: post #90
threeseed wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fans, helicopters etc have been around for decades and are still mostly loud. You can't escape the physics that moving air causes noise.

Sure but size matters. A helicopter that can carry a person weighs 1000 pounds or more. A drone can be less than 1 one thousandth the weight.

There are no cameras that would weight less than a pound (0.5kg) and be good at night at the same time.

Re: U.S. proposes to allow drone operation at night, over people

#140

Post by breatheoften »

slap wrote: post #130
breatheoften wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Harley’s are terrible motorcycles with severe safety compromising design flaws made for stylistic reasons — the argument that they should be made loud for real safety reasons employs deeply flawed reasoning. I rode a (non Harley, well engineered) motorcycle for years and always thought the claim that you needed to make your bike loud to enhance perception was bollocks. The right answer is to always ride with the awar…

> severe safety compromising design flaws made for stylistic reason Could you explain what exactly ?

People buy Harley’s for the twin cam engine which vibrates a lot and “if you have to ask why this is good then you wouldn’t understand”. The marketing for Harley’s is very much about buying into “worse is better” for “cool” factor — and for social signaling that you might know how to turn your own wrenches.

The joke is that Harley owners spend more time in the garage with their bikes than riding them. They require a lot of maintenance to keep running. From a risk perspective, the onerously frequent maintenance requirements increase the chance of a mechanic introduced error having negative safety outcomes. The fact that every owner basically “has” to work on the bikes rather extensively means that they are more likely in general to be worked on by not so qualified mechanics. The extensive customization culture surrounding the bikes also comes with a lot of really easy ways for safety compromising designs to be introduced via ill thought out customization.

These may seem like small factors but all of them represent much more real risks than the imagined safety benefit that might come by making your bike excessively loud. Someone telling you to ride a Harley and also telling you to make it loud for safety is not giving good safety advice — to maximize safe riding you should never try to lower the responsibility of the rider to be aware of other drivers not seeing them - you can’t make yourself more visible by being loud and shouldn’t encourage someone to think this will work and thereby encourage them to not proactively defend themselves from a driver who might not see them.

There are other safety relevant issues with the bike design — notoriously bad brakes and gearboxes, poor suspension, heavy with a low center of gravity that makes turning a relatively higher effort activity for shorter riders and generally makes recovery from problem scenarios more difficult, the “Harley wobble” (yes wobble can happen with other bikes but it tends to be more severe with Harley’s) ...

It’s probably also worth pointing out that there have been something like 4 large recalls in the last 5 years for clutch problems that can lead to sudden brake failure. Also, the twin cam engine design is inherently not long lasting with many failure modes which means breakdowns are common (engine failure/fluid leaks are not generally conducive to safety).

Post reply on HN