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

171–180 of 202 posts

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

#171

Post by DerekRobot »

leetcrew wrote: post #150
Shivetya wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 w…

> My father's recent DJI purchase did not automatically include the propeller guards, seems there is good profit in selling replacement blades. you don't necessarily want prop guards most of the time. they make the props less efficient, which decreases aerodynamic performance and battery life.

IMO, the Spark should come with them- DJI encourages users to launch and land directly on their hand.

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

#172

Post by alistairSH »

baroffoos wrote: post #80
TomGullen wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think that's a NIMBY - pretty sure people not into drones will just be against the noise in their backyard or other peoples backyards.

Its such a minor and rare sound though. A car driving past you is so much louder and more annoying as well as being more common. In fact I can think of countless common and accepted sounds that we find acceptable.

I live next to a fairly busy road AND under the approach to Dulles Airport (not the final, but what is effectively the "right pattern").

To my ears, drones are far more annoying than either the constant whoosh-whrrr of the road, or the occasional rumble of a heavy airliner (narrow bodies and GA planes make way less noise - it's the A380s and 747s that make enough noise to make me look up). The pitch of the quad rotors is higher, which to most people, is a more invasive sound.

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

#173

Post by flyinglizard »

jMyles wrote: post #67

One of the most important roles for drones is fully independent observation of police that is very difficult to physically disrupt. If independent, amateur, volunteer drone operators begin to observe nearly every outdoor police encounter in the United States, without the police being physically able to stop it, that alone will be a big enough victory to justify many of the side effects. Let's ensure that observation…

Not that I'm advocating against police transparency, but just imagine what it would be like to livestream your work computer screen to the entire world. It sounds quite stressful.

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

#174

Post by krapp »

flyinglizard wrote: post #173
jMyles wrote: post #67

One of the most important roles for drones is fully independent observation of police that is very difficult to physically disrupt. If independent, amateur, volunteer drone operators begin to observe nearly every outdoor police encounter in the United States, without the police being physically able to stop it, that alone will be a big enough victory to justify many of the side effects. Let's ensure that observation…

Not that I'm advocating against police transparency, but just imagine what it would be like to livestream your work computer screen to the entire world. It sounds quite stressful.

>It sounds quite stressful.

The price they pay for the privilege of enforcing the state's monopoly on violence should be some lack of an expectation of privacy due to public scrutiny, that only seems fair.

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

#175

Post by swebs »

breatheoften wrote: post #129
tylerjwilk00 wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not advocating loud motorcycles but as a rider I know from experience that cars on the roads will pay more attention and give more caution to a louder motorcycle. A simple fender bender on a motorcycle can be fatal which is the reasoning behind the phrase "Loud pipes save lives." Are some people doing it to be obnoxious? Probably. Are some people doing it out of the desire for increased safety? Yes.

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…

By that logic, wearing a helmet is also "deeply flawed reasoning"

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

#176

Post by RankingMember »

CompelTechnic wrote: post #160
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…

You are making two false dichotomies. Even if Harley's have other safety compromises, loud pipes can make them safer. Even if you ride with awareness, loud pipes can make you safer. There is generally a lack of hard evidence, but it only makes sense that they would to me. It can simultaneously be true that loud pipes save lives and loud pipes annoy people; whether the tradeoff is worth it to you is the real question.

Loud pipes direct sound out and back, so anyone ahead of you, e.g. at an intersection or in oncoming traffic, still isn't going to hear you.

"Loud pipes save lives" has never been proven by any data. Decent article/rant about this saying: https://www.revzilla.com/common-tread/stop-saying-loud-pipes...

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

#177

Post by leetcrew »

DerekRobot wrote: post #171
leetcrew wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> My father's recent DJI purchase did not automatically include the propeller guards, seems there is good profit in selling replacement blades. you don't necessarily want prop guards most of the time. they make the props less efficient, which decreases aerodynamic performance and battery life.

IMO, the Spark should come with them- DJI encourages users to launch and land directly on their hand.

that's a fair point. you shouldn't encourage your customers to do something like that without including the bits of plastic that make it safe.

that said, I got the combo bundle with rotor guards and I almost never use them because they make the drone so squirrelly in wind. I hand launch/land every time and I have yet to cut myself on the rotors. I was very happy to have them when I used the drone to check all my gutters for leaves, takes a lot of the stress out of flying so close to the roof.

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

#178

Post by mikestew »

tylerjwilk00 wrote: post #88
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.

I am not advocating loud motorcycles but as a rider I know from experience that cars on the roads will pay more attention and give more caution to a louder motorcycle. A simple fender bender on a motorcycle can be fatal which is the reasoning behind the phrase "Loud pipes save lives." Are some people doing it to be obnoxious? Probably. Are some people doing it out of the desire for increased safety? Yes.

which is the reasoning behind the phrase "Loud pipes save lives."

No, the reasoning is to come up with some plausible excuse to run open pipes. Safety, however, is a cloud of bullshit to distract you from the thirteen year old boy in leather making vroom-vroom noises.

You wanna “save lives”? Ride like you’re invisible. Because that “cars pay more attention to loud pipes” bullshit is going to get you killed with a false sense of security.

Signed, 35 years of riding on stock pipes, and haven’t collided with a car yet.

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

#179

Post by phaedrus »

dsfyu404ed wrote: post #167
abakker wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I know you don't have rust in CA but if they had a $1k fine where I live that would be just a massive slap in the face to poor people driving old cars (the exhaust rusts out and you don't know until it happens). I get that making cars more expensive is popular in certain places but unfortunately the reality is that a ton our infrastructure is based around them and the negative consequences of hidden costs like this a…

I don't know why you're getting downvoted but I'll second this. I had the same thought when my home state decided to double-the-double damages for some tickets (e.g. speeding in construction zone). For many if not most individuals and families in my low-income state a $1,000 ticket could start a cascade of disasters that ends with them losing their transportation, job, and place of living. It's cruelty pure and simple. Especially since a lack of public transportation means you don't have a choice not to own a car, here.

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

#180

Post by mikestew »

CompelTechnic wrote: post #160
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…

You are making two false dichotomies. Even if Harley's have other safety compromises, loud pipes can make them safer. Even if you ride with awareness, loud pipes can make you safer. There is generally a lack of hard evidence, but it only makes sense that they would to me. It can simultaneously be true that loud pipes save lives and loud pipes annoy people; whether the tradeoff is worth it to you is the real question.

There is generally a lack of hard evidence, but it only makes sense that they would to me.

The lack of hard evidence should be your first clue, because you know the loud pipes crowd would crow to sunset if there were even the slightest shred of evidence. But it “makes sense”, does it? How many things did we think we knew because it “makes sense” until one day, “turns out...”?

So one must first establish that loud pipes save lives. And the onus is on the one making that claim.

Post reply on HN