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

151–160 of 202 posts

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

#151

Post by morganvachon »

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.

As far as laws dealing with vehicle noise pollution, it greatly depends on where you live. I'm in a relatively rural town that is considered part of the Metro Atlanta area, and we have a lot of strange laws as a result. For example, there is a local noise ordinance that allows police to ticket a driver for a noisy muffler on a car or truck any time of day or night, but motorcycles (which are often much louder around here) are exempt. The reason, of course, is that a few of the council members are also bikers, so they are putting their own interests above those of the community. There's been a proposal at town hall meetings to change the law to include any motorized vehicle, but it always gets tabled.

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

#152

Post by morganvachon »

Buttons840 wrote: post #143
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 once had the exhaust pipe before my catalytic converter on my car fall out due to a bump and some rust that had been building up. My car suddenly became very very loud, louder than I had ever realized it could be. I was quite embarrassed while driving the car home, and soon got it fixed. It wasn't especially expensive to fix. If that happened in California I might get a $1000 ticket? Or is the large ticket only for…

I think in your specific case it would be up to the officer's discretion if you were pulled over for it. About 20 years ago I worked the night shift at a warehouse and my car's passenger side headlight went out on my way to work. I had time to stop at a parts dealer before they closed and picked up a new headlight, but I didn't have time to install it so I chucked it in the back seat and drove on to my job. I was pulled over right before pulling into work, and the trooper was reading me the riot act over the light. When I could get a word in I explained to him that it went out on me while driving, and I stopped to get one and planned to install it on my lunch break. I pointed to it in the back seat and showed him my receipt. He seemed pissed that his ranting was not necessary, but he didn't write me a ticket and instructed me to definitely install it that night because he'd be waiting for me on my trip home.

Perhaps I was lucky to get a cop who wasn't so much of an asshole that he'd write me a ticket despite seeing my best intentions to deal with a situation that could happen to anyone. Then again, I could have been pulled over by a guy who would have started off nice and thanked me for being conscientious enough to stop for the part that night.

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

#153

Post by sokoloff »

alexis_fr wrote: post #118
mikeash wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does it? The same airfoil needs the same speed to provide a given amount of lift, regardless of whether it’s a wing or a propellor.

The speed of a propeller is low close to the rotor, and sometimes faster than sound at the extremity of the blades. Can’t reduce sound on that.

Propeller efficiency takes a nose dive when the tips go supersonic. Most props therefore do not operate in this range.

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

#154

Post by jfdi »

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.

A reason motorcycles are loud (or made to be loud) is safety: when driving on highways or in busy areas, the idea is the noise makes the rider safer by offsetting their size disadvantage.

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

#155

Post by leetcrew »

vkou wrote: post #81
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…

I think a bigger concern is that the police will use drones to conduct ubiquitous surveillance.

the FBI already does stuff like this with little cessnas, albeit not at scale. [0]

[0] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/02/fbi-surveill...

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

#156

Post by darkpuma »

jfdi wrote: post #154
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.

A reason motorcycles are loud (or made to be loud) is safety: when driving on highways or in busy areas, the idea is the noise makes the rider safer by offsetting their size disadvantage.

I don't think the guys doing wheelies down the street in front of my house are particularly concerned about safety. I think they're more interested in showing off.

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

#157

Post by dsfyu404ed »

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.

>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

They're not exactly quiet from the factory but people make them loud because thanks to the Doppler effect you need to be really loud for someone in a vehicle beside you to hear you (and they're unlikely to consciously see you if they want to move over because their brain isn't used to checking for objects that are motorcycle sized).

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

#158

Post by michaelt »

sierdolij wrote: post #104
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…

This doesn't really need another law. If something can be heard X m/ft away after night-time N (i.e., car stereo bass blasting at 3 am), or louder than Y anytime (i.e., concert without a permit), then it's creating a nuisance under existing legislation. It needs enforcement of what's already on the books if there's a complaint. And the permit requirement to operate a small R/C toy is ridiculous: this information you…

  It needs enforcement of what's already on
  the books if there's a complaint.
Do the cops in your area respond to a noise complaint in less than the ~15 minutes it takes for a drone battery to run out?

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

#159

Post by darkpuma »

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…

The solution is fixed wing "drones". The props on a fixed wing RC 'drone' are still loud, but for an equivalent mass in the air they are a LOT quieter than quads. They're also more efficient, you get more flight time with fixed wings.

There are just three problems:

1) Landing space (not a hard problem to solve with durable designs that have very low stall speeds.)

2) For some photography purposes, hovering is the only way to get the shot.

3) They're just not as sexy. People like quads because they seem a lot more sci-fi.

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

#160

Post by CompelTechnic »

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…

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.

Post reply on HN