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

181–190 of 202 posts

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

#181

Post by NikolaeVarius »

ams6110 wrote: post #70
ProfessorLayton wrote: post #6

Lots of safety concerns are brought up, but I'm really curious how drones will play out in conjunction with noise and NIMBYism. Drones are loud, so I can't imagine that commercial drone activity (Especially at night) will happen without heavy pushback from locals. NASA did a study and found that the noise drones make is perceived to be more annoying than those from cars [1]. They acknowledge noise-based pushback as a…

In my neighborhood, a noisy drone would get shot out of the sky pretty quickly. Or even a not-so-noisy one, if it were spotted over someone else's property.

No they wouldn't. Have fun sending rounds into the sky hitting nothing but air. You can hit a randomly moving target at 1000 feet consistently?

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

#182

Post by mikestew »

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 ?

Sibling comment has good points. My go-to was years back when HD put a single disc with a single piston caliper up front. Anything Japanese at that point put two discs, usually multiple pistons. Some sport bikes were running monster six piston calipers.

And there’s that fat-ass Harley hauling it’s bulk down with that one scrawny disc and anemic caliper. ‘cuz, you know, style. Always seemed like a lawsuit waiting to happen. Can you imagine a car manufacturer saying, “the braking system is not even close to state-of-the-art because it wouldn’t look good”?

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

#183

Post by dugditches »

breatheoften wrote: post #140
slap wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

If you think more modern Harley's(twin cams, evolutions)are unreliable I guess you'd say the older ones didn't run at all. The fact something can vibrate and shake so much and leave the Stealership with rattling apart is a feat of engineering.

With cam tensioners changed you'll get 100k out of a twincam before needing work with just oil and tires(and whatever parts rattle off).

Harley's trying to innovate(electric bikes/scooters, dual sport). Problem is their consumer base is stuck in past/vanishing. Some people use fountain pens instead of more modern pens, even though they might be more inconvenient/expensive. While I only own Japanese bikes now, I can't deny there is a 'feeling' of riding a Harley.

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

#184

Post by crysin »

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.

So what happens if a headlight or turn signal goes out while you're in the middle of your drive? Do you immediately pull over and call a tow to avoid having a officer pull you over and slap you with a 1k ticket because your light bulb decided to go bad right then? What about if a rear break light goes out, only way to usually know about those ones is if someone alerts you to it.

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

#185

Post by Retra »

the_reformation wrote: post #40
hashkb wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point I was trying to make is that the gov't has no clear principles on what is dangerous; just politics and money. Deregulating drone operation seems to me like something you could choose to make very frightening, if you were in that business. Engaging your argument... domestic terrorism / mass murder of citizens by citizens is quite real.

An FAA regulation isn't going to stop a domestic terrorist.

When you take something from "permitted" to "restricted", you turn actions from "normal" to "suspicious", and that definitely acts as a signal for observers and a deterrent.

The FAA requires airline doors to be secured. Why would you assume that does nothing to stop a domestic terrorist? I can't imagine why you'd even say such a thing.

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

#186

Post by reaperducer »

cm2187 wrote: post #131
mbrumlow wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

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

I don't disagree. But in context.

On track day at the local race track? Sure. At a professional sporting event? Great. Going down a residential street when people are trying to sleep? No way.

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

#187

Post by SilasX »

oarsinsync wrote: post #170
dsfyu404ed wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I live on a hill with a busy intersection at the bottom. I get to listen to trucks with jake brakes going down the hill and people accelerating out of the intersection. I don't exactly live somewhere high class so vehicles with rusted out exhausts and Civics with fart cans abound. It doesn't bother me one bit. You get used to it. It's people in gated communities and quiet suburban neighborhoods where there is rarely…

Unsure why you're being downvoted, but in my experience, this is absolutely correct. When I lived on a busy intersection, the noise level was always there, it just became background. When I lived near a flightpath, the sound of airlines was regularly there, and it also just became background. I now live in a very quiet area, and every passing motorbike is a disturbance. Then again, the other thing that's changed is m…

I've had the opposite experience. I lived in downtown SF. The noise of a loud motorcycle going by is substantively different from the ordinary background noise of city life. Unlike every other noise, you can't e.g. talk while it's going by.

There is very good reason to treat it differently from the usual honks and airbrakes.

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

#188

Post by chaostheory »

test1235 wrote: post #124
chaostheory wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm speaking from experience, and I didn't intend to sound patronizing. I live really close to an airport. Have been for years. Lived in my home both before and after energy efficient improvements e.g. triple pane windows, more insulation, roofing, stormdoor, ... It works. If NIMBY lobbying fails, you have to take into account all tools available including smart earphones.

as if you're going to go put in earphones everytime someone flies a drone around your property ...

No, when you’re inside your energy efficient home, it’s fine; you are insulated from sound and even rumbling from airplanes (assuming you have good insulation on top of your house as well). Earphones are for going out and about. Wearing earphones all the time also has already become a trend...

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

#189

Post by craftyguy »

NikolaeVarius wrote: post #181
ams6110 wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my neighborhood, a noisy drone would get shot out of the sky pretty quickly. Or even a not-so-noisy one, if it were spotted over someone else's property.

No they wouldn't. Have fun sending rounds into the sky hitting nothing but air. You can hit a randomly moving target at 1000 feet consistently?

It's probably not so hard to hit with a shotgun for someone used to dropping fast, randomly moving birds (doves) out of the sky. And even if it takes a couple shots, who's counting?

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

#190

Post by paulie_a »

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.

Loud pipes distract drivers in cars which makes them less safe on the road.
Post reply on HN