Pass a 350-foot no-fly law banning drones from buzzing over our heads without our express permission?
Oh no, I think not, California Governor Jerry Brown said on Wednesday as he vetoed Senate Bill 142.
The ban, which would have only affected commercial and private unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), would have meant that “burdensome regulation” and “new causes of action” would have dive-bombed occasional hobbyists and commercial operators approved by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Governor Brown said in a veto message.
Drone technology certainly raises novel issues that merit careful examination. This bill, however, while well-intentioned, could expose the occasional hobbyist and the FAA-approved commercial user alike to burdensome litigation and new causes of action.
One imagines that the “careful examination” Brown mentions might include strapping the legislation to a drone and sending it to the bottom of the San Andreas Fault.
It is, after all, loathed by commercial drone operators who feared it would have hampered their drone delivery service plans.
Such drone-loving companies – including Google, Amazon and GoPro – fought the legislation, saying that it would crush a burgeoning industry that includes recreational drone use as well as commercial delivery and emergency response services.
One of the trade’s industry groups, the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA), estimated that UAVs could generate $14 billion in economic impact in California over the next 10 years – money that would be jeopardized by the legislation, it claimed.
That’s rot, according to the bill’s sponsor, State Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson, who framed the argument in terms of privacy.
Simply put: if you cannot hop the fence into someone's backyard under current law without the owner's permission, I believe you should not be allowed to do the same with a drone.
Brown said that before California goes down that path – i.e., the path that includes prohibiting drones from flying less than 350 feet above private property without the property owner’s permission – California should “look at this more carefully.”
OK. Sounds good. Look at this issue carefully.
Look at drone usage really, really carefully – but preferably out of the range of birdshot, given some privacy-loving, drone-suspicious people’s tendency to think of grabbing their rifles when they hear approaching UAVs.
California is still pondering another drone bill – SB 168 – that would exonerate emergency workers from disabling drones that get in their way when they’re responding to emergencies, including wildfires.
Image of flying drone courtesy of Shutterstock.com
Anonymous
I recommend paintball guns loaded with ice pellets. Silent but drone deadly.
Paul Ducklin
Mythbusters tried ice projectiles – admittedly with firearm cartidges not with compressed gas propulsion – and IIRC they were useless. Firing the weapon destroyed the projectile.
Anonymous
I’m sure if you fired a paintball from a cartridge would result in a painted inside of a barrel lol. Or a Makeup gun, like on the Simpsons
teotwawkiforhams
If I can ID the person that shoots down my drone I will have you charged and will seek damages.
Exeter
Property rights suddenly mean 3d space.
If you “could not hop a fence into someone’s backyard”…
Does that necessarily mean that the property bounds of your yard radiates into space 350 feet?
Those of us living near an airport – may able to add to the passenger fees for flying over our property!
Drones are fun. But I would be a little pissed if the flew through my backyard too. What route do the “delivery drones” take?
biklawblog
These law are fun for those who lives near airport, But I think the law is not upto the standard, they should revised it.
Bik Law
Those of us dwelling near an airport may also capable of add to the passenger prices for flying over our assets.