Drones

Drones can intrusive, distracting, noisy and therefore should be used by the emergency services and regulated public authorities only. To use them for commercial deliveries would inevitably lead to crowded airspace above our roads and homes. 

I agree with plinkyplonk.  Drones for us by emergency services only.  Stiff penalties for non-compliance. 

You can try to ban or regulate drones, but the fact is that it is very easy to build a drone from 3D printed parts and off-the-shelf components readily available online. So, I think you need to break the problem down into two categories:

1) Commercial drones bought and used unmodified by the VAST majority of users. These should be strictly regulated to require registration, licensing for pilots of drones over a certain size, and excluded from sensitive areas by hardware and software. I would also say that hand controllers should be trackable.

2) DIY drones used by terrorists, hobbyists, etc.  These are impossible to regulate or control, but are thankfully a small group. Police and security personnel need to have plans and weaponry available to disable, shoot down and track drones. Drones can be disabled by jamming relevant frequencies. They can be hunted by "whitehat" drones around airports, government buildings, etc. They can be shot down if necessary if they can be tracked.

I can imagine that, left to their own devices, companies like Amazon and courier & delivery companies will increasingly utilise drones. The skies will gradually be filled with things, producing continual annoyance to those over whom they fly. Enjoyment of parks will be spoiled by their noise and even if the major parks could be ring-fenced off, people under the flightpaths, particularly near the warehouses from which they emanate, will have their enjoyment of their own gardens blighted. Nice idea, but the unintended consequences won’t be so welcome.

Can people first of all remember that Drones (semi-autonomous multi-copters) are very different to model RC Helicopters and planes, so when people talk about restrictions to flying make sure they are talking about Drones and not other forms of aircraft. With regards to the "Gatwick Drone", this was clearly a deliberate act done with malicious intent and as such no amount of registration, drone numbering, etc would have stopped it; to put is simply noboby uses their own car or motorbike in a crime so why does anyone think that someone would use a registered Drone illegally? Stricter levels than manned aircraft - use some logic in your arguments! Multi- ton aircraft vs 5 - 15kg drone, I know which one I would be more concerned about. Statements like "Ownership of drones should be restricted to limited companies, government organisations, etc." fail to properly define the difference between commercial and recreational drones (which already have restrictions) and the fact that we are talking about using commercial drones over a city and not flying for fun in a park - the two are very different.

Please think about your statements and try and do some research before immediately jumping on the "Ban everything" bandwagon or as someone has pointed out, we will fall behind compared to other countries!

Drones have huge potential both for good & for evil. In reckless hands,the use of a drone can endanger innocent people. 

Therefore, I suggest that, until the strictest regulations are both introduced and applied, use of drones should be restricted to the emergency services only. 

I agree with many of the people on here. 

Drones should:

1. Be fully licenced and only to those with prescribed uses and who have passed a flying test.

2. Carry visible registration symbols and/or be identifiable using an app - so they can be reported if misused; 

3. Be restricted so that they cannot fly near airports, schools, hospitals etc. where there are more vulnerable groups/issues;

4. Have minimum heights above roads  

5. Be fitted with mandatory tracking to record locations, heights etc. (Like HGVs)

6. Have heavy penalties for misuse or unlicensed use including prison for unlicensed or malicious activity;

7. Have a pilot trial period to assess impact. 

In my view, drone use by the police or other law enforcement authorities is the greatest risk we have to our civil liberties at this time along with facial recognition equipment used without out permission.

I would suggest that if permission is given to fly them, then permission should be given to shoot them down.

You can't trust them to use technology responsibly. 

I think they need to be regulated. The potential for misuse is highly likely but you can't uninvent them.

They should be used only in designated areas and times and limited to a certain max power and never over peoples homes or schools

As can be said with any law prohibiting or controlling use of certain items (e.g. guns, knives, drones). It only applies to law abiding people. Therefore, I think if terrorist of criminal decides to use the drone for crime or attack, it literally doesn't matter what laws prohibiting such use we going to have - criminals don't go by the laws because.. well they are criminals.

When it comes to surveillance we have completely different issue here - government has shown times and times again that they cannot be trusted with spying on people for benefit of the public. As such myself and I believe majority of population would be against drone surveillance being used.

When it comes to licences and liabilities I believe we already have all laws necessary to deal with it. Large drone is not a toy and considering the prices nobody treats it as such. If it "falls out of the sky" there are already laws which can be used both to establish liability of manufacturer (for faulty product) and liability of operator - causing injury or death because of negligence or maybe even deliberately. So legislatively I don't think we need any changes and any new arbitrary draconian laws to control issue which doesn't exist.

Finally, when it comes to prevention I think it would be sensible for government agencies to invest in schemes designed to safely takedown rogue drones (current inability was displayed in Gatwick attack). That would be right choice of action over erecting non-functioning laws which would merely be inconvenience for anyone using the drones for any reason, but still not having plan in place when bad actors who by default ignores the laws uses the drones to their advantage.

Regulation is very important but drones can be useful, e.g. for council housing depts and social landlords in surveying the conditions of roofs etc. They might also be useful for identifying repair issues in roadways. Widespread private use of drones could become very disruprive and polluting. 

Drones should be allowed as long they're safely used. The 50m exclusion zone is a good idea. I'm not against legislation to have licenses for users, but maybe over burdonsome and too administrative. Perhaps there shoud be distinction made between childrens toys and commercial drones over a certain size. Definitely useful for medical and emergency services.

Drones are not toys and should not be considered toys.

Drones of course are here to stay and do have their place in our society, however like others who have commented I agree that they should strictly only be used by our emergency services, otherwise it will mean additional scares, accidents, tears, problems and concerns.

Please, lets keep London and our entire nation safe.

Drones should be seen like HGV lorries or double decker buses.  Only to be driven by qualified and licensed peple for legitimate and tightly defined commercial purposes in appropriate places and situations, such as inspecting hard or dangerous to access locations and structures.

They should never be allow as recreational toys.  Their inconsiderate use as such has spoiled more than one of my visits to London Parks. 

More serious is the concern that they would be used for a range of mischievous or criminal acts, either disruption such as at Gatwick, intrusion of personal privacy or commercial confidentiality, carrying out illegal activities such as distributing drugs, weapons and so on.

Drones should be only used for security purposes and should be tagged/licenced.

I don't accept that there is a need for civil or commercial drones. I am dubious about the need for them by the emergency services either but am prepared to listen to any case they make. 

As has previously been said, they could cause severe damage if they crashed and are likely to be very distracting to drivers.

We have enough problems with aircraft noise without introducing drones.

I don't know what the present regulations are, but I agree with the lines of thought that drone operators should require a licence, that there should be certain height and other limits on the drones' operation, but that otherwise we should be wary of over-regulation and should let a new technology flourish.