Drones

Drones are not safe in public places and are a hazard and disturbance to wildlife, particularly birds. I have seen numerous drones being flown outside of the permitted Flying Field area of Richmond Park, including over protected areas such as the Skylark Breeding areas and over Pen Ponds. I have seen drones disturbing numerous species, including red-listed Skylarks, Kestrels, nesting Buzzards, waterfowl, Swallows, Sand Martins and amber-listed House Martins, Common Terns, Black-headed Gulls and Swifts. They have also been responsible for disturbance of rare and migratory species. I have seen drones scare off Wheatear (summer migrant from Africa to UK/Greenland), and a pair of Great White Egrets that might have stayed to breed, which would have been a first for the Park's breeding bird history. They get stuck in trees, damaging ancient oaks and chestnuts. People fly them low over members of the public and private residences of the Park, including an official Royal residence and a woodland school for children. The batteries are extremely flammable/unstable and drones that crash can be extremely dangerous and cause fire/injury. They should also not be used in high temperatures or high winds. Most users seem to have little regard for safety, local restrictions or personal privacy.

This is a complex topic as the many different views expressed have shown.  Here are my views on some aspects:

1. There should be a complete ban on the commercial use of drones for parcel/item delivery in urban areas (all of London).  The volumes are just too great to make it desirable.  The possibility of such usage for special cases (eg urgent medical supplies) should be evaluated.

2. The idea of using drones for transport of people in an urban area is unacceptable.  The downward force and accompanying noise is just too great to make it acceptable.  I am old enough to remember the noise of Robert Maxwell's helicopter from the Mirror building on Fetter Lane, and we don't want more uber-rich creating massive noise pollution.

3. There needs to be much greater investment (technological and regulatory) in managing the proliferation of drones.  They are seductive to the user, and a minority will not behave themselves and/or have criminal intent.  Controls will be needed at the point of purchase and during operation.

4. There needs to be a body which promotes "good practice" in the use of drones.  Not sure if this is London or National Government, Police, Military, Suppliers, existing Regulatory Bodies.

Lots more issues no doubt!

Six months ago I would have been pretty down on drones for deliveries, for all the reasons already stated here: noise, crime, invasion of privacy. However my neighbourhood is currently facing the very real prospect of a massive 'last mile' distribution centre close to where I sit typing this; it will be 37m high, operate 24/7, with over 2000 HGV/LGV trips every day, and all within 5mins walk of 3 schools and hundreds of homes. The imminent danger of this highly polluting, carbon-intensive industrial development, with all of the implications for noise, air pollution, traffic congestion and accidents, has made me rethink - because if as a society we are not prepared to switch to a different type of distribution system, that kind of monstrosity in residential areas becomes more and more inevitable. 

So now I think that drones should be used for parcel deliveries. HOWEVER. Delivery drones should be licensed and regulated, confined to clearly defined flightpaths, and have embedded tracker technology to make sure they don't stray (with meaningful penalites if they do). There should be a central monitoring agency with which ALL drones capable of flying beyond a certain range - i.e. anything that's not a child's toy - should be registered: think a DVLA for drones. There should be set hours of operation, and a requirement to stay below a set decibel level. 

In short: we should embrace the technology and explore all the ways in which it can be utilised for distribution, surveying, emergency services etc. etc. - but in so doing we should take it every bit as seriously as we do other vehicles, and build an equally robust logistical and legal infrastructure.

Frank Zapata has just whizzed over the Channel in 22 minutes on his fly board.

No doubt people will soon be zooming around above London streets on these! 
 

See BBC news item:  https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-europe-49226353/man-crosses-english…

The way some po-faced commentators here are so negative about drones - you'd imagine commercial and domestic drones were belching out horrendous emissions, filling the air with decibels as loud as Concorde and were as ubiquitous in the air as when flying ants leave their nests on a hot July evening. For Heaven's Sake! Let's embrace innovation that can bring such joy and creative operation to drone owners and users. Right now there's another 'fight' going on with 'the young' wanting to use their motorised scooters and hover boards on our streets. And, as with drones the po-faced brigade are out in force trying to curtail these innovations as well. Sigh! 

I'm not in favour of drones - I think the noise pollution, privacy concerns, and environmental pollution outweigh the benefit of faster deliveries etc.

- The potential for noise, privacy issues and crime would definitely need to be addressed in any mass roll-out of drone technology.  Not sure how though, as the law of unintended consequences as described by others on this discussion could lead to a generally annoying new phenomenon in our world over which we would have no control.  For instance we often have helicopters hovering over our flat late at night, and the sense that the individual has no one to complain to about it.  This could lead to further general erosion of human agency.

- Drones should definitely be licensed and regulated.  It should even be possible to create apps that track "drone traffic in my area" and enable me to answer the question, "whose drone is that flying outside my flat?" and allow me to send a complaint to the Met if it is engaged in unlawful "drone behaviour".

- Drones WILL replace humans and cause a loss of human jobs.  National and local governments need to factor this into their planning. 

- However the current unreliability of couriers, and the need to burn fossil fuel to deliver a package, means drones, once the technical kinks are worked out, could be more reliable (and cleaner).  Universal Basic Income is one idea that relates to the problem of automating human jobs out of existence and is worthy of consideration.

Not good idea for commercial or private use. Do not like to have to wear safety helmet because some drone or its parcel might fall on my head.

Perhaps all right to use under tight regulation for engineering works, such as structural checks, architectural design etc. but these should be used very local, meaning the drone is flown from right beside the building, bridge etc that it is surveying.

Can be used for emergency services, again as local as possible.

Privacy matters even with law enforcement. We are rapidly becoming a surveillance state. Surveillance cameras every where, face recognition by law enforcement without court order.

Law enforcement will not follow the law word by word, "it saves time and hours (money)" will be prioritized over "the law says it needs court order"; and with the passage of time, people with interests will increase pressure to change the law to suit their purpose, against ethical reasoning.

Once the technology gets under way who is to stop drones taking photos or video footage through your window!

Once the use of drones is accepted as a common practice, issues to do with complaints, noise, privacy, passenger services, parcel deliveries, urban air mobility, will all fall away, as it does with all established services. We’ll end up with a number (not freephone) to call, with a call handler in a service centre taking down the details, and no action taken. There’ll be an Ombudsman appointed to handle complaints. Meanwhile our urban vistas will be blocked by high rise flats no-one lives in, and cluttered with buzzy drones flitting all over the place. We’ll be living in a sci-fi novel. Frightening. 

As with the use of any air space, IF drones were to become an AUTHORISED flying craft it will be ESSENTIAL that they are licensed & strictly controlled. Who would pay for that?

I support the use of the technology by emergency services.

There's already strict UK laws relating to use of private and commercial operation of drones via link here: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/drones-are-you-flying-yours-safely-a…

I agree with all the people below about noise, safety, privacy, licensing, but happy for emergency services to use them. Let's face it – delivery drones probably wouldn't last that long, because London scrotes would have a field day shooting them out of the sky for the contents, the drone itself, or just for sh1ts and giggles. 
Flying taxis, as long as they're clean and quiet, could be interesting. They are trialling them in Dallas and Dubai.

I think there should be a licensing system and that they should be identifiable by a 'call sign' or some other digital identity. There will need to be some system of 'air traffic control' to make them safe from collision and avoid sensitive areas.  Already there have been instances of unidentifiable craft disrupting airports. The only way to interdict them seem to be by electronically disrupting their control systems of destroying the with lasers. This issue needs to be addressed urgently before it becomes out of control.

I also agree that I am happy for drones to be used in controlled circumstances such as emergency services. I do not agree that delivery drones would be very effective. To get one powerful to take any weight and combat the UK weather it would need quite powerful. In a car it is difficult enough trying to keep track of looking left/right, checking all the signage and anticipating other drivers without having to look up or have a pair of frilly knickers land on your windscreen. 

Drones, except in emergency circumstances, are just as mad as electric cars. Apparently there will be 1,500 car points in London by 2020. There are 2,560,000 cars registered in London. Durely the way foreward is hydrogen cars. Why is London transport wasting our money on drones and electric cars?          

I agree with all the people below about noise, safety, privacy, licensing, but happy for emergency services to use them. Let's face it – delivery drones probably wouldn't last that long, because London scrotes would have a field day shooting them out of the sky for the contents, the drone itself, or just for sh1ts and giggles. 
Flying taxis, as long as they're clean and quiet, could be interesting. They are trialling them in Dallas and Dubai.

I would call anyone who I thought was relevant probably the council or police about the noise, privacy issues and crime.

I also agree that drones need to be licensed and insured. Tight guidelines and regulations for operators should be maintained regarding drones.  This is because they do interfere with privacy hence I think only emergency services should be using them.  If they were used by just ‘anyone’ then I feel that they would be invading my privacy and would probably be used more by criminals for example in burglaries to see when people were not at home. 

Furthermore, only emergency services should use them otherwise the air space will be congested and noisy just like the roads probably leading to greater pollution ie carbon emissions as well.

I also think drones are dangerous and would not a vast quantity in the air above me as I wouldn’t want them falling on my or anyone elses head. So there has to some means of compensation if someone was injured.

I am also dubious, as one member pointed out, that drone technology can be hacked and deliveries subverted and goods stolen or the drones could be used for terrorism– how will this be regulated? I think this is a very worrying prospect.

Drones are a form of remote control model aircraft. Use of model aircraft is usually covered by council bye-laws that say where they can be used. Unless national legislation is introduced then it is left to local councils to apply limits appropriate to them. So I would contact the local council in the first instance.

A significant difference with drone technology over anything previous is the very frequent inclusion of high quality cameras in drones. This does raise a privacy concern. The vantage point of a drone is one that people have not felt they would be seen from. That points to a restriction on flying over inhabited dwellings, both for privacy and safety.

There is potential for drones to carry payloads other than cameras. Delivery of medicines to the housebound would be good. Dropping of incendiaries or acids would be very bad. The control of the payload is with the operator so that points to a need for operators of any device able to carry more than a few grams to he licensed.

If licensing were introduced, then a means to enforce it has to follow or it can be ignored.  We saw the difficulty in locating a drone operator during the disruption at Gatwick earlier.  Enforcement leads to a requirement for the radio control mechanism to follow rules that enable enforcement bodies to land a drone. That leads to a requirement to limit the sale and use of drones to those devices that are controllable by a supervising body.  This logic implies that laws and controls that are outside the scope of local authorities and councils to specify effectively and requires national legislation.

*I would call whomever I thought was relevant- from the council to the police.

I think as they increase it will be a learning experience and the government need to be alert for the need to react to that change

I agree entirely with the comments that drones need to be licensed and insured.

A "free for all" with this technology is asking for trouble.

I can see that they have a place for operating in the hands of the LFB and the police.