Drones

Remembering what happened at Heathrow earlier this year when was it 200,000 people were inconvenienced by a drone flying over the airport- they should definitely be licensed. As soon as you purchase the drone you should have  register as the owner on a data base and if you sell it the new owner should again re register. They present a danger in many different ways.

No drones please except vital emergency services. Sooner or later there will be accidents  even more likely if casually flown  by individuals for fun. What benefit to society is assisting corporate deliveries by firms who perhaps are not paying tax dues.

I agree with Mike's points and would add the following:

(a) All drones should be registered with a unique number and used only under licence.

(b) Ownership of drones should be restricted to limited companies, government organisations, etc.

(c) The terms of licence should restrict the use of drones to specific applications (e.g. delivery of medications).  Initially, during a 3- to 5-year trial period, the number of applications should be strictly limited. Following a thorough review 

d) The licence authority should be informed electronically (a) in advance of each drone journey and (b) following the retunr of the drone to its base.

(e) Adequate insurance must be held by all drone owners.

(f) A nominated company director or senior officer should be personally responsible for all aspects of drone management and should be approved only after thorough background checks.

No drones please for anything except the emergency services.

remember the Gatwick chaos? In the third paragraph of your letter the problems are stated.

I have seen a couple when driving and they are very distracting. I think their use should be heavily regulated in London - ok for police, fire, medics. Councils could use them for agreed purposes. Private firms could use them for purposes such as delivery and filming, only under strict conditions that are agreed following public consultation. 

I don’t want random people spying on me, or invading my family’s privacy and peace and quiet for their own gain or enjoyment. 

We all have concerns - privacy, safety, etc. With all fledgling technologies, there will be an extended period where innovation needs to be encouraged and permitted. With the accompanying improvements, we will deal with the safety and privacy aspects along the way. Let us not stifle them before they even get an airing. I would therefore urge caution with the introduction of any proposed new legislation, because once it is there it is very much harder to roll back than it was to introduce.

A good example of how we could mess this up would be the little electric personal transport scooters- they would probably be less hassle than bicycles if allowed a five or ten year adjustment period. In that time, of course there will be issues, but ultimately they could encourage and otherwise non-cycling sector to use the incredibly costly lanes, cut-throughs and sidepaths created for them. Instead our archaic road traffic act denies them and our pathetic legislators will not be quick in doing anything about it. 

For the people who just spluttered on their protein shakes, I would remind them that two-stroke scooters and mopeds limited to 30km/h have been allowed on continental cyclepaths since their introduction more almost a century ago . . . and 'pedal-assist' does not help anyone who is not already happy on a bicycle. 

Let tech start-ups innovate and show us what drones could do for London. I am happy to live with the slightly elevated risk of a crash or a snooper in the meantime.

I agree with Mike, except I'm at least as much concerned about the use of drones for surveillance by the police and security services - or, indeed, for their use as attack weaponry by the same forces.

Considering the degree of damage that they can cause, apart from very small and light children's toys, those that are heavy enough to hurt or even kill should be controlled to the same level as manned aircraft, if not stricter levels.

The fact that the authorities don't seem to be aware of the risk yet, doesn't make it OK.

So what are the dangers?  A heavy drone could kill by accident if, for example, it's motor or motors were to fail unexpectedly.  The potential for damage would be greater if on full power it accidentally hit someone, e.g. by flying through a high rise flat open window.

Now let us consider terrorism.  Imagine 50 pre-programmed drones loaded with red paint sent to crash into a major public open air event.  I suggest 50 as an unexpected attack by 50 drones would be very hard to stop.

Even worse, drones could easily carry explosives or radioactive substances.

I'm not sure how the danger can be controlled, but we're in deep trouble if it isn't.