rgburrill

He actually had a very valid question. And your response here shows your attitude toward the OP.
First, to answer your NEW question it is very easy to enforce a helmet law for a 10 year old kid. Happens all the time.
Second, that law was passed to protect kids who do NOT get a proper education on how to ride a bicycle - that includes the vast majority of kids. Saves a lot of them who get run over doing something stupid, like passing on the right and running thru stop sign, from getting their heads split open.
Third, texting while driving causes accidents. Checking someone's phone records who is involved in an accident can help move blame from someone who is innocent to someone who really did cause the accident.
But most importantily is the very idea that laws that are difficult to enforce CANNOT be useful in trying to change people's behavior. That attitude shows you complete lack of respect for laws, even those designed to provide for public safety. And that is disgusting.

DeferredDefect

We have texting-and-driving laws here in Ontario, and there's never been an issue. Obviously it's incredibly dangerous, and people were fined daily for violations, which has been an incredible deterrent from what I've seen personally. It's become about as taboo as drinking and driving, which is good news as far as I'm concerned.

If you go and kill yourself driving into a tree, fine; But there are countless people killed by distracted drivers as well.

If we killed every law that wasn't "100% enforceable", we'd have no laws....

oliveDrab

The article says: "Experts say the UAV, which proceeded to fly over the Southwest flight was likely one of the most popular and widely-purchased models available on the market."

So which UAV was this? "...one of the most popular and widely-purchased models available on the market"

Granpooba

My Feedback: (5)

The laws are enforceable, if you have the man power to enforce them. Also, if you have the manpower that is willing to enforce them.

Texting or talking on a phone while operating a motor vehicle is a proven hazard to both you and myself. If the police departments did enforce these laws, I am quite sure that they could collect enough in fines, to enlarge their departments and enforce both these laws and others.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

I'm guessing the DJI Phantom......

El Guapo

From CNN today: On Jan. 5, Douglas Trudeau became the first Realtor to obtain an FAA exception to fly a drone to shoot video of houses for sale, but he was required to follow 33 detailed restrictions laid out in a 26-page letter. To legally fly his UAV, Trudeau must have a regular pilot's license, pass an aviation medical check, be assisted by a spotter, request permission two days in advance and limit flights to less than 35 mph and below 300 feet. The new proposed rule does not change the long-standing regulations that allow people flying drones and model airplanes for recreational purposes. A final decision on the new proposed rule could take years, however Huerta said the FAA remains committed to moving as expeditiously as possible. Additional FAA research is underway that could create different rules for drones smaller than 4.4 pounds, and allow for drone operation beyond the line of sight. "We're not done yet, and we are going to ensure that we are moving as quickly as possible, and as safely as possible," Foxx said.

As with everything else, I expect a fairly short leap from making rules for commercial use to regulating everyone who uses this equipment........once the snowball gets rolling it'll move to all forms of RC. Just my prediction. I hope I'm wrong, but the cementheads exist in this hobby just as they do in every other. I've lost motocross tracks, fishing lakes, and shooting ranges in my 60 years on this earth, as well as a stock car track and drag strip or two and I hope that my RC field isn't next. All these things were regulated out of existence "for the good of the people", whether it's a safety issue or because of noise, or they got surrounded by people building houses. Just my two cents.

flycatch

My Feedback: (26)

I'm back and my post was only to reinforce the idiots we elect into office.

flycatch

My Feedback: (26)

http://www.aol.com/article/2015/02/1...ones/21142913/

Len Todd

POTUS and the FFA were busy today. A new NPRM is on the books. Model Aircraft is generally excluded from this NPRM. At first glance, the requirements for commercial UAV operation look reasonable. I attached the file below:

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

Odd, the only one who looked like an idiot was the one talking in the video. It reminded me of the video "news" pieces from The Onion.

As for the people in office...has there ever been "non-idiots" since the dawn of elections. Complaining about politicians and blaming them for the ills of society, and everything else, is so easy to do, so lame.

Let me guess, kick them all out and elect new people right? Revolution......

BrightGarden

Yes, the article I read says they removed the Private Pilot certificate and flight physical requirements. I was impressed the POTUS got involved on behalf of the commercial value of UAV flight. I think he was exercising influence over the FAA, as Congress (who funds the FAA) has.

scale only 4 me

My Feedback: (158)

exactly

I-fly-any-and-all

My Feedback: (1)

...

scale only 4 me

My Feedback: (158)

We can go round and round, but you clearly miss the jist of my comments,,