There is no answer to that problem. People that won't act responsibly won't follow reasonable guidelines for safety. Such guidelines are only meaningful for responsible people, and that to me means most modelers, whether AMA members or not. The issue I was responding to had to do with the responsibility of the guidelines themselves, and I think AMA put too little thought into what sort of models are appropriate to fly in parks, where the turf has to be shared with other park users. I see what is marketed as park flyers by the likes of Mountain Models, and they fit into my concept of what fits. I have their 'Tantrum' covered and ready for fitting of R/C and Hacker B20 motor/gearbox - weight of airframe and all components including battery will total 10.5-11 oz. They and other mfgrs seem to well understand what a PF is, and AMA would do well to learn from them - that is, if AMA should be in the PF arena at all, and I do have some serious reservations about that.
PFs tend to be independents, and AMA has an utterly club-centric view of model aviation, and demonstrated collective mindset that organized, exclusionary clubs are the only way to fly (and for AMA to stay in business). That, along with the view of most public entities that the public parks they administer should remain open to the public and not privatized by clubs, etc. are the primary reasons AMA's push to get into the PF market will fail.

Abel