I actually think the U.S. Founding Fathers would have enumerated a "right to vehicular travel" if they had conceived of license-as-a-privilege restriction on horseless carriages.
We'll never know though, which makes personal conjecture meaningless. And while the "Founding Fathers" may have had some singular ideas at the time, they were merely people. We could speculate what the authors of the Magna Carta might feel about drones, or the Athenian democrats as well...
Either way, I couldn't care less about what people who died 200+ years ago would have thought about cars, except in an abstract "wouldn't it be cool to show George Washington a modern car and see how he reacts" sort of way.
In light of the second amendment, that seems unlikely.
I think it's funny that both of these replies center on refuting my idea that they might be frightened, but ignore the more important idea that what they would or would not think is not important.
The philosophy of the Founding Fathers is extensively documented. Not the least of which is their carrying out revolt and secession against a superpower for the purpose of securing personal liberty and minimizing control & harassment by government. In light of that, the notion of them fearing cars and using government to restrict ownership thereof by punishing lack of paperwork is absurd.
This is not a good time investment for children, given that not all of them will drive. Especially, considering that driverless cars are coming soon.
I do. It feels so liberating not to have to do those things in countries with corrupt + ineffective policing.
It's 10,000 people more (in a country of 90M people) not 250,000. And, like I said, it's not due to the lax traffic laws/enforcement, it's due to the average Vietnamese riding a motorcycle instead of a car while wearing a useless brain bucket -style helmet.
> One human life is too much.
We all die anyways, might as well enjoy ourselves instead of spending all our time and money on insurance and waiting for "stop signs" and "red lights".
So maybe not a public road -> airspace below a certain height?
Sometimes some dude drives around without plates or takes an off road vehicle on the road. The police ticket the operator and tow the vehicle in some cases.
The privilege granted by registration can be linked to other things. So when Mr. Dumbass decides to buy more beer instead of paying for insurance, and subsequently rear ends your car, you are screwed as a motorist. The requirement for registration and insurance tied to a drivers license makes the driving environment work for the vast majority of people.
The same thing applies to drones. When some jackass decides to peep into my daughter's window every day, why should that person be able to act with anonymously and with impunity?
That's actually illegal in Virginia: http://law.justia.com/codes/virginia/2006/toc1802000/18.2-42...
You can buy a great drone and get amazing shots over and over for less than it would cost to hire a helicopter once.
However, they also pose a risk. I'd favor a simple registration process and clear cut rules that are not infringing on the use of drones. I'd like to see the registration used mostly to enforce the rules and track a drone back to its owner.
Ideally, drones should also broadcast its ID, so it's easy for other pilots to know they're in the area and also allow LEO to ticket/fine for offences. Without a broadcasting ID, most of these rules will be hard to enforce.