Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Nearly Sane on December 20, 2018, 09:58:42 AM
-
We really aren't very good at dealing with the implications of technology.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-england-sussex-46564814
-
Nope. We just let it happen and only when the issue becomes a problem or too big do we start to wonder what to do about it.
Too much money to be made selling the things too worry about safety.
Partner reckons something will only really be done when an aircraft has been brought down. I fear he is correct in his assessment.
-
Legislation change is glacial in comparison to technological change. It's also quite difficult to think out all the implications of technology.
-
There's an association for drone-flying enthusiasts. It's called the Drones Club.
-
There's an association for drone-flying enthusiasts. It's called the Drones Club.
:) I doubt Jeeves would approve of drones.
-
Shoot em down, I say.
-
Shoot em down, I say.
With what?
-
With what?
Shooty thingies?
-
With what?
Get a shooter. I know a geezer...
-
Or you could always throw stones at them. LOL!
-
The general public should not be permitted to own drones for recreational purposes, as they can cause serious accidents. Their use should be very strictly controlled.
-
Do we know who is responsible for this ? It wouldn't surprise me to find it is Extinction Rebellion or some similar group making a point about aviation through disruption.
-
Haven't seen anything so far that's anything other than speculation but would agree that Extinction Rebellion might be a possible candidate.
-
The man across the road bòught a drone so his neighbour bought an even bigger one. So the first neighbour trade his old one for one twice as large...............They were just trying to keep up with the Drones's.
-
Haven't seen anything so far that's anything other than speculation but would agree that Extinction Rebellion might be a possible candidate.
The good news is they can hand out a Five stretch for this.
-
Do we know who is responsible for this ? It wouldn't surprise me to find it is Extinction Rebellion or some similar group making a point about aviation through disruption.
XR have already denied that they are involved. It is not in their style of protest.
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-england-sussex-46564814
The army has now been called in to try to find the people behind this nightmare.
-
The general public should not be permitted to own drones for recreational purposes, as they can cause serious accidents. Their use should be very strictly controlled.
Quite right. The same should also apply to motor vehicles.
-
Item on the BBC Radio 4 PM programme suggesting that there are readily implementable technical fixes already available which are being used in other countries.
It is simply that HMG have not got round to passing appropriate legislation yet. Possibly due to interDepartmental squabbling,
-
Quite right. The same should also apply to motor vehicles.
::)
-
The general public should not be permitted to own drones for recreational purposes, as they can cause serious accidents. Their use should be very strictly controlled.
Cars can and do cause serious accidents. Do you want the general public banned from owning them as well?
-
Cars can and do cause serious accidents. Do you want the general public banned from owning them as well?
A car crash may kill half-a-dozen - bring an aircraft down and kill a couple of hundred
-
A car crash may kill half-a-dozen - bring an aircraft down and kill a couple of hundred
Well over 1,500 people are killed on Britain's roads each year. As far as I can tell from a quick google, precisely one person has been killed by a drone in the UK, ever. Even if a drone were to bring down an aircraft, the deaths from drones would be way below those from road vehicles - and how likely is it that a drone could bring down an aircraft? at the worst, it might knock out one engine, but an aeroplane can fly with one engine down. There should perhaps be restrictions on drone-flying near airports, but really - some people on this forum need a sense of proportion, and a good dose of hard statistics.
-
And in any case, how likely is it that a drone would bring down an aircraft? Bird strikes are rare, and there are a lot more birds in the air than drones.
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-42238115
If there is even the slightest chance of a plane being hit by a drone, they should not be used as play things by the general public.
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-42238115
If there is even the slightest chance of a plane being hit by a drone, they should not be used as play things by the general public.
Logic and a measured response were never your fortes, were they? I repeat: how about banning cars?
-
Legislation change is glacial in comparison to technological change. It's also quite difficult to think out all the implications of technology.
Except, of course, in this instance. It's already illegal to fly a drone within 1km of Gatwick airport. It's just a case of catching these people and then, as pointed out above, it's up to five years at her majesty's pleasure and I can't imagine they won't get the maximum.
An alternative might be to shut them in Gatwick South terminal along with all the people still waiting for their flights but I'm against lynching.
-
Logic and a measured response were never your fortes, were they? I repeat: how about banning cars?
It is you who isn't using logic, cars are necessary for getting from A to B, drones are toys in the hands of the general public.
-
It is you who isn't using logic, cars are necessary for getting from A to B, drones are toys in the hands of the general public.
I manage perfectly well without a car.
-
I manage perfectly well without a car.
Fine. But a car isn't a toy, a drone is in the hands of the general public. Having said that all road users, whatever means of transport they employ, should adhere to the rules of the road. Some cyclists around here behave like idiots, riding several abreast, not allowing traffic to pass them, often they ride on the pavements and ignore the traffic lights. >:( It should be the law that all cyclists wear high viz clothes, and helmets, and use lights when the visibility is poor.
-
And in any case, how likely is it that a drone would bring down an aircraft? Bird strikes are rare, and there are a lot more birds in the air than drones.
If a large bird hits your plane, it can still be pretty serious. Also, birds are much more squishy than drones. Every drone has a heavyish lithium battery inside it that could probably do some damage if it hits a plane at a relative speed of a hundred miles per hour.
I'm not saying that the law should be changed (I think it's about right now), just that we shouldn't dismiss the danger just because birds don't often cause plane crashes.
-
Fine. But a car isn't a toy, a drone is in the hands of the general public. Having said that all road users, whatever means of transport they employ, should adhere to the rules of the road. Some cyclists around here behave like idiots, riding several abreast, not allowing traffic to pass them, often they ride on the pavements and ignore the traffic lights. >:( It should be the law that all cyclists wear high viz clothes, and helmets, and use lights when the visibility is poor.
You're a roper little fascist, aren't you? You'll never get me wearing a helmet!
-
https://uokhun.uk/2018/12/20/these-aerial-images-of-gatwick-airport-are-breathtaking/?fbclid=IwAR33e2QuSZbC--niOvV06g22iS8vhsP1E4WmhryF42TFnluxs51vsM7Ge6Y
-
Fine. But a car isn't a toy, a drone is in the hands of the general public. Having said that all road users, whatever means of transport they employ, should adhere to the rules of the road. Some cyclists around here behave like idiots, riding several abreast, not allowing traffic to pass them, often they ride on the pavements and ignore the traffic lights. >:( It should be the law that all cyclists wear high viz clothes, and helmets, and use lights when the visibility is poor.
Do you want me to give you a list of all the recreational activities that are a bit dangerous in some sense that we would have to ban if we followed your logic?
Even your car argument is faulty. What if A is my house and B is my local cinema? I'd be taking a dangerous machine out on to the road just so I could pursue a recreational activity. That should be banned right? Or just maybe we could take a measured response instead of a blanket ban.
-
Fine. But a car isn't a toy, a drone is in the hands of the general public. Having said that all road users, whatever means of transport they employ, should adhere to the rules of the road. Some cyclists around here behave like idiots, riding several abreast, not allowing traffic to pass them, often they ride on the pavements and ignore the traffic lights. >:( It should be the law that all cyclists wear high viz clothes, and helmets, and use lights when the visibility is poor.
What have badly behaved cyclists got to do with drones?
-
On a more serious side, perhaps there's a movie in this.... Attack of the Drones? :)
-
You're a roper little fascist, aren't you? You'll never get me wearing a helmet!
IDIOT!
-
On a more serious side, perhaps there's a movie in this.... Attack of the Drones? :)
Or a TV series: The Drone Wars.
Actually, if we have LR's ban on drones, does that mean that it will no longer be legal to possess a set of bagpipes? Every cloud has a silver lining.
-
Or a TV series: The Drone Wars.
Actually, if we have LR's ban on drones does that mean that it will no longer be legal to possess a set of bagpipes? Ever cloud has a silver lining.
Bagpipes might be a danger to the ears, but I haven't heard of them putting planes in danger. ::)
-
Bagpipes might be a danger to the ears, but I haven't heard of them putting planes in danger. ::)
If somebody started playing them on a plane, there might be serious violence. It's better to ban them outright.
-
If somebody started playing them on a plane, there might be serious violence. It's better to ban them outright.
WOW! I never thought of that, you might be right. ;D You and I are going to end up strapped to the Scot's execution chair any minute now. ;D ;D ;D
-
Whatthis? Bagpipeism?
I mean I've heard, but would never believed it until i witnessed it with my own eyes!!!
I'm sending your details to Highland Airways, enjoy your next walk to Shetland Jeremy.
If i have to go hurtling to the ground in a plane I can think of no better sound to hear on my way to the pearly gates that i don't believe in! :)
-
WOW! I never thought of that, you might be right. ;D You and I are going to end up strapped to the Scot's execution chair any minute now. ;D ;D ;D
I think it's a fair enough observation. There are many admirable things to have come out of Scotland.
Bagpipes are not amongst those things. :P
-
And in any case, how likely is it that a drone would bring down an aircraft? Bird strikes are rare, and there are a lot more birds in the air than drones.
There speaks someone who does not live less than two thousand feet under the approach for Runway 28R at LHR!
-
IDIOT!
Your attitude seems to be "if in doubt, ban it". That is a fascistic attitude. If your shouty response refers to my non-wearing of a helmet, I should point out that the only proper survey into cycle helmets actually in use (as opposed to laboratory tests), conducted by Mayer Hillman, concluded that they at best have no effect, and put adolescent and young adult males at greater risk of death or serious injury, due to risk homeostasis, the phenomenon whereby people who think they are protected by some specific measure go faster and take more risks. Denmark and the Netherlands have hugely greater cycle use proportional to the population than the UK, and no-one in either country wears helmets. (Well, obviously not literally no-one, but helmet use is rare.)
Try doing a bit of research before using your adolescent capitals and exclamation marks.
-
There speaks someone who does not live less than two thousand feet under the approach for Runway 28R at LHR!
Have you had various bits fall on you, your house or in your garden Owl? Ooohhh...
jeremy addressed this quite fairly I think. Quote below.
If a large bird hits your plane, it can still be pretty serious. Also, birds are much more squishy than drones. Every drone has a heavyish lithium battery inside it that could probably do some damage if it hits a plane at a relative speed of a hundred miles per hour.
I'm not saying that the law should be changed (I think it's about right now), just that we shouldn't dismiss the danger just because birds don't often cause plane crashes.
Your attitude seems to be "if in doubt, ban it". That is a fascistic attitude. If your shouty response refers to my non-wearing of a helmet, I should point out that the only proper survey into cycle helmets actually in use (as opposed to laboratory tests), conducted by Mayer Hillman, concluded that they at best have no effect, and put adolescent and young adult males at greater risk of death or serious injury, due to risk homeostasis, the phenomenon whereby people who think they are protected by some specific measure go faster and take more risks. Denmark and the Netherlands have hugely greater cycle use proportional to the population than the UK, and no-one in either country wears helmets. (Well, obviously not literally no-one, but helmet use is rare.)
Try doing a bit of research before using your adolescent capitals and exclamation marks.
I didn't know that, in fact I thought it was the law for every cyclist to wear a helmet, I've not seen any without (or not noticed). Maybe it is only law for children. I never dreamed you didn't wear a helmet.
What you say is interesting and makes some sense but from what you say, applies to males. So I'm safe peddling in my helmet - I don't go far or fast and avoid traffic like the plague.
-
There speaks someone who does not live less than two thousand feet under the approach for Runway 28R at LHR!
The airport catering for the Airbus planes is not far from here. The huge Beluga flies over our home several times a day taking aircraft wings to France. If one of those planes was downed by an imbecile with a drone, the devastation to people and homes on the ground would be terrible. :o
-
Robbie - by all means wear a helmet if you want to, but don't imagine that it makes you significantly safer. As far as I am aware, helmet-wearing in the UK is optional for everyone.
Risk homeostasis is strongest in adolescent and young adult men, apparently. It's probably the testosterone, which is why they are all such idiots. (Yes, so was I when I was that age.)
-
Bit of a sore subject for me but I feel like sharing this might give you my changed opinion.
I'd never wore a helmet in my life (fell off bikes loads of times) I was out with my son who misheard me and went across the lights and was hit by a bus on his bike (no helmet, I know I've learned the hard way), strangely the driver hit the breaks and he was almost gently tapped by it went over and banged the back of his head, blood coming out of his ears he did some serious damage to the base of his skull.
Not only was i in shock i had to call his (my ex at the time) mother from the ambulance and tell her he didn't have a helmet on. He was in hospital for about 3 weeks, he was about 7 at the time and it was probably the worst thing that's happened to me in my life, and I've led an strange old life. Thankfully he recovered with no long term problems mainly due to the amount of people in the RSPB center next door who had medical experience, luck was with me that day.
He's 20 now and fond of skateboarding, I think we both learned a tough lesson that day, helmet for both of us!
I know its one of these things that happened to someone else, but i'm sure before it happened it would never happen to me :(
-
On a lighter note... we are no danger to your great white birds in the sky!
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5156475/Fairies-them.html
-
Some could claim wearing a seat belt in a car could encourage people to take risks. ::) I think it is crazy not to wear a cycle helmet, and they should be compulsory for children if not adults.
BTW Steve do you think motor cyclists should wear helmets, which has been compulsory for quite a while?
Getting back to the topic of this thread, the police have identified, 'some people of interest'.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-46649704
-
King Oberon (Your Maj, Sir), When I read about your boy's accident I could picture it quite clearly, can understand how it is the worst thing ever to happen in your life. So glad he recovered but it's not something you ever forget. Bless you.
-
You'd think the OB or army would have some sort of gadget that could detect where the signals are coming from. Sneak up on them and cosh them on the back of the head.
-
You'd think the OB or army would habe some sort of gadget that could detect where the signals are coming from. Sneak up on them and cosh them on the back of the head.
Maybe a sly knee in the gonads as they go down?
-
Maybe a sly knee in the gonads as they go down?
Why not?
-
Another drone at Gatwick.
-
Another drone at Gatwick.
Really? Where are you flying to?
Sorry, couldn't resist that, I was feeling a bit funny.
-
Some could claim wearing a seat belt in a car could encourage people to take risks. ::) I think it is crazy not to wear a cycle helmet, and they should be compulsory for children if not adults.
BTW Steve do you think motor cyclists should wear helmets, which has been compulsory for quite a while?
Getting back to the topic of this thread, the police have identified, 'some people of interest'.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-46649704
Risk homeostasis applies to any visible and obvious safety measiure, including car seat-belts and motor-cycle helmets, but with most there is presumably a net gain in safety, even after r.h. is allowed for. That is not the case with bike helmets, and in any case, ordinary cycling on roads, SUSTRANs routes and canal towpaths is not particularly dangerous. In 60-odd years of cycing, with a relatively high annual mileage for the last 20 years, I have never suffered even a slight head injury while cycling on roads. (I went over the handlebars and split my forehead open when I was 11 or 12, but that was doing what would nowadays be called downhill mountain biking, where helmets probably are a good idea.) In fact, I've suffered more head injuries as a pedestrian and in the home than I have cycling: should pedestrians and people in the home all wear helmets?
-
Have you had various bits fall on you, your house or in your garden Owl? Ooohhh...
jeremy addressed this quite fairly I think. Quote below.
Fortunately, so far, we have only had chunks of ice falling fronm wings, thugh the piece that landed in next doors garden weighed 67 pounds!
As to birds and their negative effect on the internal workings of an aero engine, you only hve to look at the Airbus that landed in the river in the US - it was clearly stated in the report on the accident that it was only because of the skill of a long-serving and experienced pilot that ensured that there was no loss of life - if there had been a less experienced pilot it was reasonable assume that all on board would have died!
-
Bit of a sore subject for me but I feel like sharing this might give you my changed opinion.
I'd never wore a helmet in my life (fell off bikes loads of times) I was out with my son who misheard me and went across the lights and was hit by a bus on his bike (no helmet, I know I've learned the hard way), strangely the driver hit the breaks and he was almost gently tapped by it went over and banged the back of his head, blood coming out of his ears he did some serious damage to the base of his skull.
Not only was i in shock i had to call his (my ex at the time) mother from the ambulance and tell her he didn't have a helmet on. He was in hospital for about 3 weeks, he was about 7 at the time and it was probably the worst thing that's happened to me in my life, and I've led an strange old life. Thankfully he recovered with no long term problems mainly due to the amount of people in the RSPB center next door who had medical experience, luck was with me that day.
He's 20 now and fond of skateboarding, I think we both learned a tough lesson that day, helmet for both of us!
I know its one of these things that happened to someone else, but i'm sure before it happened it would never happen to me :(
I'm glad your son was ok in the end, and if you and he want to wear helmets, by all means do so, but anecdotal evidence is no evidence at all, and it remains the fact that bike helmets make no significant difference, and anyway, ordinary, on-road cycling isn't particulalry dangerous.
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-46657505
They have arrested a man and a woman in connection with the drones. If guilty, I hope they are locked up for the full term for this despicable offence.
-
The drone suspects have been released without charge.
-
OB are useless.
-
And the latest
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-46665615
includes this little gem:
[Det Ch Supt Jason Tingley] said there was no available footage of the drones and police were relying on witness accounts.
He added there was "always a possibility that there may not have been any genuine drone activity in the first place", but they were working on a range of information from members of the public, police officers and staff working at Gatwick who had reported otherwise.
It's possible the drone was the figment of somebody's imagination. If that's the case, I'm speechless.
-
And the latest
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-46665615
includes this little gem:
It's possible the drone was the figment of somebody's imagination. If that's the case, I'm speechless.
After the miracle of the Sun, the miracle of the drone
-
Seen elsewhere
'Yesterday, up in the air, I saw a drone that wasn’t there. It wasn’t there again today I wish, I wish it would go away... '
-
What a screw up! I feel very sorry for those people who were wrongly accused. :o
-
What a screw up! I feel very sorry for those people who were wrongly accused. :o
Did I hear a hint - in some current affairs broadcast or other - that the police had received an anonymous tip off suggesting their involvement?
-
Did I hear a hint - in some current affairs broadcast or other - that the police had received an anonymous tip off suggesting their involvement?
I heard that too.
-
Yeah, he had drones as a hobby at one time so was scapegoated. OUtrageous. Thankfully he had an alibi, was at work confirmed by his boss. Can you imagine having all that press attention and police coming round when you've done nothing? I felt sorry for him and his wife.
-
Yeah, he had drones as a hobby at one time so was scapegoated. OUtrageous. Thankfully he had an alibi, was at work confirmed by his boss. Can you imagine having all that press attention and police coming round when you've done nothing? I felt sorry for him and his wife.
Given the headlines in the likes of the Daily Mail I wouldn't be surprised if they sued for libel.
-
Given the headlines in the likes of the Daily Mail I wouldn't be surprised if they sued for libel.
The Hate-mail was as weaselly as usual: the headline said "Are these the morons...?"; question, not statement, just in case. Bastards.
-
Typical! I hadn't seen that, just saw the man and his wife talking on the television news. They seemed very mild mannered and quite bemused by it all but everyone - boss, neighbours - spoke well of them. You know, 'nice, inoffensive couple. He used to like radio controlled helicopters and then had a couple of drones, can't imagine he'd do anything irresponsible'.
Well they certainly deserve an apology at the very least. I'd love the Mail to have to pay out but they struck me (not that I know them of course), as being the sort of people who will just put it behind them and perhaps even chuckle at the memory. Yet if they did sue the newspaper, it would send out a signal that the media must check facts first. Newspapers have lots of money though, paying out wouldn't hurt them.
-
And here we go again..
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46803713
-
And here we go again..
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46803713
Since the Gatwick drone remains a mystery imho that and this could be a hard Brexit drill.
-
Since the Gatwick drone remains a mystery imho that and this could be a hard Brexit drill.
Any evidence?
-
Any evidence?
It's an opinion based on number of times our two major airports have been shut down by drones prior to a situation where airports and planes may well be grounded in the very near future and the number of closures since this scenario has become a real possibility, coupled with the lack of both confirmation of drones and apprehension of their operators and that other tests concerning transport in the event of no Brexit have been carried out. A test to see the impact of lorries on shitty little Kent roads attracting little international attention compared with the closure of two intercontinental airports.
-
It's an opinion based on number of times our two major airports have been shut down by drones prior to a situation where airports and planes may well be grounded in the very near future and the number of closures since this scenario has become a real possibility, coupled with the lack of both confirmation of drones and apprehension of their operators and that other tests concerning transport in the event of no Brexit have been carried out. A test to see the impact of lorries on shitty little Kent roads attracting little international attention compared with the closure of two intercontinental airports.
so no then.
-
so no then.
I have provided my reasoning for what I have always claimed is an opinion. What's the problem?
-
I have provided my reasoning for what I have always claimed is an opinion. What's the problem?
No evidence
-
Since the Gatwick drone remains a mystery imho that and this could be a hard Brexit drill.
Why do you think this: presumably, in thinking this, you've ruled out other possibilities?
-
Why do you think this: presumably, in thinking this, you've ruled out other possibilities?
I think you have provided no evidence because you have provided no evidence. It has nothing to do with ruling out possibilities.
-
Why do you think this: presumably, in thinking this, you've ruled out other possibilities?
What a silly assumption to make I accept there are other possibilities but given the circumstances
Which I have laid out I think the suggestion I make likely.
When someone made a suggestion concerning the Gatwick episode Nearly Sane did not suggest their opinion was a statement of fact and you did not assume they were dismissing other possibilities.
Why are you both mind gaming now?
-
What a silly assumption to make I accept there are other possibilities but given the circumstances
Which I have laid out I think the suggestion I make likely.
When someone made a suggestion concerning the Gatwick episode Nearly Sane did not suggest their opinion was a statement of fact and you did not assume they were dismissing other possibilities.
Why are you both mind gaming now?
Drivel.
-
What a silly assumption to make I accept there are other possibilities but given the circumstances
Which I have laid out I think the suggestion I make likely.
When someone made a suggestion concerning the Gatwick episode Nearly Sane did not suggest their opinion was a statement of fact and you did not assume they were dismissing other possibilities.
Why are you both mind gaming now?
Don't be silly: this is just another example of you kite-flying rather than making a point worthy of exploring further.
-
It's an opinion based on number of times our two major airports have been shut down by drones prior to a situation where airports and planes may well be grounded in the very near future and the number of closures since this scenario has become a real possibility, coupled with the lack of both confirmation of drones and apprehension of their operators and that other tests concerning transport in the event of no Brexit have been carried out. A test to see the impact of lorries on shitty little Kent roads attracting little international attention compared with the closure of two intercontinental airports.
Conspiratorial balderdash. You haven't a shred of evidence.
-
Conspiratorial balderdash. You haven't a shred of evidence.
Not at all.
Government already had truck tests for no deal Brexit but they were non disruptive or at least only locally disruptive.
Anything more public and likely to sway public opinion would have to be done more discretely. The circumstances fit.
Has the Heathrow drone or its operator been found yet?
-
And here we go again..
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46803713
Hmmm, the object in the picture is most definitely a Boeing 747.
-
Hmmm, the object in the picture is most definitely a Boeing 747.
. . . and it belongs to British Airways which means that its major problem will probably be that it is late!
-
Not at all.
Government already had truck tests for no deal Brexit but they were non disruptive or at least only locally disruptive.
Anything more public and likely to sway public opinion would have to be done more discretely. The circumstances fit.
Has the Heathrow drone or its operator been found yet?
Evidence!
-
I don't get the link between forcing an airport to close down and preparing for Brexit.
-
I don't get the link between forcing an airport to close down and preparing for Brexit.
There isn't one - it's conspirtorial balderdash, but at least most conspiracy nuts offer some kind of supposed evidence for their nonsense.
-
I don't get the link between forcing an airport to close down and preparing for Brexit.
Brexiteers don't like foreigners coming into this country so they'll do anything to stop it.*
*completely made up.