Aardvark Daily

Please visit the sponsor!

Let's ban vans!

Once again I read the sad news that a bunch of "terrorists" with scant regard for human life, have driven a van into a crowd of people, this time at a bus stop in France.

It seems that motor-vehicles are now "the weapon de jour" amongst the terror-set and despite (or perhaps because of) their bulk and weight, they seem quite effective as a method of mass-murder and injury.

Should we ban vans?

I think not, and I'm sure that you'd be hard pressed to find anyone, anywhere in the world who would support such a move. After all, vans are an important tool for the transport of people and goods. There are literally millions of vans in service around the world and it is only a very, very small percentage which are used for these evil deeds by terror groups.

Should we fit all vans with some kind of technology which would allow a law-enforcement officer (LEO) to disable its motor and lock its brakes with the push of a button?

Let's face it, if this technology had been "standard equipment" of late then many lives could have been saved from these ghastly terror attacks against groups of innocent men, women and children.

But no... it would be silly to insist that vans be fitted with "kill switches" linked to devices handed out to LEOs because, as we just acknowledged, the vast, vast majority of vans are used safely and lawfully for legitimate purposes.

Okay, let's shift to my favourite dead horse... recreational drones.

As a pretext to what I'm about to say it should be remembered that a recreational multirotor drone has never killed anyone and has never been used in an act of terror anywhere in the Western world.

Despite the fact that there are now probably more recreational drones than vans in the world, vans continue to extract a huge toll in the form of crashes and deliberate misuse as a terror weapon and recreational drones do not.

So why is it that so many ill-informed, misguided people seem to support either the banning of these uber-safe drones or the fitting of technology that would allow LEOs and others to knock them from the sky with the push of a button?

Is it just me who is confused as to why we refuse to take such steps to help mitigate a known, proven, quantifiable, proven risk (2-tonne vans) -- yet we're happy to demand it for 1Kg flying toys and recreational drones?

Over the past few days I've been doing some flying in the local parks and have met a lot of people who were clearly misinformed about drones but, when shown first-hand just how small, quiet and nonthreatening these devices are, went away with a whole new outlook on them. Without exception, everyone I spoke to was fascinated and relieved that drones were not the evil, dangerous, spying devices they'd read about in the media.

Show someone the view from the onboard camera and they are both wowed and disappointed.

They are wowed because suddenly they have a new perspective on the world around them. They are disappointed because they realise that the tiny cameras on these craft can't really provide the resolution and definition required to effectively "spy" on people from a distance.

Perhaps the coolest thing about my recent flights is that most people don't even know that my drone or myself are there.

I usually go stand under a tree and fly very slowly at low altitude -- preferring to get fluid, majestic shots from between the branches of the trees. I always stay well away from the public (which is easy to do in a Tokoroa park because there are so many of them and so few people) and fly "under the radar" so to speak. I usually meet and chat to people when I'm walking from spot to spot with the drone in my hand. Folk often stop me and start a conversation with "Hey, is that a drone?"

So, given that I've been doing all this flying and not one single person has complained or been negative. Given that (to the best of my knowledge) the local council has received absolutely no complaints from the public about drones being operated in a way that infringes their privacy, endangers their safety or disturbs their enjoyment of the park -- I have to wonder exactly why the new "Public Places" bylaw now expressly bans people from flying drones in any public place in Tokoroa.

I think we all know why they are planning an expressed ban on these craft, don't we?

But wait... it's even more ridiculous.

Section 6.1.1(i) of the proposed new bylaw states:

"Except with the authority of a permit, no person shall on any public place: Take off or land any glider or powered aircraft (including model airplanes/drones), hot air balloon, hang glider, parachute or similar except in the case of emergency or attendance at an emergency"

Note that in the previous bylaw (still currently in effect), there was no mention of drones.

And, as if to show that this isn't a bylaw based on objective, rational reasoning, the very next clause 6.1.1(j) states:

"Except with the authority of a permit, no person shall on any public place: Play any game or use any object including recreational devices, skateboards, roller blades, roller skates, bicycles or motorised scooters, recklessly or in a manner which may intimidate, be dangerous or cause a nuisance to persons in the public place or damage the public place".

So hang on... we can't fly a tiny 250g plastic drone (which experience has shown produces no complaints, no irritation and no nuisance) but we *CAN* ride one of those little 49cc pocket bikes in the parks so long as we don't annoy anyone?

Excuse me... but why couldn't the same conditions (ie: no reckless, intimidatory, dangerous or nuisance-causing use) simply be applied to drone operation -- why ban it completely?

I think we all know what's going on here -- it is clear as day.

The SWDC and some staff are using their personal agenda against me to penalise an entire town and its children.

Personally, I think this is incredibly newsworthy and I'm sure the media will agree.

This clearly is the next step in my "battle" with the local council -- a battle that defies logic on so many levels.

I won't let you into what strategies I have underway to highlight this outrageous situation but suffice to say that the SWDC are doing exactly what I expected them to do and I have a counter-move all ready to go.

The question has to be however, why the hell are the SWDC working so hard to stop me doing the things I do to promote this town and bring hundreds of visitors from around the world to its door? Hell, the drone footage I've taken of the parks in the past couple of months have now been seen over 20,000 times by people from around the world. Nothing else the SWDC does in terms of promotion has anything like this reach or positive outcome.

It really is unbelievable that just a tiny handful of people with in council staff and governance could be so bitter and twisted that they'll completely ignore the promises they've made to those who elected or employed them and set aside the best interests of an entire town -- solely to pursue what has clearly become a very personal agenda against me.

Tragic... but a great story that I'm sure the media will lap up.

Sigh!

Please visit the sponsor!

Have your say in the Aardvark Forums.

PERMALINK to this column

Rank This Aardvark Page

Change Font