Drones - is it only me (& my horses) that are worried?

I live in the Devon & Cornwall Police area: who're the first Force in the UK to instigate a "Drone Unit" (god help us). So like others, am worried about this.

Typically, the Powers That Be, have allowed Drones to be purchased willy nilly with no controls or restrictions, and I can foresee a huge problem in the future, not only for us horse riders, but thousands of the dang things filling the airspace and for e.g. causing car accidents, getting in the way of planes, etc etc.

All a mega-big cack-up in the offing I'm afraid.
 
Kid near our yard flies one but he's very good to land it when he sees us. So good in fact that I don't think the horses have been close enough to really see it. I've felt my lad get a bit on edge when he hears the engine but then it lands and he relaxes again. Half tempted to get the kid to do a fly over one day to see what he makes of it...
 
You do not own the air above your land so therefore if the drone flyer is not breaking the law ie flying too close to built up areas or roads or airports then by shooting it down you could probably be prosecuted. Some of these drones cost several thousand pounds so if you are willing to pay someone for shooting their drone down then do carry on shooting them down. If you shot my son's drone down, I would be coming after you for compensation and seeing as they have a camera on board and all activity ie height, speed, distances is recorded back on my phone then I would have all the proof I need to prosecute.
 
There are laws about the flying of drones. Technically you should have a licence, you shouldn't fly within 50m of private property and you shouldn't fly the drone more than 400m away from you (laterally). There's a height limit (as in a height you shouldn't go above not one you shouldn't go below, although the 50m would always apply) as well but I can't remember what it is.
 
mcnaughty said:
You do not own the air above your land so therefore if the drone flyer is not breaking the law ie flying too close to built up areas or roads or airports then by shooting it down you could probably be prosecuted. Some of these drones cost several thousand pounds so if you are willing to pay someone for shooting their drone down then do carry on shooting them down. If you shot my son's drone down, I would be coming after you for compensation and seeing as they have a camera on board and all activity ie height, speed, distances is recorded back on my phone then I would have all the proof I need to prosecute.
Click to expand...

In the unlikely event that your son was to fly his drone with its' camera over my land without permission, it would be shot down post haste. In the equally unlikely event that your son was to take photographs of my property from his car, or on foot, without my permission, the police would be called. There is no difference.
 
mcnaughty said:
You do not own the air above your land so therefore if the drone flyer is not breaking the law ie flying too close to built up areas or roads or airports then by shooting it down you could probably be prosecuted. Some of these drones cost several thousand pounds so if you are willing to pay someone for shooting their drone down then do carry on shooting them down. If you shot my son's drone down, I would be coming after you for compensation and seeing as they have a camera on board and all activity ie height, speed, distances is recorded back on my phone then I would have all the proof I need to prosecute.
Click to expand...

What business would you have photographing someone else's land and property....and their cars, tractors, mowers, the layout of their doors, windows, security? Do you seriously expect people to put up with this?
 
as for the purposes of this 'congested' refers to ''any area of a city, town or settlement which is substantially used for residential, industrial, commercial or recreational purposes'.'

I would consider horses substantially recreational and as such would apply so long as not in the middle of nowhere (our set up is in a village).


Given the rest of the regs regarding distance from buildings I think WelshD was perfectly entitled to bash the one in her stables with a broom :p
 
As I said there are rules and regulations to follow. You do not require a licence. No one is spying on anyone, it a recreational activity as much as horse riding. You are not allowed to fly near airports or built up areas and you are not allowed to fly below 50 m and above 120m. You are also not allowed to fly drones out of eye sight and within 150m of a built up area ie town. So, if my son is keeping within those rules and you shoot it down then yes I would be within the law taking you to court for wanton vandalism or destruction of property.
 
How do you know no one is spying on anyone or checking out if there is a handy quad around worth breaking in for exactly? Do you personally know everyone using a drone?
 
Cortez said:
In the equally unlikely event that your son was to take photographs of my property from his car, or on foot, without my permission, the police would be called. There is no difference.
Click to expand...
Taking photographs of private property from a public place is perfectly legal. I don't know if that extends to public footpaths running through private property - I would expect so.
 
cobgoblin said:
What business would you have photographing someone else's land and property....and their cars, tractors, mowers, the layout of their doors, windows, security? Do you seriously expect people to put up with this?
Click to expand...
In the past - 15+ years ago now - I have taken photographs of other people's horses, because they were photogenic. Entirely harmless. Nowadays I probably wouldn't do so, because people have become so touchy about such things and it would therefore be impolite to do so. I'd want to get permission first.
 
Fragglerock said:
I can see why drones would be used for various commercial reasons, however what would a private individual want with one?
Click to expand...
First and foremost, it is fun for those who fly them. There are technical aspects of the endeavour that certain kinds of people revel in. The shots can be stunning and show features that wouldn't otherwise be visible at ground level. The motives needn't be nefarious.
 
Tiddlypom said:
'No one is spying on anyone' :D :D :D!! How daft do think we are? Why is it equipped with a camera then? Just the job for casing a joint, or a bit of voyeurism.
Click to expand...

Exactly, and if flying no more than 4 or 5 feet over my stable roof, on private land, with no access to public within 300 yards on a track (and completely obscured from said public track), then I'll make sure my nesting birds are not harrassed, nor the livestock in stables to be alarmed. Always best to remove unauthorised illegal trespassing isn't it? :)
 
Tiddlypom said:
'No one is spying on anyone' :D :D :D!! How daft do think we are? Why is it equipped with a camera then? Just the job for casing a joint, or a bit of voyeurism.
Click to expand...
"If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear."

Actually, I think this argument is utterly fatuous in all contexts - privacy is privacy, whether it be in the digital realm or the real world. Using a drone to look at people in locations where privacy would reasonably be expected (e.g. in one's house) is clearly wrong and, not surprisingly, illegal. Using a drone to have a closer look at your chimney pots from a public place is rather different. There's an argument against it if it causes annoyance or distress; otherwise, it's pretty harmless.
 
fburton said:
"

There's an argument against it if it causes annoyance or distress; otherwise, it's pretty harmless.
Click to expand...

The noise is extremely annoying if they keep buzzing around as one did for nearly a day when we were on holiday last year. I had assumed that it was something to do with the port where we were staying but having looked as the regulations I think it must have been operating illegally. It was certainly within 50m of a lot of 'vessels' and people.

I would feel it was an invasion of my privacy if one was flown over my garden or yard.
 
The Fuzzy Furry said:
Exactly, and if flying no more than 4 or 5 feet over my stable roof, on private land, with no access to public within 300 yards on a track (and completely obscured from said public track), then I'll make sure my nesting birds are not harrassed, nor the livestock in stables to be alarmed. Always best to remove unauthorised illegal trespassing isn't it? :)
Click to expand...

Well then that is not following the regulations then is it! If you actually read my posts you will clearly see the regulations for flying. IMO if you do not follow the regulations then you only have yourself to blame if your drone gets shot but if you shoot it when the regulations are being followed then you are breaking the law and deserve to be taken to Court. 4 or 5 feet over your roof is not within the rules however 300 yards is within regulation - nearly double that and you would have a case. By all means carry on - shoot them out of the sky but unless you have a couple of thousand pounds spare then I'd back away from the drone. Oh and not all drones have cameras.
 
ester said:
How do you know no one is spying on anyone or checking out if there is a handy quad around worth breaking in for exactly? Do you personally know everyone using a drone?
Click to expand...

Well that has to be one of the most stupid of comments doesn't it? Of course I don't but you are tarring everyone who flies drones with the same brush and I am saying if you go around shooting them out of the sky when they are not breaking the regulations then you deserve to be taken to court. Carry on by all means - I am just trying to give advice, nothing more, nothing less.

I can assure you though that the cost of these drones means that most of them are not owned by little kids who can be scared away but by adults who will pursue a claim against you. Don't come running on here blubbing when an adult turns up on your doorstep with video proof along with height, speed and distance from operator readings.
 
My first livery yard had an airfield with the local air ambulance on it, plus a neighbour with his own helicopter. My second yard had the local bigwig take off in his helicopter over the paddock and school. Current place used to have the police helicopter take off and land at all hours. They get used to it.
 
mcnaughty said:
Well that has to be one of the most stupid of comments doesn't it? Of course I don't but you are tarring everyone who flies drones with the same brush and I am saying if you go around shooting them out of the sky when they are not breaking the regulations then you deserve to be taken to court. Carry on by all means - I am just trying to give advice, nothing more, nothing less.

I can assure you though that the cost of these drones means that most of them are not owned by little kids who can be scared away but by adults who will pursue a claim against you. Don't come running on here blubbing when an adult turns up on your doorstep with video proof along with height, speed and distance from operator readings.
Click to expand...

Charming! Nowhere have I tarred them all with the same brush, my first comment on this thread specifically mentioned people not snooping so why would I start saying anything different?

You said 'no one is spying on anyone' I am saying because I am a pedantic arse that you cannot possibly know that to be true. Nowhere, unless you wish to quote me have I said everyone is out snooping so before you start accusing me of making stupid comments maybe sort your own use of English out?

You were suggesting that FF who said she had shot a couple shouldn't be doing so, now you have the details you seem to have backtracked quite rapidly.

Nowhere did I suggest they were owned by kids that could be scared away, I was suggesting that in FF's and WelshD's cases they were being flown outside of regulations- which you seem now to have agreed with?
 
mcnaughty said:
Well then that is not following the regulations then is it! If you actually read my posts you will clearly see the regulations for flying. IMO if you do not follow the regulations then you only have yourself to blame if your drone gets shot but if you shoot it when the regulations are being followed then you are breaking the law and deserve to be taken to Court. 4 or 5 feet over your roof is not within the rules however 300 yards is within regulation - nearly double that and you would have a case. By all means carry on - shoot them out of the sky but unless you have a couple of thousand pounds spare then I'd back away from the drone. Oh and not all drones have cameras.
Click to expand...

Exactly, not following regs and thus invading privacy.

It also had a camera on too, surprisingly the 2 men in the white van parked up the track, disappeared immediately after, the poor chaps didn't even ask for their toy back :rolleyes3:
 
annagain said:
There are laws about the flying of drones. Technically you should have a licence, you shouldn't fly within 50m of private property and you shouldn't fly the drone more than 400m away from you (laterally). There's a height limit (as in a height you shouldn't go above not one you shouldn't go below, although the 50m would always apply) as well but I can't remember what it is.
Click to expand...

I thought the 50m was away from *residential* property? I may be wrong, that is what daughter's boyfriend told us when we bought my OH one, and he is a drone operator for TV and films.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top