Editorial: Schaumburg's proposed drone law appropriately restrained
What's the biggest risk from the kinds of remote-controlled civilian drones that increasingly dot the suburban airspace?
That they'll peer in your window, invading your privacy?
Or poach revenue by filming concerts and ballgames?
Or spy that illegal garage addition you'd rather keep hidden?
Or fall on your head?
It's the latter, most obvious danger that Schaumburg aims to prevent with a new local regulation.
We can't argue with restricting drones over big crowds, where people might find it hard to duck for cover. After all, the gizmos weigh up to 10 pounds, are controlled by unlicensed hobbyists and have fallen before - including a few weeks ago when a Seattle woman was knocked out by one during a parade.
After raising the idea of drone rules a few weeks ago, Schaumburg board members on Tuesday left the proposal up in the air, saying they want to revise the plan before possibly approving an ordinance in a few weeks, Daily Herald Staff Writer Eric Peterson reported.
Some fine-tuning is a good idea, primarily to tighten language that could have been broadly interpreted to prevent flying drones most of the time in much of the village.
Schaumburg leaders say they don't intend to be heavy-handed, and we're glad to hear that. Why put too many restraints on a new technology that might be put to all sorts of imaginative uses that address everyday problems?
Of course, imaginative people might find ways to use drones that are not constructive, too. But there's time to add specific regulations at that point, instead of trying to anticipate trouble that might never come to pass.
When Schaumburg leaders first started talking about drones, privacy was another concern. But they decided to defer to federal authorities on that. State rules also come into play, regulating the use of drones in criminal evidence searches, among other areas.
In their revision, Schaumburg leaders plan to govern drone use only on village-owned property, rather than all public property as in the original draft. Septemberfest and Summer Breeze concerts on the municipal grounds and baseball games and concerts at Boomers Stadium would be covered; parks would not.
We suggest also narrowing what events are covered under a drone ban. The initial draft cited "any event held outdoors ... involving a gathering of people," which could be interpreted as putting village-owned land off limits to drones any time a couple strolls past the duck pond.
With all such changes, Schaumburg's approach to regulating drones seems reasonable and appropriately restrained.