The issue I have with it is NOT that the proposed legislation has some sensible rules, but that it proscribes them to limit what can be done with drones to what has presently been thought of (that drones are just an extension of RC vehicles), which is not the point of legislation, but sadly what always seems to happen. Legislation stating: Drones must be visable to aircraft is fine. Legislation stating: drones must carry a 1W red tungsten filament bulb flashing at 1/10s intervals every 5s proscribes a particular way of doing things which doesn't allow future innovation allowing say, the LED to be used in drone lighting.
This type of legislation is exactly why you cannot use a segway in the UK. It's a powered vehicle, which doesn't fit any use-case the lawmakers foresaw, but is illegal to use on UK pavements as it is a powered vehicle, and you cannot use it on the road because it cannot be taxed or insured to legal requirements.
Drones, and the direction in which they may head, will be heavily restricted by this legislation of one drone, one human operator, rather than "drones must be adequately monitored and the operator is responsible and criminally liable for the avoidance of other flying and static objects."
For instance, drone swarms, which may well be extremely useful in say, search and rescue for disaster zones, avalanches etc, are now effectively banned. You can't possibly have a swarm of human operators each controlling the kill switch for each swarm drone individually maintaining visual line of sight and not operating during night hours, per the legislated requirements. Thus a potentially useful area of drone research is now shut, as legislation determines that it will never be allowed to work because that legislation is far too prescriptive. You will not now be able to investigate airbourne drone swarms for R&D purposes, full stop, as you'd never be able to meet the legislative requirements.
This is what I have a problem with - I'd say the one licenced human operator within line of sight of one drone is perfectly sensible for current technologies - but NOT written that way in legislation. Legislation should get the intent of the society it represents across, and require certain measures to prove something is safe, but not state how that should happen. An extremely poor show by the FAA, in an industry that generally understands root-cause well and is less prone to knee-jerk banning of things just because they make headlines.