I guess it depends on your viewpoint. I don't find 107 onerous at _all_. Having people need to learn to read a chart? No different than having to learn to read roadsigns. Having people demonstrate knowledge before they fly? No different than having to do a driving test (except there is no plan nor resources for the FAA to start physically testing UAS operators). Having to demonstrate insurance if flying for commercial purposes? No different than any other driver being required to operate their vehicle with at minimum, liability insurance.
To date, I've observed three videos of drone pilots chasing tourist helicopters, drone pilot getting in the way of law enforcement helis, one drone pilot flying over an active runway. I've observed these with my own MK1-Eyeball, not via the news. A collision with a windshield on a small piston plane will likely be a fatal. A drone ingested into a jet engine has been proven to cause catastrophic failure, and one only hopes a pilot can manage the emergency properly. Not all pilots are Sully.
while they may be merely "toys" to some, drones come in a variety of sizes, shapes, and uses. Looking at the bigger picture, it's easy to see that the sky will be filled with drones. There are already nearly as many registered UAS in the US as there are registered manned aircraft. Given that at any given moment, 40% of the registered fleet is grounded, there is the potential for more UAS in the sky than aircraft. Given that a HUGE number of UAS pilots intentionally break the law on a daily basis (Spend a couple hours in the Phantom forums, as but one example, or visit any number of Facebook pages on UAS, including Solo), and boast about it in public. Toss in the several incidents real and fake that we find on the internet, and of course it's a growing concern. The FAA didn't exist during the heyday of ballooning, but so many people died that government got in the way to slow down the trend. IMO, government is handling it correctly, albeit slow.
The 107 knowledge test won't be any big deal. It allegedly won't cost anything. Anytime you're tossing an arguably dangerous object into the public sector (like a car, motorcycle, boat) I do feel that there is an obligation to demonstrate knowledge on it's use. However, until humans have evolved to have eyes on top of and behind their heads, and until we have an obstacle avoidance system that can ASSURE that UAS will not ever strike a manned aircraft, testing is necessary.
I do understand opinions on this will differ, and that's OK too, as it generates useful dialog.
