Stoked27

I can empathize with your position and passion for RC/Drone aviation, but (and I promise I'm not trying to be a troll) I recommend keeping in mind that the term "Common Sense" is very subjective. What's common sense to you is not common sense to another. We see this in political arguments where a proposed law is just "common sense," yet the opposing side considers the opposing view to be common. If you try to step back and view this more analytically instead of from your common sense perspective, it'll probably become clearer (whether you agree or not in the end).

There is no hidden agenda. RC is a fond past-time for quite a few pilots.

Unless a pilot's head was looking down at a checklist or elsewhere to where they didn't see it until the last second, 30ft is quite easy to identify whether it was a drone or bird. With 30ft, I can most likely tell you the type of bird or brand of drone.

What type of proof do you recommend pilots start supplying?

I'll caveat that I'm only a general aviation pilot, so a faster approach speed might make it more difficult to identify the specifics of the drone, but I doubt it would be so drastic that the pilots of airliners are flipping coins as to what the item was that they saw.

From my GA perspective, the outcome will be a lot different for a drone to impact a propeller and acrylic windshield of a GA aircraft traveling 80kts/92mph than someone might expect if they pictured the ramifications to be similar to that of hitting a car windshield (not saying you are). We owe it to be responsible to ourselves, our passengers, and people on the ground by managing risks that are within our control. Like others have mentioned, we'll probably see technological restrictions implemented at some point.

Personally I think the reputation of drones are more at risk from intrusive drone pilots; i.e., the drone pilot who hovered over my secluded backyard at one-story roof level while my wife was on our patio and kept coming back ~once per week for a couple of months.