I enjoyed that the expert's recommendation was not "regulation", but to change drone design so they more easily break apart on impact. More likely to be implemented and does not need enforcement on the consumer level.
In the big guys, sure. "My first drone" bought from some low-end chinese reseller over ebay probably isn't going to do anything which raises costs unless it has to, which is why regulation exists.
Not suggesting regulation at this point is fair - but I suspect this will take the path these things always take. A problem is identified and the industry creating it is given a chance to solve the problem itself. It doesn't, and so a harder tool is needed to enforce it for the safety of everyone. Sometimes it does get solved itself, and that's wonderful, but this particular area isn't good at that.
Nearly all drones of a meaningful size are GPS enabled and could be disabled in range of a no fly zone. Yes it could be spoofed, yes it would require some effort from manufactures, but self inflicted regulation as an industry here could pay dividends if the alternative is ham fisted regulation following a drone/airplane catastrophe.
There has to be a balance, to where the drone is of the same quality, but has safety components that collapse like the engine compartment of a car.
(I know, i know, adamantium is not real...)