This reminds me of something I have wondered for a while:
Drones are deemed such a problem that geofences were mandated, height restrictions mandated, distance from operator mandated etc..
But you could go out and buy an "old fashioned" RC chopper or aircraft and fly it right over the airport and there's nothing to stop you; so why was that never a "thing" and why didn't they end up banned?
Maybe because they take more skill to fly (sorry, TB ) and are owned by more responsible people? (Sorry, TB )
You are right, quadcopters are seen as antisocial, and these machines are what most people call drones - although a drone is any unmanned powered flying machine.
The lower end of the quad market has become toy/gadget territory, and little Johnny on Christmas morning isn't going to find the rules of flying inside the box.
Additionally, virtually every quad has a camera onboard, which causes privacy concerns, and hence there are rules around that. But again, little Johnny wont know.
Lastly, this all causes distrust amongst the public, and the media do not help.
So, yes, quadcopters are an issue, and are leading some of the legislation, mostly kneejerk to be seen to be something about those who don't know/obey the laws. And the CAA understand this. Hence I can legally fly some of my drones above the 400' limit, just not the multicopters.
As for geofences, I'm only aware of DJI implementing that in their flight controllers. And nobody who is into it as a hobby uses DJI, they are for the antisocial