Finally! Flying Cars.

[besilarius]

http://www.vox.com/new-money/2016/12/30/14105960/flying-car-future-explained?ICID=ref_fark

Have been waiting for this since a Popular Mechanics article around 1958.

[bayonetbrant]

Please God, NO!

I've seen the way these idiots drive. No chance I want them in the air over my house

[Barthheart]

Please God, NO!

I've seen the way these idiots drive. No chance I want them in the air over my house

This is the main, and most important, reason we don't have flying cars.  :timeout:

[Staggerwing]

Even if you fully automated the whole trip you'd still have various drunks or whatnots try to frakk with the innerworkings of the things while under way and send them crashing into hospitals and such. The tricky question would be this: would those incidents be fewer in number than the various traffic fatalities that would occur while this same drunks were driving cars? Also add in the number of accidents prevented by taking even more non-meddling drunks out of their cars and put them into automated planes where they will be happy just to sit and enjoy the view.

[OJsDad]

Also add in the number of accidents prevented by taking even more non-meddling drunks out of their cars and put them into automated planes where they will be happy just to sit and enjoy the view.

Or drink more!

[JasonPratt]

We've had flying cars since the 50s. They're called helicopters. They don't even necessarily cost more than a car to buy; you can get a fairly nice one, like a family station wagon, for around 40 grand. (Plus another 8 for someone to put it together.)

Ask a professional aviator in the military (where the tech is cutting edge) how feasible he thinks it is for helicopters to be completely computer controlled.

Oh, we have drones now? Actually, so do I! -- a computer controlled drone, very top of the line, around $1200 when I bought it on a Kickstarter campaign.

Drones, even computer controlled ones, are heavily regulated. I've never flown mine once. There are reasons for this. They work well in some situations, not so much around where people live, work, and travel.

While the number of accidents could well be reduced by automated drone-copters:

1.) they cannot even possibly be as physically efficient for traveling as ground vehicles. Mass flights would at best involve a ludicrously exponential increase of an exponential increase in resource expenditure. Unless we develop effectively magic energy tech (and maybe some other effectively magical tech), this won't be good for any human society. Which is one reason why science-fiction routinely portrays this kind of scenario using effectively magical tech. That isn't just narrative design convenience. Looking at it another way, ask any helicopter pilot (or even hovercraft pilot) how easy it is, compared to a car or truck, to come to a stop. A safe, controlled stop, not just hitting the ground, although that leads to:

2.) flying vehicle accidents must by physical necessity be inherently more destructive than ground vehicle accidents. That's just a factor of gravity and mass if nothing else, but factors of propulsion and fuel would also apply at least, probably also speed, as well as extending the potential target reach of the accidents at least a little bit (and in any practical reality for having flying cars at all, extending it a lot) by adding height.

This doesn't even count the multiplied terror potentials. Even now, one reason mere drones are being heavily regulated is due to their terrorist capabilities. Helicopters aren't easy to fly, so having to fly them manually restricts that kind of problem a lot. Even hijacking a plane, usually involves making other people fly it, even when the hijackers have some real pilot training. Making it easier for any untrained guy to fly helicopters, opens that can of worms a lot.


In short: helicopters. We have helicopters already, and there are reasons beyond difficulty flying them (though that's a reason, too, and one which automation can only go so far in solving) why our skies are not already filled with even one hundredth of the number of cars and trucks in copters.

[JasonPratt]

I should clarify I loovvvveee helicopters. If I could move out west and had the money to do it, I'd fly one all the time. My Dad was a master chief in charge of copter maintenance in the Navy during Vietnam. (The fleet admiral actually wanted him to go to officer school and come back to be in charge of copter fleet maintenance under his command; but he had promised to marry Mom.  So he didn't re-enlist.)

We both fully agree, Dad moreso than me from professional (and non-virtual  :nerd: ) experience, that even in the best possible case scenario (shrouds to protect people and environment from propulsion, etc.), lots of copters would be a freakishly bad idea.

[bbmike]

 #:-) Again, people still can't handle two dimensions when driving. Bad, bad idea!

[Sir Slash]

Flying Cars would be cool. But how would you change a tire at 10,000 ft.? Or go through the Drive-Up lane at the bank or Sonic for that matter? On the other hand, I don't reckon the police could hardly pull you over for a ticket. So...... ^-^

[DoctorQuest]

Larry Niven had flying cars in his "future history". His premise was there was no way you could have them without automation within certain airspaces. You get outside the city, fine, you can drive yourself but we would probably need to use the FAA-type airspace classifications to determine where automation would be required.

There are a lot of issues around how this would all work but if it ends up being economically feasible I'm sure we'll try to figure it out. If you think about it having three dimensions would actually have the potential to reduce traffic congestion somewhat.

And people would need to get over the fact that automation would not be voluntary.

[GDS_Starfury]

Please God, NO!

I've seen the way these idiots drive. No chance I want them in the air over my house

Canadian snowbird flying over Miami..........   

[Sir Slash]

Too true. And then you know the Brits would always try to fly on the wrong side.