Flying cars - almost here

[RJDiogenes]

Look at it this way...as long as you are in one of these PRT cars, it *is* your own private transportation. You're not sitting in a huge car full of people.

And here's more reasons the house/car comparison does not hold. A house does not pollute; a car does. Houses cannot get into accidents; cars do.

Houses can pollute. Houses can burn down. All that is irrelevant. It's a question of being able to own property and travel freely.

Besides, commercial airlines are allowed to fly over private property, why not private aircraft? just impose the same altitude restrictions.

True, but flying cars were never pictured as going that high-- for one thing, it would require a life support system.

Use of supplemental oxygen is not required below 12500 MSL, and then only in certain circumstances up to 15000 MSL. The vast majority of General Aviation planes are unpressurized, and most don't even carry oxygen.

Now, the risk of hypoxia increases at night; you typically don't want to spend much time over 5000 MSL after dark, but there's no regulation about that.

Any Light Sport Aircraft would probably do most of its flying about 3000 feet above the ground, since there's a regulatory limit on how far they can go in a single flight. This is a perfectly safe altitude for overflying just about anything that the government hasn't decided is off-limits.

Is it high enough to ensure that private property remains private, and the people undisturbed?

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

It's a question of being able to own property and travel freely.

With PRT, you *can* travel freely. Indeed, you can travel more freely than a private automobile (in certain circumstances, like bad weather). So in this case there's no need to own anything.

 

[Lindley]

Is it high enough to ensure that private property remains private, and the people undisturbed?

There are probably planes up there overflying your house at that level now. This isn't a hypothetical. Do you feel disturbed or that your privacy is being violated?

I can tell you that the human eye does not resolve detail well from above because the brain isn't adapted to it. You'd pretty much need to be having a nudist pool party orgy for a passing pilot to even take note that there's something worth spying on down there.

Now, if the number of planes increased a hundredfold, then perhaps it would be more of an issue. But at that point it becomes an ATC problem anyway; the traffic density would be too high for visual flight. Besides, I don't think that's going to happen.

 

[FordSVT]

It's a question of being able to own property and travel freely.

With PRT, you *can* travel freely. Indeed, you can travel more freely than a private automobile (in certain circumstances, like bad weather). So in this case there's no need to own anything.

So my friend who lives on a road 20 miles from town will be able to get on this magic bus that comes out to service the 10 houses within 5 miles of his home, take him to work when he needs to go, and right to the door of the supermarket to get 150 pounds worth of groceries every two weeks? It will tow his ATV trailer for him and take him hunting? Will he be able to take a deer carcass home with it?

No, my friend is not going to give up his modest home in the country for a rented place in the city.

Do we need better public transportation? Yes. Will it ever be so good that everyone will be able to give up their personal cars? No, it would cost too much. Is it ever going to work for everyone? No. Get it out of your mind, never going to happen, we don't all live in NYC. 500 years from now, unless we all live in some kind of virtual megalopolis combine or totalitarian state, people will have access to personal vehicles of some sort that they can steer where they want to go and when they want to go there.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

So my friend who lives on a road 20 miles from town will be able to get on this magic bus that comes out to service the 10 houses within 5 miles of his home, take him to work when he needs to go, and right to the door of the supermarket to get 150 pounds worth of groceries every two weeks?

Wherever roads go, these things will go.

 

[John Picard]

It's a question of being able to own property and travel freely.

With PRT, you *can* travel freely. Indeed, you can travel more freely than a private automobile (in certain circumstances, like bad weather). So in this case there's no need to own anything.

So my friend who lives on a road 20 miles from town will be able to get on this magic bus that comes out to service the 10 houses within 5 miles of his home, take him to work when he needs to go, and right to the door of the supermarket to get 150 pounds worth of groceries every two weeks? It will tow his ATV trailer for him and take him hunting? Will he be able to take a deer carcass home with it?

No, my friend is not going to give up his modest home in the country for a rented place in the city.

Do we need better public transportation? Yes. Will it ever be so good that everyone will be able to give up their personal cars? No, it would cost too much. Is it ever going to work for everyone? No. Get it out of your mind, never going to happen, we don't all live in NYC. 500 years from now, unless we all live in some kind of virtual megalopolis combine or totalitarian state, people will have access to personal vehicles of some sort that they can steer where they want to go and when they want to go there.

Never say never. People thought the horse and buggy would never go away. We may hit a turning point where people realize that a properly designed and managed public transit system far outweighs any conceived benefits of private vehicle ownership.

Look at Detroit, a city born and representative of cars, now foundering and largely abandoned with plans to raze 20 square miles of houses and roads in order to consolidate the size of the city and eliminate sprawl.

 

[sojourner]

^Detroit's foundering is a result of outsourced labor which is a result of people wanting cheaper cars. It has nothing to do with a lack of need for cars.

 

[gturner]

I love the idea of personal rapid transport. Since nobody really owns it and I'll never get the same vehicle twice in a row, before I exit I'll take a big, fat dump in it.

 

[RJDiogenes]

With PRT, you *can* travel freely. Indeed, you can travel more freely than a private automobile (in certain circumstances, like bad weather). So in this case there's no need to own anything.

Not good enough. I want to own my own house and my own land and my own car and my own books on my own shelves and I want programs that load on my computer and not just web-based apps that only exist on some server somewhere. Also, I keep a lot of stuff in my trunk and backseat.

Is it high enough to ensure that private property remains private, and the people undisturbed?

There are probably planes up there overflying your house at that level now. This isn't a hypothetical. Do you feel disturbed or that your privacy is being violated?

No. It was a serious question. I have no idea what altitudes mean in practice.

Now, if the number of planes increased a hundredfold, then perhaps it would be more of an issue. But at that point it becomes an ATC problem anyway; the traffic density would be too high for visual flight. Besides, I don't think that's going to happen.

That was my other point. What would it be like if flying car traffic began to equal road traffic? But I agree with you-- I don't think it will happen.

 

[Lindley]

It was a serious question. I have no idea what altitudes mean in practice.

If I recall correctly, I was at about 3,500 MSL when this picture was taken, and the ground elevation in the area was under 500 feet MSL, so this would be about 3000 feet AGL:

 

[RJDiogenes]

^^ Well, that would be fine for privacy concerns. It might be a pain if there were a million of them up there, though.