That's pretty much my point. Either everybody will need to be trained as a pilot or the vehicles will have to be remotely controlled.
It would if they are remotely controlled.
Flying cars - almost here
- Thread starter Miss Chicken
- Start date
^It would still be very difficult. Aircraft cannot maneuver like cars. Wind effects them more, they cannot make 90 degree turns or stop in mid-flight. Besides, commercial airlines are allowed to fly over private property, why not private aircraft? just impose the same altitude restrictions.
Those are fairly typical numbers for low-end GA aircraft, actually. A brand-new Cessna 172 will cruise at 126mph (110 knots) and cost about $125,000. Makes sense that this thing would have a higher price point at least initially, given all the R&D costs.
Nice polution from the engines and blades it would take to needlessly put a car in the air, would be ridiculous. And if you have an accident, you could crash into the top of someone's house, or building.
It's not going to happen. We don't need flying cars anyway, their bad ideas.
It's not going to happen. We don't need flying cars anyway, their bad ideas.
The FAA is already being hounded to make a decision as to where unmanned drones can fly (ceiling limits, corridors, etc), and until the NEXTGEN system is implemented, the skies are going to continue to be crowded.
Sorry, but these flying cars are some fanboy's holdover dream from the 1960's that has no inkling of reality or practicality.
The phrase "flying car" just puts the wrong image in peoples' heads. These things should be referred to as road-legal airplanes.
I don't think it would actually be that bad. Considering that flying can get you places faster than driving by taking a straight line, and some LSAs can be as efficient as 4 gallons per hour, the effective MPG is probably going to come out similar to your average car for long-distance travel.
More like the 1930s, actually.
Cars ARE personal rapid transit. Except when you're stuck in bumper-to-bumper traffic.
In any case, no matter how efficient public transit becomes, there will always be a need and a demand for private automobiles. The genie that Henry Ford let out of the bottle more than 100 years ago isn't going back in.
I LIKE owning my own car. I like driving my own car. So do lots of other people.
Remember: In Los Angeles, you are what you drive!
But you still have to drive them yourself. You have to pay for the car itself. Insurance. Maintenance. Storage. Gas. Pollution. Accidents. With true PRT, none of these things would apply...
Henry Ford never envisioned mass transit.
And therein lies the problem. I don't mean to get personal, but people's (irrational, IMHO) attachment to owning their own cars is hindering adoption of true, efficient, universal mass rapid transit.
To put it another way: Let's say that a PRT system, such as I described, could and did become reality. What could your own car do for you that this could not? Assuming a PRT system that operates at peak efficiency and works exactly like I've discussed, then what could possibly be the downside to that? You say you like owning your own car. Why? What does it get you that this doesn't?
Trains and trolley cars existed in Henry Ford's day.
The freedom to go wherever there's a road, whenever I want to go there.
The pleasure of controlling a responsive machine and maneuvering skillfully in traffic.
The satisfaction of gloating over those poor schmucks who have to take the bus.
Which you would in fact get, with the system I envision. The system would run 24 hours a day; there'd be nowhere a car could go that this could not. Indeed, assuming the roadway could be elevated, severe weather such as snow, ice and rain would therefore be irrelevant.
As for those "schmucks who have to take the bus": Me, I enjoy taking mass transit. I would LOVE to not have to own a car - to live in a city where rapid transit makes cars well and truly obsolete. Cars are an inconvenience to me, a necessary evil, but something that I hope can one day be abolished.
If having a car is freedom, it's too much of it, IMHO. A car isn't just freedom, it's responsibility. You don't have that with mass transit. Any freedom you lose by not owning a car is outweighed by the greater freedom of not needing one.
And besides, mass transit can also be fun. When I first learned how to ride the NYC subway, for example, I literally did nothing the rest of the day but ride around.
I know pensioners who own a car and they seem to spend so much time worrying about the cost of running the car. They have a much harder time making ends meet than I do.
I use buses and occasionally catch a taxi. My travelling costs come to about $20-30 a month. My friends spend many times more than that on their cars.
I use buses and occasionally catch a taxi. My travelling costs come to about $20-30 a month. My friends spend many times more than that on their cars.
one thing is certain. if they start selling these every damn moron around here will buy one. and i wouldnt let them drive a bloody shopping cart. safe to say i'll be getting one of these 
. cant be that hard. the cops just confiscated four of them a few weeks ago down at the docks.
. cant be that hard. the cops just confiscated four of them a few weeks ago down at the docks.
Yeah, that's exactly why I said it's unlikely to happen-- because of the difficulties of remotely controlling a vehicle subject to wind and weather.
True, but flying cars were never pictured as going that high-- for one thing, it would require a life support system.
The same thing that having my own apartment instead of living in a barracks gets me.
No, because you don't live in your car. The function of cars is to get from one place to another. Not to be a home. There's the difference.
And just as I like to have my own private place to live, I like to have my own private transportation. I prefer to own my own books, too.
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.
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.
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.
Trains and trolley cars existed in Henry Ford's day.
The freedom to go wherever there's a road, whenever I want to go there.
The pleasure of controlling a responsive machine and maneuvering skillfully in traffic.
The satisfaction of gloating over those poor schmucks who have to take the bus.
I've been to many a foreign city where getting around via mass transit was a breeze. The same cannot be said of the US. Also, in the 1950's, when the US was trying to decide whether to push for more mass transit or build the highway system, GM was there to lobby for the latter.Yeah, cars are so wonderful. Bad streets, ever increasing taxes to pay for it, idiot drivers, and don't make me laugh about "skillful maneuvering". 90% of the people out there have no business behind the wheel. Oh, and uninsured motorists are another happy part of owning a vehicle!
I have managed my whole life (52 years) on public transport. Hobart's public transport system is far from perfect but I have nver had any major problems with it.
I happen to find driving pleasurable. That's why every car I've owned has had a stick shift. If I had to take public transit everywhere, even if it was fast and efficient, I'd find it intensely boring.
And I accept that responsibility.
Bottom line: You go to your church, I'll go to mine.
