Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

bernard_cernea t1_iwghx5z wrote

flying cars are stupid and will never happen, especially in cities

91

TheSingulatarian t1_iwi4nux wrote

They would have to be completely controlled by computers. Too chaotic for human control.

6

HumpyMagoo t1_iwkn9tu wrote

we will have larger ai guided by smaller ai monitored by humans to make sure things seem ok in general

1

botfiddler t1_iwgzrdf wrote

Not necessarily as cars, which would be a hybrid, yeah that would be stupid. But short range flying vehicles make sense. I think your argument is about steering, but they would fly automatically. I think it makes more sense to have them for some people which would be flying from suburban areas or between one side of the city to another.

5

Takadeshi t1_iwheg7a wrote

I'm not so sure, I don't think they make any sense energy-wise and would be less safe than ground vehicles. The amount of energy for a plane to take off is far greater than the amount it requires to stay in the air. The only short-range flight I expect to see are small electric powered planes for short flights, we've already seen these spring up in a few places in the US.

9

everything_in_sync t1_iwhmjhz wrote

They wouldn't be planes. I've seen videos of people that have flown on basically drones.

5

botfiddler t1_iwhmv8w wrote

This is what I meant, but drones is such a bad term anyways, since the drones in nature die after flying.

1

Takadeshi t1_iwjdy95 wrote

Drones are great but not exactly stable. There are just too many random variables to predict for flying cars to ever be safer or more efficient than travelling across the ground. There's not really any advantage to doing so and there's all kinds of problems it could cause

1

botfiddler t1_iwhn184 wrote

It's not about everyone using these, but a minority who can afford it and maybe needs to be somewhere. Time can be more important than anything else.

1

bernard_cernea t1_iwknrgw wrote

I have several arguments against them including:

  1. Noise pollution and wind currents at landing and take off;
  2. Safety. Congested airways would produce many more accidents in 3D than 2D highways among vehicles. Also intoxicated drivers becoming suicide bombers crashing in tall buildings. Also it would be harder to institute traffic rules that establish priority because there are no fixed routes.
  3. It would ruin the city landscape making it cluttered and chaotic for pedestrians.
1

botfiddler t1_iwmdisj wrote

The noise of electrical motors isn't that high, and they might land and start from buildings or special stations. Congestion and accidents are not an issue if it's expensive and with autopilot. They won't be passenger controlled. I don't understand you last point.

1

bernard_cernea t1_iwmjsc9 wrote

electrical motors are completely silent, but propellers aren't. Even if autopilot is perfect, it would only be safe if manual control is always forbidden and i doubt people would agree to that.

1

botfiddler t1_iwmkhk3 wrote

They will agree to it, there will be no other option. That's exactly your strawman: Saying they won't want what they could get, and what they want they can't ever have. But it works if we reverse it. They want and will take what they can get, and get over what they can't have.

1

PunkRockDude t1_iwgy1ax wrote

Uber air taxi model is how you will largely see them first. Where I live the plan is to put them on top of a parking garage. You go there and they take you to the airport or downtown in which case regular car will take you the rest of the way. Makes sense to me. Until the self driving cars come along, cities are increasingly going to be in grid lock (though I think the timeline on those is too aggressive in the op). Other than that probably just play things for the wealthy.

2

tedd321 t1_iwhkmqy wrote

Personal drones are available right now. One costs 100k and gets shipped within a year. They are called evtol.

2

CaptTheFool t1_iwji9gq wrote

We already have flying cars, they are called helicopters.

2