I barely trust the average consumer to be able to drive, I can't imagine people being able to fly whenever. Also- who actually needs this and why?
this post was submitted on 04 Jul 2023
3 points (80.0% liked)
Technology
37712 readers
212 users here now
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
who actually needs this and why?
Anyone who wants to avoid traffic. Or get somewhere without road access. It would be great if this world could be less covered in asphalt.
The only way I'd approve of a flying car is when we are past the full autonomous flying hive mind threshold.
This is absolutely an "I'll believe it when I see it." sort of thing. I've seen dozens of concepts like this only for none of them to materialize as they should. Here is an airplane in the shape of a car: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2tDOYkFCYo that's essentially the closest we've gotten so far. https://www.forbes.com/sites/bradtempleton/2022/10/19/alef-reveals-prototypes-for-a-flying-car-thats-really-a-flying-car/?sh=6f454ddf26cf Is their prototype reveal which has more information than this fluff news piece.
That said, this has the potential to do what they say it does. The other argument against it is, I don't know if another lane in any dimension is going to help our traffic problem. Right now they are priced at 300k but that just means that extra lane is going to be limited until the vehicles are cheaper. Once the vehicles are cheaper we'll have the same problem with traffic but instead of a fender bender, it will be two planes colliding and falling to the ground, hitting anything in that falling path. Overall doesn't seem sustainable as trains/trams, and walkable cities.
This is one of those things where I'll believe it when I see it. When I see one of these in the sky, I'll believe it.
Flying cars are stupid.
Hey, if someone can actually do it in a way that:
- Satisfies public safety requirements
- Satisfies all legal requirements
- Restricts usage to trained pilots or autopilot
- Runs on electricity or other low/zero emission fuel source
- Lasts an appreciable amount of time before recharge
Then it may free up public roads enough to push pedestrian and bike usage while offering people a large incentive to go electric. I just don't think the technology for personal automobile-aircraft hybrids is there yet.
I'd love to be proven wrong.
Why make one more lane bro up in the sky when we can make trains? We already have the technology to solve traffic and it DOESN'T involve making more cars, flying or otherwise. All flying cars would do to traffic is jam it up at the places where you park, and also create traffic in unplanned places like people's attics and second floor apartments.
So, what you're saying is maybe one more lane in space then? /s
FWIW, I totally agree. It's just that I've lost hope in people after disposable single-use Li-Po battery banks. Who knows, maybe I'm wrong and the public will start to push more for public transit rather than buy the next new shiny.
I try, but it does feel kind of hopeless.