AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

[james_davis_nicoll]

AAAAAAAAUUUUUUUUUUUUUGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHH.


You'll know why when you get to it.

William Hyde's fault

Comments

Re: Why so serious?

[mmcirvin.livejournal.com]

Manually-driven flying cars are a terrible idea even if they were physically practical, which they're not. But I could see flying cars driven in fully automatic mode by a sufficiently advanced autopilot being OK from a safety perspective.

On the other hand, if everyone is using sufficiently advanced autopilots, ordinary non-flying cars become much less of an annoyance. The great flying-car fantasy is a fantasy of soaring above a traffic jam; networked flow control for autopiloted cars could eliminate a lot of jams in the first place.

Re: Why so serious?

[keithmm.livejournal.com]

Except, of course, for the inevitable traffic jams caused by some moron making an emergency landing via parachute with their flying car on the road.

Re: Why so serious?

[(Anonymous)]

That's what the disintegrator rays emplaced alongside the Highway Of The Future are for.

Bruce

Re: Why so serious?

[roseembolism.livejournal.com]

Or without parachute, even. Because they've been ignoring that little flashing light that's been telling them to get the car serviced, and they read on the internet how to disable the safety interlocks that should keep them from flying a poorly maintained car.

Re: Why so serious?

[beamjockey.livejournal.com]

Manually-driven flying cars are a terrible idea even if they were physically practical, which they're not.

Yet we tolerate manually-driven groundcars AND manually-operated aircraft, both. Perhaps you also consider both of these terrible ideas. If not, how would manually-driven flying cars be any different?

As for practical, a few previous designs have proved to be quite practical, as I expect the Terrafugia Transition will be. They fly, they drive, the owners can operate them safely.

I believe that two of the four or five Taylor Aerocars are still in operable condition; I have seen one of them fly with my own eyes.

They might never make economic sense, because of design compromises and costs, but I don't see "physically practical" to be a barrier.

Re: Why so serious?

[keithmm.livejournal.com]

Number of aircraft << number of provate automobiles. Furthermore, pilots of aircraft are generally assumed to have some basic level of competence before being allowed to fly on their own. For cars, I believe the primary qualifications are "use turn signals", "don't hit stuff", and "be 16+ years of age".

Manually driven ground cars are, generally, speaking, restricted in their operating environment and failure modes, even the most spectacular ones, are similarly generally restricted to that environment.

And speaking of failure modes, the majority of failure modes for automobiles when operating do not result in a crash. Your engine gives out, you can usually get to the side of the road. Your wheel goes flat, you can usually get to the side of the road. Your transmission fails, you can usually get to the side of the road. Failure modes for an air vehicle tend to be slightly more dramatic.

And, to finish with a bit of snarkiness, consider the following phrase: "Your aircar, made by the fine people at Toyota."

Re: Why so serious?

[mmcirvin.livejournal.com]

Manually driven groundcars are a terrible idea. They were introduced at a time when attitudes toward safety were very different, and we're used to them now. They kill people all the time; it's an everyday occurrence. When we have some viable alternative, they'll rapidly disappear from the streets.

Manually driven aircraft have sufficiently strict licensing controls that most people don't bother to become trained to operate them, though almost anyone can. The SF aircar fantasy is one of mass ownership, not specialized applications. I can only see that happening in a modern liability and regulatory environment if they're point-and-click simple to operate, and safer than modern cars.