Major manufacturers invest in flying cars

Originally posted by netbound

Is it legal for someone to just go flying around aimlessly?

I pretty sure it is legal to do that, There is restricted places were you can not fly but you can really go anywhere you like. All those people you see flying the small cessna planes are for the most part doing that as a hobby and are not on some preset flight course.

As for the whole terrorist thing I dont really get that. If they wanted to do something like that they would be flying small Cessna type planes into buildings. They really dont cause that much damage if you remember that kid in Florida crashed one into a building and it didnt do that much damage.

double post sorry

[edit on 29-8-2004 by ShadowXIX]

Would anyone trust automated flying? I know i wouldnt, all software has faults/bugs/errors and there no chance id trust software to take me from A to B, i trust myself flying more than any sort of software!
And if i did i would definately take the parachute safety option.
$100,000 dollars aint that bad really i expected it to be alot more than that if thats the starting price then a couple of years down the line i would expect it to be around 75k then eventually it would end up the same as any high end car available currently.
Does anyone know when the flying cars will be made available to the public? Im guessing in 10/20 years?
Should be interesting to see how the governments can make money out of this... I can imagine some sort of Air Space Tax would be the main thing.

Here's an idea for the flying skycars, HUD's or heads up displays that automatically display restricted flying spaces. I don't know how these areas are planned to be avoided automatically if people are free to roam in skycars.

I like the thought of air taxis (from first article link) especially if they could deliver you to your final destination instead of having to commute another 30 or 40 minutes through traffic to your final destination. I wonder how skycars handle turbulent winds. Who wants to land a skycar in a tropical storm? It might be amusing watching a coworker trying to land a skycar in the parking lot with winds gusting up to 35 mph.

Originally posted by cloudx
Why not have hover cars instead of flying cars? Like cars that hover a couple of inches off the ground and can have great speed and manurverablity.

I agree. Make them hover by magnets. (not anti-gravity)

Originally posted by markjaxson
Would anyone trust automated flying? I know i wouldnt, all software has faults/bugs/errors and there no chance id trust software to take me from A to B, i trust myself flying more than any sort of software!

Years ago elevators had operators , Wherever there were elevators there were always elevator operators. In the 1930s, operators began to be displaced by rudimentary automation. Advances in electronics made it possible for passengers to use push buttons to operate elevators that once required an attendant.

But these early automation efforts were clunky and unsophisticated, and passengers didn�t embrace them as enthusiastically as building owners. People didnt want to trust a machine with their life even then. When was the last time you have seen a operator in a elevator you used?

We now have rail systems that work without drivers (Docklands light Railway in east London is one example of this) this type of thing would be thought to be crazy years ago.

Soon machines will be as smart as humans even much smarter in time and people wont think twice about trusting a machine with your life, as we do when we get into a elevator today.

Some people cant even drive right(ahem women and some teens) and we are going to give them a flying car?

If Women cant drive then why do the pay less to insure a car then a Man of the same age and same driving record has to pay.

I think of this as Sexism and Discrimination in the car insurance Industry but most people dont seem to mind that much.

[edit on 29-8-2004 by ShadowXIX]

� Would anyone trust automated flying? I know i wouldnt, all software has faults/bugs/errors and there no chance id trust software to take me from A to B, i trust myself flying more than any sort of software!
And if i did i would definately take the parachute safety option.�

markjaxson, don�t worry, they won�t contract Microsoft to write the software. I�m pretty sure it would be reliable before it was put into use.

It is sexist,there was a recent survey confirming men needed less driving lessons than women...40% im not saying women are bad drivers because i know a few who drive safe it just seems males are know to have more accidents than women for some reason and therefore women get cheaper car insurance which annoys the hell out of me.
Its only sexist if its against women but it seems to bypass if its sexist towards males we males just get a no win no win situation i dont think it will ever change.

This may be mean but its just funny:






[edit on 29-8-2004 by TACHYON]

Originally posted by markjaxson
It is sexist,there was a recent survey confirming men needed less driving lessons than women...40% im not saying women are bad drivers because i know a few who drive safe it just seems males are know to have more accidents than women for some reason and therefore women get cheaper car insurance which annoys the hell out of me.
Its only sexist if its against women but it seems to bypass if its sexist towards males we males just get a no win no win situation i dont think it will ever change.

I feel the same way about this stuff If they did a study that found that say blacks were more likely to get in a accident then whites would they charge blacks more then whites?

Ofcourse they wouldnt because it was a race issue, but its somehow ok for them to do this same action on a basis of sex from what ever so called (studies) they did about this subject

TACHYON where you find those pics are the bottom two ones real pictures?

[edit on 29-8-2004 by ShadowXIX]

[edit on 29-8-2004 by ShadowXIX]

Well Shadow obliviously watched the last History channel show called Extreme Aircraft. lol

And on another note, The reason insurance costs more for men then women is because we crash more, but think about this WHO DRIVES MORE. If your married and have kids or if you are a kid, Who does the driving? Yep the guy. So no # we crash more, we drive more. These insurance companies no this but just don't give a #, all they want is money money money.

Exactly Shadow i totally agree, i think they call it positive discrimination.
But what can you do.
Them images cant be real!
The one of the car in that alley,there is just no way it could have got into that position! The only way would be for her to have driven off the roof!
This thread has gone well off topic but hey were here to discuss these sort of things right.

Shadow I got those from Funnyjunk.com, Thanks for the laugh. Hehe

Almost ANYTHING can be used for terrorism, a blue shirt and a hair drier at the side of the highway to panic speeders!

Young guys like to race/joy ride and guys like to drink more, thats why we pay more. Even though girls are more prone to do something wrong out of fear, at least they learn from it lol. I think insurance should only be needed after an accident involving speeds over 40kph and cost over $500 or hitting some one whos crossing at the proper location. It should then last 10 yrs and maybe more depending on severity . $30 per month to talk on the cell when your driving (signal blocker).

A plexiglass bike lanes with huge vent fans that push bikers with 50-70kmh wind and act like a highway would work alot better then flying/hovering cars. Flying/hovering cars would have to be city owned, otherwise people will leave them in a state of disrepair and they WILL breakdown, run out of gas or power.

When/if "free" energy is made public, then hovering cars will be released.

No need to worry. The first generation will require pilots to fly them & most of the crappy drivers could never get a license nor afford them. Most people will use automated ones & all craft will be on an automated atc network that won't allow collisions.

Originally posted by outsider
No need to worry. The first generation will require pilots to fly them & most of the crappy drivers could never get a license nor afford them. Most people will use automated ones & all craft will be on an automated atc network that won't allow collisions.

ahhhhhh, that would be the life, i would have alot of roadtrips if all i had to do is punch in the destination and its off. As long as these things still let you take controll of it, like flying around and threw clouds in a jet car, that would be the life.

Originally posted by outsider
No need to worry. The first generation will require pilots to fly them & most of the crappy drivers could never get a license nor afford them. Most people will use automated ones & all craft will be on an automated atc network that won't allow collisions.

yeh think how many casulties there are today in car crashes then compare that to letting them go much faster in the air! and falling at terminal velocity