9 ms·

Flying cars/taxis will never be a widespread thing for the public (IMHO). The weight of a car is an excellent kinetic energy weapon. Fly over soft target, deto

Flying cars/taxis will never be a widespread thing for the public (IMHO). The weight of a car is an excellent kinetic energy weapon. Fly over soft target, detonate something on-board to disable safety features and you have the poor-man(terrorist?)'s remote-kill drone. Makes driving trucks into crowded streets look positively medieval. The danger of this far outweighs any possible benefits. Flying cars will become a thing, but stay heavily regulated and a rich-person's toy.

redspectre 9y ago
Isn't it sad that we can't have an exciting new technology because the threat that some outsider will blow themselves up? Is there really nothing we can do about this, either now, or in the future?
- tdb7893 9y ago
  Very few people actually blow themselves up (terrorism is really really low on the list of the most common causes of death) so I doubt that it will be why we don't have flying cars.
  - jra_samba 9y ago
    Self driving flying cars (which will be essential for mass market adoption) make an excellent weapon. No one needs to blow themselves up, just the car.
    - yeahsure 9y ago
      As far as I know terrorists have no problem blowing themselves up.
- cmurf 9y ago
  Maybe. There's a strong correlation between military occupations and terrorism, in particular when the use of force is asymmetric. http://foreignpolicy.com/2010/10/18/its-the-occupation-stupid/ http://foreignpolicy.com/2010/10/18/its-the-occupation-stupi...
- lostmsu 9y ago
  I am not actually suggesting to do it, but you could blow up all outsiders.
  - gowld 9y ago
    Who would be left inside?
- dwaltrip 9y ago
  It isn't only "outsiders" who do destructive acts.
stctgion 9y ago
Helicopters fit this description too
- adjkant 9y ago
  And how often does the average person ride in one of those?
  - nradov 9y ago
    Anyone who can scrape together a few hundred dollars can take a short helicopter tour ride. It's pretty common in tourist areas.
    - jra_samba 9y ago
      Yes, but they are in the helicopter, so won't want to blow it up. The killer combination is self-flying cars (which as I said will be a prerequisite for mass adoption). No one needs ride it for it to be a weapon, unlike a helicopter.
- jra_samba 9y ago
  Yes, and flying a helicopter is heavily regulated just like an airplane. It's the same reason you don't see regular car owners operating their own helicopter (unless as I said they're very rich).
zhoujianfu 9y ago
They might just require something like tsa precheck and perhaps a metal detector at the “stations”.
- gowld 9y ago
  Why? people who can afford to fly privately today are already exempt from TSA. Only plebes go through TSA checks.
  - cmurf 9y ago
    FAR §91.3 Responsibility and authority of the pilot in command. (a) The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft. and FAR §135.125 Aircraft security. Certificate holders conducting operators conducting operations under this part must comply with the applicable security requirements in 49 CFR chapter XII. The first applies to all flights, the second applies to air taxi flights. Equivalents for flying taxis are indicated, but it's a whole separate paradigm. Who is the pilot in command of an autonomous flying taxi? That has very clear implications today with human pilots. It's really vague what that thing is in a pilotless paradigm. There's probably a distinction between rides with strangers and rides with friends and family. If I know everyone in my flying taxi, that's probably more like a FAR 91 flight, and maybe it's sane to have a minimal security paradigm. If there are strangers on the flight, that's trending toward FAR 135 requirement.
ShorsHammer 9y ago
Any drone with over 8 propellers already has amazing redundancy today using off the shelf consumer products. Loss of multiple rotors is perfectly manageable. Add variable pitch blades and you get autorotation ability to handle total power loss. Worrying about the threats posed is silly. A truck driven by a maniac still can do far more damage. No one is proposing a truck ban.
- SlowBro 9y ago
  Many drones available today, some of them costing less than USD $1000, could become the kind of flying weapon jra_samba worries about. I just don't think this is a very big concern.
  - ShorsHammer 9y ago
    Department13 is where it's at for anyone interested in counterdrone tech. Bigup to dotslash et al. https://department13.com https://department13.com
  - jra_samba 9y ago
    Drones don't weigh enough to be a kinetic energy weapon. You'd have to strap a bomb to them (which I believe is getting very popular in certain parts of the world already). A 'flying car' is heavy enough to do large amounts damage just by falling out of the sky. Doesn't have to have anyone riding in it to blow themselves up at the right time, a cell-phone triggered bomb will do just as well.
    - SlowBro 9y ago
      Many drones can carry many kg of load. Any number of heavy (e.g. kinetic) or explosive payloads are an option. Molotov cocktail delivery vehicle? Why not? Requires a remote control lighter and remote release. How about dropping steel rebar? Needs tail fins for directional stability and some testing but that would be plenty troublesome. Drone mounted pistols are already here. (YouTube them.) And yet the skies are considered safe enough today. I just think there are bigger concerns out there.
nharada 9y ago
You're suggesting someone would fly in one of these, and exactly at the right moment detonate a bomb to cause it to fall from the sky onto someone? How in the world would they aim the falling vehicle? It's not like they're gonna have control of the thing. And even in this case, why not just use the bomb to blow someone up instead of taking it onto a plane to possibly drop it on someone? This just feels...so unlikely.
- jra_samba 9y ago
  No, that's silly. No one needs to fly it, use a cell phone triggered explosive device. That way none of the bombers friends need get hurt. After all such cars will have to be self-flying. You're surely not suggesting the flying car using public would need to get a pilots license before flying in one ? That would already mean they're only a rich persons toy. If the target is big enough (sports stadium for example) you.dont need to aim it. And as to why use a flying car instead of going there, I would have thought that was obvious. You can drop a car on people from a distance. Don't need to be there.
  - IntronExon 9y ago
    A few thoughts, positive and negative. First, these cars would be easy targets for AA batteries. I would have to assume thst getting to close to a stadium full of people in one would lead to a shoot down, or remote shutdown. Second, why bombs? What you can pack into a small aircraft is not the makings of a really impressive bomb, unless you have military grade high explosives. Now on the other hand, you could pack loads of nerve agents, chlorine, vessicants, or biological agents into one. Third, you’d have to know enough about the hardware and software to modify it to fly empty, and violate restricted airspace. That might be a hell of a barrier to entry. Fourth, these things could be heavily networked to function, so a rogue taxi could be taken over remotely, because it’s already remotely controlled. Fifth, does the FBI care why you’re building a bomb or milling anthrax? Whatever your delivery system, they’re monitoring precursors and equipment you’d need. Air taxi, truck, drone, dudes with backpacks... the delivery system isn’t the chokepoint.
  - nharada 9y ago
lsc 9y ago
Eh, if you change this to the fear of this far outweighs any possible benefits, I'd agree; I mean, flying using current technology is far safer than driving, but we've by law severely limited the usefulness of air travel because people are somehow more scared of crazies in airplanes than crazies (or incompetents; it's difficult to tell) in cars, even though the latter clearly injures and kills far more people. Our current 'arrive two hours early' security screening has cost many lives simply because it tilts the drive/fly equation towards driving, which is dramatically more dangerous. That said, you are probably right about the net effect.
- em3rgent0rdr 9y ago
  > Our current 'arrive two hours early' This. Considering about 800 million passengers per year in US, that's 800 million extra hours of awake human that the additional hour to handle security requirements suck up. Considering a 79 year lifespan per human (totaling 461360 awake hours), that's around 1734 human lives wasted per year in US. 9/11 only killed 2996 people, of average age 40, so roughtly could be said that the extra hour of airport security in US costs a 9/11 every year. (I'll admit, maybe people having a friendly chat in the secutiry line or otherwise enjoy the extra time in the airport terminal, so not exactly apples-to-apples comparison).

redspectre 9y ago

Isn't it sad that we can't have an exciting new technology because the threat that some outsider will blow themselves up? Is there really nothing we can do about this, either now, or in the future?

tdb7893 9y ago
Very few people actually blow themselves up (terrorism is really really low on the list of the most common causes of death) so I doubt that it will be why we don't have flying cars.
- jra_samba 9y ago
  Self driving flying cars (which will be essential for mass market adoption) make an excellent weapon. No one needs to blow themselves up, just the car.
  - yeahsure 9y ago
    As far as I know terrorists have no problem blowing themselves up.
cmurf 9y ago
Maybe. There's a strong correlation between military occupations and terrorism, in particular when the use of force is asymmetric. http://foreignpolicy.com/2010/10/18/its-the-occupation-stupid/ http://foreignpolicy.com/2010/10/18/its-the-occupation-stupi...
lostmsu 9y ago
I am not actually suggesting to do it, but you could blow up all outsiders.
- gowld 9y ago
  Who would be left inside?
dwaltrip 9y ago
It isn't only "outsiders" who do destructive acts.

stctgion 9y ago

Helicopters fit this description too

adjkant 9y ago
And how often does the average person ride in one of those?
- nradov 9y ago
  Anyone who can scrape together a few hundred dollars can take a short helicopter tour ride. It's pretty common in tourist areas.
  - jra_samba 9y ago
    Yes, but they are in the helicopter, so won't want to blow it up. The killer combination is self-flying cars (which as I said will be a prerequisite for mass adoption). No one needs ride it for it to be a weapon, unlike a helicopter.
jra_samba 9y ago
Yes, and flying a helicopter is heavily regulated just like an airplane. It's the same reason you don't see regular car owners operating their own helicopter (unless as I said they're very rich).

zhoujianfu 9y ago

They might just require something like tsa precheck and perhaps a metal detector at the “stations”.

gowld 9y ago
Why? people who can afford to fly privately today are already exempt from TSA. Only plebes go through TSA checks.
- cmurf 9y ago
  FAR §91.3 Responsibility and authority of the pilot in command. (a) The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft. and FAR §135.125 Aircraft security. Certificate holders conducting operators conducting operations under this part must comply with the applicable security requirements in 49 CFR chapter XII. The first applies to all flights, the second applies to air taxi flights. Equivalents for flying taxis are indicated, but it's a whole separate paradigm. Who is the pilot in command of an autonomous flying taxi? That has very clear implications today with human pilots. It's really vague what that thing is in a pilotless paradigm. There's probably a distinction between rides with strangers and rides with friends and family. If I know everyone in my flying taxi, that's probably more like a FAR 91 flight, and maybe it's sane to have a minimal security paradigm. If there are strangers on the flight, that's trending toward FAR 135 requirement.

ShorsHammer 9y ago

Any drone with over 8 propellers already has amazing redundancy today using off the shelf consumer products. Loss of multiple rotors is perfectly manageable. Add variable pitch blades and you get autorotation ability to handle total power loss. Worrying about the threats posed is silly. A truck driven by a maniac still can do far more damage. No one is proposing a truck ban.

SlowBro 9y ago
Many drones available today, some of them costing less than USD $1000, could become the kind of flying weapon jra_samba worries about. I just don't think this is a very big concern.
- ShorsHammer 9y ago
  Department13 is where it's at for anyone interested in counterdrone tech. Bigup to dotslash et al. https://department13.com https://department13.com
- jra_samba 9y ago
  Drones don't weigh enough to be a kinetic energy weapon. You'd have to strap a bomb to them (which I believe is getting very popular in certain parts of the world already). A 'flying car' is heavy enough to do large amounts damage just by falling out of the sky. Doesn't have to have anyone riding in it to blow themselves up at the right time, a cell-phone triggered bomb will do just as well.
  - SlowBro 9y ago
    Many drones can carry many kg of load. Any number of heavy (e.g. kinetic) or explosive payloads are an option. Molotov cocktail delivery vehicle? Why not? Requires a remote control lighter and remote release. How about dropping steel rebar? Needs tail fins for directional stability and some testing but that would be plenty troublesome. Drone mounted pistols are already here. (YouTube them.) And yet the skies are considered safe enough today. I just think there are bigger concerns out there.

nharada 9y ago

You're suggesting someone would fly in one of these, and exactly at the right moment detonate a bomb to cause it to fall from the sky onto someone? How in the world would they aim the falling vehicle? It's not like they're gonna have control of the thing. And even in this case, why not just use the bomb to blow someone up instead of taking it onto a plane to possibly drop it on someone? This just feels...so unlikely.

jra_samba 9y ago
No, that's silly. No one needs to fly it, use a cell phone triggered explosive device. That way none of the bombers friends need get hurt. After all such cars will have to be self-flying. You're surely not suggesting the flying car using public would need to get a pilots license before flying in one ? That would already mean they're only a rich persons toy. If the target is big enough (sports stadium for example) you.dont need to aim it. And as to why use a flying car instead of going there, I would have thought that was obvious. You can drop a car on people from a distance. Don't need to be there.
- IntronExon 9y ago
  A few thoughts, positive and negative. First, these cars would be easy targets for AA batteries. I would have to assume thst getting to close to a stadium full of people in one would lead to a shoot down, or remote shutdown. Second, why bombs? What you can pack into a small aircraft is not the makings of a really impressive bomb, unless you have military grade high explosives. Now on the other hand, you could pack loads of nerve agents, chlorine, vessicants, or biological agents into one. Third, you’d have to know enough about the hardware and software to modify it to fly empty, and violate restricted airspace. That might be a hell of a barrier to entry. Fourth, these things could be heavily networked to function, so a rogue taxi could be taken over remotely, because it’s already remotely controlled. Fifth, does the FBI care why you’re building a bomb or milling anthrax? Whatever your delivery system, they’re monitoring precursors and equipment you’d need. Air taxi, truck, drone, dudes with backpacks... the delivery system isn’t the chokepoint.
- nharada 9y ago

lsc 9y ago

Eh, if you change this to the fear of this far outweighs any possible benefits, I'd agree; I mean, flying using current technology is far safer than driving, but we've by law severely limited the usefulness of air travel because people are somehow more scared of crazies in airplanes than crazies (or incompetents; it's difficult to tell) in cars, even though the latter clearly injures and kills far more people. Our current 'arrive two hours early' security screening has cost many lives simply because it tilts the drive/fly equation towards driving, which is dramatically more dangerous. That said, you are probably right about the net effect.

em3rgent0rdr 9y ago
> Our current 'arrive two hours early' This. Considering about 800 million passengers per year in US, that's 800 million extra hours of awake human that the additional hour to handle security requirements suck up. Considering a 79 year lifespan per human (totaling 461360 awake hours), that's around 1734 human lives wasted per year in US. 9/11 only killed 2996 people, of average age 40, so roughtly could be said that the extra hour of airport security in US costs a 9/11 every year. (I'll admit, maybe people having a friendly chat in the secutiry line or otherwise enjoy the extra time in the airport terminal, so not exactly apples-to-apples comparison).