5 ms·
I'm personally against it because I don't want anything to fall down into my garden or on my head in case of a failure.
by akerro 9y ago
I'm personally against it because I don't want anything to fall down into my garden or on my head in case of a failure.
- nl 9y agoDo planes often fall on your head?
- blocked_again 9y agoNope. Given the number of planes in the world the probability of that happening is close to Zero. But a lot of birds has pooped on my head. The more KittyHwaks and other mass used flying cars in the air the more the probability of one falling on your head.
- ryanlol 9y agoI don't think it would be acceptable for an aircraft like this to have a failure rate comparable to a birds poop rate.
- akerro 9y ago> Do planes often fall on your head? No, but once per week I see a broken car on a motorway on my commute.
- t3po7re5 9y agoCan't you say the same about helicopters and airplanes?
- blocked_again 9y agoYup. But probability is close to Zero.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- mrybczyn 9y agoI'm pretty sure this is a literal "Not In My Back Yard" comment. I'm okay with it. Yes it will be for the 1% for a long time, but so were trains and cars and airlines...
- endless1234 9y agoBut how does this system scale? Thousands of these simultaneously in the air above cities? The noise must be quite something. I think it's a novel helicopter replacement idea, but not really anything for mass transportation.
- jhall1468 9y agoThese would be extremely quiet while cruising but likely pretty loud on take off. The latter is moot since that's happening at an airport.
- endless1234 9y agoThey're supposed to be able to land and take off buildings I thought?
- Bizarro 9y agoAlthough autonomous doesn't solve the failure problem, it does (for the most) part solve the crazy/incompetent problem of the past, future visions of flying cars for everybody.
- fastball 9y agoYou realize someone can probably crash their car into your garden, right?