3 ms·

As far as E, not sure you could do more damage than a box truck would do. If you tried to fly into a crowd somehow you would crash and probably only hurt peopl

As far as E, not sure you could do more damage than a box truck would do. If you tried to fly into a crowd somehow you would crash and probably only hurt people within a relatively small radius.

yifanl 7y ago
With big box cars, you can at least set up large concrete barricades to mitigate these on crowds. With flying cars, you'd never be able to guarantee the safety of any outdoors event (and in either case, it doesn't have to be the result of terrorism, a drunk driver or a midair collision can still cause these problems)
- corodra 7y ago
  I mean, anti air artillery. Lots of fiery death explosions and collateral damage. But we'll live in a world where the Gulf War air raids are the norm.
  - gamblor956 7y ago
    Bollards and concrete planters can stop a tractor-trailer going 60 mph. Dead stop. They are fully passive defenses. And minimum collateral damage. Anti-air artillery is not a reasonable civilian defense system. It's just silly, not in any way relevant to the discussion at hand, and you know it. Stop trolling and move on.
    - corodra 7y ago
      Eh? I'm the one who did the ABC list. While yes, I'm in half jest, its partially serious. Because that's what will happen unless there are better safety alternatives. How about remote shut off and control by a gov body? Too expensive and a wonderful vector for remote hacks. FAA tracking and interception on deviated courses? Holy crap I doubt they can scale fast enough if buying and using flying cars "takes off". See what I did there? Also interception will lead to the same fire ball of death problem. No fly airspace, which would become nearly every metro and suburb the same day. Thus making the flying car useless. Unless we do SAMs or antiair, the flying car will be dead in the water. And still would be. It's too large of a premeditated and accidental disaster precursor. If they're k12 rated. Most bollards are not k12, especially in cities due to shallow dig depths. Even if the bollard or planter themselves are k12. Normally they're never dug deep with supports because contractors are lazy assholes if you don't stand over their shoulder. And those that are k12 are expensive as shit. I actually work in protective design. That, and I think I'm funny so :P
    - deftnerd 7y ago
      Bollards and concrete planters are excellent for stopping a lot of mass going very fast, this is true. One thing to keep in mind about the threat of "flying car attacks" is that weight requirements of staying in the air generally remove the "mass" part of the equation. Someone could pack a flying vehicle full of explosives, but explosives that pack a big punch and that are compact & light weight are pretty regulated. Explosives that are easy to acquire tend to have more weight (fuel oil & fertilizer, for example). You could only pack so much in a vehicle before it couldn't take off anymore. In general, I don't think flying cars would be any more of a risk than light aircraft, which have been around for decades without very many incidents of successful terrorism. As an example, about a decade ago, and anti-tax nut flew a light aircraft into an office building that housed local IRS offices in Austin. It caused a lot of damage, but not serious structural damage and there were no fatalities other than the pilot.
zeeZ 7y ago
Access to more crowds though. Imagine someone crashing into an Oktoberfest tent
corodra 7y ago
Um... should I tell you about a little known event called 9/11? Let's just add, oh, I don't know, 100 pounds of a fertilizer bomb like the Oklahoma city bomber. He used a lot more, but 100 is still crazy dangerous. Add you have a vehicle that laughes at bollards, gates and fences. You do know, bad people actually do exist. Trusting tech companies and scifi hopes and dreams really isn't an effective strategy.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- starpilot 7y ago
  Which you can already do with existing small helicopters for rent, general aviation airplanes etc. Flying cars aren't a new threat in this respect.
  - corodra 7y ago
    Current pricing and registration are the current barriers to entry, especially training. It's not straightforward easy to fly a helicopter or small airplane. Not crazy difficult. But harder than a ground vehicle. Making it too easy and affordable and making them crazy plentiful in the air so they can't be tracked easily, that's the danger.

As far as E, not sure you could do more damage than a box truck would do. If you tried to fly into a crowd somehow you would crash and probably only hurt people within a relatively small radius.

yifanl 7y ago

With big box cars, you can at least set up large concrete barricades to mitigate these on crowds. With flying cars, you'd never be able to guarantee the safety of any outdoors event (and in either case, it doesn't have to be the result of terrorism, a drunk driver or a midair collision can still cause these problems)

corodra 7y ago
I mean, anti air artillery. Lots of fiery death explosions and collateral damage. But we'll live in a world where the Gulf War air raids are the norm.
- gamblor956 7y ago
  Bollards and concrete planters can stop a tractor-trailer going 60 mph. Dead stop. They are fully passive defenses. And minimum collateral damage. Anti-air artillery is not a reasonable civilian defense system. It's just silly, not in any way relevant to the discussion at hand, and you know it. Stop trolling and move on.
  - corodra 7y ago
    Eh? I'm the one who did the ABC list. While yes, I'm in half jest, its partially serious. Because that's what will happen unless there are better safety alternatives. How about remote shut off and control by a gov body? Too expensive and a wonderful vector for remote hacks. FAA tracking and interception on deviated courses? Holy crap I doubt they can scale fast enough if buying and using flying cars "takes off". See what I did there? Also interception will lead to the same fire ball of death problem. No fly airspace, which would become nearly every metro and suburb the same day. Thus making the flying car useless. Unless we do SAMs or antiair, the flying car will be dead in the water. And still would be. It's too large of a premeditated and accidental disaster precursor. If they're k12 rated. Most bollards are not k12, especially in cities due to shallow dig depths. Even if the bollard or planter themselves are k12. Normally they're never dug deep with supports because contractors are lazy assholes if you don't stand over their shoulder. And those that are k12 are expensive as shit. I actually work in protective design. That, and I think I'm funny so :P
  - deftnerd 7y ago
    Bollards and concrete planters are excellent for stopping a lot of mass going very fast, this is true. One thing to keep in mind about the threat of "flying car attacks" is that weight requirements of staying in the air generally remove the "mass" part of the equation. Someone could pack a flying vehicle full of explosives, but explosives that pack a big punch and that are compact & light weight are pretty regulated. Explosives that are easy to acquire tend to have more weight (fuel oil & fertilizer, for example). You could only pack so much in a vehicle before it couldn't take off anymore. In general, I don't think flying cars would be any more of a risk than light aircraft, which have been around for decades without very many incidents of successful terrorism. As an example, about a decade ago, and anti-tax nut flew a light aircraft into an office building that housed local IRS offices in Austin. It caused a lot of damage, but not serious structural damage and there were no fatalities other than the pilot.

zeeZ 7y ago

Access to more crowds though. Imagine someone crashing into an Oktoberfest tent

corodra 7y ago

Um... should I tell you about a little known event called 9/11? Let's just add, oh, I don't know, 100 pounds of a fertilizer bomb like the Oklahoma city bomber. He used a lot more, but 100 is still crazy dangerous. Add you have a vehicle that laughes at bollards, gates and fences. You do know, bad people actually do exist. Trusting tech companies and scifi hopes and dreams really isn't an effective strategy.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
starpilot 7y ago
Which you can already do with existing small helicopters for rent, general aviation airplanes etc. Flying cars aren't a new threat in this respect.
- corodra 7y ago
  Current pricing and registration are the current barriers to entry, especially training. It's not straightforward easy to fly a helicopter or small airplane. Not crazy difficult. But harder than a ground vehicle. Making it too easy and affordable and making them crazy plentiful in the air so they can't be tracked easily, that's the danger.