California High Speed Fail.

[Ifallalot]

There is literally not a single person trying to remove the freedom self sufficient travel. That’s some TDS level derangement to think otherwise.

Public transport is just another option. And no it does not mean scary socialism.

There's a person on here who wants to do so. Statistics tells us that he's one of many.

On top of that, any self-driving car cheerleader is trying to remove self-sufficient travel as well.

 

[manbearpig]

Who is advocating that? I have never seen it, not once.

Your latter part is just more paranoia and fear (gasp!) of new technology progression. Self driving cars don’t remove self sufficient travel. Period.

It’s looking like you have a lot of mischaracterizations going on (as usual).

 

[Ifallalot]

Who is advocating that? I have never seen it, not once.

Your latter part is just more paranoia and fear (gasp!) of new technology progression. Self driving cars don’t remove self sufficient travel. Period.

It’s looking like you have a lot of mischaracterizations going on (as usual).

You know exactly who I’m talking about. He’s even screeching on this thread

The only way self driving cars will work is if human operated cars are removed. This eliminates self-sufficient travel

 

[manbearpig]

I have yet to see him screech about removing the freedom of travel. That is a mischaracterization.

And your second point is just absurdly wrong and in complete denial of the facts.

 

[FecalFace]

I have yet to see him screech about removing the freedom of travel. That is a mischaracterization.

And your second point is just absurdly wrong and in complete denial of the facts.

Nobody ever mentioned it, I even said I love cars in this thread.

The only idiot who wants to get rid of cars is the guy who went on about flying cars being a thing in 30 years.

 

[casa_mugrienta]

Hover cars are unlikely unfortunately. The average citizen is unlikely to use aviation as main mode of transportation, there’s too many variables. Danger increases tenfold, conflict of interest in air space with small planes/helicopters/commercial jets, complicated regulations that will not be laxed, etc.

The monkey in the room that no one likes to bring up is noise. There’s no way around the significant amount of noise pollution they create. There is no alternatives to avoid this that are possible. The reality of flying cars is it will never happen in place of car transportation. Those companies are developing toy planes for rich people that look like cars.

You're making a lot of assumptions here by placing terms of the of the present on the future.

 

[Surfdog]

I have yet to see him screech about removing the freedom of travel. That is a mischaracterization.

And your second point is just absurdly wrong and in complete denial of the facts.

Nobody ever mentioned it, I even said I love cars in this thread.

The only idiot who wants to get rid of cars is the guy who went on about flying cars being a thing in 30 years.

Wow! Where did I say ANYTHING about getting rid of cars by mentioning the potential of flying cars in the distant future?

I was the only one that said autos made America what it is today. A beacon of freedom many come to USA for.

Nice try, but epic fail at spin.

But you complain about lacking public transit (that you'd never use) because people here don't want to use it unless no other choice. Then go on like we should basically demand it and feel guilty for not doing so, because London has it so extensively (within it's barely 10 mile or so radius). Such BS hypocrisy.

As for self-driving cars, I wouldn't trust one for decades. Too many variables still need to be nailed down before we use humans as guinea pigs for it. Human lives are on the line with self-driving autos.

 

[grapedrink]

As for self-driving cars, I wouldn't trust one for decades

Versus flying cars that could potentially fall from the sky in the event of an accident, lack of fuel, mechanical failure, etc :confused2: . . .. .

 

[Surfdog]

As for self-driving cars, I wouldn't trust one for decades

Versus flying cars that could potentially fall from the sky in the event of an accident, lack of fuel, mechanical failure, etc :confused2: . . .. .

People fly Cessna's all the time to commute and some are 50 years old. How many do you see crash every month compared to cars on the road?

By the time flying cars are a reality, they will make todays Tesla's look like Model T's.

 

[grapedrink]

People fly Cessna's all the time to commute and some are 50 years old. How many do you see crash every month compared to cars on the road?

LOL, false equivalency much? How many Cessnas are operated daily compared to cars? Plus, you can't compare a car crash to a plane crash. Most car crashes don't effect pedestrians and off road infrastructure. A flying car crash in an a suburban and especially urban environment has a very high probability of landing on humans and/or buildings. Once a large portion of the public is in flying cars, the probability of accidents and equipment failure goes up dramatically.

 

[manbearpig]

Hover cars are unlikely unfortunately. The average citizen is unlikely to use aviation as main mode of transportation, there’s too many variables. Danger increases tenfold, conflict of interest in air space with small planes/helicopters/commercial jets, complicated regulations that will not be laxed, etc.

The monkey in the room that no one likes to bring up is noise. There’s no way around the significant amount of noise pollution they create. There is no alternatives to avoid this that are possible. The reality of flying cars is it will never happen in place of car transportation. Those companies are developing toy planes for rich people that look like cars.

You're making a lot of assumptions here by placing terms of the of the present on the future.

Where am I wrong? I went down a rabbit hole awhile back, all these issues came up.

 

[casa_mugrienta]

Hover cars are unlikely unfortunately. The average citizen is unlikely to use aviation as main mode of transportation, there’s too many variables. Danger increases tenfold, conflict of interest in air space with small planes/helicopters/commercial jets, complicated regulations that will not be laxed, etc.

The monkey in the room that no one likes to bring up is noise. There’s no way around the significant amount of noise pollution they create. There is no alternatives to avoid this that are possible. The reality of flying cars is it will never happen in place of car transportation. Those companies are developing toy planes for rich people that look like cars.

You're making a lot of assumptions here by placing terms of the of the present on the future.

Where am I wrong? I went down a rabbit hole awhile back, all these issues came up.

You could be right.

I'm just saying you're saying falsehoods and applying the limitations of the present as absolute limitations of the future.

You say "DANGER INCREASES TENFOLD" for air travel - that's 100% false, and in fact the opposite is true. Air travel is much safer than highway or train travel.

Yes, flying vehicles are currently loud, but how can you say there's no way they'll be quieter in the future???

 

[casa_mugrienta]

Once a large portion of the public is in flying cars, the probability of accidents and equipment failure goes up dramatically.

Link?

My guess is this sort of air travel would be systems based and actual flight would be automated.

Likely much safer than travel by auto.

 

[Duffy LaCoronilla]

Hover cars are unlikely unfortunately. The average citizen is unlikely to use aviation as main mode of transportation, there’s too many variables. Danger increases tenfold, conflict of interest in air space with small planes/helicopters/commercial jets, complicated regulations that will not be laxed, etc.

The monkey in the room that no one likes to bring up is noise. There’s no way around the significant amount of noise pollution they create. There is no alternatives to avoid this that are possible. The reality of flying cars is it will never happen in place of car transportation. Those companies are developing toy planes for rich people that look like cars.

Flying cars will never happen.

 

[afoaf]

Flying cars will never happen.

mthrfkrs can't even use a roundabout and now we think heads are going to fly?!

unsane

 

[casa_mugrienta]

Flying cars will never happen.

mthrfkrs can't even use a roundabout and now we think heads are going to fly?!

unsane

"heads" won't be flying, a computer will.

 

[casa_mugrienta]

Hover cars are unlikely unfortunately. The average citizen is unlikely to use aviation as main mode of transportation, there’s too many variables. Danger increases tenfold, conflict of interest in air space with small planes/helicopters/commercial jets, complicated regulations that will not be laxed, etc.

The monkey in the room that no one likes to bring up is noise. There’s no way around the significant amount of noise pollution they create. There is no alternatives to avoid this that are possible. The reality of flying cars is it will never happen in place of car transportation. Those companies are developing toy planes for rich people that look like cars.

Flying cars will never happen.

As a personal commuter vehicle in urbanized areas? Probably won't be.

As shared taxis, public transport, and law enforcement vehicles? Probably will be.

 

[grapedrink]

Once a large portion of the public is in flying cars, the probability of accidents and equipment failure goes up dramatically.

Link?

My guess is this sort of air travel would be systems based and actual flight would be automated.

Likely much safer than travel by auto.

The probability of air accidents in general would go up just by virtue of numbers , IMO. Using common sense here. A relative handful of experienced pilots versus the skies being flooded with your average commuters that can barely operate a vehicle in 2 dimensions can only lead to more accidents. That said, I’m not saying there would by more accidents than 2D travel.

The wild card is that accidents and failures would be more dangerous to the public due to the whole gravity thing.

I agree that automation would help, but Surfdog seemed to poopoo self driving cars, so not sure how that fits in for him

 

[casa_mugrienta]

Once a large portion of the public is in flying cars, the probability of accidents and equipment failure goes up dramatically.

Link?

My guess is this sort of air travel would be systems based and actual flight would be automated.

Likely much safer than travel by auto.

The probability of air accidents in general would go up just by virtue of numbers , IMO. Using common sense here. A relative handful of experienced pilots versus the skies being flooded with your average commuters that can barely operate a vehicle in 2 dimensions can only lead to more accidents. That said, I’m not saying there would by more accidents than 2D travel.

The wild card is that accidents and failures would be more dangerous to the public due to the whole gravity thing.

I agree that automation would help, but Surfdog seemed to poopoo self driving cars, so not sure how that fits in for him

No one will be piloting flying commuter transport in urban areas.

It will all be automated.

 

[manbearpig]

Hover cars are unlikely unfortunately. The average citizen is unlikely to use aviation as main mode of transportation, there’s too many variables. Danger increases tenfold, conflict of interest in air space with small planes/helicopters/commercial jets, complicated regulations that will not be laxed, etc.

The monkey in the room that no one likes to bring up is noise. There’s no way around the significant amount of noise pollution they create. There is no alternatives to avoid this that are possible. The reality of flying cars is it will never happen in place of car transportation. Those companies are developing toy planes for rich people that look like cars.

You're making a lot of assumptions here by placing terms of the of the present on the future.

Where am I wrong? I went down a rabbit hole awhile back, all these issues came up.

You could be right.

I'm just saying you're saying falsehoods and applying the limitations of the present as absolute limitations of the future.

You say "DANGER INCREASES TENFOLD" for air travel - that's 100% false, and in fact the opposite is true. Air travel is much safer than highway or train travel.

Yes, flying vehicles are currently loud, but how can you say there's no way they'll be quieter in the future???

How do you justify flying cars to not be greatly more dangerous than driving on roads? Especially when you consider the number of bad drivers on the road. Seriously, explain how that is 100% false. I’ll get my popcorn for that one. Grapedrink nailed it.

As for the noise, The only options are rotors like a helicopter, or combustion jet style engine. There is no way around the noise factor in either of those situations.

It’s a romantic idealistic prediction of the future that’s probably never going to happen. I hope I’m wrong though.