NASA flying car engineer shoots down Reg coverage
Like it!
" none have been flying cars – about a quarter have been personal air vehicles."
And the distinction is what exactly. IIRC when pundits first talked about flying cars they weren't talking about road going vehicles that could fly, they were talking about the airborne equivalent of the road going car. Or to put it another way; "Roads? Where we're going we don't need roads." I would have said that another way of describing such a contrivance would be a personal air vehicle.
Bartering semantics like this reminds me of the time that the body representing the motorcycle trade in the UK came up with the term Powered Two Wheeler or PTW to describe the supposedly more civilized end of the market. The idea being that names like motorbike, scooter and moped all had negative connotations whereas PTW didn't. There's no difference between a motorcycle and a PTW as far as the man in the street is concerned. Likewise there is no difference between a Personal Air Vehicle and a flying car.
No that's not my car, it's my personal transport pod.
Anyhow, flying cars or indeed personal air vehicles will not take off any time soon. If cars had not been invented until the 21st century I doubt they'd have been allowed either, just look at the health and safety implications. The air above every town and city full of personal air vehicles. Can you imagine the rush hour? The average motor vehicle accident results in some bent panels and frayed tempers. The same thing at 200 metres? Deaths.
And look at the regulations covering remote controlled aircraft these days. Murkyside police need all sorts of permits and insurance just to fly their remote controlled surveilance chopper. And even then they can't get it very near people or buildings. Imagine the hoops you'd have to jump through to get a licence to fly your PAV and the cost of the insurance. Forget it.
