Obviously, those of you in favor of this haven’t thought all the way through the concept of a flying car or you’d all realize just what a dangerous and stupid idea a flying car really is.
Machines break.
Machines fall out of sky.
Hope you aren’t under them when it happens.

I would agree with all of you except for one simple thing…all of the examples you so vociferously threw up in defense of your position don’t take into account the sheer number of personal vehicles involved. Yes there are aircraft of all sorts currently in our airspace. But they are limited to set flight patterns and are in relativly small numbers vs the number of people who use them. Now consider the number of vehicles used by people for personal transport. Now imagine all those vehicles IN THE AIR ABOVE US. Do the math people. That’s a lot more metal in the air above us in a much closer proximity to use compared to current aircraft.
Argue all you want, numbers don’t lie. Reboot, feel free to refute me if I’m wrong and I’ll accept your judgement. Otherwise you can all just go suck it.

Sorry, ‘reasonable’.

@wookie. Actually, I’m the life of the party when there aren’t short busers such as yourself there.
To rebut your arguments:
1) I never said they would be built by the lowest bidder. Just like ground vehicles, one would find many levels of flying vehicle quality. That being said, the basic model would be built by the lowest bidder because in every vehicle design from scooters to space shuttles, the lowest bidder inevitably gets the contract. Do some research.
2) They would have safety features. But like I previously stated, (which I’m guessing you either didn’t bother to read or are too dense to understand), the technology does not exist, (nor would be viably created in the near or distant feature), to make a foolproof safety feature to prevent the damn thing from falling out of the sky.
3) It would have undergone testing. And the tests would have proven that the average person would not be remotely capable or trustworthy of safely operating said vehicle. Now you’re into computer control, something trustworthy only until it malfunctions. Plus the aforementioned needed backups in case of propulsion failure.
4) How far into the future are you talking about? Go far enough and the point is moot. Who knows what kind of tech they will have and how it will be implemented? We were discussing the viability of the design in the forseeable future, i.e. our lifetimes.
Now if you want, I can go into exhaustive detail about basic lift/drag ratios, propulsion systems, safety systems, etc., but I’m quite convinced by your pathetic arguments that you don’t have a clue. So instead, I’m going to tell you to shut your whore mouth and have a nice day, you donkey rapist.

Wook, quit using the argument and i’ll quit accusing you of it. You’ve done it enough times to accuse you of using it as your primary mode of attack in an argument. Has nothing to do with my love of a particular argument style. You keep using it. Period. Perhaps if you truly understood it you’d stop going there everytime someone disagrees with you.
1) Way to jump a century or so between the creation of the land vehicle and modern vehicles. BTW, if you’d actually done any research, you’d know Ford did advocate the theory of the cheapest, simplest vehicle for the public. Even down to the color. “they can have whatever color they want, so long as it’s black.” Speaks volumes.
2) Of course the basis for your argument doesn’t exist! That would make it too easy for anyone to refute your argument that at some time in some future the tech might exist for flying cars to be safe and plentiful for a mankind that may or may not exist! Wow! We’ve reached a science plateau. Look into it. The science for safe, foolproof flying cars simply doesn’t exist and will not feasibly exist for centuries. Get over your Star Trek/Star Wars boner fantasy and let it go.
3) You’re right, since we are talking about tech that doesn’t exist, let’s throw all science out the window and assume, (let’s ignore what assuming does), that all the testing would ignore the basic precept of human nature which, despite our relavant tech, has not changed significantly. That people are not arrogant, ignorant morons in general that ignore all safety regulations and requirements. While you are at it, might as well wish for world peace. But you are right, go far enough into the future and who knows where we’ll end up. Might as well shit in one hand and wish in another and see which fills up first.
4) Don’t call me kiddo. You don’t know me, but, given your inane comments, I know you and I can say you are younger than I am and don’t have a goddamn clue about what you think you are talking about, young man. Get over it. You’ve lost this argument. Your continued attempts make you look even more ignorant than you probably are. Tell you what, stick whatever you’d like up your ass. I don’t care. I don’t have the time to care. You have an outstanding day my young friend. You have a lot to learn about the world you live in.

Die, school is relatively cheap in Canada. We live here. We would sponsor you. Happily. Canada loves the student immigrants. Think about it. What is your real name? She deserves to hear how it sounds. AS for the ripping, clothes will do.