• Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    1 year ago

    And those were considered for use as “flying taxis” and they failed for the same reason these will: Flying and landing in cities is dangerous, which is why airports are built very far away.

    • Pyr_Pressure@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s also expensive as fuck.

      Even if you have electric flying helicopters, the rotary component makes them very expensive to maintain as blades and components need to be replaced sometimes every 500 hours or less and require constant safety checks and inspections.

      Imagine how many taxi cabs have a malfunction of some sort every year. Now imagine that taxi cab crashing into a building or crowded street if it had a malfunction instead of just cruising to a halt on the side of the road.

    • FlowVoid@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Helicopters aren’t failures, people still use them to get from the city to an airport and back. However, they are very expensive.

      The vehicles in this article have the same use case, but they are intended to be cheaper.

      • Honytawk@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        These drone cars won’t be cheap either.

        Because it costs a lot more energy to keep something in the air and move it forward, than it is to move it forward on the road.

    • R0cket_M00se@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      It was mostly a noise/airspace crowding concern, helicopters fly in cities all the time and plenty of roofs have active helipads.