|
udfred
|
Posted 5:27 pm, 07/10/2024
|
When you're traveling and you see all those Fords broken down on the side of the road. It will be the same just a lot bloodier.
|
|
antithesis
|
Posted 4:37 pm, 07/10/2024
|
Like I said before, though, Foxy... you're comparing a 20-40' lane with an entire sky.
We're in a technological position where drones can more or less fly themselves, anyway. Why not subsidize their development so that we can eliminate cars and roads entirely within the next 20 years?
|
|
Foxnose
|
Posted 4:33 pm, 07/10/2024
|
People can't even keep a car on their side of the road, and you want them in helicopters? I don't think so
|
|
Anonymoose
|
Posted 4:31 pm, 07/10/2024
|
Watch out for them right wing conservatives burning cities
|
|
antithesis
|
Posted 4:20 pm, 07/10/2024
|
I forgot you have all the answers.
No need to be snippy. Like I said, every problem has an answer. Sometimes you just have to think.
Sign me up for 6 of those to be delivered in the next couple of weeks.
We're talking about the government changing their subsidies from infrastructure to providing flying vehicles. Are you saying that you support this?
I leave at 4am , do you want me flying over your house.
No different from someone driving by the house. Better, really... drones are super quiet, and if you're higher up then I wouldn't hear a thing.
Who's going to work on all these flying machines ? It costs $100 an hour for a car mechanic, how much does a helicopter mechanic charge.
Demand creates a supply... as they become common, so would mechanics. But since the government would be diverting infrastructure money, you would have a new one every few years and repairs would be minimal.
Fueling stations gridlock, blue haired old women crashing into a fueling station .
Liberal activists with homemade firebombs etc etc The FBI says that right wing activists are the real threat...
I'm not sure how it's better or worse than car bombs, though. In fact, flying with several batteries would be considerably safer than driving a car with 20 gallons of explosive liquid...
|
|
Anonymoose
|
Posted 4:08 pm, 07/10/2024
|
I leave at 4am , do you want me flying over your house. Who's going to work on all these flying machines ? It costs $100 an hour for a car mechanic, how much does a helicopter mechanic charge. Fueling stations gridlock, blue haired old women crashing into a fueling station . Liberal activists with homemade firebombs etc etc
|
|
DLD
|
Posted 4:01 pm, 07/10/2024
|
I forgot you have all the answers. Sign me up for 6 of those to be delivered in the next couple of weeks.
|
|
antithesis
|
Posted 3:57 pm, 07/10/2024
|
Yeah, but your not thinking. I have 50 families within a square mile of me an I can see 50 helicopters deciding to take off all at once. Plus a boy has a jet airplane next to me. What if he decided to take off just as we all did. It would be one mell of a hess.
By your logic, though, if 50 cars tried to take off at once it would create a traffic jam, too.
Every problem has a solution... helicopters go straight up, so an easy fix would be for each helicopter to have an auto-assigned altitude. It could even be computer controlled, so the user hops in, turns it on, and it automatically goes to the assigned altitude. Then they could all go in the exact same direction at the exact same time, and it wouldn't matter.
|
|
DLD
|
Posted 3:48 pm, 07/10/2024
|
Yeah, but your not thinking. I have 50 families within a square mile of me an I can see 50 helicopters deciding to take off all at once. Plus a boy has a jet airplane next to me. What if he decided to take off just as we all did. It would be one mell of a hess.
|
|
antithesis
|
Posted 3:39 pm, 07/10/2024
|
Yeah, I say go for it. I can see 127 million helicopter in the air all at once.
Over the entire US... that doesn't seem like too much.
Consider that the average maximum altitude for a regular helicopter is 10,000 feet, too, so you can fit a lot more in a much smaller area.
I say the EV chargers still haven't been installed That's irrelevant to the topic... we've discussed how the money isn't spent until the chargers are installed, anyway, so if none are built then we haven't spent anything. What you're talking about is GOP sabotage, and has nothing to do with the thread unless you're saying that politicians would sabotage this plan, too.
|
|
DLD
|
Posted 3:36 pm, 07/10/2024
|
On top of all those helicopters, you have somewhere in the neigborhood of 200,000 private planes. Lets turn them all loose at one time.Me personally, I would rather keep my feet on the ground.
|
|
Anonymoose
|
Posted 3:18 pm, 07/10/2024
|
I say the EV chargers still haven't been installed
|
|
DLD
|
Posted 3:09 pm, 07/10/2024
|
Yeah, I say go for it. I can see 127 million helicopter in the air all at once.
|
|
antithesis
|
Posted 2:09 pm, 07/10/2024
|
In 2021, the US government allocated $1.2 trillion towards infrastructure, mostly in the form of money given to state and local governments that they will use to repair roads, bridges, airports, and rails.
Before that, a report in 2019 said that "the United States spends over $400 billion per year on infrastructure."
Assuming that estimate is correct, and that the $400 billion stopped in 2021 with the BIL, that's $4 trillion in 10 years. That's not adjusting for inflation over the 10 years, it's just a raw sum.
There are about 127 million households in the US.
Which means that repairing roads and bridges cost every household an average of $31,496.
Would it make more sense for the government to start subsidizing helicopters and drones for every household, and just abandon roads and bridges?
Require piloting classes instead of driving classes, along with manufacturers making them more user friendly. With mass sales, the prices would drop, too.
There would be no more damage to the environment... fewer trees removed, animals wouldn't be restricted or ran over, less pollution to waters, less pollution from asphalt production. Fewer pollution laws and cleanup costs means more money available for the subsidy.
There would be far fewer collisions, with everyone moving in 3D instead of 2D and not being physically restricted to a line of 20-40 feet. And literally the only thing you could hit would be another helicopter. That also means that fewer police and paramedics would be needed, cutting even more government expense... adding to the potential subsidy.
You would arrive much faster, able to fly almost twice as fast while going in a straight line rather than following curves and hills.
Sure, there would be a learning curve... old timers would panic and never figure it out. But the same could be said about people that grew up riding horses that suddenly had a car shoved at them. They're not the ones that would benefit, it would be the younger generation that would grow up with flying and think of it as normal.
What say you?
|
|
|
