← Back to context

Comment by tyre

1 day ago

Ain’t no way you want flying taxis in Manhattan. If two collide or one fails, you could kill dozens of people.

Maaaaybe instead of the tunnels and bridges, to increase throughput during rush hours, but even then we’re trying to have fewer vehicles in Manhattan, not more.

Also, I cannot imagine what it would be like to go through an intersection during the winter. You would be hit with a wall of cross-cutting wind tunneling down 50 blocks that no airborne device is going to handle well. Absolute nightmare.

21 comments

tyre

Reply
fc417fc802  9 hours ago

> If two collide or one fails, you could kill dozens of people.

How is that any different from an automobile navigating the ridiculously crowded streets?

  • shtzvhdx  8 hours ago

    Presumably, if you're going to bother with flying vehicles, it's to free up space on the ground below.

    To fill with other uses, say pedestrians.

    Taxi falls, pedestrians get crushed bellow, but now the vehicular speed isn't 20-30 mph tops, but the terminal velocity of the vehicle.

    mv^2 is mean.

  • DonHopkins  9 hours ago

    Much worse, obviously.

    • fc417fc802  9 hours ago

      That's not at all obvious to me. Please explain. Both are approximately car sized and both are likely to hit pedestrians.

      In a place with fewer pedestrians I'd buy that airborne vehicles might have a higher chance of hitting a person because they could crash somewhere that a traditional taxi couldn't. But when the place is packed wall to wall with people an arms length away I don't think that applies anymore. At least it doesn't seem self evident to me.

      3 replies →

xnx  1 day ago

Right. This wouldn't be point to point on the Manhattan grid, but from Manhattan Island back and forth to the airports.