Replacing private cars with Aerodynes.

1) "mall aerodynes wont be expensive if they are mass produced(Mollers large four seater VTOL costs 500000$. Mass produced, it is estimated at 60000$."The Moller Skycar eh? Well the only one that caosts $500,000 right now is the Moller M400 1) Which has never flown successfully and2) Has been tested only once and it was hanging from a crane at the time, and STILL failedWait, Moller Skycar is made from Moller International right? Well thats a very legit and profitable company right?"It also appears that Dr Moller himself has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. It would seem that the final long overdue death-rattle for Moller International and the Skycar can't now be long in coming."http://www.theregister.co.uk...Oh so Moller is riding its M400 right into bankruptcy...... Point is the constant failures of these flying cars (which have been worked on for forty years to no success), along with the failing finances of the company that makes them wont make these cars popular anytime soon. I could easily dive into how $60,000 for a machine is also outside the finances of most families, but the fact that these things dont even fly and that the only company that makes them is filing for bankruptcy negates that their flying cars will create the future. 2) "2: Fly-by-wire systems, advanced avionics, simpler controls and instruments."So your solution for controlling air traffic is roads in the sky..... And your entire reason for supporting converting cars to planes is because of issues with road construction...... Do you see how this is a little contradictory?As for the two other things, you cant just say them and have them magically appear. Advanced avionics also dont solve how difficult it is to operate these machines. Cars are difficult to drive but in every scenario planes will always be harder to operate then cars, except that problems flying a plane will lead to death way more likely than problems driving a car. Simpler controls and instruments also arent things you can just say and they magically appear. Flying cars that exist right now can only be driven by professionals, thus if cars are to immediately be replaced by these machines like you are saying, then those planes will be the ones people have to operate. 3) "Grounded AI that guides the fly-by-wire system using a sophisticated air traffic control systems in urban areas."So your answer to urban traffic is sky roads which would have to be built, guides that have to be made, and complex air traffic control which doesnt exist and have to be built also. Things which currently do not exist, would be difficult to be built and maintained, and would replace systems that already exist and are successful does not sound like "the future" it sounds like a headache, chaos, and killing commerceShow that these things can actually be built, dont just magically assume they can be there4) "Debate is about replacing private cars not commercial transports."People use cars to move goods and people but these small, inefficient, not functional, and very unstable machines cannot support the load as successful as traditional cars and vans can. Argument has been dropped by the Pro5) "There wil still be a automobile industry. The aerospace industry willl grow sharply."So cars will still be around and can be used even though the resolution in the debate says REPLACING PRIVATE CARS WITH AERODYNES? You cant have both because the debate here is replacing cars with these inefficient flying machine of yours now you have to defend why we should replace all cars with these things. 6) "People can still walk and bike from these "business hubs" for 1-2 km to get to work."So then how do people get to a hospital in a hurry if its 1-2 km to get to a station, then fly to a drop off point, then walk another 1-2 km to the hospital, and NOT die?Making people walk 1-2 km despite owning flying machines that cost them $60,000 to own isnt practical for business, commerce, or industry. It also doesnt help that people would be p*ssed off at being forced to pay a crap load of money to end up walking to work for up to a MILE. 7) "Avionics can detect dangerous flying and the fly-by-wire can land these by which the authorities can pick these people up quite easily."So the thing you made up will find dangerous flyers, somehow safely land them, and then authorities would walk or bike to pick these people up? Not only is this made up and fictional but its almost ridiculous since half the Pro's first round argument was about having freedom and now he is talking about creating a system where people fly by a wire and if you dont like it your flying machine will be overrided by some authority and then force you to land.....8) "Cars also make it easy for terrorists to terrorize."Thanks for avoiding my point, argument is dropped by the Pro9) "Again, avionics and fly-by-wire make that extremely unlikely"Once again the answer to a bounty of problems associated with operating these flying machines by people who can barely handle a car by the pro is another imaginary and nonexistant system that would cost trillions to build, operate, and conflict with his original arguments. 10) "Electricity"This has to be the dumbest argument of them all. If these jet cars that cost $60,000 to buy and they cant even operate on gas or jet fuel, then what makes you think that something even LESS powerful as batteries will eliminate the problem? oh right it does it "magically"Let me rephrase the question to the Pro's semantics. I can already only imagine how much electricity these things consume and how much it will cost families to charge these things....============================================================================Length of transition argument: DroppedEasier to fix roads then convert to a new system: DroppedFreedom to fly: Actually the Pro pulled a 180 on this one since now all planes will fly by wire systems which now eliminate any joy rides or freedom you will have to fly these things. New reasons to be against this - Personal flying machines are still horribly unreliable and expensive meaning nobody could afford them or even work them - This now requires the construction of numerous new roads IN THE AIR and advanced systems to coordinate all this traffic which still forces people to walk up to a mile before getting to where they work - The costs to buy, maintain, and fuel these inefficient death traps right now cost half a million dollars which will place a financial burden on nearly every family. Mass producing a machine that doesnt even work wont drive down the cost either since these things are so expensive and inefficient they are technically worthless. - It is still difficult to operate these things and no among of magic future upgrades the Pro can imagine will eliminate the problem if these flying machines are manufactured today. - How will these cars be made if the primary manufacturer of flying cars the Pro is relying on is filing for bankruptcy for failing to make a good product for over 40 years?Thats all I got right now