Flying cars have been the vehicle of the future since the 1950s,

they did, we call them "airplanes"

>>15638590
well, helicopters, technically

Drivers can barely drive in 2 dimensions, a 3rd would be too much

>>15638558
People die enough as is driving on flat roads.

Expense also probably had diverging to do with it.

They probably couldn't get enough lift.

A significant percentage of the population are shit drivers, I am glad that they have no access to flying vehicles.

File: Flying-Ford-Pinto-3[1].jpg (35KB, 720x480px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 720x480px

>take off
heh

>>15638558
>why did they never take off?
Couldn't get it up.

>>15638764

>no pun intended

Maybe they need a lift bro

Big government, the FAA. They went apeshit about quad copter drones, the government will never let people fly in large quantities.

>>15638558
If a non-flying car breaks down, it just slows and eventually stops. If a flying car breaks down, it's going down hard. Most people won't want to bother with pre-flight checks just to get some groceries. Besides, many drivers can barely be trusted with two dimensions of movement: a third is the last thing they need.
But none of that matters anyway, because they'd get banned the moment a terrorist tries crashing one into a landing airliner.

File: sensiblechuckle.gif (647KB, 500x289px) Image search: [Google]

647KB, 500x289px

>>15638558
>why did they never take off?

>>15638558
It would be a FFA nightmare

>>15638599
Came here to post this. In addition you have maintenance that needs to actually be followed, infrastructure issues and general how do you handle that many things in the air problems.
>>15638612
Is this from a Bond movie? iirc it was Man with the Golden Gun.