Whatever happened to the driverless car?

 

Is that a bird? Is it a plane? No, it’s a flying car.

Doubtless egged-on by the hype lavished on driverless cars, wild promises of levitating family autos are all the rage again.

Yup, the prospect of flying to meetings in your own car instead of a helicopter is right back on the agenda.

Terrafugia Flying Car Prototype on Road

See – here is the TF-X, Terrafugia’s bid for aero-motoring immortality. A deeply unsexy prototype that could become a sleek, er, road-legal helicopter-cum-plane.

fly-car-rendering

Call me a bit skeptical but to my untrained eye the TF-X visualised in the pics displays all the aerodynamic qualities of a Corgi toy attached to a lolly stick. Those skinny wings might lift a super-flyweight body – but not something that would conceivably get an NCAP collision rating for a family vehicle.

Since the first object you encounter on the project’s web page is a button labelled “$ Invest”, it’s a safe bet that there’s a long way to go and a lot of cash to burn before ‘une brique volante’ lands in a back garden near you. Ad astra per pecunia you could say.

(And by the way, what’s with the utterly crapola and mega-depressing, round-the-back-of-in-industrial-unit-next-to-the-dumpsters destination of the TF-X in the promo? Failure of imagination or a teeny hint that flying cars won’t fit in normal workplace parking bays?)

But each to his own, I say. It’s your money. If you’re excited enough to invest, be my guest. Really, if you think that road-legal helicopters have a future, I think someone might have a Moller M400 Skycar to sell you.

With driverless cars, at least there are a few potential benefits – like having multi-user vehicles that deliver themselves to drivers. The reason flying cars have remained a pipe dream since the 1950s is they’re basically a solution looking for a problem.

On wait! Silly me. Of course, we’ll soon have self-driving flying cars. Where else could today’s utterly fabulous technology lead us?

The title of this article? Oh, that’s just irony.

Vote Leave dulls down its message

EU-Guide-In         EU-Guide-Out

Did Vote Leave miss a trick when it designed its page in the Electoral Commission’s referendum voting guide? Or does it know something about a dull, impenetrable presentation that everyone else has missed?

Vote Remain pitches in with patriotic colours, punchy headings and big, positive bullets. Not forgetting snaps of happy, smiley people. Who will be..? Stronger! Safer! Better Off!

See? Didn’t even have to read it.

Vote Leave’s page looks like something you’d see wired to a farm gate during a foot and mouth outbreak.

Assuming that many undecided voters will go with their hearts rather than their heads on May 23rd, which of these layouts will leave them with more of a warm, fuzzy feeling if it was the last thing they glanced at before entering the polling booth?

Vote Leave actually has the better-written content, inasmuch as it picks two hot buttons – immigration and the UK’s £350 million weekly contribution to the EU budget – and repeats them. I’m not sure what the UK would do with 660,000 more nurses on top of the 300,000 it’s already got but I get the point they’re making.

Vote Remain blunt their messages in their haste to make a lot of positive points quickly. For example, they flag up the claim that EU membership is worth a net £91 billion a year to the UK economy. But calling it £1,800 million a week would have made it into more of a mind-sized number; much easier for people to sum up as five or six times higher than Vote Leave’s contribution figure.

If this was a contest over substance vs. style, you’d have to award the marks for substance to Vote Leave. But this is one of those situations where style matters a lot.

Vote Leave may have overestimated the importance of being earnest.