> A large percentage of the terrains where vehicles are being used are NOT public roads.

But the absolutely overwhelming majority of people who use cars need to be able to do so on public roads. It doesn't help that the acreage of, say, private cattle ranches in Texas is probably larger than that of public roads in the state: Cowboys that need to drive around (only!) on the terrain of those private cattle ranches are probably -- I'm taking a wild guess here -- a pretty tiny minority of the state's population nowadays.

> Yes but that is ONLY a permitting/approval hurdle.

There's nothing "ONLY" about it.

> If the absolute overwhelming mamjority of people wants a particular design, but the red tape is a blocker on some semantic minutia - we can always change the regulation to accomodate the technology.

Yeah, right. For most of my life, everybody wanted flying cars. So where were your huge crowds, enthustiastically voting in politicians on the single promise to make helicopters require only an ordinary driving license?

Which existing flying car design on the market would you like our politicians to approve for general use?

Helicopters are already approved for general use. Not sure what your point is.

My point was in my post. No, helicopters are not "already approved for general use"; certainly not for use by me, and I bet not by you either.

>> to make helicopters require only an ordinary driving license

[^Emphasis added]

There is literally no law which forbids you from being a passenger in your autonomous helicopter in your private land/airspace!

Allowing autonomous helicopters in public airspace is a political debate that can be had once somebody invents autonomous helicopters that actually work; and once people actually start using them! They currently don't exist.

There is the engineering problem: build an autonomous helicopter. There is the social problem: make society trust it.

You have missed the point by a multiverse.