> I'm sorry, but this is insane. No local government is going to allow these things to be buzzing around everywhere for no good reason.
You mean like all of the cars and trucks that are rumbling around everywhere for no good reason? They roar around everywhere, are incredibly dangerous, require billions of dollars of government funded infrastructure, and destroy the environment. No one would ever allow them to become common, when we have such alternatives as walking, bikes, trains, and the like, right? They're just crazy inefficient; a bike is so much more energy efficient for a single person, and a train is faster, safer, and more efficient for moving large numbers around.
The rise of the personal car involved a huge amount of corruption to accomplish, with municipalities basically gutting the better alternatives you propose on behalf of the emerging auto-industry.
So yes, I think sans massive government corruption, we don't see these kinds of technologies that are intrusive and inefficient rising to prominence.
Also, trucks hit a technological sweet spot that I don't think drones sit in. They have predictable and easily controllable failure modes; they're always traveling at eye level where they're relatively (easier) to spot; they have relatively high transport capacity, enabling multiple visits; etc.
The problem with drones that replace trucks is that I'm not sure we've actually gained much by having flying trucks all over the place - the increase in delivery time (which I'm not sure would actually be very high in the average case) would easily be offset by the danger of many low flying trucks.
> The rise of the personal car involved a huge amount of corruption to accomplish
They may explain the US, although I doubt it. It doesn't explain literally every single other industrialized nation in the world, including the many ones without a powerful auto industry.
> They have predictable and easily controllable failure modes
So will drones, once they mature. And despite all the predictability and controllability, trucks still fall over or get themselves wedged under bridges etc, shutting down traffic for hours.
> they're always traveling at eye level where they're relatively (easier) to spot
Except when they're around a corner, and it's not much help to a cyclist about to be crushed by a turning truck.
> they have relatively high transport capacity
For drones to be competitive they will have to be competitive with this fact. If you're right, drones will never take off (pun intended). If you're wrong, you're wrong.
I think people are overestimating the danger posed by drones, and underestimating the danger posed by trucks, just because drones are exotic and trucks are commonplace. I know a family who just lost half of its members to a truck, due to no fault of their own. Trucks are far from safe.
You mean like all of the cars and trucks that are rumbling around everywhere for no good reason? They roar around everywhere, are incredibly dangerous, require billions of dollars of government funded infrastructure, and destroy the environment. No one would ever allow them to become common, when we have such alternatives as walking, bikes, trains, and the like, right? They're just crazy inefficient; a bike is so much more energy efficient for a single person, and a train is faster, safer, and more efficient for moving large numbers around.