See, but the OP’s whole point, I think, is that the hovercraft isn’t actually touching the road and might thus be exempt from vehicle law.
Since an airplane can fly over streets and highways and not be subject to the rules of the road why not a hovercraft at much lower altitude? There must be some height range where neither the FAA nor the Sec of State has complete and clear jurisdiction. Forget types of wheels or tracks; you’re not even touching the pavement!
A practical issue similar to this came up with something one of my bosses did. He was testing out a hovercraft on the lake in his town (it was for an expedition he was organizing to Antarctica – True!) when the local police arrested him. It seems you weren’t supposed to put boats in the lake without permission. His defence was that his craft never actually went in the lake – because they were hovercraft, the floated above it. He was really proud of this defence, convinced he had pulled one over on the local authorities. I never did hear how it finally played out, though, since we parted ways before the final decision.
Sorry, but I still don’t think that would happen. Because of the nature of ACV skirt systems, they don’t hover without completely touching the ground. There’s always some part of the skirt that will drag across the ground or water surface (which, consequently, is a large part of the skirt wear and tear). Second of all, if you’re driving your ACV down the street, or blocking highway traffic, you better believe the police (once they stop you) will cite you for half a dozen things. Impeding the flow of traffic, reckless driving, creating a public hazard, and probably more. I doubt the “I’m not touching you!” defense would hold up in court.
CalMeacham has the defence I was thinking of.
And av8rmike, I think if you were interfering with traffic, you would indeed get in some kind of trouble. But what would the charges be? And why interfere? Just drive and turn heads!
Also, for the sake of argument, suppose the skirt does not touch the ground. The OP did say he ‘invented’ this hovercraft; maybe the innovation was a few inches of clearance.
What about the SoloTrek?
According to the article:
Or what about the “jet-pack” thing that James Bond used in Thunderball?
About the SoloTrek:
Meaning it sort of works, but not really.
What happens if the engine quits? Is the computer prone to “General Protection Fault” and can you reboot before you hit the ground?
Smart guy
Very smart guy.
In theory - actually doing it remains to be seen.
Certainly, it’s possible this might one day become practical. Then you might have the same problem the Segway does - it’s banned on most city streets and sidewalks around here. I can ride my bike in the street in Chicago, but not a Segway. A disabled person could ride their much heavier “Amigo” scooter on the sidewalk, but not a Segway. So while you could buy one, if you live in Chicago you can’t use it in public. Wow, that will kill the market.
So… in Illinois (the state as a whole) it’s illegal to land anywhere but an airport (or helipad, if you’re in a helicoptor). So, sure, you could buy a SoloTrek but it would be illegal to use your backyard to launch or land - you’d have to take off and land from airports. This will severely inhibit the practicality of such a device. Not to mention how Mayor Richard I-bulldoze-airports-and-hate-airplanes Daley would react to these things.
As for the rocket backpacks - they do exist, but have several difficulties, like if the go-stuff runs out early, or the rocket malfunctions, you drop like a rock - they don’t glide at all. Also, there is a possibility of burns from the thing - wear your nomex underwear and booties, boys and girls.
Yeah, I’d like to have these gee-whiz toys, too, but I’ve been relying on fixed wing aircraft because they just seem so much safer than some of these alternatives.
Given the wording of the OP and the use of quotes around “hovercraft” I don’t think he is talking about the vehicles currently existing that are called hovercraft, but rather an invention that would hover above the ground by means of some sort of anti-gravity or whatever… sort of like the speeders in Star Wars, or the “hoverbikes” from the Simpsons, or the hovering skateboards from one of the Back to the Future movies.
Thank you. I tried to say that in #4 but didn’t want to step on the OP’s toes.
The OP who has yet to return to his thread. Anyway…
Well, now that we’re speculating, we’re officially outside the realm of GQ, since the question, by nature, won’t have a factual answer. The California Vehicle Code that I linked to earlier has definitions for vehicle and motorcycle, but nothing that explicitly covers something that has fewer than three wheels. The CHP seemingly only cares about things that touch the ground.
So, assuming that Roland builds his fart-powered hover-bike, outfits it with the proper lights and mirrors, and finds someone to manufacture it, he’s exploiting a grey area in existing laws. It’s the same deal as with the flying cars people keep talking about building; you’d have a hard time finding someone willing to grant you a license to operate it (assuming they figured out whose jurisdiction you’re in) and someone to insure it. I’d think that in “just driving and turning heads,” the authorities could stop you for creating a public hazard or interfering with traffic. And, if you’re not going to operate it on public roads, what would be the point? You’d be subject to trespassing charges if you went through people’s backyards all the time.