Think of it this way. If an SUV drives into your building you can sue and make some money. But if some really rich person crashes their flying gizmo into your building you can sue and make a lot of money!
Risk is a community exercise. You don't (or rather, shouldn't) get to externalize disproportionate risks upon the commons because it makes your life easier.
(An example of such a consideration: what happens when the fire department shows up? They know how to deal with a car accident; are they going to have the presence of mind not to douse a vehicle that looks like a normal personal aircraft in water?)
Why ordinary speeds? Someone driving into a building is likely to be going significantly faster, perhaps because they confused the brake pedal and accelerator.
Things like this happen all the time https://twitter.com/TempePolice/status/1529914550266368000
We currently have a billion cars on the road. Of course we have plenty of accidents.
But that's not a valid comparison.
And perhaps we should also get rid of carsnow your argument is totally invalid
And I'd bet a lot more on the crash safety of aerospace cerrified batteries than those of the automotive sector.
Why? Aircraft are optimized for weight far more than automobiles. Making airplane batteries safer than car batteries would make them even less energy dense than they already are. Add to that fact that cars have a crumple zone built into them, while an airplane AFAIK does not -- at least not one that matters when it crashes into my house at 100mph.
Furthermore, some Tesla crashing on the freeway on the way to Tahoe is unlikely to start a forest fire. But what about some rich yahoo making the same trip while flying their personal electric plane who crashes in the Oakland hills?
These problems are non trivial particularly because every personal electric plane company wants to scale into the millions.
please don't waste our time.