One simple phrase says it all.... "Power to weight ratio....not yet achievable"

Very interesting perspective. I would very much like to see a flying motorcycle.

I think the Pal-V has the right approach. It's just about 10 times too expensive, has two seats, and weighs too much to meet FAA "light sport aircraft" rules.

Back in the day, I used to wish & hope & pray for a viable flying car. But the more I observe people ( particularly American people) the more I am convinced that the last thing we need to give them is a flying car! They'd be falling out of the skies like rain. If there was something within a hundred miles of them, they'd drive into it. They'd text & Cap'n Kirk their phones & apply makeup & do everything in their power to avoid driving the thing once they got behind the yoke. You couldn't invent enough systems to keep them safe because, ultimately, their slack-jawed stupidity would defeat these systems every single time. People are just too damned stupid to be allowed flying cars. Hell, most of them shouldn't have driver's licenses.

A slow flying target.

I agree with Dezso, we are on the cusp of having our transportation system leap forward similar to that from horse and buggy to automobile. I have been following all technology platforms since 1996 and can tell you with the automation coming into play for automobiles, trucks and tractors, the already in place automation for aircraft, and the advancements in materials and propulsion systems (as well as reduction in size and cost for electronic systems) the time is rip for a serious PALV (Personal Air and Land Vehicle) to take traction within the next 5 years. This opinion based on a great deal more data and research I cannot begin to divulge here in the comments but trust me it's coming.

When I enter I will by Fly/Driving this... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-1pXbW5wVg

The air taxi market might pay for a faster and more versatile replacement for the helicopter. A ground based launch system would greatly lower the cost and weight.

Haha...flies can fly AND have legs. Yeah, those legs aren't very effective and efficient at walk. That's why planes can't drive very far or efficiently. And all prior flying cars can't do either very well. Same for ducks. Can't really swim very fast (compared to fish) and flies pretty bad compared to something like and efficient bird, like an eagle (it's about efficiency and speed, right?). It really shows just WHY flying cars are a bad solution.
And flying cars won't work. But not for the reason you think. Yes. Eventually we can build some that are relatively efficient and can actually take off and fly reliably. Yes, the biggest reason it wont' work NOW (or once it's built in 5 or 10 years or whenever) is that it would have to be autonomous. People can't even drive cars, imagine 50 lanes of flying 'highways' in skies with humans at the steer. But that's the EASY problem to fix. Autonomous planes, and the tech will be there soon.
However, the real reason flying cars won't go mainstream (as in using it to commute, go shopping, etc.) is that a physical space issue. How do you make space to land and take off for say 500,000 flying cars bringing commuters into Manhattan every morning? Even in 95% of suburbs and towns anywhere in the world it won't work. Even with VTOL, there simply is not enough space available for this ridiculous technology to go mainstream.