I've always wondered why flying cars became anchored as the brass ring to one generation after another.
I understand the romanticised, dreamland aspect of flying direct from your origin to your destination, landing just short of where you need to be and bypassing all the B.S. of normal traffic but that never has and never will mesh with reality.
In reality no problem is solved, in fact I would say that problems would be added to two infrastructures that already have their own myriad problems.
If a flying car were actually produced the operator would not be able to land on any give road so they would still need to fly to the nearest airport to land. What would be the use at that point?
Imagine if flying cars made it to production:
If even a very small percentage (say 0.1%) of the light duty vehicles on the road in the U.S. (approximately 200,000,000) were replaced with flying cars there would be as many as 200,000 additional craft in the air on any given day.
Now look at the flip side (source for information: http://natca.org/legislative_congressional_testimony.aspx?zone=Congressional Testimony&nID=2873 )
From the report linked (2011) Air Traffic Control (ATC) handled approximately 70,000 daily flights across the U.S. with 15,500 Controllers.
How would 270,000 craft in the air be managed? Who would and how would all of the necessary flight corridors be maintained?

Still have a pretty limited market - those who can lay out this much cash can usually afford to have plane/pilot/chauffeur on standby anyway. Still,, the thought of firing up that jet and taking the paint off a tailgater's grill would be very tempting.

Rt1583 is absolutely correct. This causes far more problems than it solves. It'll be cheaper to buy a light aircraft. The only problems it solves is parking at the airport and getting your hire car/taxi at the other end. Imagine the dangers of drunken idiots trying to deploy on the freeway to show off to girls and other road users?
These guys should spend their time working on distributed propulsion or alternative fuels than trying to create a flying car. It's the sort of thing that kids dream of, and whilst dreams are the source of many innovations, they should also be adapted to solve "real problems".

The job rating of a chauffeur will go up a few notches, to say the least.
Taking Rt1583's detailed analysis at face value, this is going to take a whole new infra-structure at the very lease. Surely, they would be better off making a road capable helicopter equipped for road use.
Anyone capable of affording such a machine could also afford to have a helipad in their back garden and at their base(s). Given the stage of development that autonomous control has reached, one remote pilot could be responsible for several such aircraft at the same time, taking over for landing and take-off just in case something goes wrong.
Imagine a business where executives book an 'air limousine' which collects them from the helipad at their house, takes them to a helipad at their office, or somewhere close to where they need to be (probably along designated air corridors), lands, deploys its road gear and 'drives' them to the exact destination (for a site visit, say) and takes them to their hotel for the night.
Bad weather? No problem; send a road only limousine until technology develops to the point where only the wildest conditions ground the fleet.
Given all the developments currently taking place with road transport, it cannot be too far off when road accidents are extremely rare events and so insurance will be affordable, even for a road going aircraft.

The Jetsons Flying car could quietly hover motionless and could have accidents without becoming a flaming rain of debris. Until the real ones can do this I don't want at least 3/4 of the drivers on the road driving flying cars.

I think that is really cool. It looks like the morphed a jet plane with a sports car (created a sports plane?). Although I would never be able to afford one, it would be cool to ride in one.
With that said, I can see a problem. With the wings being exposed to road debri while driving on roads, the wings might be damaged to the point where it can not fly or cause flight problems in the air.
There are two other 'flying cars' that are doing well like the Terraflugia. One looks like a off road vehicle and uses a 'powered parachute' arrangment for flight. The other is a three wheeler and flies with a grycopter arrangement. IIRC, they are both more affordable than this flying jet plane / car vehicle. I believe one is called PAL-V and the other Maverick.

I agree with previous posters that this is a pie in the sky dream. Using a jet engine is far too costly to purchase and maintain for all but the super rich. This is made clear by the multimillion dollar price tag. It would be just as sensible for someone with that cash to buy a good light aircraft and two automobiles. It would cost less and have about the same performance.

Very attractive styling. Fender benders could be costly though.

Designing a workable and commercially viable flying car is a daunting task as evidenced by the absence of any successful product in the last 100 years of trying. High end is probably the way to go. $3-5million seems realistic. Sure, we would like to see a practical flying SUV that carries four plus cargo at 150 knots up to 10,000 feet for $100,000 or less, BUT it can't be done with today's technology. A multimillion dollar price tag is the only way to incorporate a turbofan engine, the lightweight carbon fiber materials, extensive avionics and other electronics to automate such a complex vehicle. Sorry.

I'm glad that most everyone agreed with my thoughts how wasteful and ridiculous this project is. I have to wonder if DARPA or some other government organization is doling out big money to develop things like this. Cool in concept though they may be, if that is the case, someone needs to reign in the purse strings on this kind of stuff. We're taxed enough already.