I see problems in their future...
Those propellers surely need enclosing. Surprised they haven't already dealt with that (or perhaps quards would look bad in the video). Certainly, a few sliced and diced spectators wouldn't be good for the bottom line.
Looking out the window, seeing all those monkeys being confused by piloting their hunk of steel in two dimensions, personal 3D movement sounds like a bad idea.
By the time they possibly get to market, self flying will also become the latest craze (as in crazy).
What could possibly go wrong?
At nearly $100k per copy for 20 minutes of flight time before a recharge the skies won't be any fuller of these than they are of squirrel suits, hang gliders, jet packs or other joy rides. Particularly when you watch the video, see the early models with blade guards and realize that they are so weight sensitive that they jettisoned them. Means that large people probably won't be the market for these either.
But that still leaves a lot of people with more courage and money than brains wanting to try it. Even though flying down that relatively narrow forest path with open props makes open wheel racing look like kids play.
Those propellers surely need enclosing. Surprised they haven't already dealt with that (or perhaps quards would look bad in the video). Certainly, a few sliced and diced spectators wouldn't be good for the bottom line.
Small airplanes and ultralights have exposed propellers, I don't really see much difference here. The fundamental problem is that anything like this is an aircraft so above a certain weight and other limitations it's going to require a pilot's license to operate.
Those typically have a single prop and rotate on a horizontal axis. The vertical axis means you can think you're not near them and get sliced because you can't see the limit of the blade, and having them at each corner means the entire machine is an issue. Further, if you clip something with the small plane or ultralight it's just a collision. Perhaps a dent or scratch. With these I don't think you'll be worrying about dents!
I adore the concept of these flying coffins, and have done since watching Return of the Jedi in '83.
However even with a ballistic parachute and some clever software I can't think these could ever be safe. Perhaps if limited to say 5-10ft off the ground, a speed limit of perhaps 30mph (50kph) and have some sort of advanced airbag system perhaps the pilot would survive most regular accidents.
Planes can glide and give the pilot enough time to react to an engine-out, likewise helicopters can auto-rotate - there is no stored energy in these PEVTOL's that can buy time to 'safely' crash - as soon as you experience a problem you are instantly tumbling out of the sky.
The JETSON talks about surviving a single motor out event (7/8) - my guess is you'd need to survive at least 50% 'engine-out' scenario to be vaguely usable. Just look at the redundancy in something like the VOLOCOPTER.
Also 100K$ is a fantasy - something like $100K of the purchase price of a new Cessna 172 is the manufacturers one off liability insurance - and that's an old, proven and safe design (from 6:00 onwards):
So just one accident in the Jetson and the company is instantly out of business and the fleet is grounded, so no-one will ever get close to getting their legs mangled.