But if a machine automates 90% of a process, like a dishwasher, why shouldn't it be considered like a robot, say a 90% robot?
Practically it does have the same effect.
You write down two points:
1. regulation
2. cost
"Regulation" is not an engineering problem, but a hard and deeply political one.
For "cost": When a lot of regulation comes down, the possible market size increases by a lot and it begins to make economic sense to invest lots of engineering ressources into cutting costs down by a lot (I do believe this is possible). Then helicopters will even perhaps transform into something that is much more akin to flying cars.
I think if one eliminates the training requirement, reduces the cost, and increase the safety, then we don't need them to be road vehicles. Achieve the above, and we'll have flying taxis!
How many helicopters will fit in an IKEA parking lot? And how many will be able to bring back whatever you buy there?
Extend that thought experiment a bit. You might be able to achieve the transportation of people in controlled circumstances, but not much else.
They think of the car that anyone of legal driving age with a reasonable amount of money that anyone with some income can purchase.
No, helicopters are not flying cars. And no, dishwashers aren't what people would think of when they think of robots. Something that has a microprocessor in it isn't automatically a robot.