My ‘podcar’ article in the LA Times

A slightly edited version of this post of mine about the podcar system (and preferring the automated highway system instead) appears in today’s LA Times as a Blowback. The last time the Times picked up an article of mine – Defending Kozinski – it ended up an ongoing back-and-forth in the paper for over [...]

September 12, 2008

Home

LA TimesA slightly edited version of this post of mine about the podcar system (and preferring the automated highway system instead) appears in today’s LA Times as a Blowback. The last time the Times picked up an article of mine – Defending Kozinski – it ended up an ongoing back-and-forth in the paper for over a week. I don’t think the ‘Podcar vs. Automated Highway System’ debate is quite that contentious! Thanks to the Times for publishing the piece.

————————-

Some comments:

1. We could have done this years ago but we didn’t. Want to know why? Liability, who do you sue when the automated system doesn’t account for the failing brakes of one car and all 25 platooning cars die? Or how about an earthquake that gives the central control a power outage? Its a nice idea but the realities of it are as far fetched as the ‘pod car’ idea. Electric cars are the future with more people working out of home. We can do all that now without increased cost or liability. So which sounds more likely?
Submitted by: Rep. Mike
2:53 PM PDT, September 12, 2008

2. The private automobile is just too convenient to give up. In one form or another the private automobile is with us to stay.
Submitted by: Dan
12:04 PM PDT, September 12, 2008

3. In principle I agree, but as with all advocacy articles I’d like to hear the other side. I remember seeing a filmed demonstration of this platoon concept several years ago; I think it was tested on I-5 near San Diego. Haven’t heard anything about it since then. What’s the holdup? Technology? Lack of investment? Lack of government support? Safety? (Not only flat tires, but what heppens when the system goes down?) In theory, though, it’s a really sweet idea.
Submitted by: oddodddodo
11:14 AM PDT, September 12, 2008

4. At last, someone succinctly speaks the truth. Podcars, or personal transportation systems, are enticing flights of fancy, flying overhead. My grandson’s lifetime wouldn’t provide enough time and money to acquire the rights of way and easements to build a viable system. On the other hand, the digital technology already onboard today’s cars is pretty close to the capability to interface with a computer-controlled highway. With enough emphasis placed on digital highway development, we should see at least demonstration systems within 3 to 5 years.
Submitted by: Ken Layne
10:00 AM PDT, September 12, 2008

5. Quite right! The technology to do this has been around a long time and combined with hydrogen or electric it’s definitely the way to go. Lawmakers – I urge you. Make California the example, out of anywhere in the world that this is the future. Imagine the 10 freeway as an automated highway! (I read this guy John’s blog too, excellent material.)
Submitted by: Greg, Sacramento
7:30 AM PDT, September 12, 2008

6. Right on John. You make great points. Among the most precious freedoms we enjoy is the ability to get in our car and just drive somewhere. Burke should be confined to the campus (likely already is!) before her ideas actually get taken seriously by some dodo politician who promises everyone a free ride. Oh yeah — we already have those don’t we!
Submitted by: OpenAir
7:29 AM PDT, September 12, 2008

7. As long as we continue to demand me and mine as the driving factor we are doomed to choke to death on hot CO2 generated by a transportation system that caters to self centered me firsters.
Submitted by: Gary J
5:32 AM PDT, September 12, 2008

8. At 150 mph – what happens when you have a flat?
Submitted by: ejballjr
1:52 AM PDT, September 12, 2008

WHILE YOU'RE HERE...

Post a comment.

4 Comments

  1. Jack on September 12, 2008 | Permalink

    Way to go friend!
    I’m headed over to read it right this instant.

  2. Mattyoung on June 15, 2009 | Permalink

    I didn’t get the difference between an AHS and a PodCar. They seem to be the same thing, except the AHS lets a human drive once in a while. Otherwise, PodCars would surely use the AHS system if it was available. But the PodCar does not need the AHS system.

    One difference I notice is complaints about the Skyways. But it is the concrete salesmen who sell concrete skyways, not PodCar salesmen. I can put Podcars on existing roads, if I can retire the concrete salesman.

    Also the complaints that PodCars are badly designed for fatigue. Why do we think engineers have this specific characteristic of designing PodCars worse than regular cars, or AHS cars for that matter? Bad design is bad design, attack it everywhere, in the AHS and in the PodCar, but there is no adverse selection that bad engineers typically work on PodCars.

    Second, liability. When the AHS screws up, sue the AHS manufacturer. When the Podcar screws up, then determine if the fault was the PodCar of the AHS, sue the appropriate party. I do not see how liability works with one but not the other.

    Second, PodCars are not a waste relative to AHS. A single PodCar purchased to run arond the park, or shuttle people around the stadium parking lot should cost $75,000 in moderate economies of scale. Buying a PodCar to shuttle people around the park is orders of magnitude less expensive than a complete AHS system.

    Secon, infrastructure for a Pod Car. What do I need for my PodCar? An electrical outlet in its simplest form, or a gas pump for a hybrid version; and possibly some PC based software to configure the thing.

    We have to distinguish between buying a PodCar and buying a complete transit system. The choice is between buying one additional Podcar or one additional bus.

  3. John on June 16, 2009 | Permalink

    They look very different in practice, Matt. The central difference in principle that produces this huge difference in practice is ownership: I own my car and drive it myself everywhere except when it joins the AHS (freeways). Podcars are more like public transit, buses, trains: they’re owned by someone else and need to be called upon. Well, you say, they’re not like public transit because they are private. So are taxis, but there’s a world of difference between hailing a cab and driving your own car.

    I don’t know what debate you’re engaging in with regard to liability or skyways, etc. -I’m not aware I made those arguments. I think the AHS has a huge advantage over podcars for the reasons above.

    With regard to cost, surely you aren’t suggesting that a podcar system including all its podcars ($75,000 A PIECE?) and its infrastructure will be less expensive than simply adapting our existing highways and paying nothing at all for the vehicles to run on it (since they’re privately owned cars)? Not sure that makes sense.

  4. John on June 16, 2009 | Permalink

    (Ah, I see what you’re responding to re. liability etc. – the comments of LA Times readers to my article. D’oh.)

POST A COMMENT

Your email is never published nor shared.

  • Free subscription

    • View in iTunes
    • Any Podcatcher
    • Any Feed Reader

    • CONNECT

    John on Facebook

    FOLLOW

    John on Twitter

    LISTEN

    John at KLPZ