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.

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.