I did enjoy reading your more elaborate explanation.
Sure, it'll will be great for pedestrian scale areas, such as downtowns and high-density areas. But it will also reduce sidewalk capacity(due to speed differential with walkers, and larger space per person required). So the next step will be to widen sidewalks and reduce street capacity. Mega-public works dollars to dole out to Democrat contractors, mega-campaign bucks under the table to Democrat candidates. But then the cry will be to close the downtown streets to autos. This will be fine for those living within IT distances, but commuters from the suburbs will be inconvenienced and forced onto mass transit. Thus IT will be used politically as an exclusion device, to disenfranchise or penalize "evil" suburbanites who "promote sprawl" and who just so happen to vote conservative. Exclusionary and descriminatory politics from those who preach against such, imagine that.
Beside the safety issues, there are convenience ones, such as carrying capacity, sitting verses standing, protection from the elements. (And if you are protected by a shell, how do you communicate with whoever else you are travelling with, walky-talky? How romantic, so back to the car for Saturday nite trips to the theater.) So it is not all-weather friendly. Certainly these can be address and designed into future models, but that increases size, and approaches the automobile. Same for speed. The concept is interesting and has its place, its all about increasing transport capacity and urban density, while reducing scale, the amount of land devoted to transportation, and the pace of urban expansion. However, rather than being viewed as an added transport choice(which it ultimately will become) Democrats will frame the debate as an alternative that should restrict the auto, and in effect all the freedoms the auto provides. Restrict movement, restrict freedom, reduce the ability to escape inner/large city politics, thus increase the ability to control the population. And how you like to evacuate on a scooter, not much protection from nuclear fallout or other substances(unlike the increased protection of an enclosed vehicle). How would you like to commute through rough neighborhoods, easier for Cincinnati type thugs to pull you from a scooter than a car.
Ultimately, this will just be a huge diversionary argument for Democrats to pontificate and use against Republicans. A decade from now we will have pretty much won the arguments as the public experiences and then recognizes the limitations as IT fails to deliver the Utopia the liberals will promise. But how much time and discussion will be misdirected from revealing their true lies, shortcomings, and bad ideas on more important issues, while we defend the merits of the auto provided freedom that should be common sense? OBTW, before some of the brainwashed here go off on how the auto is destroying the planet, lets be clear. I am a proponent for mass transit, but can't stand the myths used to promote transit, nor the attempted wasteful misapplication of transit where it is inefficient. Bottom line, the argument is about allowing full individual freedom and choices(including group travel), or restricting choices to better control the masses.