You might be able sell it as a motorcycle, but then passengers would be required to wear helmets and the driver would need a motorcycle endorsement on their license. Another option would be to sell it as an ATV, but states tend to restrict ATV usage on public roads.
The closest thing I can think of is e.g. communities that have dedicated paved roads (which don't allow normal cars) for golf carts to putt around.
You just don't see them because nobody in the US is willing to restrict the usage of normal cars, even where it's obviously needed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neighborhood_Electric_Vehicle
If you want something small but more capable then an imported Japanese kei truck is worth considering.
I don't think there are any rational reasons why it's not the most popular car in America.
>I don't think there are any rational reasons why it's not the most popular car in America.
It's still a subcompact. For the hordes and hordes of people who need a tad more utility out of a vehicle it just doesn't work without a level of compromise that is solidly into "yeah, F that" territory when you're paying new car money.
Furthermore, it's only economical to buy used because it's not super popular even on the used market. If it was they wouldn't be so cheap.
And I say this as someone who would own one yesterday if it could out "utility vehicle" a 1990s Taurus wagon. The execution is great but the concept that was executed is ill suited to what most people want in a car.
All subcompact hatches in the US market suffer from this.
Subcompact with tow ball so you can rent a small hanger for the few times you need more space for, say, a washing machine or fridge is so much better than an F-something size truck.
Oh, I forgot about stupid U.S. towing codes, nvm.
I don't "need" more utility than a small station wagon but the nanosecond I cram three kids into the back or slap some plywood on the roof 99.999% of the people telling me I don't "need" a modern crossover are going to be hand wringing hard enough to start a fire. God forbid I put a half dozen square of shingles or bags of concrete back there at which point I become a menace to society. I do it anyway because the kind of people who tend to care are not the kind of people who's opinions I tend to care about. But that doesn't scale.
"If it was they wouldn't be so cheap." If demand surged, Nissan would make more (barring any specific supply chain constraints). Mass producing cars at competitive prices is Nissan's core competency.
"ill suited to what most people want in a car." This is the actual problem in my eyes. Americans especially have a lot of frivolous ideas about what a car is supposed to be.
It depends on how far is your urban run-around. 62 miles seems reasonable, but not at $16,500 to $18,250 price point.
But i think even those are still too large for cities. In my view we need to clean the air _and_ free up space, hence something smaller would be more suitable. Imagine how much less traffic there would be on the m25 or london if they were limited to micro cars.
I sometimes pause and think about how we are able to harness the power of our star, or control atoms, to fuel our cars and power our homes instead of burning crap and inhaling smoke. I think we are getting somewhere.
The malaise from people/media is separating Non-renewability of FF + negative aspect of carbon emissions from the benefits of FF. So the first thing is to remove the militant climate alarmicism and focus on solutions.
Here is EU backpeddling the climate agenda that didn't have a sound backbone, this is what happens: https://www.ft.com/content/a8b179e2-b565-42b6-bb41-90aea4453...
Second, we need to adopt a radical pro-energy agenda that transforms us from FF-mix to renewable-mix. Here is what the current Democratic party can do (but they won't): https://twitter.com/JonSpearman24/status/1539044975429681152
Third, push back on people that want depopulation, regression of life, reduction of standards, "equity" based resource usage, etc under the name of ESG, Climate Change, etc.
The entire thing is a philosophical and political headwind. We could solve climate change completely and utterly if we invest in technology and build like a gazillion nuclear power plants.
It makes me wonder if the malaise is not rooted in facts, but the elite/laptop class that wants to crush lower class into depopulation for their own benefits (their kids would have a less competition for resources for survival).
Humanity didn't invent fossil fuels, they were already there when we discovered them and we haven't figured out how to make them ourselves in the quantity we need. This type of lazy thinking, where you pretending the work of someone else is entirely your effort when you literally can't replicate it and are even proud that you can't replicate it is honestly quite bizarre.
Humans only invented biofuels which would cause mass starvation because they displace food crops.
Fossil fuel dependence basically means humans are too dumb to generate their own energy. There is no dead plant matter buried in the sun, you're going to have to pull that energy out yourself.
I think it is sad that people want to hold back the entirety of humanity just so they can have a slightly better life for themselves and nobody else.
That said, it's also telling the fed gov has made little to no effort to promote such an idea. Thanks Big Oil?
If there's an underutilized resource in the First World, it's automobiles. They probably spend on average 22 or 23 hours of 24 hours doing nothing. Just sitting there. Uber-izing your own driving could change that, without exploiting under-paid drivers.