The Tiny Car We’re Allowed to Have

Remember when Trump implied Americans would be able to buy what he called “tiny cars”? Well, looks like he’s true to his word – sort of. It all depends on how you define “car.”

The Fiat Topolino is – technically – a car in the sense that it has four wheels and and can be driven. Just not very fast – or far. It is very tiny electric car with a top speed of 25 MPH and a maximum range of 46 miles. Trump says it’s “quite simply, amazing.” And it’s “COMING TO AMERICA,” in all caps.

It also cannot legally be used on any “public” (i.e., government controlled) road. In other words, nothing has changed as regards what we’re allowed to buy – because being allowed to use is what makes something worth buying. You can buy an ATV right now and use it all you like – on private property. The Topolino is like that only worse because it costs almost as much ($14,985) as a car you can legally drive on the government’s roads.

It costs more – a lot more – than a Mazda Flair, which sells for about $10,000 in Japan. The Flair also has doors (the Fiat has a rope)) and windows – and AC, too. It might not be the quickest to 60, but it can get to 60 (and faster than that). It could be realistically driven on the government’s roads (using the word “public” to describe them is something like lobotomizing yourself with an ice pick through an eye; the public is allowed to use the government’s roads; the public does not own much less control any of these roads). It cannot be legally driven on the government’s roads, because it isn’t compliant with various federal “safety” regs.

It is important to understand – if you want to understand what is going on – that it is not necessarily the case that a car that isn’t compliant with federal “safety” regs is unsafe to drive.  Do you own a car older than about five model years? Almost certainly it isn’t compliant with at least one currently-in-force federal “safety” regulation. If you have ever driven or been in a ten-year-old car, it is certainly “unsafe” – in that it is certainly not compliant with every “safety” regulation that applies to new cars today. Are you afraid to drive it?

Scared to let your kid drive it?

They want you to be scared, of course. Just as they wanted you to be scared of “COVID” and “Islamo-fascism,” too. There is always something the government wants you to be scared of.

Here’s an interesting question to ask yourself:

If such cars are actually “unsafe,” how come literally millions of them are allowed on the government’s roads? I can legally drive my 50-year-old Pontiac that is extremely not-compliant and so – presumably – very “unsafe.” It has no air bags, no back-up cameras. It does not comport with current side-and-rear impact regs, just to cite some of the biggies. And yet, I can legally drive it and (the important point) I could legally sell it to you and you could legally get plates and tags and drive it yourself.

Neither of us – none of us – are allowed to buy a Mazda Flair or any of the many small cars that are “safer” – in terms of having such things as air bags and anti-lock brakes – than old cars that have no such things. This incongruity establishes that “safety” is about compliance, not safety. More deeply, it is about denial – and impoverishment.

What the government – and this includes Trump – does not want you to have isn’t tiny cars, per se. It is affordable (viable) cars. This Topolino EV is a fine golf cart for the affluent who live in gated communities; it would ideal for Mara Lago. It is useless as a vehicle and preposterously too expensive as a toy for people who need an affordable (viable) vehicle. Put another way, anyone who can afford to spend $15k on a golf cart can afford to spend three times that much on a vehicle for the government’s roads. But people who can’t afford a $15k toy need an affordable vehicle.

Tiny cars like the Mazda Flair do not, of course, appeal to the rich – because the rich can afford more. The rich also do not find tiny homes appealing, either – because they can afford yuge homes. But the not-rich face all sorts of legal impediments – such as zoning and “code” requirements – when it comes to building a tiny home and living in it, even if it on land they putative “own” (property taxes make owning land a delusion we like to entertain).

Notice a congruence?

The system is queered to benefit the rich at the expense of people who are not. You do the hokie-pokie – and that’s what it’s always been all about.

. . .

If you like what you’ve found here please consider supporting EPautos.