But it would be a death trap to drive around other 2000kg vehicles, and it wouldn't be comfortable.
>5Km commute
Almost no one in the US has a commute that short.
If that's a death trap around the "real" vehicles, should cyclists and pedestrians expect 90% mortality rate should they ever decide to go out on the streets? Is that normal?
> Almost no one in the US has a commute that short.
It's all relative. You just multiply that (avoidable) waste.
Do you really need to drive a "tank" just to survive? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21609767
People with families who regularly take them out aren't going to fit in a subcompact particularly if anyone is tall or there are car seats.
You could design a very lightweight car that could hold 4-5 people comfortably with 1 or 2 carseats and fit tall drivers. But no one does--it's not really an option.
You could buy and maintain multiple vehicles for different purposes, but it's expensive especially when you consider the additional insurance.
>100Kg dingy or a 2500Kg fat-mobile?
No obviously not, I'm saying that 2600kg vs 2300kg is basically irrelevant. And that when you say 2300kg is a waste of energy that statement only makes sense in the context of specific design goals.
>If that's a death trap around the "real" vehicles, should cyclists and pedestrians expect 90% mortality rate
No but motorcycles have an almost 30x higher fatality rate per mile driven than cars do, so I'd call that a death trap.
It's a prisoners dilemma. Everyone else is driving 2000kg+ cars. To make very lightweight vehicles that are safe around those huge vehicles it's very expensive. The solution is regulation, not begging individuals to drive smaller cars.
People want one car to be the jack of all trades. Big enough for 7 people and carry a house's worth of furniture in one go while towing a boat, and travel 800Km on a charge. So it ends up being truck sized, 2500+Kg, to carry 1 person on their 5Km commute to work 99% of the time.