Your original argument was basically "a small car won't fit my personal situation". So what? In what way does your situation generalize? You're clearly atypical in family size. Other people have pointed out that it's possible to fit a supermarket shop or travel a long distance in a small car. I imagine a sizable number of Americans, sufficient for a robust market, would be adequately served by a small car.

> So if they don’t need a larger car they shouldn’t have them?

That's nowhere in what I said or in the OP. The OP did talk about pulling "policy levers" to change incentives.

> Small cars are available, even in the US, but most people aren’t interested in buying them. There are lots of reasons for that. Unless you plan to get draconian about it, people would need a reason to favor small cars.

That's basically what the OP is all about.

> The OP did talk about pulling "policy levers" to change incentives.

This is what we’re afraid of. Those policies will cause immense harm and suffering to people who cannot simply buy the small EVs that policy makers want us to buy. The unintended consequences would be devastating to many.

The point is to repeal the regulations that encouraged the growth of the car size in the first place. If you introduce more European style car rules - sure, some people will be disproportionately harmed - but that's true of any regulation. It's a tragedy of the commons problem. Currently the growth of car size disproportionately hurts those who don't have a car at all - will someone think of them?