Thanks for sharing, NewWorld.
As I read the article, one question popped up: in reference to govt mandates for good mpg and safety, the article says "... it’s hard to make a 'safe' car that also gets good mileage". Why does the author say this? Is this just a consequence to all of the govt mandates?
And sho' nuff, it is easy for us to relate... the Elio is coming close to doing what the author states. Safe AND amazing mpg for a commuter car (autocycle).
We can look into the crystal ball, and make a guess that the govt will get involved eventually and force autocycles to have mandated safety features, which will push the price up for an autocycle.
Reality hits me, looking at the authors supposition... "if" for some reason, vehicles in the future could be built and sold with no govt mandated safety features, it would only take one accident where people were severely injured, or killed, and you know the media would be all over it... and the people would have had only minor injuries, or not killed, if they'd been in a vehicle that had all the mandated safety features. It seems like the market for no-safety-feature cars, or maybe very few safety features, would drop to virtually zero. Hard to say, I guess.