[hotpotamus]

In the US you'd have to buy a bunch and put them through destructive crash tests to certify them, and I doubt these would pass - those smart cars actually have expensive high end steel structures built in that make them surprisingly resilient, and I doubt they do that in China.

If they had 3 wheels you could skip a lot of that and count it as a motorcycle. Also, anything older than 25 years basically just bypasses the rules which means a lot of 90's Kei cars from Japan are starting to make their way in, but obviously those are combustion powered (still cool though).

There is the concept of Neighborhood Electric Vehicle, but I don't believe they are allowed in my state. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neighborhood_Electric_Vehicle

Who knows, maybe there's a business opportunity to import these things and certify them - I'd be a buyer.

[lovemenot]

Speaking of Kei cars, the first two EVs that fall into the Kei car regulatory category were recently released in Japan.

https://www.motor1.com/news/587022/nissan-sakura-electric-ke...

https://www.mitsubishi-motors.co.jp/lineup/ek_x_ev/special/?...

[7speter]

The “destructive crash tests” are required so that you have a fighting chance in surviving a crash with a SUV

[hotpotamus]

I understand that, but how would I do in crash with an SUV if I were on a motorcycle and are those street legal?

[davidbanham]

A motorcycle has obvious dangers. An unsafe car has non-obvious dangers.

A lot of government regulation is about preventing non-obvious dangers or trying to make them obvious.

[hotpotamus]

This leads me down a funny thought process of how would I make a cheap Chinese imported electric kart seem less safe so I could drive it down the street.

[dotancohen]

  > electric kart seem less safe

Balance it on three wheels. I think that there is some electric three wheeled minicar even made in the US. The passenger sits behind the driver.

[dylan604]

How would a car a small fraction of another car have non-obvious dangers in one-on-one collisions? If you think that a smaller mass object vs a much larger mass object is not going to do lots of damage to the smaller mass object, then a basic understanding of physics seems to be lacking. Then, tack on how much faster the larger mass object can be moving in comparison to the lower mass object, and tell me what's so non-obvious about that.

[davidbanham]

You seem quite worked up, and seem to be having a discussion about how a motorcycle would perform in a collision with a large car versus a small car colliding with a large car. To be clear, that's not what I'm talking about here. I was picking up on the parent post's question about why a motorcycle should be road legal, and this thing not, when the collision danger was probably equivalent or higher.

I'm not saying that this car is more dangerous in a collision than a motorcycle. It might be, though. This weighs more than a motorcycle, which means more mass involved in the collision, which means energy to be dissipated. In a basic understanding of physics, this is sometimes referred to as the mass-energy equivalence. It's denoted by the formula E = mc2 which is fairly well known.

It's not just about mass though, is it? It's not even just about collision safety.

Cars have features like airbags, crush zones and impact protection cells to make collisions more survivable. Some of these features are optional, but many are mandated by governments on new cars.

One of the reasons this vehicle would not be road legal is because a passenger getting in to the vehicle, or someone buying it second hand, would reasonably expect it to have these features. This is what I mean by obvious and non-obvious dangers. A motorcycle has obvious dangers. It's clear to anyone that if a car t-bones you, that car will impact your body directly. This car, however, has the appearance of "a newish car". What that means to someone in a developed country like Australia is "a vehicle that meets basic safety standards". This vehicle contravenes that expectation in a non-obvious way.

Regulations also exist around things like handling dynamics in collision avoidance scenarios. How does this vehicle perform if you need to swerve suddenly to avoid a kid that has run out in the street? Will it turn or skid onwards? Will it roll over? Will something else happen? It might perform wonderfully, but the certifying authority doesn't have any reliable information that someone reliable has tested it.

New vehicles sold also have regulations around the reliability of individual components. The master cylinder for the braking system must be manufactured to a given standard of quality. If the plastic casting is crappy and the lid blows off when you hit the brakes, that's a bad thing and someone could be hurt. Preventing things like this happening to unsuspecting bystanders is why we live in a society that has agreed to place restrictions upon itself for the greater good.

[scatters]

> It's denoted by the formula E = mc2 which is fairly well known.

I don't think a collision between two vehicles results in total mass-to-energy conversion, unless one of them is made of antimatter.

You probably meant to write E = 1/2 mv^2.

[cjrp]

I wonder if there's a solution similar to experimental aeroplanes, e.g. a massive sticker which essentially says "THIS IS NOT A CERTIFIED PLANE, IT COULD BE DANGEROUS"

[davidbanham]

Yeah totally! That’s a path that regulators often take rather than banning something. It’s all part of the same root as I see it. Removing non-obvious dangers or turning them into obvious ones.

You’d still need to satisfy the requirement that they don’t pose a threat to non-occupants though. Pedestrian and bystander safety is a thing. Might be taken care of by limiting the max speed.

This post is known by the state of California to contain cancer causing elements.

[dotancohen]

Those planes are allowed to be flown for specific testing purposes only. You cannot fly passengers nor even cargo with them. And each flight crew member must have a very specific, essential role. You can't fly e.g. a tourist and call him "mission specialist" to get around the rules.

[cjrp]

I'm thinking of kit/owner-built aeroplanes. They can fly like regular (type-certified) aeroplanes, but have to be placarded (e.g. https://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/cspages/passgrwarn.ph...) https://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert/airworthiness_certific...

[ClumsyPilot]

Also Cycles and Horses and Donkeys are all legal on the road.

[msh]

A motorcycle can't really be built to survive impact with a truck. A car can, so it makes sense to require them to build to that standard.

[brk]

Looking at the way the "frame" is built on these, I'm not sure it would fare well in a crash with even a Fiat 500. It appears to have zero crash safety.