[shovel]

I think what some of us are lamenting, is that while it is perfectly legal for a company to make and sell 250cc motorcycles that we the public are allowed to choose to drive on the same public streets and freeways.. it appears impossible for a company to make and sell a basic, simple transportation car with yesteryear's simplicity on today's engineering & the promise of reliability that only a new machine can really offer.

So we're stuck either paying far more than we're comfortable paying for a compromise of features not all of us prioritizes the same way, or owning questionably maintained old steel that many of us can't trust to take us across town reliably, or riding a brand new, nimble and reliable motorcycle that offers us no protection whatsoever from simple hazards like the weather and gravity.

If not saddled with the imposed-through-litigation obligation to make cars idiot proof and keep every model in their lineup layered with luxury upon luxury to keep up with each others' Joneses, I'd wager it would be easy for a company like Honda to cook up a 1500lb motor vehicle that's inherently an order of magnitude safer than any motorcycle, laughs past 60mpg on a wicked simple gas engine and costs.. well, what a tata nano costs.

So why is it again that we have no problem with motorcycles but then squabble over how much more safe one car is than the other?