De Dion Bouton Would Do Better!

I have always been intrigued by a question. Why does a car
look the way it does, and why does it cost quite a lot? Why
do we mostly encounter either motorcycles or automobiles
on the roads? Where did the entire class of vehicles called
motorette's go, which traveled the planet's roads from the
1880s until the 1940s? How did it happen that when we say
"car," we mean these voracious, petrol-electric monsters
that reach speeds unnecessary and even dangerous in urban
environments? Today, it is clear to me that brands like De
Dion Bouton disappeared not merely due to a loss of
popularity. Such vehicles became hostages of a
cartel-bureaucratic conspiracy regarding manufacturing
standards. When roads were free and speeds were rising, this
was not a problem. But now, in 2025, we see that personal
mobility devices based on electric motors are once again in
demand - vehicles reminiscent of the small-engine
transportation popular in the past, such as motorette's with
engines from 125 to 300 cc, built on brougham or wagon
chassis. Modern car ownership culture is Eurocentric and
auto-chauvinistic. The entire road infrastructure bears
witness to this. It's the only way to explain laws that
attempt to halt social progress in transportation. Motorized
brougham, electric scooters, moped bikes - all are heavily
restricted in their ability to move freely. They have no
place on public roads, nor on sidewalks. Bike lanes are too
narrow and limited to serve as alternatives for such
vehicles. Honestly, they also fail to meet the economic
logic of our time's overall development. Despite the fact
that the paradigm of personal automobiles is outdated in the
modern world, auto-chauvinists will never free our cities
from their bulky, voracious vehicles, nor will they clear
urban spaces for small-motor and electric mobility means -
those that develop speeds no higher than 70 km/h, save
space, and conserve fuel due to their compact size. There
are dozens of automotive brands, mainly in Asia, producing
excellent multi-passenger vehicles and motorize brougham
powered by motorcycle engines. In Europe and the US, such
vehicles cannot pass certification. The reason is quite
banal: a retrograde bureaucratic system has long dictated to
consumers what and how they should drive. Although,
historically, a 0.6-liter engine was enough for a
four-wheeled motorize brougham. It's clear that no one needs
a private car costing over 10,000 euros and capable of
exceeding 70 km/h for city travel. For errands or shopping,
a motorized brougham, moped, or electric scooter is
sufficient. As fuel prices and lithium battery costs
increase, more people will switch to personal mobility
solutions - kei-cars, small-motor mopeds, or electric
scooters. This is basic economics. Bureaucratic elites
cannot stop this process; the economy is stronger than
declarations, circulars, or permits. Cumbersome bureaucracy,
in an ecstatic coitus tax alliance with auto corporations,
will continue supporting the production and standards of
morally outdated dinosaurs - complaining about declining
demand. I look with admiration at the prospects of the Asian
motorcycle-engine-based transport market. I am also
impressed by how issues of ecology, fuel consumption, space,
and the absence of a forced transition to electric motors
have been simultaneously addressed. Models like Bajaj Qute
(RE60), Tata Nano, Mahindra Alfa Plus, Tata Magic, TVS
King from India - priced at $3,000–$5,000 - along with the
old Piaggio Ape, Daihatsu Midget, vintage Daihatsu Hijet,
Suzuki Mighty Boy from Japan, Wuling Hongguang Mini EV
from China, and others demonstrate that a vehicle does not
need to be a huge, voracious, bottomless barrel, nor should
it be expensive. The right to personal transport belongs to
everyone, but this right must be detached from
auto-chauvinistic Eurocentrism. Unfortunately, we will never
see these vehicles on European or North American roads
because apathetic bureaucracy demands safety standards
equivalent to those for full-sized cars. Yet it's obvious to
all rational people that it's absurd to require crash tests
at 70–80 km/h when the maximum speed is 70 km/h. It's
illogical! Would you test a BMW for crashworthiness at 220
km/h? Of course not. It's clear that the overpopulation of
urban environments with frequent passenger cars, along with
discriminatory laws against cyclists, personal mobility
devices, and motorettes, are purely cultural issues. Cars
have dominated urban spaces for too long, and many have
forgotten how it all started. In the 1960s, Shell, Exxon,
and GM funded research claiming that small engines were
"inefficient," but the real goal was to increase gasoline
sales. The lack of affordable vehicles in the EU/US (where
ˆ20,000 for an electric car or sedan is absurd) results from
a systemic conspiracy among the auto industry, oil
companies, lithium producers, and bureaucracy. However,
the trend toward cheaper, eco-friendly transportation is
inevitable, bringing small forms back onto the roads. As
Daihatsu's founder said, "A car should be like clothing -
accessible and convenient, not like a tank." If De
Dion-Bouton were produced today, it would make electric
vehicles for Grab and Uber in Jakarta. The only way out of
this contradiction is through direct action. Cities like
Amsterdam and Copenhagen became bicycle-friendly not
because of bureaucratic laws but because residents demanded
it. Of course, we need to develop new categories of transport,
such as L6e (light quad bikes up to 45 km/h), expanding
standards to include motorized brougham-like vehicles up
to 70 km/h.
Radical reforms are needed - dedicated lanes for light
vehicles, similar India's use of three-wheel rickshaws and
motorcycles. Micro-mobility not only saves money for owners
but also frees up space. For example, ten mini-cars like the
Wuling Mini EV can replace five sedans in parking space. In
summary, globalist automotive corporations are the reason
cars are so expensive, occupy so much space, and require
such complex maintenance. There are real alternatives that
do not reach the modern Western market. When globalists
blame consumers for environmental issues, they are being
hypocritical. It is these large corporations that created a
system where affordable, accessible transportation cannot be
purchased by people even in the wealthiest markets. Return
accessible vehicles to the people!