What about speed zone lanes to encourage the purchase of smaller cars, wherein on dual highways trucks and heavier cars would be limited to the slow lane [except over taking] and smaller cars allowed to travel faster, say 10-20 K faster, depending on conditions.

Because small cars ARE snall, a roll bar / cash zone, would need to be incorporated into the design.

The police are always on about speed. Yet the energy released in an accident has, as much to do with, mass and angular momentum.

We could build someting like the BMW 325 or 335 [if it exists]. Power to weight, high. Otherwise, Aussies wont buy.

Maybe non-ministerial pollies could lead the way with being allocated smaller vehicles. Ministers do need status cars.

This is a good article. It's not very often an article on this site even remotely appears to be calling private individuals to some sort of action rather than calling on government to spend someone elses money on their favourite subject. I do disagree with a lot of your means however, if not your ends.

"It may be time to tax urban-based 4WDs to extinction so that small cars were less at risk."

I'm very pro-choice, socially and economically, so I don't agree with the government using the tax system and other peoples money to "tax to extinction" choices that don't really harm other individuals. If its no bad then they should just ban them, but I don't think that's realistic either.

What does majorly affect peoples economic choices is price signals. Small cars and public transport are becoming more popular now because of the very clear signal high petrol prices send to motorists. Unfortunately however, the price of petrol (and the taxes on top of them) are not as equitable as one of their alternatives. Private road tolls have become very sophisticated over the last decade. Not only do the more advanced ones now record (automatically when you drive through a checkpoint) vehcles and charge them based on how many vehicles are already on the road, but some also now record the weight of the vehicle and charge a premium for heavier vehicles cause more damage to the road. Whilst the former very clearly encourages carpooling, the latter also encourages the use of smaller cars.

"To make small vehicles more visible some sort of aerial might be needed such as carried by some scooters."

The rule of thumb is if you can't see another driver directly or in one of their mirrors, they can't see you. Nothing else will change that. Seeing the top of an aerial in ones rear-view mirror will likely do nothing but provide a distracting eyesore to motorists. For scooters, motorcyclists and others, if they can't manage to see another driver in this manner they should generally keep their distance.

"Much single driving is short trips which do not require high speeds. Safe fuel-saving top speed can be set to under 120kph, or for cheap little non-freeway cars, even under 100kph."

The reason most cars are able to go 130kph or more is not so that people can actually do those speeds, but so that the car has the power to quickly increase in speed if the situation demands its. Think of being at a set of orange lights, about to stop but then realising the car behind you is going too fast to also stop behind you. In this situation having a powerful car to get through the lights is a very valuable asset. That's just one example. If the car has a limit at 100 or 120 it's either going to be very sensitive to pressing on the accelerator or it's not going to be able to manage these situations. This is why you don't see many scooters on freeways.

By God Val, Baby Austins and Bull nosed morrises? Well, the Japanese metamorphosed the Austin into a Datsun in the 70’s and the Morris: Better off left laying in State than to resurrect another version of those horrors. However , I have noticed an Indian replica of a Royal Enfield motor cycle buzzing around the roads of late. Lets hope the blue prints of the bull nosed Morris are laying in state, buried with the carcass and not available to the Indians.
But Val, I do not disagree with your motives for suggesting that incentives to own smaller cars are more numerous. But God forbid, we as the long suffering motorists are afflicted by the introduction of a tiny version of the Holden commodore. I hope your not suggesting that possibility.
But seriously, I think there needs to be some form of mass psychoanalysis before we have more of the population subjected to something akin to the nightmares suffered by Dennis Weaver, singled out for destruction by a psychotic truck driver, in the film Duel. Do you remember Val, the Gogomobile of old? The only car on the road that could pass under a double-decker bus, unscathed.

The logical answer, short term, is to import Tata shells off the Indians and fit a custom Australian electric dive and battery system capable of a 200Km range between charges.

A small motorbike 4-stroke could be integrated to ensure operability in emergencies. Generally speaking city-mode driving should be adequately satisfied by a 200Km dialy recharge.

The price should come out around $5000 per vehicle otherwise this idea is probably dead before it gets started.

If I am right then I know I would buy one of these and I think demand woiuld see initial backlogs that will take years to fill.

Overseas marketing is also a possibility, especially to Asia, provided some deterrence to reverse engineering Australian drive train designs are in place. But one step at a time.

Back in the 1950s the bubble car became popular, for a while. A friend of mine actually had one of the Messerschmitt models, where one person sat pillion and the top was hinged to lift off and looked like a aircraft cockpit.

There is nothing new about small cars. Doubtless the desire would be to have then running on four stroke engines (the operational life of two strokes being somewhat limiting) and would still produce significant savings against the modern Aussie sedan.

Provided someone could make an air conditioner which could run off the smaller capacity engine, the safety standards are preserved and the travel range and speed maxims were viable then I see no problem to the resurrection of such vehicles, provided they can stand up economically.

With such potential and the burgeoning price of petrol, car manufacturers should be crawling over one another to invest in the production of more economic cars. However, the responsibility for investing in such ventures is squarely the role of car makers, not the role of government. I have heard Krudd has a half a billion investment fund he is itching to give away. I would rather he gave me back the $20 which is my (per capita) share than sink it into a black hole in my name.