Early elevators weren't exactly safe. That didn't stop people from using them.

There is the issue of certain services being 'natural monopolies'. How many power companies do you want running power lines to your home in order to offer you power service? Network companies running fiber, cable, or coax to offer you the Internet? Water? Sewer?

See, when something requires the customer to receive not just the service but also build infrastructure through other people's property to deliver it to them, most people realize that allowing many companies to build that infrastructure is a disruptive pain. Since we don't have the core infrastructure built so that such cables can be laid without disrupting someone else's property, the trade-off has been a limited number of contenders in an area. You can argue whether that's right or not, or if there are better ways, but that is what the compromise was in order to allow for the service and yet not be a disruption.

Personally, I see local infrastructure like power lines, fiber, coax, cable, etc as just like roads. Who maintains your roads? Anyone that provides a service using those roads can do so without disruption, and the entity that owns them maintains them and permits access. They generally have no vested interest in extorting excess money out of the users of those roads, but do charge them for use. Other aspects of our infrastructure could be similarly maintained and we would solve the 'local monopoly' issue while minimizing disruption.

The average price of a new car in America is $31,252. A $40,000 vehicle is not remotely out of reach for a large percent of the population.

Which electric cars don't support Level 1 charging? Not the Leaf, Volt, or Tesla.

^ This...

I only need 50 miles a day of range almost the entire year. But about 5% of the time, I need 300+ miles of range with the ability to "recharge" in 15 minutes.

Owning a single vehicle that does both tasks costs less than buying two vehicles. It also costs less than buying the EV and renting a truck for the road trips, we don't really have in place a system to do that well, and frankly I don't want to take someone else's beater rental vehicle on a family road trip, I want to take MY vehicle on a family road trip.

While you are correct in the sense that if you drive enough, the savings of not buying fuel do add up...

The use case where that is true is narrow...

There are plenty of very efficient small cars that can be purchased for $10K+ fewer dollars than the Volt. Over 5 years of ownership, you'll be hard pressed to burn $10K in gas in a small 4 person car over the cost of recharging a Volt.

Add to that the resale of a Volt in 5 years is likely to be terrible as they keep dropping the price, it makes for an even worse investment.

It may well get there, but the people pushing for it today like to ignore a few details that explain why EVs are hardly a rounding error in vehicle sales.

It isn't because people want to waste money, it is because people have done the math and it makes no sense, unless you're "a true believer".

Range is the issue.

My commute is 40 miles each way. What EV do I buy that ensures me I can get to work and back home on a single charge, accounting for common traffic jams and problems that causes for actual range, and accomodates the lack of charging slots at work?

It would be OK if I paid less than a 30% premium over typical retail price, even better if I pay only a 50% premium over the typical price of a 5-year-old used vehicle, though I generally drive 10-year-old vehicles. I know, that rules out lots of vehicles.

Electric is still not for me.

All reasonable points...

Offer the Chevy Volt for $20K and they could sell half a million of them a year...

At $35K, it is a non-starter...

It begins and ends there, all other arguments are really academic...

If the night security guard at a bank falls asleep, and someone robs the bank without him noticing- you wouldn't charge the security guard with bank robbery.

Non-compete agreements are typically illegal in California.