But again, concerns over range are really just a type of concern over public charging capacity.
If the people who drive those roads regularly can charge on public chargers, then people driving through on long trips also have the ability to charge there. Thus range isn't a concern.
In the early days of ICE vehicles, range would have been a concern. After all, horses can eat almost anywhere and there was plenty of infrastructure (hay barns) available.
The solution to range for an ICE is "carry more fuel". I can load my truck bed with 500 gallons of fuel and tow 1000 more without taking a significant mileage penalty and drive 2/3 of the way around the world. An exaggerated scenario, to be sure, but the concept holds on smaller scales and is a valuable ability for many.
What does an electric vehicle offer for someone in the USA's mid-west, Canada's far north, or the Australian outback where a vehicle may need to travel for days off road without seeing civilization, possibly while maintaining heat for survival or running equipment via e.g. a PTO?
Edit to add a reply to your earlier comment: The majority of consumer uses of ICEs at the moment is commuting, agreed. Governments aren't talking about banning the majority of ICE sales. What fills the hole?
I think I'm with you on this. Range is largely a solved problem now. Once a car can go 120 miles, that's 2 hours of driving, at which point you need a break anyway. My car is already nearly a 1000kg too heavy because of the battery, and I use only half of it daily for a long commute. Most people would only use a fraction for their commute. Instead of pushing for more miles we now need surplus chargers everywhere. Homes, work, car parks and stations.
If the people who drive those roads regularly can charge on public chargers, then people driving through on long trips also have the ability to charge there. Thus range isn't a concern.