**I am a bot. This is a friendly reminder that unwelcoming toxic/griefing/pessimistic sniping comments that are not on topic and don’t move the discussion forward will be removed. A ban will be issued if necessary. Consider this before commenting. Report posts or comments that violate the [Rules](https://www.reddit.com/mod/teslamotors/rules/). Thank you.** If you are unable to find it, use the link to it. We are not a support sub, please make sure to use the proper resources if you have questions: [Official Tesla Support](https://www.tesla.com/support), [r/TeslaLounge](https://www.reddit.com/r/TeslaLounge/) personal content | [Discord Live Chat](https://discord.gg/tesla) for anything. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/teslamotors) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> Tesla’s Cybertruck has officially added another pair of safety accolades to its name. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has now awarded the electric truck five-star ratings for both the driver and passenger in independent crash test scores, on top of the overall five-star rating it received earlier this year.
probably the safest most advanced car on the road with its stainless steel frame and drive by wire i believe having this thing in the triple motor is the closest thing to a spaceship youll ever get, a rocket spaceship i may add. i would only wish for it in black.
I wish we would have a smaller version like Y or 3, and I can buy one. It's just too big for me as a second car at home
My friend has a cyber beast and wrapped it in matte black PPF. It’s glorious!
[deleted]
For the occupants for sure. I would like to see it tested on pedestrian safety as is required in the EU.
I think the matte black cybertruck are sexy af. Don’t get the hate.
Exactly. Calling something with a high front end like this safe is pretty insulting to literally everyone else on the road or sidewalk.
I'd like to hear from the "it's got no crumple zones!" crowd
All the “no crumble zones” trolls in shambles
“High front end”lmao. You don’t know jack about what you’re talking about.
I don't know man I visited the US for the first time a while ago and most Dodge/Chevy/Fords I saw had front ends the height of an entire normal car lmao
Put it next to any other full size pickup truck and you’ll notice that due to the wedge shape it actually has a very low hood.
Well when it stopped being a full exoskeleton type design, crumple zones made sense again
I personally wouldn’t want to buy a tesla truck that was a normal truck and not stainless with a huge vault.
Or made it cheap, you know, the whole reason they had for it looking like it does. Great truck for 30k less. I don't know why you're buying it over the other options at the same price.
They were making those lame claims up until the NHTSA tests...
[deleted]
[deleted]
That should spur sales.
>probably the safest most advanced car on the road By US standards, likely. But almost everywhere else bases safety tests on both occupants and pedestrians. Based on other tests, it does have pretty good pedestrian detection, but they don't only test for that, they test for injury at certain speeds.
I'd like to know if any standards organisation in the USA can ever be trusted again? I think not, in a dictatorship.
Ford F-150 Lightning only achieved 4 star in the frontal and rollover tests. Traditional design and construction isn’t better in this case.
yeah, that whole idea "we save money because we don't need a paint shop" did not seem to workout.
They'll never see this. We've known cybertruck is one of the safest trucks ever tested since it was first tested. They're not here to evaluate evidence.
And for pedestrians?
Ya and the press machine to fold the body and be done with it. They laid out many ways. Their problem is scale, they need to make more to get the price down but they priced themselves out of it now. If they lowered the price the orders would go up and then they can work on getting it down. They just need to suck it up and lose money at first like all the other cars do. I'd buy one for 30k less, many of the pre orders probably feel the same way.
Why not? It’s actually repairable so you are less likely to end up with a total loss in a major accident
Biden is out. The dictatorship is no more.
Honest advice - work on your driving skills. It is far from being too large if you are a good driver.
Why?
Don’t hit them.
I’m buying the truck for my own safety above all.
lol no.
I don't drive much, 99% of time it's driven by FSD. I just don't need another big car at my home occupying my garage
I’m buying the truck for my own safety above all. The others should have got a cyber truck too if they cared about their safety. Or at least a safe car like the Model S, X or Y which all scored higher than most other cars.
What about the pedestrian you just obliterated, the reason why it will not be allowed in the EU
Guess I forgot the /s
for 30k i'd have two of them.
Cybertrucks with the slopping hood has much better visibility than these [monstrosities](https://assets.bwbx.io/images/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/ipZaxP9KRapw/v1/-1x-1.webp) But yes full sized trucks in America are horrible for pedestrians but that’s one area where Cybertruck is actually better than the competition.
And 0% survival rating for the opponent.
For $30k in Canadian dollars I’d buy one for each day of the week lol
I thought it was funny.
Do they test for this? One of the most dangerous things about trucks is how high their hoods are and what that does to pedestrians (and visibility), but the Cybertruck hood is a lot shorter so maybe it isn't as awful as other trucks. Does seem like it'd give you a good cut, though.
Exactly, the AWD was announced at 50k USD. It's 80k. As a below commented on Canadian which is really what I meant on doing 30k. Really it would be 20k USD down I think is reasonable, so they raise their price 10k up from launch which make some sense after inflation stuff and there ya go, orders will fly in. That would be roughly 83k right now CAD versus the 115k CAD it is now. Obviously tariffs need to go away, they just not be selling a single one currently in Canada with it at 140k lol. 60k more than it should be is bonkers.
Very low for a truck != very low hood.
Well ask how pedestrians are doing when hit by it.... That's one of the reasons it's not allowed on European roads. Hard edgy design isn't good for hitting humans. (I know not it's main intention but still a big factor for car design)
Disinformation. It’s not in the EU because Tesla doesn’t want to pay to certify it there because it wouldn’t sell so it’s a waste of money. The Model S and X were selling so bad they had to pull them, much less the Cybertruck.
Disinformation. It’s not in the EU because Tesla doesn’t want to pay to certify it there because it wouldn’t sell so it’s a waste of money. The Model S and X were selling so bad they had to pull them, much less the Cybertruck.
source?
No ones buying them, they have stock piling up!
lol can’t wait to hear more people try to cry about this or suddenly make up some other bullshit
https://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/verkehr/tesla-cybertruc-eu-strassenzulassung-tschechien/ For example this. It's in German though but maybe auto translation of browser works. It's about a street certified cyber truck in the Czech Republic. One of the modifications the owner had to do, to get the certification, was rubber protectors over the sharp edges. Or https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Cybertruck but again in German. For some reason it's not on the US site but probably because no one cares there. Overall you find many websites saying a TÜV (the ones who give our the certificate) spokesperson said it would probably be impossible to get it certified for German/EU streets because the lack of pedestrian safety. Musk says in an interview that the cybertruck is designed for the US and they probably would have to do an completely alternative design if they want to publish it in the EU or China. (Not saying the reasoning why) And at least one cybertruck was "special" certified but for that had to get rubber protectors over most edges. So yeah I'd say we can honestly say it's because of the pedestrian safety and lack of crumple zones for the pedestrians. (And sharp edges)
> Well ask how pedestrians are doing when hit by it.... > > That's one of the reasons it's not allowed on European roads. Hard edgy design isn't good for hitting humans. (I know not it's main intention but still a big factor for car design) NHTSA doesn't rate pedestrian crashworthiness. If you want to go there basically no modern American truck would pass that test, sharp edges or not.
I will just copy/paste the answer I gave another comment. (With mini adjustments) Overall true, they never tried to get it certified. But they didn't because they knew it wouldn't be successful. https://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/verkehr/tesla-cybertruc-eu-strassenzulassung-tschechien/ For example this. It's in German though but maybe auto translation of browser works. It's about a street certified cyber truck in the Czech Republic. One of the modifications the owner had to do, to get the certification, was rubber protectors over the sharp edges. Or https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Cybertruck but again in German. For some reason it's not on the US site but probably because no one cares there. Overall you find many websites saying a TÜV (the ones who give out the certificate) spokesperson said it would probably be impossible to get it certified for German/EU streets because the lack of pedestrian safety. Musk says in an interview that the cybertruck is designed for the US and they probably would have to do a completely alternative design if they want to publish it in the EU or China. (Not saying the reasoning why) And at least one cybertruck was "special" certified but for that had to get rubber protectors over most edges. So yeah I think we can honestly say it's because of the pedestrian safety and lack of crumple zones for the pedestrians. (And sharp edges)
Ok and? I responded to "I'd like to hear from the "it's got no crumple zones!" crowd". And yes crumble zones are a bit factor for pedestrians safety as well. But sad that nhtsa doesn't take that into account.
They still make the claim, because it's true. Some of the outer panels bear structural load, unlike traditional vehicle designs. The front crumple zone is obviously not one of those areas.
Hello I see it! Apparently nhtsa doesn't test for pedestrian safety at all. Guess what helps a lot with that? Exactly, crumble zones. So no cybertruck is very far away from being one of the safest trucks ever. Maybe it is if you only look at driver/passenger safety but not overall. There is a reason why it's not certified in the EU for example. So whats about that evaluation of evidence!? Love you all, getting downvoted for posting you facts with sources but you just have to worship musk/Tesla
> a TÜV spokesperson said it would probably be impossible It's goofy how many publications cited this Stefan Teller "TÜV expert" (their words), who in the same interview said the vehicle has no crumble zones (which is false). Who is to believe this person has any idea what they're talking about w.r.t. pedestrian safety? The guy saw a metal colored vehicle and made his mind up immediately.
So, the “nO CrUmPle zONes” people will just move the goalposts since they were proven hilariously wrong? Yeah, that is what they do. Just in this thread, they’ve tried to move the goalposts to: Pedestrians Other vehicles Low sales Dictatorship giving out fake 5-star ratings
You're concerned about Cybertruck for pedestrians and not the pickup trucks with hoods that are taller than many adults? You read too many Reddit headlines.
It literally has the shortest front end of any full-size pickup truck.
What's a "crumble" zone? How could anyone ever take you seriously? Do you think Cybertruck looks like a cookie?
This guy is talking about cookies and not trucks....
True it's "crumple zone". English isn't my nativ language but I guess you know how it is and know other languages as well, so forgive me. Seriously your only defense is insulting me? Well guess you just can't accept I am saying the truth but because my facts are true you gotta find another (stupid) way. Sorry obviously you couldn't figure out what I mean because "crumble" and "crumple" is too hard to connect for your brain. <3
Haha. See other reply. Sorry your little brain can't connect "crumble" to "crumple". Whole comment is completely incomprehensible because of that.
> Ok and? > > I responded to "I'd like to hear from the "it's got no crumple zones!" crowd". > > And yes crumble zones are a bit factor for pedestrians safety as well. > > But sad that nhtsa doesn't take that into account. Ok, but that’s not what was being discussed. NHTSA tests measure occupant crash safety only, and the Reddit armchair engineers swore the Cybertruck would be a steel coffin, dumping all crash energy into its occupants because of its rigid design and supposed lack of crumple zones. Now that the data proves that wrong, the goal posts have moved to ‘but what about pedestrians'
This is a general beef I have with current American pickups. The front is a vertical wall, ending over 4 feet off the ground. Not only does this create a huge blind spot where a child or a wheel chair user may be concealed, it doesn't allow a struck pedestrian to ride up onto the hood, mitigating some of the impact force.
Crumple zones do not help pedestrians during impacts with vehicles…. Crumple zones are entirely meant to reduce the amount of energy transferred to the occupants, not pedestrians. If the car is hitting the pedestrian hard enough that the car’s structure is deforming, the pedestrian is already dead. What usually happens is that a pedestrian is hit in the lower area of their body and will be thrown into the hood and windshield. This is where you need to soften the blow, nothing to do with crumple zones. Technologies that help prevent pedestrians deaths, like active hood systems for example, will pop up and try to meet the pedestrian to soften the collision, not try to deform towards the harder metal parts in the engine bay of most cars.
They’re right. Native language or not, the crumble zone is a feature specifically reserved for cookies. It is not safe for pedestrians as it can cause long term health issues such as heart disease. Anyway, crumple zones are designed to decrease acceleration when a vehicle impacts something with enough energy to cause a significant change in velocity. This is designed to protect the occupants of the vehicle. For the forces that crumple zones are designed to handle, a human will be obliterated before the crumple zone “crumples.” Things like soft bumpers or a low hood tend to help more.
I’m no expert, but I’d assume pedestrians will not fare well getting struck by any vehicle. Human bodies tend to not do well against large, heavy, metal objects.
I think star ratings should somehow include how much damage is done TO the other vehicle. Cybertruck vs Prius? I am willing to assume the outcome. Both are 5 stars though.
We’ve known it since it was first announced. Every single Tesla is one of the safest vehicles ever in its class. Was always asinine to assert somehow Tesla would all of a sudden forget their laser focus on safety…
This is for the US, not any other country. We care more about vehicle occupants safety. We don't test for pedestrian safety and make vehicles safer for pedestrians. Since we have plenty of room on the side walks fire pedestrians to walk on while our roads are much bigger than EU roads. The crumble/crumple zones are there to absorb the impact of a crash and to minimize the kinetic energy on the vehicle occupants. It's not meant for pedestrians. If any US made vehicle is sold in the EU, they have to be changed to meet the EU standards. So an F150 sold in the US will be different than the one sold in the EU. And more than just swapping the driver position and changing display numbers.
Yep, still high enough to hit a kid’s face though.
Genius! Why didn’t anyone think of that? Remove all seatbelts and airbags from all cars!
So is basically any vehicle that's not a sedan...
Yep, which is why the safety for people outside the vehicle should be part of the “safety” rating for vehicles, like in Europe. As it stands, the safety rating system promotes an arms race of bigger vehicles that are more and more deadly for people in smaller vehicles / outside vehicles.
I agree. But I'm not sure why people like you pick on Cybertruck for this and not other vehicles. Especially given that Cybertruck is the best pickup truck in this regard.
I don’t know why you’re making that assumption about me. I absolutely do think the same about other vehicles. I just hate when policy is not based on reason / reality. Anyway, cheers, peace.
You come into a thread about Cybertruck and say this, but you don't do the same for other vehicles that are worse. Why? If anything, shouldn't we be praising the safest vehicle in the class?
We all know trucks are bad for pedestrians. It’s also besides the point and not what is being discussed.
Concerned about any car the same.
All trucks are shit for pedestrians. This is well known.
Interesting that you just comment on Cybertruck then.
Sharp stainless steel angles aren’t going to help.
So you expect every time I wrote a comment about a product I will go to the competitors and do the same? I found that OP only posted about the NHTSA rating of the Cybertruck. Why don’t you tell him he should also post the same of other trucks?
He posted something relevant to Tesla in a Tesla community. You came into a Tesla community to try to twist it into a negative thing, when it's actually the safest vehicle for pedestrians in its class.
They only test for that in the EU
You should maybe not read in a place where people can discuss. Just read the Tesla website. This you would like.
Isn’t this post about cybertruck?
You're free to discuss, and I'm free to tell you that you're ignorant.
So why are most trucks fully road legal in the EU, but the cybertruck is not?
And yet, you don't see them posting similar comments in threads about other vehicles.
Most electric pickup trucks are not legal in the EU.
The vast majority of pickup trucks are legal in the EU. The electric drivetrain has nothing to do with pedestrian safety.
Because they are road legal?
I’m not defending the abomination, but a Tesla vs. any full size truck would be similar.
Well that is also one of the reasons that no one outside of the US cares about a NHTSA rating. It's like the bare minimum requirements for safety
And wrong again, sorry. https://www.spiegel.de/auto/aktuell/tesla-cybertruck-bekaeme-in-europa-keine-zulassung-a-1301086.html "Stoßfänger und Motorhaube müssen Energie aufnehmen können, um den Passanten zu schützen." Means :"Bumper and hood have to be able to absorb energy, to protect pedestrians." - Stefan Teller, expert of the SGS-TÜV Saar GmbH So who do we trust now? A random redditor or some expert who gave a statement on that matter? :) And if you still don't want to believe him just use your brain. If I hit you with a modified hammer which has an attachment like 5cm in front of the hammer head. Once the attachment is solid and won't move at all once it crumples in. What hurts you more? Edit : sorry I just realised I miss translated and accidentally wrote "passenger" instead of pedestrian. My bad and quite a big change in this context, sorry.
Tell me you are not familiar with international testing norms without telling me you are familiar with said safety rules. They don't even do dynamic whiplash testing! lol
I am no expert either but what if we listen to experts instead of throwing around random ideas? https://www.spiegel.de/auto/aktuell/tesla-cybertruck-bekaeme-in-europa-keine-zulassung-a-1301086.html "Stoßfänger und Motorhaube müssen Energie aufnehmen können, um den Passanten zu schützen." Means :"Bumper and hood have to be able to absorb energy, to protect passengers." - Stefan Teller, expert of the SGS-TÜV Saar GmbH So who do we trust now? A random redditor or some expert who gave a statement on that matter? :) And if you still don't want to believe him just use your brain. If I hit you with a modified hammer which has an attachment like 5cm in front of the hammer head. Once the attachment is solid and won't move at all once it crumples in. What hurts you more? Sure if you get hit by a car which drove like 50+km/h (roughly 30-35mph for the uneducated) you still most likely die, but still your chances of survival increase. But if you get hit by a car with like 20-30km (roughly 13-18km/h) it's a huge difference. With pedestrian friendly design you have a decent chance of survival, without probably close to zero. And I'd say most crashes which involve pedestrians happen with that speedy because streets where you are allowed to drive like 50+ won't be shared with pedestrian as other are. (Like on a road 50+ sidewalks are much more separated if any at all, etc)
That's just wrong sorry. (Except the first part, it's kinda funny gonna give you that :)) https://www.spiegel.de/auto/aktuell/tesla-cybertruck-bekaeme-in-europa-keine-zulassung-a-1301086.html "Stoßfänger und Motorhaube müssen Energie aufnehmen können, um den Passanten zu schützen." Means :"Bumper and hood have to be able to absorb energy, to protect passengers." Stefan Teller, expert of the SGS-TÜV Saar GmbH So who do we trust now? A random redditor or some expert who gave a statement on that matter? :) And if you still don't want to believe him just think about it by yourself. If I hit you with a modified hammer which has an attachment like 5cm in front of the hammer head. Once the attachment is solid and won't move at all once it crumples in. What hurts you more?
And wrong again and even a stupid take. Maybe you should start caring about (pedestrian) safety. Occupant and pedestrian safety aren't mutual exclusive and a vehicle safe for both doesn't have to be less save for the occupants. And then about crumple zones not being for pedestrians: Wrong again, sorry. https://www.spiegel.de/auto/aktuell/tesla-cybertruck-bekaeme-in-europa-keine-zulassung-a-1301086.html "Stoßfänger und Motorhaube müssen Energie aufnehmen können, um den Passanten zu schützen." Means :"Bumper and hood have to be able to absorb energy, to protect passengers." Stefan Teller, expert of the SGS-TÜV Saar GmbH So who do we trust now? A random redditor or some expert who gave a statement on that matter? :) And if you still don't want to believe him just use your brain. If I hit you with a modified hammer which has an attachment like 5cm in front of the hammer head. Once the attachment is solid and won't move at all once it crumples in. What hurts you more? It's incredible how all of you talk about evidence, and respond to a comment which basically says " finally we got the evidence crumple zones aren't needed at all" while ignoring all the other evidence.
I said EXACTLY what you're "expert" said. That any vehicle coming to the EU MUST change in order to meet the regulations for pedestrian safety. He didn't mention crumple at all. Just that it needs to absorb the impact. Which bumpers do and they can easily be popped back out while these bumpers PROTECT the crumple zones that are meant only for the occupants safety. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crumple_zone The Camaro and Viper are both legal in the EU except the Viper ACR and ZL1 1LE. Why are all others legal but these two aren't? Because of their "aggressive" canards on the front. Yes, we understand that the EU has more regulations on vehicles than the US. But here in the US, the NHTSA is what we follow. And again, it's because we don't have tight city streets or paved roads that 2 vehicles can barely go past each other.
On the contrary, a pedestrian getting hit would be pushed down and run over. Extremely dangerous. Personally I don't think cars and trucks like that should outright be banned, but they should pay extremely high road taxes in comparison.
And Henry Ford was a saint! A saint, I tells ya.
No you didn't? That's getting ridiculous. You clearly did not, but just say you did say the same. Are you trump by any chances? The TÜV Guy says :Stoßfänger und Motorhaube müssen Energie aufnehmen können, um den Passanten zu schützen." Means :"Bumper and hood have to be able to absorb energy, to protect passengers." That's EXACTLY what crumple zones are. Something which absorbs energy and crumples in. Doesn't matter if it's bumper and hood, trunk or even a pink rubber duck. (Well last one probably won't work for a car) https://res.cloudinary.com/sternwald-systems/raw/upload/v1/hugoprd/ARTIKEL_ATTACH/0024338A_B9896AC0EE5B/5d204fcff33633e97b89031c799f378cbc715e28/PE_2006_11_Pedestrian-Protection-Crumple-Zones-for-Pedestrians.pdf Even in English this time. For example "Here, the stiffness required by the car manufacturer must be recon- ciled with the demands of pedestrian protection." Guess what? Crumple zones are for pedestrian safety. (For occupant's as well but still for pedestrian too) And I don't know why or why not they are legal in the EU, but yes there are other things than crumple zones required in the EU. Maybe they have enough crumple zone or maybe not, I won't bother to research because it doesn't matter. "But here in the US, the NHTSA is what we follow. " Cool story bro. But you do know Reddit isn't us exclusive and especially it still doesn't mean "no crumple zones needed" but only "no crumple zones needed for driver/passenger safety"? They just don't test or care about pedestrian safety. If you think that's a good idea, yeah you are a pretty bad person. :)
I didn't? Here's my comment from above with no edits but read the last paragraph: This is for the US, not any other country. We care more about vehicle occupants safety. We don't test for pedestrian safety and make vehicles safer for pedestrians. Since we have plenty of room on the side walks fire pedestrians to walk on while our roads are much bigger than EU roads. The crumble/crumple zones are there to absorb the impact of a crash and to minimize the kinetic energy on the vehicle occupants. It's not meant for pedestrians. If any US made vehicle is sold in the EU, they have to be changed to meet the EU standards. So an F150 sold in the US will be different than the one sold in the EU. And more than just swapping the driver position and changing display numbers. So I didn't say what the expert said? Hmmmm..... Yes, I understand people from all over the world use reddit and I'm telling you that, here in the US, the Cybertruck has 5 stars in a crash test. And guess what? It would still top the charts in a crash test in the EU but fail at your pedestrian safety test UNLESS it was changed to have softer bumpers. Crumple zones are meant to not bounce back, that's why the crumple zone is more on the chassis than a single bumper.
[deleted]
Wtf Like really wtf. You quote it again "The crumble/crumple zones are there to absorb the impact of a crash and to minimize the kinetic energy on the vehicle occupants. It's not meant for pedestrians. " YOU SAY ITS NOT MEANT FOR PEDESTRIANS BUT THE EXPERT SAYS IT IS AND MY OTHER LINK SAYS THEY ARE as well. How is it possible? Sorry but can you read? Do you understand English? I honestly don't understand how you can come to the conclusion that you did say the same as the expert. You say the exact opposite. It's a crazy world.... And "It would still top the charts in a crash test in the EU but fail at your pedestrian safety test" No because that's the same. A crash happens often with pedestrians so it's what's done in the crash test. (Not only)
No, I think you're not understanding English buddy. Yes, I said what I said. And from the Wiki link that you didn't read, the bumpers PROTECT the crumple zone on a vehicle. Once the crumple zone is damaged, 9/10 times it can't be fixed. The bumpers can be hit back into place since they're made of a material that will bounce back with the push of a hand or a very slight hammer hit.... which crumple zone cannot bounce back nor be hit back into place with a slight hammer hit.
Good one! Excellent parody of someone moving the goalposts! Haha
Yeah I don’t care that much mate. lol. “Tesla can do no right”. I just like pointing out how silly and irrational people get over this company. The one thing Tesla does well is make safe vehicles. And despite the arm chair experts, they made another safe vehicle with the Cybertruck.
No they did not. I mean you can lie and write what ever you want. I gave you the sources above and it's literally not certified in the EU because it's NOT save. But keep ignoring facts. You are telling the truth with "I just like pointing out how silly and irrational people get over this company. " but not the way you mean it. It's you who is silly and irrational because you just ignore facts.
I am not moving any goalpost you just say I/we do because you can't admit your loved cybertruck is in fact NOT save. I always said it's super unsafe because pedestrians just get f**ed if they get hit by it. But nice that you know more about my past then I do. Can you tell me where I put my lost keys 20years ago? Just admit the car is super unsafe that won't hurt you.
> I gave you the sources above and it's literally not certified in the EU because it's NOT save. It’s not certified in the eu because it doesn’t comply with their requirements. But it gets top safety marks for those that buy one, as all their vehicles do. Stop worrying about it so much as I’m sure you weren’t going buy one anyways.
Yep it's doesn't comply with SAFETY requirements. Guess what? That means it has safety issues. "But it gets top safety marks for those that buy one, as all their vehicles do." Maybe start testing better? :) nhtsa doesn't even test for pedestrian safety at all. But hey, not caring for your fellow human beings is high in trend right now in the USA. "Stop worrying about it so much as I’m sure you weren’t going buy one anyways." I mean do you get what we are talking about at all? I would be less worried (about me) if I bought one. But I have basic human compassion. It's about others who potentially hit me or others with it.
Good one! Excellent parody of someone moving the goalposts to several other topics that aren’t crumple zones! Haha
Bro you can't just say "moving the goalpost" and be right. That's not how it works. Well TBF in the USA enough retards voted for trump so that's actually how it works for many things over there. Crumple zones are for pedestrian safety. I say it's unsafe for pedestrians because no crumple zones (and sharp edges). How did I move the goalpost from no crumple zones to no crumple zones? Doesn't make sense my dear.
> I mean do you get what we are talking about at all? I would be less worried (about me) if I bought one. But I have basic human compassion. It's about others who potentially hit me or others with it. Accidents happen mate, you will not enjoy being struck by any car. I assure you. You can do very little to engineer that out. Fortunately tesla is one of the leading developers for autonomy in consumer vehickes, which is probably the best thing a company can do to protect vulnerable road users. If you care about them that much, you’d root for Tesla. Human compassion? Mate we’re on Reddit talking about a car. Christ. .
You are just reinforcing the point I was making. “Bumper and hood” are not part of the crumple zone. They are structures meant to handle low speed impacts in order to prevent damage to the structure of the vehicle and protect pedestrians. The crumple zone is a one time use mechanism, which deforms the internal structure of the vehicle, and makes it no longer drive worthy. > The front of the bumper is designed to withstand low speed collisions, e.g. as in parking bumps to prevent permanent damage to the vehicle. This is achieved by elastic elements, such as the front apron. In some vehicles, the bumper is filled with foam or similar elastic substances. This aspect of design has received more attention in recent years as NCAP crash assessment has added pedestrian impacts to its testing regime. The reduction of rigid support structures in pedestrian impact areas has also been made a design objective. In the case of less severe collisions (up to approx. 20 km/h), the bumper and outer panel design should ensure that the crumple zone and the load-bearing structure of the vehicle is damaged as little as possible and repairs can be carried out as cheaply as possible. For this purpose, so-called crash tubes or crash boxes are used for mounting bumpers. Crashtubes consist of a hollow steel profile, which transforms the incident energy by rolling up the profile. Also, while the article you linked was interesting in 2019, the Cybertruck that shipped does not use an exoskeleton structure like they thought it would. The vehicle’s frame structure is instead very traditional, hence the article has little to do with the reality on the ground in 2025. The Cybertruck would still have issues with the TÜV, around its lights, the steer-by-wire system and some of the outside edges of the vehicle, but not for passenger safety.
Bro.... "Accidents happen mate, you will not enjoy being struck by any car. I assure you. You can do very little to engineer that out." That's exactly what we are talking about. Yes you won't enjoy it. But yes with crumple zones you have a much higher chance of survival or no severe injuries. And your part "you can do very little to engineer that out" is completely wrong. That's the fkn reason crumple zones exist (and for driver safety as well yes). Because some clever engineers figured out how to make a accident less severe.
[removed]
I’ll break it down for the non-Americans that are so much smarter than us! The original claim by many idiots (and the premise of the comment you responded to) was that the Cybertruck would have “no crumple zones” and inevitably do poorly in crash tests for people inside the truck. Once the truck was crash tested, surprise! (to people blinded to reality by bias), the truck has crumple zones and has great test results for its passengers. So, the progression is: “No crumple zones!” Testing shows it has crumple zones Anything other than just admitting it has crumple zones despite claims that it wouldn’t, is moving the goalposts. Saying “well, the crumple zones aren’t good enough for pedestrians” is moving the goalposts, because it admits it HAS crumple zones despite originally claiming it wouldn’t. Saying “well, other vehicles will be damaged still” is moving the goalposts, because the topic is “does it have crumple zones?” Saying “it has low sales” is moving the goalposts. Saying “the test results are fake because it’s a dictatorship!” Is moving the goalposts and also embarrassingly delusional. Hope that helps even though I’m a stupid American.
[deleted]
Then those people… are in the wrong thread: They [supposedly] weren’t the ones saying the Cybertruck would have “no crumple zones” which is the premise of this thread, so they don’t need to be offended and try to defend their position if that… wasn’t their position. The people who said the Cybertruck would have “NO crumple zones” were plentiful and stupid. They were embarrassingly wrong and look like complete, irrationally-biased doofuses. People who did NOT say there would be “no crumple zones” and just said it probably won’t be great for pedestrians were stating the obvious and should just laugh at the idiots that said “no crumple zones” instead of coming into a thread about the “no crumple zones” clowns and *moving the goalposts* to something other than the existence of crumple zones.
The link you sent just confirmed what I said lol. I think you are getting confused on what the crumple zone is. To summarize: * Vehicles in Europe are required to have 'pedestrian impact zones' such as hoods and bumpers that can absorb the energy normally seen in a vehicle-pedestrian collision. These do not necessarily "crumple" in an impact and do nothing to protect the passengers of the vehicle. * The "crumple zone" in a vehicle is designed to protect the passengers of the vehicle, and is a feature of the vehicle's frame. I am not speaking specifically about the Cyber Truck.
[deleted]
Nope Read the link or read anything. Crumple zones are for pedestrians as well. Edit: if you want an actual study: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257775117_Crumple_zone_design_for_pedestrian_protection_using_impact_analysis And crumple zones are not (always) metal exactly for the reason metal is very hard. So no I am not (strictly) talking about metal crumble zones and maybe you stop hallucinate what I am talking about.
When a company say something will save money it usually doesn’t mean **you** will save money
There should be a massive mileage tax on big cars
It’s much, MUCH safer than the “no crumple zones” clowns claimed it would be. (Because then it would be extremely unsafe for even the people INSIDE if their claim were true) That’s the point of this particular thread. You’re moving the goalposts to pedestrian safety when the topic is people who claimed it wouldn’t have any crumple zones at all and would therefore be very unsafe for even the people inside.
Same problem here.I don't think you understand the movement of goalposts
[deleted]
No. Maybe your auto translation fucked it up but it does not say what you say. It's in fact you who got confused what's a crumple zone or not. But everyone can write anything so let's get some sources: https://res.cloudinary.com/sternwald-systems/raw/upload/v1/hugoprd/ARTIKEL_ATTACH/0024338A_B9896AC0EE5B/5d204fcff33633e97b89031c799f378cbc715e28/PE_2006_11_Pedestrian-Protection-Crumple-Zones-for-Pedestrians.pdf Or do you maybe want an actual study? https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257775117_Crumple_zone_design_for_pedestrian_protection_using_impact_analysis And literally the first sentence of the description:"This paper describes the design process for an automobile crumple zone for pedestrian protection" Can't get much more clear than that. Btw it's not (exclusively) part of the vehicle frame.
Yes they are. I mean I linked you a source already but all you say "no wrong" while completely ignoring the facts. The TÜV expert says exactly that. That hood and bumper are crumble zones. But maybe you want a full study because of course you know more than any expert? Here you go: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257775117_Crumple_zone_design_for_pedestrian_protection_using_impact_analysis First sentence of description literally says "This paper describes the design process for an automobile crumple zone for pedestrian protection" I cant have more humility if I have to repeat myself 10 times because you guys just can not or do not want to read.
>Okay but... why are you that concerned that people you don't know, on the Internet, are wrong? Weird thing to ask when you’re here basically complaining that people on the internet are “wrong” to be claiming that the goalposts are being moved. >We are all wrong at times, it's okay and frankly not that big a deal. It is a big deal when people are very loudly wrong about something because they’re extremely biased and ignoring reality. There are TONS of examples of how this is bad for discourse and even society as a whole for people to be loudly spreading false information about a topic based on irrational hatred and not reality. >You make it sound like people are organized as mobs and operating in bad faith and "move the goalposts" to always have something bad to say about the Cybertruck. lol, you make it sound like there AREN’T people operating in bad faith about Tesla-related topics. There obviously are. There are people on the other side operating in bad faith, too, and we should point out when those people are very, very wrong when it’s based on bias so everyone knows never to give them any credibility in the future. >It could also just be that they always thought, in order of importance: "It has no crumple zones. It's a pedestrian nightmare. It's a shitty looking truck." Then they can say, “Wow, looks like I was wrong. I still don’t like it, and it’s still bad for pedestrians like every other full-size truck, but it clearly is WAY more safe than I claimed.” That’s not what is happening, here, though. >Now that the first point was addressed, the last two just become more prevalent. The goal posts haven't changed in that situation: they just stopped mentioning something that was addressed. The topic of THIS thread is people who claimed “no crumple zones.” People are responding to it and any topic other than that is moving the goalposts. If they want to talk about a different topic, start a different thread. Don’t reply to one specifically about “no crumple zones” and change the subject, or people will correctly point out they’re moving the goalposts.
You might want to try again, but without the insults.
[removed]
Alright, you win.
> That or… hear me out: > > There was two different sets of people with different griefs about the cyber truck and the goal posts haven’t actually changed, just your perception. My response was addressing the guy who said "Well ask how pedestrians are doing when hit by it....". That is shifting goal posts in the context of this thread/topic which is specifically about occupant safety.
> Well that is also one of the reasons that no one outside of the US cares about a NHTSA rating. It's like the bare minimum requirements for safety The bare minimum is FMVSS compliance, NHTSA/NCAP is **additional** crash testing. The US has different standards because different regions = different risks. Europe’s NCAP adds pedestrian impact scores because of narrower roads and smaller cars. The US NCAP focuses on occupant safety because most crashes here involve big vehicles at higher speeds.
[deleted]
That’s like arguing a gun isn’t safe because it’s a larger caliber. The main problem is that the gun exists in the first place. Your beef is with trucks in general, which is a valid beef to have.
> So you asked: « haha! It’s been proven safe! Now what are your complaints?! » and then got mad when people answered your question and explained their next complaint? > My question was rhetorical/tongue in cheek. As in, yes all of those people were wrong about occupant safety. > Now that the first point is addressed: I just worry about pedestrian safety This is not a Cybertruck specific thing, it's a class wide thing. In the US we have more highways, wider roads, higher speeds, and bigger cars than the EU. So we focus more on occupant safety rather than pedestrian safety. Different regions = different risks. US cars are not made to safe for pedestrians, unfortunately. > It’s an ugly ass truck I am not a fan of the looks either, wish Tesla had made a normal looking truck
If anything, the Cybertruck is *better* than a typical American pickup for front visibility, what with the sharply raked hood.
I read the words as they are written. Inferring the author meant something other than what they said would be to effectively put words in their mouth.
LMFAO!
Perhaps, but I'd really like to see numbers. Being better for pedestrian safety than, say, a Dodge RAM is a *very* low bar.
Sure....
Right, I don't want to be hit by an Cybertruck at 20MPH, I want to be hit by an F-150 at 20MPH said no one. The single biggest pedestrian safety upgrade possible is collision avoidance, which the Cybertruck is great at. Line it with razorblades, it's still safer, if it hits the brakes when someone starts to step in front of it compared to an F-150 just plowing through them.
Here's what I want: a pedestrian crumple zone that is so good that as soon as a pedestrian steps out in front of the truck, all the passengers instantly die.
Edit: miss read "passenger" for "pedestrian". Still passenger and pedestrian safety is not mutual exclusive and actually related to each other. The softer the impact the better for everyone. Pedestrian or passenger.
Only drivers call them accidents, authorities call them collisions. There's no use crying over spilled milk, you can still dip your cookie in it.
That comparison doesn't make sense. "The Ford F-150 includes a driver-assist system called Pre-Collision Assist with Automatic Emergency Braking (AEB), " If it's better or worse than the one of cybertruck I don't know and don't want to argue. Obviously it's good enough for EU norms and I guess the people at TÜV have much more knowledge than I do and probably you as well. The question is IF you get hit by it because some accidents are just unavoidable at some point.
It's not allowed there because the didn't design it to pass there. Silver reflectors in European cars would make them not pass in the US, because we need amber reflectors. Doesn't mean they're unsafe.
How about the fact that hood height is actually one of the most important things for pedestrians. On top of the active safety system. The Cyberturck is an extremely safe vehicle, for everyone.
"What hurts you more" is actually a giant, flat, unforgiving wall hitting you... much like the front-ends of traditional pickup trucks. What hurts you less as a pedestrian is a low, sloping front-end that you can roll onto if you're ever hit. CT, while looking menacing with all of the sharp edges, has one of the lowest and slopiest front-ends of any truck you can buy right now. It's safer just from that alone, although I can see how someone might look at the car and immediately disbelieve that without knowing those finer details. That said, I don't wanna get hit by one... nor any other vehicle for that matter.
They're profitable at their price points, though. The F150 lightning and the Rivians aren't even profitable yet. So, yeah, they did save money. Not enough for us to have a sub-50k truck, but enough for them to make a profit on the price point where other companies are still hemorrhaging.
"Bumper and hood have to be able to absorb energy, to protect passengers." Passengers... Not pedestrians
Yeah, it cracks when you put \~8x more downward force on the hitch than it's rated for... In fact, the way I've seen it tested (Jerry Rig) is raw vertical load on the tongue, which is only rated for 160lbs, and it withstood what? \~9,000lbs before it cracked? I don't think this is as big of a deal as it was made out to be (surprise surprise, this is par for the course with Tesla).
Driver and passenger, no doubt. But don’t you dare get hit by a sharp wall of steel as a cross the road.
Passant = pedestrian Passengers would be something like "Mitfahrer". But I think even in English that's not really the right word because it more or less excluded the driver itself doesn't it? Non the less, it says pedestrian. Edit: I am sorry I just saw i actually miss translated it in the comment above. But yeah passant means pedestrian.
> Obviously it's good enough for EU norms I don't think they sell F-150s in Europe much, if at all.
Well when I googled it it gave me purchase options for Germany , so I guess it does sell at least some times. But I took it as implication from the comment, thought he compares a certified vehicle for a non certified . But yeah it is certified for the EU.
I guess they don't think the height of the hood matters for pedestrian safety. When it matters a lot more than sharp angles. If a 5 feet high hood truck rams you, you're falling like a bowling pin, and getting your head cracked open on impact with the ground. And then getting rolled over, if they didn't brake on impact with the pedestrian already.
They’re both 5-stars because the star system is relative to other vehicles in its class. In a two-vehicle collision, the 5-star Cybertruck is likely MUCH safer than the Prius. Musk even said this when the Model 3 got exceptionally good crash test results: It’s likely not *actually* as safe as the heavier Model S/X.
So why are these electric pickup trucks not legal in the EU?
Cybertruck is road legal.
> Yep it's doesn't comply with SAFETY requirements. Guess what? That means it has safety issues. No? It could mean that the safety requirements are trash. I’m not saying it does in this case. But I am saying your conclusion is not necessarily correct.
Ragebait
I meant that your comment was automod removed so noone, not even the OP could see it.
Well true. But as much shit is going on in Germany and the EU as well... With our safety we take it much more strikt and seriously than for example the USA. And it shows in statistics. So I would actually trust "them" with these rules and regulations. Well except if it means we would get speed limits on autobahn. Some people would lynch you if you/someone did. :D
Pedestrians have a 1 star safety rating when hit by a car
I’m not talking pedestrian safety— I won’t argue that at all— but rather pedestrian visibility. The best crash is the one you don’t have in the first place, which improved visibility combats.
I would think so. That thing is huge. The other group in the fiat will not stand a chance
Don’t walk in front of cars.
And you know for a fact it doesn't comply with EU requirements specifically regarding pedestrian safety and that specifically is the reason they don't sell them there? Or are you just making that up just like the people knew for a fact that there was no way it would have crumple zones? I think thats the point... Like how do you know Tesla just doesn't care to get EU certification due to its weight and that it likely would require an entirely more exclusive drivers license classification that makes it not "worth it" for a volume product? In the US a standard license allows you to operate any vehicle up to like 12,000 kg. Unless you're driving something heavier than that or with like 16 capacity, you don't need a commercial license. In the EU the standard class B license was for only like 3,500 kg, and it JUST got bumped up to 4,250 kg in like March (specifically cause EVs are heavier), and member states have like 4 years to actually implement the new change lol... Meanwhile, Cybertrucks GVM has been like 4,100-4,500 kg? So clearly above the normal weight limits, and likely still above the weight limit.. So tell me, how do you know for a certainty that THE REASON the cybertruck isn't for sale in the EU is specifically because of it not meeting passenger safety requirements? Can you even specificy what exact requirements it doesn't meet? I mean of course there would have to be SOME changes, it's not like even current 3/Y are all the exact same when sold between EU/US. I am sure Tesla COULD make a compliant Cybertruck with no meaningful design different. But would it sell given the market, license requirements, and just general lack of pickup culture?
Lol
"And you know for a fact it doesn't comply with EU requirements specifically regarding pedestrian safety and that specifically is the reason they don't sell them there? " Yes I do. At least it's one of the reasons. If a TÜV spokesperson says that, it's a pretty good proof I guess. TÜV is who certifies the vehicles.... Didn't read any further
Not in Europe because the lack of pedestrian safety.
(Pedestrian) visibility is a big factor of pedestrian security. While I agree with you, that's just one thing and you can't talk about safety without talking about vision.
[deleted]
the dual motor was supposed to be less than 50k and that would have been a crazy good deal
Ya 40k would be a great deal but I didn't think it has enough truck capabilities or range for me personally to go for it so never really considered it.
Most other electric pickup trucks aren't road legal in the EU either. Are you just going to assume it's because of pedestrian safety for those too?
Interestingly, any car over about 3,500 pounds is a killing machine if you consider the relative danger to other car occupants vs its own passengers. At 7,000 lbs, the cyber beast is definitely one of the most dangerous cars on the road for other cars it collides with, but I’m not sure that it’s unique design especially contributes to that fact vs the weight. I‘d bet that the sharp angles don’t make any actual difference compared to another car with the same weight. The acceleration speed probably makes it uniquely more dangerous, but maybe that is at least partially offset with crash avoidance technology. All of these huge cars are ridiculous when you consider that most people just use them as single passengers to commute. [https://www.economist.com/interactive/united-states/2024/08/31/americans-love-affair-with-big-cars-is-killing-them](https://www.economist.com/interactive/united-states/2024/08/31/americans-love-affair-with-big-cars-is-killing-them)
Lol an F150 comes standard with automatic braking. Meanwhile, Teslas fall for a Wile E. Coyote tunnel.
No it’s not. There are measures that help to increase pedestrian safety significantly.
It’s not allowed - yet. A side effect of the recent trade deal may be that this „trade obstacle“ could also be removed. There are apparently a couple of Cybertrucks registered in Norway already.
Nah, No way especially after Elon and trump kinda hate each others now. (Or at least there were a big spectacle for the media) And it's not really about trade but basic security measures. I am very sure they won't change the whole security on streets just for some dumb orange guy.... (While we never know ofc)
It’s not about the Cybertruck. It’s about all the other trucks. The Cybertruck is just the most visible and notorious proponent of the lot….
They can be modified and imported by specialists. Same as a Cybertruck.
OMG a pedestrian in general does poorly when hit by any motor vehicle. Why is this even a factor? Pay attention to crosswalks. Pedestrian get off your phone screen in the street! FFS
People said that when tesla still called it an exoskeleton.
In my decades of driving, including thousands of miles of high performance track racing and instructing, I have never come across the infamous Wile E. Coyote tunnel. I also asked all my friends, and none of them have seen it, either.
expansion axiomatic history languid gold point profit disarm pot absorbed *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev/home)*
But it is better for every other case (ride quality, accessories, cabin space, frunk, not getting harassed, price, etc etc)
Not that I’m in the market for either but the CT has more range, better bullet resistance, longer wiper blade, adjustable air suspension, ease of charging with the supercharging network, dog mode, shopping cart ding resistance, better placement of the charge port, etc etc.
13 Elon hating Karens downvoted.
Driver safety comes from keeping the cockpit intact. How that is achieved isn’t a factor.
I think you are confusing the thin skin of the frontal area which does help with pedestrian impact, and why you can damage the model 3/y hood if you close the frunk by pressing too hard in the wrong area. The crumple zone is a much stiffer structure that sits behind the skin that is able to absorb a lot more energy through controlled deformation. You can see this in just about any NHTSA or Euro NCAP crash test, the skin gives way easily and then the structure behind absorbs the majority of the energy. Model 3 and Model Y manual have active hood but I can't find in the cybertruck. But also generally the lower hood of the cybertruck is not as dangerous to pedestrians as the much taller hood on an F150.
They never saw it coming.
anyone pedestrian hit by a full size truck at any decent speed is pretty fucked, this is such a weird argument everyone makes.
There are significant differences.
I doubt it. I know it's a common idea, but that doesn't make it legit.
Login is required to comment.
Login with Google