- cross-posted to:
- wired@rss.ponder.cat
- cross-posted to:
- wired@rss.ponder.cat
If I see one in europe im going to vandalize it.
We didn’t need your f150’s and we don’t need this. If you love american cars so much just fucking move you complex filled husk of a man.
What’s your issue against F150s?
And of course it’s a techbro lmfao. You can’t make this shit up.
They are completely inappropriate and dangerous on European roads.
Minor correction:
They are completely inappropriate and dangerous on all roads.
I guess they might be appropriate for some roads (in poor or very rural countries)
But not here
deleted by creator
I assume they are talking about the newer models that have worse sight lines than literal tanks.
I’m still pissed the EVs were discontinued.
Yeah… that was a bummer. I don’t think cybertruck and its mountain of failures is helping the case for “macho” evs
I was hoping to get a used one in a few years to use on the farm. The range and load capacity would be well within most errands. I’m now eyeing an Edison Motor’s kit for an old square body.
Well true, but have you looked at european SUVs lately? They’re getting there and i don’t see the EU doing anything to limit dimensions.
I haven’t read wired in a few years, and it looks like I haven’t missed anything.
So, the EU banned these trucks because they present a danger to pedestrians, and someone modded one with rubberized bumpers to get it registered. That’s it. That’s the story.
the EU banned
No. The EU has not done anything regarding this car or this model.
The EU is just having rules that have made the drivers licenses and the registration process comparable and somewhat similar in it’s member countries, and to let cars from the other member countries drive on their roads.
The article tells about some of these rules, but it mixes it up with the bedtime stories from this Euro-NCAP guy so that you could get many wrong ideas.
EU laws in EU countries prohibit the registering of vehicles that don’t meet certain guidelines that would protect pedestrians, yes?
Not exactly. As the article says, each country has it’s own registration laws, and the guidelines from this NGO are usually not a part of the laws.
A country may still have it’s own guidelines for the topic.
Reading is hard.
But it’s yet another opportunity to post a comment about how much we hate cybertrucks and the people who own them, so up it goes!
There is no overlap in the venn diagram of people who want a Cybertruck and people who consider pedestrian safety when buying a personal vehicle.
Actually, is there anyone that makes vehicle purchasing decisions considering pedestrian safety scores?
No, because no one intends to hit a pedestrian with the car they are buying. That’s why we need to mandate safer vehicles, not trust people to factor that in as they look for a car.
You need to meet the right people.
no one intends to hit a pedestrian with the car they are buying
pssh, speak for yourself
I say build in spring loaded spikes that impale the driver in the event of a collision with a pedestrian. Since the cyber truck pretty much has that facing the pedestrians, if the driver is faced with the threat as well maybe they’ll be more careful with their driving.
I’d say auto stop features and multiple camera views on reverse are a good selling point of a car. I certainly regret not getting the overhead camera view on the vehicle I purchased (and the blind spot indicators which don’t apply to pedestrians).
I’d also like to see the infra-red windshield overlays make it out of the prototype stage. This night vision/heat vision feature helps to alert you to deer, dogs, wildlife, and those dumb asses that insist on walking down the road at night in dark clothing in my neighborhood.
auto stop features and multiple camera views
That wasn’t meant by “pedestrian safety”.
Pedestrian safety is looking at the amount of damage that a car could do to pedestrians in an accident. It comes down to how the car is built. Things like no sharp edges, no hard materials, no dangerous liquids can leak out etc.
It is quite the opposite of what Massa Elon had in mind when he designed that silly truck. And that’s why this is a topic at all.
Doesn’t the existence of this modded truck prove that statement wrong? Because I’m pretty sure you made the only statement explicitly refuted by the existence of this truck.
Congratulations?
It’s not actually any safer, they taped thin rubber strips over the exposed edges. Someone’s friends with an inspector who played dumb, me thinks.
Parents, maybe? They are usually so concerned about children’s safety, whether that’s their kids or someone else’s.
No, most parents will consider vehicle safety for their kids, airbag effects on toddlers, scoring on side impacts, etc… and don’t give two shits about other people’s kids.
Article sucks. Buried the lead that so few of these trucks are registered that they are individual exemptions for them. Just like how you can build your own car from the ground up and get it registered.
Wow. Such a confused writer. Such a terrible post.
I love the dacia spring mentioned in the article 😍 most price efficient car out there 😁 it is lightweight and max power is just enough 👌🏻
Wow that looks like a generic imitation car from a video game or low budget movie that can’t afford to licence real cars.
Also its performance is something else… Power 45 bhp, top speed 78 mph, max range 140 miles, 0-60 19 seconds. Kudos to Dacia, I didn’t know it was even possible to make an electric car that slow.
I think 78 mph is about 130 km/h? If so, it is max speed allowed here and I have no money to pay for speeding 🤷🏻 best prevention: having a car not able to speed 😂🫢i lost so much money with my last car…
Too bad it’s ugly.
🤣as if I would care how a car looks 😅 what does it change? You see it from the inside, mostly. And personally I don’t think it is ugly, so your statement is wrong. You may say you think it is ugly which is an opinion that anyone is allowed to have. Saying it is ugly is said as fact, which is not possible for ugly/beautiful, since those can not be scientifically measured.