That was my immediate thought. Granted, I've not watched the video as I'm at work so if it was covered then I've not seen it, but that thing looks like it has absolutely no crumple zones, and the lack of curved surfaces would cause horrific injury in a pedestrian collision.
Tesla Model S and 3 in terms of collision safety are the safest cars ever sold in America. There is a giant crumple zone where the engine would be in an ICE vehicle. The Cybertruck will be the same.
Those are not made out of this apparently super-hard steel. This thing's sales pitch sounds more like a tank than a car.
But yes, as sibling replies have pointed out, I was more aghast as the fact that the US does not give one iota of fuck about pedestrian safety, apparently. Here, you can (theoretically, granted) get fined for attaching a bullbar that compromises the pedestrian safety, for example by changing how a pedestrian bends when impacted by the front of the car and in doing so increasing the risk of spinal or other injury to the pedestrian.
My comment was largely a critique of the differing approaches to road safety.
I mean I don't have proof positive that it doesn't meet those requirements, but if it doesn't do so then yes, at least here in AU if it doesn't meet those requirements then you simply cannot register them and therefore they're not road legal.
You could technically still buy one, just as you can a non-road-legal track car, but that's it.
No they aren’t. Model 3 doesn’t score perfect in the all the IIHS injury categories which Mercedes, Lexus, and Volvo do for the vehicle class. It got the top pick but so did 15+ other models.
I guess for pedestrian impacts it does not matter what the frame is build from. It's the shell. Because if you (as pedestrian) already went through the aluminum shell, chances are you are already pretty much done :(
