Tesla (VP Vehicle Engineering) says Cybertruck likely to not make it to Europe

Good, after seen Marques' review on youtube last thing I would want is to be involved in a crash with a cybertruck. Those angles and steel plates will cause gruesome consequences for everyone involved in such an accident. Happy to see our regulation working.

At the Cybertruck launch event, Musk suggested that it’s designed to destroy the other vehicle in a crash situation.<p>A car like that probably would have a hard time getting certified in Europe.

That is good news. Additionally, I would appreciate any kind of steps taken to make it unviable to drive any other US-style truck here as well.

Quote: Lars Moravy boils it down to two other things: “One, the truck market in the US is huge and two, European regulations call for a 3.2mm external radius on external projections. Unfortunately, it&#x27;s impossible to make a 3.2mm radius on a 1.4mm sheet of stainless steel.”

It&#x27;s a failure of US policy that this thing will be on the roads (this coming from a Model 3 owner). This angular, crumple-less, overly fast death machine has no place on public roads.

Cool, we won’t be seeing these things on the streets.

Why do articles like this call the Cybertruck a car? It&#x27;s obviously designed and branded as a truck, albeit a unique-looking one.

I quite like the way it looks - I hadn&#x27;t considered the crash &amp; pedestrian safety aspects: I&#x27;m not a massive fan of the nanny state but this is important.<p>I live near some rural-ecomentalist type villages (UK) (aesthetics might be an issue, let&#x27;s ignore that for now) where these things would actually be pretty popular - completely unnecessary but popular.

That&#x27;s pleasant news

Getting hit by a Cybertruck as a pedestrian is likely considerably safer than being hit by an F-150, a Hummer or any other similarly sized truck or SUV.<p>Pedestrian impact regulations should make the Cybertruck design illegal, as well any modern truck design. IMO, the laws should be written so that the height of the 1996 F-150 is legal and the 1997 F-150 should be illegal for non-commercial purposes in cities.<p>1: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;twitter.com&#x2F;WholeMarsBlog&#x2F;status&#x2F;1731918392800510345&#x2F;photo&#x2F;1" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;twitter.com&#x2F;WholeMarsBlog&#x2F;status&#x2F;1731918392800510345...</a><p>2: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.iihs.org&#x2F;news&#x2F;detail&#x2F;vehicles-with-higher-more-vertical-front-ends-pose-greater-risk-to-pedestrians" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.iihs.org&#x2F;news&#x2F;detail&#x2F;vehicles-with-higher-more-v...</a>

Would be limited in where it could go in the UK. In London I drive through narrow width restrictions, keeping large vehicles out, several times a day. You would need special maps.

Which is why it was really stupid to focus on this if your mission really is to accelerate migrating to green energy

Another win for Europe