this post was submitted on 09 Dec 2023
36 points (90.9% liked)

Hacker News

1770 readers
1 users here now

This community serves to share top posts on Hacker News with the wider fediverse.

Rules0. Keep it legal

  1. Keep it civil and SFW
  2. Keep it safe for members of marginalised groups

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

There is a discussion on Hacker News, but feel free to comment here as well.

all 15 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 27 points 11 months ago (1 children)

U.S. regulators rely on vehicle makers to self-test and certify their adherence to safety standards.

Sure. Sounds like a great system. What motivation could a company have besides doing good for others?

[–] Anticorp 7 points 11 months ago (2 children)

There are independent crash test ratings like JD Power and Associates, which is what most consumers check.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 11 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 4 points 11 months ago

Yes, people check how safe they are inside the truck. The truck posing a threat to others must be regulated by the govt.

[–] Anticorp 12 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

So after decades of improvements to crash safety with things like crumple zones and protected cabins, ol Elongated went and built a 1979 Ford LTD body?

[–] [email protected] 10 points 11 months ago (2 children)

That's why I'm flipping it. https://i.redd.it/0g5uq31agxi71.jpg

Load my car with a stable, but when triggered, violent explosion.

[–] Anticorp 4 points 11 months ago
[–] [email protected] 3 points 11 months ago

Funnily enough, you could have also bought a 1979 Ford car with that 'feature': https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Pinto#Fuel_system_fires,_recalls,_and_litigation

The TL;DR is that in many Ford Pintos, fuel vapors would leak into the chassis. So, another car even just lightly bumping into the back, could cause a Ford Pinto to go up in a big fire ball.

[–] pottedmeat7910 10 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Is anyone concerned that's its also kinda ugly?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 months ago

Kinda? Every time I see one I think of that Simpsons episode where Homer's brother lets him design his dream car.

[–] boeman 1 points 11 months ago

I'd rather drive the 90's Chevy Lumina APV that the cyber truck was designed to look like.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


Dec 8 (Reuters) - The angular design of Tesla's (TSLA.O) Cybertruck has safety experts concerned the electric pickup truck's stiff stainless-steel exoskeleton could hurt pedestrians and cyclists and damage other vehicles on roads.

Reuters spoke to six safety professors and officials who viewed videos of crash tests conducted by Tesla on its first new vehicle in nearly four years and shown during a webcast delivery event last week.

Tesla CEO Elon Musk said in a social media post on Tuesday that he was "highly confident" Cybertruck will be safer than other trucks for occupants and pedestrians.

George Washington University auto safety professor Samer Hamdar raised concerns about limited "crumple zones," but added that other features might make up for that.

Julia Griswold, director of the University of California, Berkeley's Safe Transportation Research and Education Center, said she was "alarmed" by the crash test videos Tesla posted.

A vehicle of this size, power and huge weight will be lethal to pedestrians and cyclists in a collision," the Brussels-based nonprofit European Transport Safety Council said in a statement.


The original article contains 690 words, the summary contains 176 words. Saved 74%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[–] Derpin420 1 points 11 months ago

You mean a sharp pointy end that isn't secured by another panel isn't safe? /$