Pedestrian Safety Hypocrisy

[HaulingAss]

Every time someone mentions how damage resistant Cybertruck is, it seems someone accuses Tesla of being irresponsible. Without any evidence that it's true, they claim it will maim and kill pedestrians due to its thoughtless design and hard, sharp edges. It seems Tesla is always singled out for pedestrian safety criticisms, as if they are a horrible company that doesn't care about safety. These same people would never question Ford or GM for their masculine hood profiles that not only block visibility of shorter pedestrians, but also do nothing to deflect the energy of impact when pedestrians are struck. It is a complete double standard to offer a scathing critique of the Tesla, when the actual pedestrian safety is still unknown, while ignoring the designs of other manufacturers that kill and maim thousands every year.

Now consider vehicles of agencies that purportedly exist to protect and serve. Law enforcement vehicles that are often speeding, with lights and sirens blazing, through urban areas rich with pedestrians. They take these already dangerous masculine hood designs by Ford, GM and Dodge, and offer the ubiquitous police bull bars. We all know what they look like, if one were trying to kill as many pedestrians as possible, short of welding swords onto the bull bars, you would be hard pressed to design a more effective solution. With hard sharp edges covering the front of the vehicle and mounted directly to the frame to ensure rigidity, bull bars are a proven pedestrian killer:

This photo is used by GM to market these accessories to those who protect and serve. It makes the vehicles look even more aggressive and the added weight at the nose of the vehicle impairs braking dynamics by causing excessive weight transfer to the already loaded front tires, while further lightening the rear tires, robbing much needed traction and stability during emergency pedestrian avoidance manuevers. This is an example of GM marketing these pedestrian killers to those whose primary goal is to serve and protect. I would like to know, why the same people who endlessly harp on Cybertrucks supposed lack of pedestrian safety are suddenly silent when their own tax money is spent on accessories that convert an already dangerous front end into a human gulliotine. Given this, why would anyone rant against the safety of the Cybertruck when it comes to hitting pedestrians? What is wrong with people's critical thinking skills?

Where is the outrage over this? Or is it just people who feel economically threatened by the Cybertruck demonstrating hypocrisy, trying to find any way possible to paint Tesla in as bad of a light as possible?

Personally, I think the low hood height of the Cybertruck, and the deeply raked angle of the hood and windscreen, to be a major pedestrian safety benefit, regardless of the hardness of the metal.

Sponsored

 

[Codyco]

 

[Cybergirl]

Hypocrisy is not in short supply in the anti-Tesla world.

 

[Kahpernicus]

I get that people like to harp on the deadly CT, but using push bumpers on cop cars as a counterpoint, seems silly.

The earliest and most common quoted safety thing in regard from the CT I could find was this:

https://www.news.com.au/technology/...k/news-story/da648cad43ef731ae5dbb45632a6ed41

Incidentally, the CT actually has no reinforcement under the plastic bumper like virtually all vehicles do.



If anything you'd probably do less damage to a pedestrian through the bumper.

Spoiler

Right before they get smashed into the hood and the up/under the vehicle.

Slight tangent, the new european pedestrian regulations are mostly made of warnings/self stop/software/etc.

 

[Bill W.]

Personally, I never understood the supposed need to engineer the front of a vehicle to protect pedestrians. It is the vehicle drivers responsibility to operate the vehicle in a safe manner and watch out for errant pedestrians. It is also the pedestrians responsibility to be aware of their surroundings and walk in the proper areas. If you deliberately put yourself in harms way, then natural selection takes over.

End of rant.

 

[madquadbiker]

Every time someone mentions how damage resistant Cybertruck is, it seems someone accuses Tesla of being irresponsible. Without any evidence that it's true, they claim it will maim and kill pedestrians due to its thoughtless design and hard, sharp edges. It seems Tesla is always singled out for pedestrian safety criticisms, as if they are a horrible company that doesn't care about safety. These same people would never question Ford or GM for their masculine hood profiles that not only block visibility of shorter pedestrians, but also do nothing to deflect the energy of impact when pedestrians are struck. It is a complete double standard to offer a scathing critique of the Tesla, when the actual pedestrian safety is still unknown, while ignoring the designs of other manufacturers that kill and maim thousands every year.

Now consider vehicles of agencies that purportedly exist to protect and serve. Law enforcement vehicles that are often speeding, with lights and sirens blazing, through urban areas rich with pedestrians. They take these already dangerous masculine hood designs by Ford, GM and Dodge, and offer the ubiquitous police bull bars. We all know what they look like, if one were trying to kill as many pedestrians as possible, short of welding swords onto the bull bars, you would be hard pressed to design a more effective solution. With hard sharp edges covering the front of the vehicle and mounted directly to the frame to ensure rigidity, bull bars are a proven pedestrian killer:

This photo is used by GM to market these accessories to those who protect and serve. It makes the vehicles look even more aggressive and the added weight at the nose of the vehicle impairs braking dynamics by causing excessive weight transfer to the already loaded front tires, while further lightening the rear tires, robbing much needed traction and stability during emergency pedestrian avoidance manuevers. This is an example of GM marketing these pedestrian killers to those whose primary goal is to serve and protect. I would like to know, why the same people who endlessly harp on Cybertrucks supposed lack of pedestrian safety are suddenly silent when their own tax money is spent on accessories that convert an already dangerous front end into a human gulliotine. Given this, why would anyone rant against the safety of the Cybertruck when it comes to hitting pedestrians? What is wrong with people's critical thinking skills?

Where is the outrage over this? Or is it just people who feel economically threatened by the Cybertruck demonstrating hypocrisy, trying to find any way possible to paint Tesla in as bad of a light as possible?

Personally, I think the low hood height of the Cybertruck, and the deeply raked angle of the hood and windscreen, to be a major pedestrian safety benefit, regardless of the hardness of the metal.

When driving in a densely populated area alway open the bed and shove a mattress in the bed to catch any morons with their heads firmly planted in their digital devices.

 

[PilotPete]

Personally, I think the low hood height of the Cybertruck, and the deeply raked angle of the hood and windscreen, to be a major pedestrian safety benefit, regardless of the hardness of the metal.

If you were to hit a pedestrian with wall of water at 45mph, you stand a good chance of killing them. ANY vehicle that has sufficient mass and structure to withstand an impact with another vehicle is going to kill/maim/injure/really jack up a pedestrian. A flat faced vehicle doesn't protect the pedestrian (pedestrian deaths in DC are the result of an abnormally high occurrence of bus/person collisions). A really sloped surface doesn't protect the pedestrian, it just deflects them into the air. You can't make the front end soft enough to absorb or dissipate the force. Getting hit by a car when you don't have your own car to protect you is never going to turn out well for you, regardless of what you are hit by. The ONLY true safety design for a vehicle in the pedestrian safety area is one that PREVENTS the impact of said pedestrian by aforementioned vehicle.

 

[PilotPete]

When driving in a densely populated area alway open the bed and shove a mattress in the bed to catch any morons with their heads firmly planted in their digital devices.

 

[CyberGus]

Every time someone mentions how damage resistant Cybertruck is, it seems someone accuses Tesla of being irresponsible. Without any evidence that it's true, they claim it will maim and kill pedestrians due to its thoughtless design and hard, sharp edges. It seems Tesla is always singled out for pedestrian safety criticisms, as if they are a horrible company that doesn't care about safety. These same people would never question Ford or GM for their masculine hood profiles that not only block visibility of shorter pedestrians, but also do nothing to deflect the energy of impact when pedestrians are struck. It is a complete double standard to offer a scathing critique of the Tesla, when the actual pedestrian safety is still unknown, while ignoring the designs of other manufacturers that kill and maim thousands every year.

Now consider vehicles of agencies that purportedly exist to protect and serve. Law enforcement vehicles that are often speeding, with lights and sirens blazing, through urban areas rich with pedestrians. They take these already dangerous masculine hood designs by Ford, GM and Dodge, and offer the ubiquitous police bull bars. We all know what they look like, if one were trying to kill as many pedestrians as possible, short of welding swords onto the bull bars, you would be hard pressed to design a more effective solution. With hard sharp edges covering the front of the vehicle and mounted directly to the frame to ensure rigidity, bull bars are a proven pedestrian killer:

This photo is used by GM to market these accessories to those who protect and serve. It makes the vehicles look even more aggressive and the added weight at the nose of the vehicle impairs braking dynamics by causing excessive weight transfer to the already loaded front tires, while further lightening the rear tires, robbing much needed traction and stability during emergency pedestrian avoidance manuevers. This is an example of GM marketing these pedestrian killers to those whose primary goal is to serve and protect. I would like to know, why the same people who endlessly harp on Cybertrucks supposed lack of pedestrian safety are suddenly silent when their own tax money is spent on accessories that convert an already dangerous front end into a human gulliotine. Given this, why would anyone rant against the safety of the Cybertruck when it comes to hitting pedestrians? What is wrong with people's critical thinking skills?

Where is the outrage over this? Or is it just people who feel economically threatened by the Cybertruck demonstrating hypocrisy, trying to find any way possible to paint Tesla in as bad of a light as possible?

Personally, I think the low hood height of the Cybertruck, and the deeply raked angle of the hood and windscreen, to be a major pedestrian safety benefit, regardless of the hardness of the metal.

In the US, pedestrians are classified as "obstacles". I believe the only standards for pedestrian safety are in the European markets.

That said, there are plenty of high-density urban landscapes (think NY or SF) where vehicles and pedestrians are constantly mixed. Even a low-speed collision can become a fatality, since most deaths are due to head injury (skull vs. hood).

If simple design changes can mitigate those low-speed head injuries, I'm all for it. However, I think it will be AI-based autonomy that will provide the most benefit.

I don't want to be hit by your hood at any speed, I don't care how "soft" it is

 

[Rutrow]

Pedestrians aren't only in danger when they're in the roadway, they are also vulnerable to cars that have left the travel lane and ventured onto the sidewalks. Vehicles driving where they shouldn't be is why road signs, utilty poles, guardrails, etc. are mounted onto frangible bases to shear away without causing immovable hazards for motorists who can't stay on the road. Don't make me find a Youtube compilation of cars running down people on sidewalks, at restaurant tables and inside their homes by wayward drivers.

 

[CyberGus]

Pedestrians aren't only in danger when they're in the roadway, they are also vulnerable to cars that have left the travel lane and ventured onto the sidewalks. Vehicles driving where they shouldn't be is why road signs, utilty poles, guardrails, etc. are mounted onto frangible bases to shear away without causing immovable hazards for motorists who can't stay on the road. Don't make me find a Youtube compilation of cars running down people on sidewalks, at restaurant tables and inside their homes by wayward drivers.

If a vehicle exits the roadway at high speed, pedestrians are doomed. Vehicle safety standards will not help.

The safety standards are meant to prevent low-speed collisions from becoming fatal.

 

[Broski]

Every time someone mentions how damage resistant Cybertruck is, it seems someone accuses Tesla of being irresponsible. Without any evidence that it's true, they claim it will maim and kill pedestrians due to its thoughtless design and hard, sharp edges. It seems Tesla is always singled out for pedestrian safety criticisms, as if they are a horrible company that doesn't care about safety. These same people would never question Ford or GM for their masculine hood profiles that not only block visibility of shorter pedestrians, but also do nothing to deflect the energy of impact when pedestrians are struck. It is a complete double standard to offer a scathing critique of the Tesla, when the actual pedestrian safety is still unknown, while ignoring the designs of other manufacturers that kill and maim thousands every year.

Now consider vehicles of agencies that purportedly exist to protect and serve. Law enforcement vehicles that are often speeding, with lights and sirens blazing, through urban areas rich with pedestrians. They take these already dangerous masculine hood designs by Ford, GM and Dodge, and offer the ubiquitous police bull bars. We all know what they look like, if one were trying to kill as many pedestrians as possible, short of welding swords onto the bull bars, you would be hard pressed to design a more effective solution. With hard sharp edges covering the front of the vehicle and mounted directly to the frame to ensure rigidity, bull bars are a proven pedestrian killer:

This photo is used by GM to market these accessories to those who protect and serve. It makes the vehicles look even more aggressive and the added weight at the nose of the vehicle impairs braking dynamics by causing excessive weight transfer to the already loaded front tires, while further lightening the rear tires, robbing much needed traction and stability during emergency pedestrian avoidance manuevers. This is an example of GM marketing these pedestrian killers to those whose primary goal is to serve and protect. I would like to know, why the same people who endlessly harp on Cybertrucks supposed lack of pedestrian safety are suddenly silent when their own tax money is spent on accessories that convert an already dangerous front end into a human gulliotine. Given this, why would anyone rant against the safety of the Cybertruck when it comes to hitting pedestrians? What is wrong with people's critical thinking skills?

Where is the outrage over this? Or is it just people who feel economically threatened by the Cybertruck demonstrating hypocrisy, trying to find any way possible to paint Tesla in as bad of a light as possible?

Personally, I think the low hood height of the Cybertruck, and the deeply raked angle of the hood and windscreen, to be a major pedestrian safety benefit, regardless of the hardness of the metal.

Quite frankly, who cares? We’re not shipping any CTs to Europe anytime soon.
It’s also not the right car for that market.
And I don’t think Tesla is being singled out I’m sure there are other examples for other mfgrs where they would not comply either

Tesla also makes it difficult to snuggle up to when they list pricing on their website that includes Gas savings as a default, when their range calculations are not in line with reality, they accept millions of reservations and deposits and not deliver anything for 4 to 5 years and when they do, it’s nowhere close to what they said it was

 

[cbrtrckrsrvd112219]

Every time someone mentions how damage resistant Cybertruck is, it seems someone accuses Tesla of being irresponsible. Without any evidence that it's true, they claim it will maim and kill pedestrians due to its thoughtless design and hard, sharp edges. It seems Tesla is always singled out for pedestrian safety criticisms, as if they are a horrible company that doesn't care about safety. These same people would never question Ford or GM for their masculine hood profiles that not only block visibility of shorter pedestrians, but also do nothing to deflect the energy of impact when pedestrians are struck. It is a complete double standard to offer a scathing critique of the Tesla, when the actual pedestrian safety is still unknown, while ignoring the designs of other manufacturers that kill and maim thousands every year.

Now consider vehicles of agencies that purportedly exist to protect and serve. Law enforcement vehicles that are often speeding, with lights and sirens blazing, through urban areas rich with pedestrians. They take these already dangerous masculine hood designs by Ford, GM and Dodge, and offer the ubiquitous police bull bars. We all know what they look like, if one were trying to kill as many pedestrians as possible, short of welding swords onto the bull bars, you would be hard pressed to design a more effective solution. With hard sharp edges covering the front of the vehicle and mounted directly to the frame to ensure rigidity, bull bars are a proven pedestrian killer:

This photo is used by GM to market these accessories to those who protect and serve. It makes the vehicles look even more aggressive and the added weight at the nose of the vehicle impairs braking dynamics by causing excessive weight transfer to the already loaded front tires, while further lightening the rear tires, robbing much needed traction and stability during emergency pedestrian avoidance manuevers. This is an example of GM marketing these pedestrian killers to those whose primary goal is to serve and protect. I would like to know, why the same people who endlessly harp on Cybertrucks supposed lack of pedestrian safety are suddenly silent when their own tax money is spent on accessories that convert an already dangerous front end into a human gulliotine. Given this, why would anyone rant against the safety of the Cybertruck when it comes to hitting pedestrians? What is wrong with people's critical thinking skills?

Where is the outrage over this? Or is it just people who feel economically threatened by the Cybertruck demonstrating hypocrisy, trying to find any way possible to paint Tesla in as bad of a light as possible?

Personally, I think the low hood height of the Cybertruck, and the deeply raked angle of the hood and windscreen, to be a major pedestrian safety benefit, regardless of the hardness of the metal.

Fully agree. This is all the hate from woke crowd who cant even afford the car and hate Musk for taking over their beloved twitter. tesla get only negative coverage from fake news and other fake news.
As Elon said, Tesla complies with ALL thousands car regulations in US.
Lets start with 6-feet tall front GMC SUV that our president rides and pedestrian safety

 

[Diveflyfish]

Yes, I suppose it will just be a matter of time before the mandated CyberNerf/memory foam bumper aftermarket just blossoms…… why not go for the like a reactive ballistic inflatable pedestrian repositioning fender…..

 

[HaulingAss]

Yes, I suppose it will just be a matter of time before the mandated CyberNerf/memory foam bumper aftermarket just blossoms…… why not go for the like a reactive ballistic inflatable pedestrian repositioning fender…..

I think you're talking about pedestrian airbags. We certainly have the technology to easily deploy pedestrian airbags to the front of the vehicle but not the political will. Woke people just prefer to attack Tesla when I think their cars are each, in all likelihood, the safest for pedestrians in each respective class, primarily due to their advanced ADAS, but also the relatively low hoods, sloping front ends, and good forward visibility. I also think some of the comments about the Cybertruck being dangerous to pedestrians originates with non-woke people who are simply trying to trigger woke people into hating Tesla. Woke people are ripe for being hoodwinked into supporting their fake narratives.

I'm with previous commentors who think better ADAS features (pedestrian avoidance) is the most productive route to reducing pedestrian injuries, and at the lowest cost. The best accident is the one that never happened.

Sponsored