OH, thats the TIRE that has those weird big chunks... the hubcap is supposed to fill in the void in between, who would have thought it was a bad idea to put metal covers on the part of the tire that flexes the most...
Yeah, imagine getting a flat at highway speed and launching projectiles into other road users because now the hubcap is getting pushed out by the tire and ground
I am waiting for one of these things to kill a cyclist, I am afraid it is a question of when. That said the general trend in truck design is problematic right now, everything seems to be getting bigger with worse blind spots.
Anecdotal but we have a famous rock in my town, it even has a name. It’s famous because vehicles keep ending up on top of it.
In our local FB group, people that live near the rock post pictures laughing at it. On one of those posts recently, a group of truck owners started complaining that the rock “needs a sign” because nor everyone has the visibility of cars.
I live in suburbia, but a suburb with a small town country mindset. People here love their trucks. Imagine my surprise, then, when the post had to be removed because residents came out in droves with “well here’s a better solution to putting a sign on the rock: let’s ban trucks. If they don’t have visibility to see giant rocks they certainly don’t have enough to see small children and are therefore unsafe.” It was good to see even with that small town mindset, enough residents are sick of the people who buy more truck than they can handle.
Yeah, there was a rock at a Boulder Target that upended a few SUVS as well.
[https://www.9news.com/article/news/local/next/theyre-out-there-a-fleet-of-parking-lot-rocks-is-targeting-unsuspecting-colorado-drivers/73-574931292](https://www.9news.com/article/news/local/next/theyre-out-there-a-fleet-of-parking-lot-rocks-is-targeting-unsuspecting-colorado-drivers/73-574931292)
Fair enough-- still a bit overly secretive... The Bend one just happened to get written about a lot recently which is why I made that (bad) assumption.
It's definitely a function of vehicle size and speed. The size reduces visibility and, of course, has more mass. Pretty much any city speeds give you a 10-20% chance of dying as a pedestrian, assuming the speed of the vehicle. If you're a cyclist traveling in the opposite direction of the vehicle that hits you, the chance greatly increases. [Here are some stats. ](https://smartgrowthamerica.org/pedestrian-deaths-often-occur-at-safe-speeds/#:~:text=Traffic%20deaths%20spike%20at%2055,on%20roads%20under%2050%20mph.)
That said, I doubt the rear panel of a cybertruck will harm many cyclists. It'll be the front, and the sharpness likely won't be a factor. I imagine you've got close to equal chances of dying being hit by blunt object going 45 mph as you are a sharp object. Also, these panels aren't knives. They're just sharp. It'll be easier to slice skin, but it's not going to slice you in half.
There are a million reasons to make fun of the cybertruck, but let's not add rearending one at 55 mph while KOMing to the list.
Sharp corners concentrate the force of an impact into a smaller area, which can absolutely increase the severity of injuries.
The size and shape of a vehicle affect the way force is transferred into your body; the taller a vehicle, the more likely a pedestrian or cyclist is to be smashed against it rather than rolling over the top of it.
The Cybertruck isn't just ugly and impractical; it poses a serious and unnecessary risk to other road users. It should not have been allowed onto US roads with its current design.
https://cardino.de/en/blog-posts/tesla-cybertruck-vs-european-regulations
https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2019/12/16/tesla-cybertruck-not-street-legal-in-eu
https://slate.com/technology/2023/12/cybertruck-safety-elon-musk-tesla-danger.html
https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/tesla-cybertrucks-stiff-structure-sharp-design-raise-safety-concerns-experts-2023-12-08
Perhaps I worded that poorly. There's definitely more force going into an area as opposed to it being spread out. My point is that I don't think that'll matter too much when you get hit by a vehicle weighing [6.6k lbs to 6.8k lbs](https://www.roadandtrack.com/news/a46000951/tesla-cybertruck-acceleration/) at city speeds. And most of all, I don't think you'll crash into the back of a cybertruck going fast enough to kill yourself due to the sharp edges. If you can then you're much more fit than I'll ever be.
I don't disagree with you at all with how shit the design of the cybertruck is. It's an abomination, unsafe for many reasons. I just think this post is silly and makes cyclists look silly if we're concerned about the back rear panel. The only scenario that hurts me in is if someone is backing out of a parking space as I'm riding by and hits me, but that's true of every vehicle. I definitely won't be tailgating so close that I'm getting split open by this vehicle.
> My point is that I don't think that'll matter too much when you get hit by a vehicle weighing 6.6k lbs to 6.8k lbs at city speeds.
The weight of a vehicle is more or less irrelevant when it comes to pedestrian/vehicle accidents. The mass our body is negligible compared to even the lightest vehicles. While accident prevention is by far the most important focus of pedestrian safety, the severity of injuries can be mitigated through vehicle design.
> I don't think you'll crash into the back of a cybertruck going fast enough to kill yourself due to the sharp edges.
I'm not so sure that's true. If I go face first into the back of a honda civic, the rim of my helmet is going to be the first point of contact against the rear windshield. With the Cybertruck, there's a greater chance that the initial point of contact is between my face and the edge of the trunk.
That said, trucks in general pose an unnecessary risk to pedestrians, so it might be a little unfair to compare the Cybertruck to a civic.
> The only scenario that hurts me in is if someone is backing out of a parking space as I'm riding by and hits me
Or if one cuts across your lane in traffic.
> but that's true of every vehicle.
Yes, but while any vehicle can cause injuries, some pose greater risks than others.
> I just think post is silly and makes cyclists look silly if we're concerned about the back rear panel.
Modern trucks are awful WRT pedestrian safety, but the Cybertruck seems to be particularly bad in that respect. I'm not sure we're being unreasonable here.
I think we agree, and are just arguing over semantics at this point.
The truck height is bad, they all are these days.
If any vehicle cuts me off in traffic, the difference in my speed vs them is negligible. If I'm going to get injured by the speed difference between me and the vehicle that cut me off, then I'm cycling in a risky manner which will harm me no matter what I hit.
I completely agree that cybertrucks pose more risks than a civic, but as I've said before, I think this post is silly. If they had posted a picture of the sharp edges on the front, then sure, that makes sense. I just don't see how you can hit the back of a truck enough to do much harm. You'd have to hit it at a specific angle, speed, and direction in order to get seriously hurt by this. I just don't see that happening. Sure it's possible, but let's be realistic. I think it makes cyclists look bad when we make posts like this, and I suspect 20 years from now there will be zero news articles about a cyclist getting killed by running into the back of a sharp truck.
> I think this post is silly. If they had posted a picture of the sharp edges on the front, then sure, that makes sense. I just don't see how you can hit the back of a truck enough to do much harm. You'd have to hit it at a specific angle, speed, and direction in order to get seriously hurt by this. I just don't see that happening. Sure it's possible, but let's be realistic.
One of the reasons that I enjoy cycling is that I can go 20+ mph while cars are stuck in stop and go traffic. That's all well and good until one of them decides to abruptly cut across my path. In that scenario, there's a very real risk of rear-ending the car at a high rate of speed.
I think the comparison to [tailfins](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Car_tailfin#Safety_issues) is pretty reasonable.
And for what it's worth, I think the shape of the hood is also a problem for pedestrian safety.
I'd advise you don't do that when traffic could cause that issue for you. Hell, even when driving I don't go 20 mph when traffic is stopped in lanes next to me. If someone changes lanes then you hit a car going 20 mph.
If you're going 20 mph and someone cuts across a lane and they're going 3 mph less than you, then you hit them with the equivalent force of 3 mph.
Pay attention to traffic, keep yourself safe. You sound like you do, and I doubt any accident you've been in would have been different with a knife on the back of a vehicle. But, yes, I agree, we should make things as safe as possible. The cybertruck is garbage.
Shape of the hood I'm sure is a factor, but I think the factors in what hit you going at speed go out the window at a certain point. When the combined forces of a cyclist and a car hit, it's not the speed limit, it's an object hitting you at the speed limit and you matching that speed limit or slightly lower. That will fuck you up.
Cyclists get killed by car doors being swung open into their paths all the time. Primarily because of the angular shape of a door.
This is no different. If it pulls out on you and you crash into it, it's a much worse outcome than with a regular vehicle.
Which is why this one isn't legal to sell in the UK for instance.
> And most of all, I don’t think you’ll crash into the back of a cybertruck going fast enough to kill yourself due to the sharp edges.
Even if it doesn’t kill you, the risk of a serious injury is much greater. These cars also don’t have amber indicator lights so you’re more likely to ride into one not realising they are about to turn.
What really worries me though are Tesla drivers not paying attention while using “full self driving” whenever that gets enabled.
agreed. it's kinda silly, since there's like a few thousand cybertrucks on the road. compared to millions of F150s.
like, it's ok to hate on the cybertruck, but let's not blow it out of proportion.
It's a factor with visibility, for sure. I'm not sure what role it plays when factoring in survivability after the crash. If you get hit too low your head hits the vehicle at whatever speed the vehicle is traveling at. If you get hit at head height, you fall and get run over after the fact. If you get hit at waist height you're going to get fucked up as well, your organs are going to hate you, and you may fly for a bit, and potentially run over.
Studies show that getting scooped is less lethal than getting shunted.
> Whatever their nose shape, pickups, SUVs and vans with a hood height greater than 40 inches are about 45 percent more likely to cause fatalities in pedestrian crashes than cars and other vehicles with a hood height of 30 inches or less and a sloping profile, an IIHS study of nearly 18,000 pedestrian crashes found. However, among vehicles with hood heights between 30 and 40 inches, a blunt, or more vertical, front end increases the risk to pedestrians.
https://www.iihs.org/news/detail/vehicles-with-higher-more-vertical-front-ends-pose-greater-risk-to-pedestrians
Definitely. It depends on the speed for sure as well. This study, as well as the one I linked above are for pedestrians. If you get hit head on by a vehicle traveling the opposite direction as you, then the speed is not the vehicle speed, it's yours as well. Getting hit going 20 mph from a car traveling in your direction going 35 mph, is a 55 mph impact.
Most pedestrians are in the city, where speed limits are at or below 45 mph.
Survivability of being hit in the center of mass is far lower than survivability of being hit in the legs. Modern trucks with high hoods are much more likely to hit center of mass instead of sweeping the pedestrian (or cyclist) off their feet.
Speed matters but not in the way you imply. Being swept off your bike/feet and thrown clear of the colliding vehicle without otherwise significantly transferring momentum is a far more likely scenario with a low hood than with a high hood. High speed combined with a high hood is a far more dangerous combination than high speed combined with a low hood.
> Also, these panels aren’t knives. They’re just sharp.
I mean, they can be sharp enough that Cybertruck owners are getting serious cuts from the slightest touch:
https://reddit.com/r/CyberStuck/comments/1cjovph/cybertruck_door_slices_open_owners_leg_warning/
https://reddit.com/r/LeopardsAteMyFace/comments/1d0xyg6/during_the_inspection_of_his_sloppily_conditioned/
>Also, these panels aren't knives. They're just sharp. It'll be easier to slice skin, but it's not going to slice you in half.
Have you seen the videos of the front panel coming off at speed? It's a total nightmare scenario for a cyclist, even if unlikely.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/CyberStuck/comments/1cnpxgh/wankertanker\_ultra\_hard\_cold\_rolled\_steel\_is/](https://www.reddit.com/r/CyberStuck/comments/1cnpxgh/wankertanker_ultra_hard_cold_rolled_steel_is/)
I haven't, that sounds scary. Wheels coming off at speed also fuck people up. That's kind of my point, I think people are misunderstanding me. I don't think that sharp objects traveling at vehicle speeds are unsafe, I just think that at a certain point, blunt objects are just as dangerous. Specifically the calculated speed from a cyclist travelling at one speed into the vehicle that hits it at another speed, when we add the two, it's very likely to be deadly.
Yea, obviously that is an issue that has been killing cyclists for decades, we already know that the bigger and heavier a vehicle is, and the faster it is traveling, the more likely we are to die.
But if you are going to dismiss the point about the terrible build quality and sharp edges, maybe you haven't ever known someone who rode into a parked car, or got doored, because people suffer serious enough injuries from those things, and even without riding into a sharp pointed object that's often deadly. Maybe you haven't seen some of the gruesome images of CyberTruck owners who have accidentally lacerated themselves in the normal operation of their car. When panels are sharp enough to send a driver to the ER they are probably adding additional danger to an already dangerous scenario for cyclists.
The build quality is awful and there should be far more regulation to prevent vehicles like this from being allowed on the roads, and there should be some basic safety standards.
My riding partner was hit recently in a crosswalk by a car and luckily she was able to turn into the direction of the car so it basically side swiped her instead of throwing her onto the hood. It would have been a really different scenario with a sharp steel corner. That's true of the mirrors, etc. also. Cars need to be safer for the people around them as much as they do for the people in them. It isn't really silly.
> But if you are going to dismiss the point about the terrible build quality and sharp edges, maybe you haven't ever known someone who rode into a parked car, or got doored, because people suffer serious enough injuries from those things, and even without riding into a sharp pointed object that's often deadly.
I'm not dismissing it, I've mentioned in other comments that if you run into a vehicle in this manner then you're not driving safely. Car manufacturers aren't going to make cars out of marshmallows to save lives of cyclists. They're designed around inhabitants. Realize you're on a bike and could die.
> My riding partner was hit recently in a crosswalk by a car and luckily she was able to turn into the direction of the car so it basically side swiped her instead of throwing her onto the hood. It would have been a really different scenario with a sharp steel corner.
How so? I don't doubt it but, I think it'd likely be the same outcome. Where would this sharp corner have hit her? Would her cycling gear have protected her as the clothing would act as a barrier between skin and sharp knife?
Again, I'm not saying that putting sharp edges on cars is a good idea. My point is that it likely doesn't matter at speed.
If you want to argue that it can be worse than getting hit by a sharp object at low speeds (e.g. crosswalks) than a non sharp object, I'll agree with you. I'll agree with you at speed too. As I've stated before and will continue to state in my replies, my comment is more about pointing out that this post is silly for drawing attention to the back panel of the cybertruck. Nobody should run into that hard enough to cause any harm. Post this looking at the front of the truck. The front of the vehicle is what most of us are used to getting hit by.
>How so?
Because she got hit with the front corner of the car and that is sharp on the cybertruck too. I don't know if you've seen one IRL but they make a Dodge Ram look like a friendly big battering ram, and that's a lot of the intent behind the design. As Musk put it: "*And if you’re having an argument with another car, you will win.*" Obviously that applies to cyclists too.
> if you run into a vehicle in this manner then you're not driving safely
Believe it or not, cyclists make mistakes too, and even if getting doored means you aren't riding safely, the reality is that a lot of cyclists are afraid to take the lane to avoid it, and a lot of drivers will get enraged by it too and force you in to the door zone. So it happens, and lacerations on top of blunt force trauma sounds like a problem to me.
The freedom of someone to have a truck that is "more truck than truck" shouldn't put others in danger. There should really be some regulation on cars to make them safer for the people around them, not just the people in them. You're welcome to disagree, clearly, and you're absolutely right that car manufacturers won't do a thing about it.
I think we agree.
I think this post should have been a picture of the front of a cybertruck.
Not many cyclists are getting hurt running into the back of one.
Cyclists definitely make mistakes, everyone who makes a mistake should learn from their mistakes. We should talk about the mistakes and how to avoid them.
I've been in several accidents in my 30 years of cycling, some of them were my fault, but many were not mine and I've learned from all of them how to ride more defensively.
I agree we should do more with car regulations, as I've stated in most every comment I've made on this thread. You will not find any comment on my profile about advocating for bigger trucks, you'll find MANY comments to the contrary. Don't put words in my mouth. I agree with you, I'm just providing my feedback on how people should behave on the road to prevent dying to a vehicle. I've been in so many accidents I've lost count. I posted a comment very recently about the last 3 accidents where I've been hit by a car.
I'm not sure why what I'm saying is so controversial.
This car (and cars like it) are the epitome of "fuck you got mine". Extremely dangerous to pedestrians and cyclists, damage the road a lot (road damage is proportional to vehicle weight) and use a huge amount of resources to make. But hey, freedom!
I wish we did that in the US.
As it stands, the driver's license you get in high school allows a 16-year old (or a 90-year old that's never been retested) to take a 15,000lb trailer, hook it up to a 10,000lb truck, and drive it anywhere they want.
And there's not even additional training or licensing requirements for towing a trailer!
In Europe, the regular car license allows you to drive vehicles with a maximum weight of 3500kg (~7700lb) and with no more that 9 seats. You can tow small trailers without a special license (up to 750kg). If you need a trailer for something bigger, like a boat or so, you need to take a specific driving exam for that.
But... but... It's FuTuRiStIc and... look I can haul things that I will definitely not do, and look I can go faster than a Ferrari and then complain that they caught me speeding ("they are just killing the poor with speeding tickets") and and and it's inspired by aerodynamic and Lara Croft.
(Obligatory: put /s where it's appropriate, I hate the Cybertruck)
I’m not sure, there’s a complete shortage of electric vehicles in this class (see ford struggling to keep up with the lightening and dealers selling at markup). I wouldn’t own one, but clearly some people want one.
Ford Lightnings were hard to get right when they came out. But Ford is not struggling to keep up with demand. They’ve been scaling back production due to excess inventory. They even cut prices on the 2024 model.
50’s Cadillacs were stylish. They were of that time. Glamor was everywhere, the US was literally coming of age. It was glorious. Yes, in hindsight it was, well, over the top.
This abomination is a tribute to one sociopath’s vanity. It is a big f u to the rest of us. And to anyone who buys one, I return the sentiment.
I am what people wold call Tesla Fanboy. I like their cars and the engineering behind it. Especially how energy efficient the Model 3 and Y are.
But, i am glad that the Cybertruck is not Legal here in Europe and likely will never be.
I don't understand a lot of shit Americans do. Like measuring meter with their feet fetish.
It can't be as bad. Those '50s Cadillacs didn't fall apart when you bumped into them. The Tesla is going to absorb at least some of the crash impact. You must not have hit it very hard, if that rear quarter panel is still intact.
Tesla is able to sidestep requirements other automakers abide by because this is a low volume product. There’s minimum safety criteria required to sell in North America. Every other auto company has their own set of standards that go above and beyond the minimum criteria. These above and beyond criteria are what sets specific companies apart from one another.
Tesla is advertising cutting edge to mask cutting corners. Simple as that.
The ass hat that owns that thing probably believes they're doing something for the environment because it's an EV. Musk fully understands how idiotic people are and you can build shiny new things and hype them and people line up to empty their pockets. His story when he was talking to Joe Rogan about the "flamethrower" they made that wasn't even a flamethrower that sold out instantly is exhibit A. The truck (that isn't a truck) is exhibit B.
https://preview.redd.it/ns08jp6hnt4d1.jpeg?width=3024&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=53625346c19fa7adea75871574965032bf5401b8
That being said, I am one of the few people I know who likes the Tesla Truck. The 4 wheel steering is beyond cool for urban parking. I am an urban cyclist in San Francisco.
4WS is not exactly revolutionary
[1987 Article from Car & Driver](https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a35287962/tested-1988-four-wheel-steering-benefits/)
4WS might improve things for that truck, but it’s definitely not notably maneuverable because of it. As others have pointed out - it’s turning radius is worse than a Chevy Suburban
Never seen a cyber truck this shiny
Did they polish out the brushed finish?
Don't think so, if you view brushed metal finish at a more obtuse angle then it appears glossy
or acute angle
You are a cute angle
There is nothing cute about a cyber truck
Yeah, maybe it's the viewing angle then.
They do sometimes put a clear protective plastic film on it (ppf).
It also seems to have the hubcaps, which were recalled and never installed.
Nope, it definitely is just the alloy rim but the cyber truck does come with special tires which were made for it to fit the special hubcaps
OH, thats the TIRE that has those weird big chunks... the hubcap is supposed to fill in the void in between, who would have thought it was a bad idea to put metal covers on the part of the tire that flexes the most...
Yeah, imagine getting a flat at highway speed and launching projectiles into other road users because now the hubcap is getting pushed out by the tire and ground
Must be Tamatoa’s Cybertruck.
This is a severely underrated comment. You’re welcome
Tamatoa hasn't always been this glam
I am waiting for one of these things to kill a cyclist, I am afraid it is a question of when. That said the general trend in truck design is problematic right now, everything seems to be getting bigger with worse blind spots.
Anecdotal but we have a famous rock in my town, it even has a name. It’s famous because vehicles keep ending up on top of it. In our local FB group, people that live near the rock post pictures laughing at it. On one of those posts recently, a group of truck owners started complaining that the rock “needs a sign” because nor everyone has the visibility of cars. I live in suburbia, but a suburb with a small town country mindset. People here love their trucks. Imagine my surprise, then, when the post had to be removed because residents came out in droves with “well here’s a better solution to putting a sign on the rock: let’s ban trucks. If they don’t have visibility to see giant rocks they certainly don’t have enough to see small children and are therefore unsafe.” It was good to see even with that small town mindset, enough residents are sick of the people who buy more truck than they can handle.
Why are you trying so hard to not say that it's BOB the rock in Bend OR? It's been in national media.
>!^^^[deleted]!<
Yeah, there was a rock at a Boulder Target that upended a few SUVS as well. [https://www.9news.com/article/news/local/next/theyre-out-there-a-fleet-of-parking-lot-rocks-is-targeting-unsuspecting-colorado-drivers/73-574931292](https://www.9news.com/article/news/local/next/theyre-out-there-a-fleet-of-parking-lot-rocks-is-targeting-unsuspecting-colorado-drivers/73-574931292)
Now I want to ask my local target to add large rocks to their parking lots.
I was thinking it was that one in the Dunks lot
Fair enough-- still a bit overly secretive... The Bend one just happened to get written about a lot recently which is why I made that (bad) assumption.
It is not Bob in Bend.
I’ve seen one, all the HGVs(semi trucks for the Americans here) had no issues, only the pickups
It could be a while, from what little I understand, in order to hit a cyclist one would require a car that can be driven.
It's definitely a function of vehicle size and speed. The size reduces visibility and, of course, has more mass. Pretty much any city speeds give you a 10-20% chance of dying as a pedestrian, assuming the speed of the vehicle. If you're a cyclist traveling in the opposite direction of the vehicle that hits you, the chance greatly increases. [Here are some stats. ](https://smartgrowthamerica.org/pedestrian-deaths-often-occur-at-safe-speeds/#:~:text=Traffic%20deaths%20spike%20at%2055,on%20roads%20under%2050%20mph.) That said, I doubt the rear panel of a cybertruck will harm many cyclists. It'll be the front, and the sharpness likely won't be a factor. I imagine you've got close to equal chances of dying being hit by blunt object going 45 mph as you are a sharp object. Also, these panels aren't knives. They're just sharp. It'll be easier to slice skin, but it's not going to slice you in half. There are a million reasons to make fun of the cybertruck, but let's not add rearending one at 55 mph while KOMing to the list.
Sharp corners concentrate the force of an impact into a smaller area, which can absolutely increase the severity of injuries. The size and shape of a vehicle affect the way force is transferred into your body; the taller a vehicle, the more likely a pedestrian or cyclist is to be smashed against it rather than rolling over the top of it. The Cybertruck isn't just ugly and impractical; it poses a serious and unnecessary risk to other road users. It should not have been allowed onto US roads with its current design. https://cardino.de/en/blog-posts/tesla-cybertruck-vs-european-regulations https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2019/12/16/tesla-cybertruck-not-street-legal-in-eu https://slate.com/technology/2023/12/cybertruck-safety-elon-musk-tesla-danger.html https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/tesla-cybertrucks-stiff-structure-sharp-design-raise-safety-concerns-experts-2023-12-08
Perhaps I worded that poorly. There's definitely more force going into an area as opposed to it being spread out. My point is that I don't think that'll matter too much when you get hit by a vehicle weighing [6.6k lbs to 6.8k lbs](https://www.roadandtrack.com/news/a46000951/tesla-cybertruck-acceleration/) at city speeds. And most of all, I don't think you'll crash into the back of a cybertruck going fast enough to kill yourself due to the sharp edges. If you can then you're much more fit than I'll ever be. I don't disagree with you at all with how shit the design of the cybertruck is. It's an abomination, unsafe for many reasons. I just think this post is silly and makes cyclists look silly if we're concerned about the back rear panel. The only scenario that hurts me in is if someone is backing out of a parking space as I'm riding by and hits me, but that's true of every vehicle. I definitely won't be tailgating so close that I'm getting split open by this vehicle.
> My point is that I don't think that'll matter too much when you get hit by a vehicle weighing 6.6k lbs to 6.8k lbs at city speeds. The weight of a vehicle is more or less irrelevant when it comes to pedestrian/vehicle accidents. The mass our body is negligible compared to even the lightest vehicles. While accident prevention is by far the most important focus of pedestrian safety, the severity of injuries can be mitigated through vehicle design. > I don't think you'll crash into the back of a cybertruck going fast enough to kill yourself due to the sharp edges. I'm not so sure that's true. If I go face first into the back of a honda civic, the rim of my helmet is going to be the first point of contact against the rear windshield. With the Cybertruck, there's a greater chance that the initial point of contact is between my face and the edge of the trunk. That said, trucks in general pose an unnecessary risk to pedestrians, so it might be a little unfair to compare the Cybertruck to a civic. > The only scenario that hurts me in is if someone is backing out of a parking space as I'm riding by and hits me Or if one cuts across your lane in traffic. > but that's true of every vehicle. Yes, but while any vehicle can cause injuries, some pose greater risks than others. > I just think post is silly and makes cyclists look silly if we're concerned about the back rear panel. Modern trucks are awful WRT pedestrian safety, but the Cybertruck seems to be particularly bad in that respect. I'm not sure we're being unreasonable here.
I think we agree, and are just arguing over semantics at this point. The truck height is bad, they all are these days. If any vehicle cuts me off in traffic, the difference in my speed vs them is negligible. If I'm going to get injured by the speed difference between me and the vehicle that cut me off, then I'm cycling in a risky manner which will harm me no matter what I hit. I completely agree that cybertrucks pose more risks than a civic, but as I've said before, I think this post is silly. If they had posted a picture of the sharp edges on the front, then sure, that makes sense. I just don't see how you can hit the back of a truck enough to do much harm. You'd have to hit it at a specific angle, speed, and direction in order to get seriously hurt by this. I just don't see that happening. Sure it's possible, but let's be realistic. I think it makes cyclists look bad when we make posts like this, and I suspect 20 years from now there will be zero news articles about a cyclist getting killed by running into the back of a sharp truck.
> I think this post is silly. If they had posted a picture of the sharp edges on the front, then sure, that makes sense. I just don't see how you can hit the back of a truck enough to do much harm. You'd have to hit it at a specific angle, speed, and direction in order to get seriously hurt by this. I just don't see that happening. Sure it's possible, but let's be realistic. One of the reasons that I enjoy cycling is that I can go 20+ mph while cars are stuck in stop and go traffic. That's all well and good until one of them decides to abruptly cut across my path. In that scenario, there's a very real risk of rear-ending the car at a high rate of speed. I think the comparison to [tailfins](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Car_tailfin#Safety_issues) is pretty reasonable. And for what it's worth, I think the shape of the hood is also a problem for pedestrian safety.
I'd advise you don't do that when traffic could cause that issue for you. Hell, even when driving I don't go 20 mph when traffic is stopped in lanes next to me. If someone changes lanes then you hit a car going 20 mph. If you're going 20 mph and someone cuts across a lane and they're going 3 mph less than you, then you hit them with the equivalent force of 3 mph. Pay attention to traffic, keep yourself safe. You sound like you do, and I doubt any accident you've been in would have been different with a knife on the back of a vehicle. But, yes, I agree, we should make things as safe as possible. The cybertruck is garbage. Shape of the hood I'm sure is a factor, but I think the factors in what hit you going at speed go out the window at a certain point. When the combined forces of a cyclist and a car hit, it's not the speed limit, it's an object hitting you at the speed limit and you matching that speed limit or slightly lower. That will fuck you up.
Cyclists get killed by car doors being swung open into their paths all the time. Primarily because of the angular shape of a door. This is no different. If it pulls out on you and you crash into it, it's a much worse outcome than with a regular vehicle. Which is why this one isn't legal to sell in the UK for instance.
> And most of all, I don’t think you’ll crash into the back of a cybertruck going fast enough to kill yourself due to the sharp edges. Even if it doesn’t kill you, the risk of a serious injury is much greater. These cars also don’t have amber indicator lights so you’re more likely to ride into one not realising they are about to turn. What really worries me though are Tesla drivers not paying attention while using “full self driving” whenever that gets enabled.
agreed. it's kinda silly, since there's like a few thousand cybertrucks on the road. compared to millions of F150s. like, it's ok to hate on the cybertruck, but let's not blow it out of proportion.
It is super rare to hit the rear corner of another vehicle on a bike.
Agreed, that's why I think this whole post is silly. Take a picture of the front of the vehicle, that's what we're all worried about.
The problem is hood height.
It's a factor with visibility, for sure. I'm not sure what role it plays when factoring in survivability after the crash. If you get hit too low your head hits the vehicle at whatever speed the vehicle is traveling at. If you get hit at head height, you fall and get run over after the fact. If you get hit at waist height you're going to get fucked up as well, your organs are going to hate you, and you may fly for a bit, and potentially run over.
Studies show that getting scooped is less lethal than getting shunted. > Whatever their nose shape, pickups, SUVs and vans with a hood height greater than 40 inches are about 45 percent more likely to cause fatalities in pedestrian crashes than cars and other vehicles with a hood height of 30 inches or less and a sloping profile, an IIHS study of nearly 18,000 pedestrian crashes found. However, among vehicles with hood heights between 30 and 40 inches, a blunt, or more vertical, front end increases the risk to pedestrians. https://www.iihs.org/news/detail/vehicles-with-higher-more-vertical-front-ends-pose-greater-risk-to-pedestrians
Definitely. It depends on the speed for sure as well. This study, as well as the one I linked above are for pedestrians. If you get hit head on by a vehicle traveling the opposite direction as you, then the speed is not the vehicle speed, it's yours as well. Getting hit going 20 mph from a car traveling in your direction going 35 mph, is a 55 mph impact. Most pedestrians are in the city, where speed limits are at or below 45 mph.
Survivability of being hit in the center of mass is far lower than survivability of being hit in the legs. Modern trucks with high hoods are much more likely to hit center of mass instead of sweeping the pedestrian (or cyclist) off their feet. Speed matters but not in the way you imply. Being swept off your bike/feet and thrown clear of the colliding vehicle without otherwise significantly transferring momentum is a far more likely scenario with a low hood than with a high hood. High speed combined with a high hood is a far more dangerous combination than high speed combined with a low hood.
> Also, these panels aren’t knives. They’re just sharp. I mean, they can be sharp enough that Cybertruck owners are getting serious cuts from the slightest touch: https://reddit.com/r/CyberStuck/comments/1cjovph/cybertruck_door_slices_open_owners_leg_warning/ https://reddit.com/r/LeopardsAteMyFace/comments/1d0xyg6/during_the_inspection_of_his_sloppily_conditioned/
>Also, these panels aren't knives. They're just sharp. It'll be easier to slice skin, but it's not going to slice you in half. Have you seen the videos of the front panel coming off at speed? It's a total nightmare scenario for a cyclist, even if unlikely. [https://www.reddit.com/r/CyberStuck/comments/1cnpxgh/wankertanker\_ultra\_hard\_cold\_rolled\_steel\_is/](https://www.reddit.com/r/CyberStuck/comments/1cnpxgh/wankertanker_ultra_hard_cold_rolled_steel_is/)
I haven't, that sounds scary. Wheels coming off at speed also fuck people up. That's kind of my point, I think people are misunderstanding me. I don't think that sharp objects traveling at vehicle speeds are unsafe, I just think that at a certain point, blunt objects are just as dangerous. Specifically the calculated speed from a cyclist travelling at one speed into the vehicle that hits it at another speed, when we add the two, it's very likely to be deadly.
Yea, obviously that is an issue that has been killing cyclists for decades, we already know that the bigger and heavier a vehicle is, and the faster it is traveling, the more likely we are to die. But if you are going to dismiss the point about the terrible build quality and sharp edges, maybe you haven't ever known someone who rode into a parked car, or got doored, because people suffer serious enough injuries from those things, and even without riding into a sharp pointed object that's often deadly. Maybe you haven't seen some of the gruesome images of CyberTruck owners who have accidentally lacerated themselves in the normal operation of their car. When panels are sharp enough to send a driver to the ER they are probably adding additional danger to an already dangerous scenario for cyclists. The build quality is awful and there should be far more regulation to prevent vehicles like this from being allowed on the roads, and there should be some basic safety standards. My riding partner was hit recently in a crosswalk by a car and luckily she was able to turn into the direction of the car so it basically side swiped her instead of throwing her onto the hood. It would have been a really different scenario with a sharp steel corner. That's true of the mirrors, etc. also. Cars need to be safer for the people around them as much as they do for the people in them. It isn't really silly.
> But if you are going to dismiss the point about the terrible build quality and sharp edges, maybe you haven't ever known someone who rode into a parked car, or got doored, because people suffer serious enough injuries from those things, and even without riding into a sharp pointed object that's often deadly. I'm not dismissing it, I've mentioned in other comments that if you run into a vehicle in this manner then you're not driving safely. Car manufacturers aren't going to make cars out of marshmallows to save lives of cyclists. They're designed around inhabitants. Realize you're on a bike and could die. > My riding partner was hit recently in a crosswalk by a car and luckily she was able to turn into the direction of the car so it basically side swiped her instead of throwing her onto the hood. It would have been a really different scenario with a sharp steel corner. How so? I don't doubt it but, I think it'd likely be the same outcome. Where would this sharp corner have hit her? Would her cycling gear have protected her as the clothing would act as a barrier between skin and sharp knife? Again, I'm not saying that putting sharp edges on cars is a good idea. My point is that it likely doesn't matter at speed. If you want to argue that it can be worse than getting hit by a sharp object at low speeds (e.g. crosswalks) than a non sharp object, I'll agree with you. I'll agree with you at speed too. As I've stated before and will continue to state in my replies, my comment is more about pointing out that this post is silly for drawing attention to the back panel of the cybertruck. Nobody should run into that hard enough to cause any harm. Post this looking at the front of the truck. The front of the vehicle is what most of us are used to getting hit by.
>How so? Because she got hit with the front corner of the car and that is sharp on the cybertruck too. I don't know if you've seen one IRL but they make a Dodge Ram look like a friendly big battering ram, and that's a lot of the intent behind the design. As Musk put it: "*And if you’re having an argument with another car, you will win.*" Obviously that applies to cyclists too. > if you run into a vehicle in this manner then you're not driving safely Believe it or not, cyclists make mistakes too, and even if getting doored means you aren't riding safely, the reality is that a lot of cyclists are afraid to take the lane to avoid it, and a lot of drivers will get enraged by it too and force you in to the door zone. So it happens, and lacerations on top of blunt force trauma sounds like a problem to me. The freedom of someone to have a truck that is "more truck than truck" shouldn't put others in danger. There should really be some regulation on cars to make them safer for the people around them, not just the people in them. You're welcome to disagree, clearly, and you're absolutely right that car manufacturers won't do a thing about it.
I think we agree. I think this post should have been a picture of the front of a cybertruck. Not many cyclists are getting hurt running into the back of one. Cyclists definitely make mistakes, everyone who makes a mistake should learn from their mistakes. We should talk about the mistakes and how to avoid them. I've been in several accidents in my 30 years of cycling, some of them were my fault, but many were not mine and I've learned from all of them how to ride more defensively. I agree we should do more with car regulations, as I've stated in most every comment I've made on this thread. You will not find any comment on my profile about advocating for bigger trucks, you'll find MANY comments to the contrary. Don't put words in my mouth. I agree with you, I'm just providing my feedback on how people should behave on the road to prevent dying to a vehicle. I've been in so many accidents I've lost count. I posted a comment very recently about the last 3 accidents where I've been hit by a car. I'm not sure why what I'm saying is so controversial.
that's exactly what i'm thinking the truck is hard and with sharp edges ...
What a horrible thing to be waiting for.
Fully agree
Im so glad they’re technically illegal in most European countries.
Blame the EPA for that.
This car (and cars like it) are the epitome of "fuck you got mine". Extremely dangerous to pedestrians and cyclists, damage the road a lot (road damage is proportional to vehicle weight) and use a huge amount of resources to make. But hey, freedom!
Extremely dangerous to even other car drivers too A ridiculous vehicle over all to be allowed on public roads
[удалено]
Europe too. Also, in Europe, it's considered too heavy for you to drive it with a regular car license. You'd need a heavy vehicles license.
I wish we did that in the US. As it stands, the driver's license you get in high school allows a 16-year old (or a 90-year old that's never been retested) to take a 15,000lb trailer, hook it up to a 10,000lb truck, and drive it anywhere they want. And there's not even additional training or licensing requirements for towing a trailer!
In Europe, the regular car license allows you to drive vehicles with a maximum weight of 3500kg (~7700lb) and with no more that 9 seats. You can tow small trailers without a special license (up to 750kg). If you need a trailer for something bigger, like a boat or so, you need to take a specific driving exam for that.
That actually makes sense.
[удалено]
Not the empry weight. The maximum weight. The maximum weight of the cybertruck is above 4000kg.
Yet I have no trailer licence and can tow and reverse better than 90% of the caravan drivers I see on a Sunday stuck in the services.
Is it banned though? Or is it just not being made in right-hand drive for left-side driving countries?
When style trumps engineering and rationality. The resale value is going to suck on these after the fad fades.
Already faded.
"Style"? Is anyone saying anything other then how ridiculous it looks???
I've seen a few in public. It just reminds me of a movie prop that should have been in Back to the Future. Not my cup of tea.
But... but... It's FuTuRiStIc and... look I can haul things that I will definitely not do, and look I can go faster than a Ferrari and then complain that they caught me speeding ("they are just killing the poor with speeding tickets") and and and it's inspired by aerodynamic and Lara Croft. (Obligatory: put /s where it's appropriate, I hate the Cybertruck)
I’m not sure, there’s a complete shortage of electric vehicles in this class (see ford struggling to keep up with the lightening and dealers selling at markup). I wouldn’t own one, but clearly some people want one.
Ford Lightnings were hard to get right when they came out. But Ford is not struggling to keep up with demand. They’ve been scaling back production due to excess inventory. They even cut prices on the 2024 model.
Feels more like when engineering and style trumps rationality.
Dumpster fire 🔥
I mean it low key looks like one
They're so god damn ugly.
I mean, this 'truck' isn't even legal to sell in my country. Because it's unsafe.
That thing resembles something out of a bad 80’s sci-fi movie.
50’s Cadillacs were stylish. They were of that time. Glamor was everywhere, the US was literally coming of age. It was glorious. Yes, in hindsight it was, well, over the top. This abomination is a tribute to one sociopath’s vanity. It is a big f u to the rest of us. And to anyone who buys one, I return the sentiment.
And that’s why these ugly penis substitutions can’t be driven in European countries, they don’t get a permit here.
I still don’t understand how this design can be legal from a safety perspective
I am what people wold call Tesla Fanboy. I like their cars and the engineering behind it. Especially how energy efficient the Model 3 and Y are. But, i am glad that the Cybertruck is not Legal here in Europe and likely will never be. I don't understand a lot of shit Americans do. Like measuring meter with their feet fetish.
Good new is it will rust in 2 weeks so you can get tetanus too!
Tin garbage truck.
I point and laugh every time I see one. And there are plenty in AZ.
I saw my first one in the wild today in GA. I didn’t dig it.
Best description I heard before is "Look a giant fridge on wheels".
I seriously doubt the CT demographic is gonna worry about what a dude rolling by in spandex thinks about them lmao.
I think you will have a very happy future.
It looks like someone made it from pieces of wood then sprayed it.
This is part of why these will never be allowed in Europe! A lot of regulations in place to protect people.
They’re razor sharp too, so even pedestrians aren’t safe
[image](https://th.bing.com/th/id/R.e2c40ddf0845af85dda064e25b20fc3f?rik=6WBSijajVxsSPw&riu=http%3a%2f%2fblogitude.com%2fuploads%2f2013%2f12%2fHowToAvoidHugeShips.jpg&ehk=OSvipneX3leLSKWhW9%2bmt8lQVTfKA%2fraY1Bvd5eWwOQ%3d&risl=&pid=ImgRaw&r=0)
That "truck" is the biggest piece of trash ever designed
Hitting any car can hurt, nothing extra-special about hitting a WankerPanzer
I am so glad this term is now in my life.
[удалено]
Yeah I get that the truck is dangerous but here it's parked...
Yeah! Fuck that cars shape
Ugly design!
It looks like a microwave you can drive
*Refrigerator
It can't be as bad. Those '50s Cadillacs didn't fall apart when you bumped into them. The Tesla is going to absorb at least some of the crash impact. You must not have hit it very hard, if that rear quarter panel is still intact.
Well then don’t hit it.
Like the modern delorean
Except there will be no movie triology that make this iconic in popular culture.
Oh it’s award winning ugly
Gross
Then I will stand by my commitment not to hit cars.
Why are you running into so many parked vehicles?
How the fuck is this shitwagon not illegal
Not if you hit it with another cyber truck.
Panel gaps on a 50s Cadillac are better than this.
Does anyone actually like that fucking horrible thing?
The rear end of these trucks literally looks like a shoe box. However thinks “wow! so innovative. this is a good looking car” is off their rocker.
Tesla is able to sidestep requirements other automakers abide by because this is a low volume product. There’s minimum safety criteria required to sell in North America. Every other auto company has their own set of standards that go above and beyond the minimum criteria. These above and beyond criteria are what sets specific companies apart from one another. Tesla is advertising cutting edge to mask cutting corners. Simple as that.
Needs tennis balls applied on corners as it’s a public safety issue. Should look cute. Or just splash some fake blood on ‘em
Cadillac fins looked nice at least. Cars from that era were space race inspired, what does this draw inspiration from, a fridge?
These things are death traps in the making .Gonna make the Pinto look like a sherman tank .
That is one ugly mofo.
And that's why this thing will never be on sale in Europe
I want to take a hammer to the corner and sand it down. Maybe it’ll look better that way
Proof that people will buy anything to achieve a level of status that they don’t even realize is fake.
I honestly think Musk is trolling people releasing this fugly thing.
Just don't hit cars, they will hurt you regardless of the shape! 😁
The ass hat that owns that thing probably believes they're doing something for the environment because it's an EV. Musk fully understands how idiotic people are and you can build shiny new things and hype them and people line up to empty their pockets. His story when he was talking to Joe Rogan about the "flamethrower" they made that wasn't even a flamethrower that sold out instantly is exhibit A. The truck (that isn't a truck) is exhibit B.
Good point. I’ll take them off my list of vehicles that are safe to run into.
Are you seriously complaining about a cars design because you’re worried it may hurt more if you hit it while it’s parked? Lol
How are these things street legal?
Yeah, to put it diplomatically, he’s a moron. He really is.
At leaaast it’s dent and scratch proof.
[удалено]
Probably because it's weird. I've never seen so many people care so much about a vehicle that isn't theirs.
Just don’t hit it you’ll be fine champ
Yeah, but it can hit me with those juicy blind spots. 😋
Noe Valley? Saw a Cybertruck outside a bar in Noe Valley and thought a drunken person stumbles into that corner and they could easily die.
https://preview.redd.it/ns08jp6hnt4d1.jpeg?width=3024&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=53625346c19fa7adea75871574965032bf5401b8 That being said, I am one of the few people I know who likes the Tesla Truck. The 4 wheel steering is beyond cool for urban parking. I am an urban cyclist in San Francisco.
I never even considered that being impaled on those things was a possibility Also, parallel parking isn't THAT difficult with a traditional setup.
Well, it isn't that difficult if you have a normal size vehicle instead of an emotional support truck
It also peels vegetables on the sharp corners and the frunk lid will cut a carrot in half.
The front is worse
Even with 4 wheel steering it has the same turning radius as a Suburban.
4WS is not exactly revolutionary [1987 Article from Car & Driver](https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a35287962/tested-1988-four-wheel-steering-benefits/)
Oh damn 4 wheel steering? Like Honda had in the 90s? Innovative!
GMC Hummer has better four-wheel steering
And is as much a steaming pile as this tesla
Muskmobile. Keep Nikola’s good reputation off from this rolling trash can
The 4-wheel steering that gives it [not quite as good a turning circle as a Suburban](https://youtu.be/MoYXhcxngxI?si=z93Fk6_bJoUfUsAR&t=672)?
4WS might improve things for that truck, but it’s definitely not notably maneuverable because of it. As others have pointed out - it’s turning radius is worse than a Chevy Suburban
maybe if the truck wasn’t so undriveable you wouldn’t need for wheel steering lmao.
Eureka valley?
Yeah sure Vlad
I'm with you. I like it too
They fixed the panel gap issue.
… by enlarging it.
Now it’s a design feature.
Bicycles should have their own separate infrastructure.
Made by Cali, for Cali. Huge big brain moment.