At the current rate of horrible fiery deaths, FuelArc projects the Cybertruck will have 14.52 fatalities per 100,000 units — far eclipsing the Pinto’s 0.85. (In absolute terms, FuelArc found, 27 Pinto drivers died in fires, while five Cybertruck drivers have suffered the same fate, at least so far.)

  • TheFeatureCreature@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    21 hours ago

    I was driving out of a parking lot yesterday just as a Cybertruck started to pull in off the street from the left. The driver was white-knuckling the wheel and was frantically looking around as I assume he could barely see out of the goddamn thing as he swung so wide he nearly clipped my car. He needed almost the entire driveway to make his turn.

    I cannot imagine dropping so much money on something so useless and so hideous.

    • jdeath@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      20 hours ago

      well i hate to say this (really i do), turning is actually one of the only strong points about the CT. It can do a u-turn in the same-ish radius as a model 3, much better than most vehicles in its class.

      that driver was just a fucking moron

  • SphereofWreckening@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    ·
    22 hours ago

    The thing is a very obvious death trap to anyone that knows simple physics. There are videos testing what happens when a Cybertruck hits a hard wall at certain speeds. That thing didn’t crumple at all until speeds greater than 35 mph. And even then it only barely crumples at all. The damage it could produce hitting another vehicle would be catastrophic and fatal.

  • brygphilomena@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    22 hours ago

    Do they have emergency releases on the outside? I know a locked door of a car with traditional latching mechanisms won’t open. But an unlocked vehicle where a bystander cannot render aid in an emergency seems so… Short sighted.

    • Phoenicianpirate@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      21 hours ago

      It is on purposes. He wants a cyberpunk fantasy car. You know what you can do in many cyberpunk games? Blow up cars with the slightest of ease. They’re made of explodium in some games, and in Cyberpunk 2077 there is a quickhack (like a magic spell, but cyberpunk) that can cause the car to literally explode.

      Can you imagine for one second if someone managed to find a way to consistently connect to Tesla vehicles AND found a way to cause the battery to overheat and burn? The door autolock will cause the passengers to be trapped and be burned alive.

      I don’t think this is an accident. No one can be that stupid to make something like that by accident.

  • FauxPseudo @lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    91
    ·
    2 days ago

    I’m guessing that some people at the National Transportation Safety Board are about to get fired by Elon Musk.

  • yesman@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    209
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 days ago

    I love Elon Bad posts, but I think it’s worthwhile to examine why Elon bad in this case.

    Like many reactionaries, Elon’s business philosophy is pure tech-bro-libertarianism. And like all libertarians, he’s stuck in the neoliberal mindset of less regulation (don’t scrutinize) and more efficiency (let me be cheap), in order to create the safe space that industrialists need to extract, er create.

    He’s literally said things like (paraphrasing)

    When I see a specification for three bolts I ask: why can’t we do it with two?

    His transparent reasoning is that if he’s allowed to cut corners, he’ll save money today and consequences can be dealt with when they arise.

    He’s following the software model of release a minimally viable product and patch it later. Only instead of user frustration at being beta testers, you fucking die maybe.

    • pyre@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      20 hours ago

      oh god that quote. he’s so lame and fucking stupid.

      I’m sure corner cutting is a concern but also he’s so insecure he probably read things about Steve Jobs or something, and tried to ape him. I remember something about Jobs supposedly telling employees to reduce steps in some processes or whatever. this idiot doesn’t understand anything so he thinks asking for fewer bolts is the same thing.

      why can’t we do it in two? cause that’s how you secure things you fucking dumbass. your proud fascination for “fewer bolts” is why your hypercuck tried to kill a driver.

    • paraphrand@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      86
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      Him and his libertarian friends fuck up left and right. Crashing startups and just getting more money for another. Constant recalls. Blowing up rockets until it works.

      Yet they hold the government to a standard of being perfect and high performing with no room for failure. NASA can’t be blowing up rockets. As soon as they do the world comes down on them.

      And Trump is the biggest fuckup of all these guys.

      • Diplomjodler@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        36
        ·
        2 days ago

        Blowing up rockets until it works is a far better approach than trying to get everything to work on the first try and ending up with a hugely overpriced white elephant.

          • Diplomjodler@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            22
            ·
            2 days ago

            How do you do something “correctly” when nobody knows what that is? If your main priority is to do it “correctly” you will never develop anything fundamentally new.

            • Zron@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              8
              ·
              1 day ago

              A rocket is not fundamentally new and hasn’t been for almost 100 years.

              Rockets perform correctly when they deliver their payload to the correct orbit.

              You can calculate the energy density of fuels, the efficiency of your engines at various atmospheric pressures, and determine the payload size you can deliver with your engines and fuel. Blowing up rockets for “tests” is so 1950s. We have whole college programs on rocket design. We have desktop computers more powerful than anything available in the 1960s, and NASA managed to design the Saturn V, a rocket of similar size to starship, with the computers of the time and fucking slide rules. The Saturn V had its problem, but each rocket managed to deliver its payload and perform its part of the mission without blowing up.

              Your comment is classic tech bro. No understanding of real engineering principles and only a desire to shove some shit out of the door as fast as possible.

              • GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                22 hours ago

                There are two American rocket projects in the works that can carry a significant payload to the moon. One is using existing parts in a new configuration. It had one successful launch and cost $4B ($2.5B in launch costs alone). One is building a largely new system and improving existing elements and is estimated to have cost less than $2B so far, although it hasn’t reached the moon yet. That said, they have done 7 tests, at least 3 with a full configuration. How is that not better than the other option?

                Also, you are acting like there are no fundamental advances happening in space engineering. Sure, the physics is pretty well-known, but the engineering problem of landing and reusing stages/rockets commercially has only been done since the Falcon series, so I think it’s safe to assume the technology and associated product lines is still maturing.

              • Phoenicianpirate@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                20 hours ago

                You are 100% correct about modeling being more advanced. It proves just how stupid Musk is. Musk at one point asked for the code that twitter uses to be printed on paper… on fucking paper! Like what the hell is this? The 1970s? I wrote code in the 90s and I never heard of anyone printing out raw code before him.

            • Traister101@lemmy.today
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              23
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              2 days ago

              Okay so say your testing a brand new rocket engine idea. It uses a fuel nobody has tried to use before. So what you do is you figure out how much energy this fuel has and do some math to figure out how much you’ll need to take with you for the typical rocket. You design an engine for this spec or better and thoroughly test it to make sure it’s behaving like expected. You eventually mount it to a rocket and make sure in practice it behaves as you expect. Next you put a payload in the rocket and test it again. If at any point things don’t behave as expected you have to fix your whole model.

              SpaceX struggles to go a launch without their engines destroying themselves. Perhaps they should go back a few steps?

      • TK420@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        29
        ·
        2 days ago

        I see you don’t understand testing things before they are safe for humans to be inside of. So by this logic, you are saying “blowing up rockets until it works” is also saying “crash testing cars is stupid.”

        <blank stare>

        If NASA was funded properly, we may not be leaning on one private company, whose owner is a nazi, to be paving our way forward for daily space activities. Can’t say things won’t blow up during testing, but at least it won’t be headed by that guy.

        • SlopppyEngineer@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          42
          ·
          2 days ago

          The issue isn’t the way of testing, but the two standards. If Musk blows up rockets in testing it’s a genius move with rapid iteration. If NASA does this it’s irresponsible handling of tax payer’s money on risky endeavors.

          • TK420@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            1 day ago

            I stand by my comment. Things break, shit happens, this is why we test them.

    • Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      48
      ·
      2 days ago

      I think it’s also worth noting that Elon Musk is a scammer. Every other word out of his mouth is likely a lie. He’s been claiming to already have technologies available for his Tesla cars, his SpaceX rockets, etc, all ready to go and… it never happened. Tesla full self driving? The Tesla taxis? SpaceX on Mars? The Tesla laughably stupid robots? Even those were faked.

      Claims after claims for decades and literally no results

      The guy is a full on bait and switch yet everyone seems to lap up everything this scammer says.

    • x00z@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      61
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      2 days ago

      You can’t use “literally” and “paraphrasing” like that.

    • Valmond@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      Also, normally the cost savings should go to the client, not into some billionaires bank account.

    • barsoap@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      An MVP should not be a beta version, but fully functional and bug-free. The idea is to reduce scope to not necessarily even release it (though that’s possible) but to have a solid foundation onto which to duct-tape bells and whistles.

      The MVP of a car doesn’t have heated seats, heck the seats might not even be adjustable without a wrench, but it’s absolutely going to drive and drive well and be crash-safe. Because if it doesn’t it’s nowhere close to being a viable car, go back and fix that before spending time on those seats.

    • GrumpyDuckling@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      There’s nothing inherently wrong with a simplification mindset. Automotive manufacturers certainly do like to overcomplicate things. Unfortunately people like him only care about costs and not quality.

    • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      2 days ago

      is pure tech-bro-libertarianism

      Tech bros are usually not libertarian. Being excited about a failed solution to only one of libertarian problems (blockchain) doesn’t make one libertarian, too.

      And like all libertarians, he’s stuck in the neoliberal mindset of less regulation (don’t scrutinize) and more efficiency (let me be cheap)

      That’s not libertarianism, more like Ayn Rand and her inverse bolshevism with good mighty benevolent industrial aristocracy and bad stupid mischievous everyone else. She even reads like one of Valentin Pikul’s “historical novels”, only with inverted good and bad guys. That ideology is radically different from libertarianism, instead of freedom, voluntarism, non-aggression and such, resulting in a free society with free contracts, Ayn Rand says that some people are better than the others and thus freedom, voluntarism, non-aggression etc are measures by relative value of the offender and the victim. It’s jungle law.

      Anyway, it’s not “neoliberal” either, anti-monopoly regulations are part of the “ideal” free market model. And I think Elon likes patents and trademarks, which are not necessarily there (and in libertarianism are not a thing).

      His transparent reasoning is that if he’s allowed to cut corners, he’ll save money today and consequences can be dealt with when they arise.

      You might have seen the recent news about Tesla sales falling. Maybe it took so long because of accumulated trust into regulators not allowing car makers to make dangerous crap. So - then maybe in other reality, where Elon came to an industry already allowed to cut corners, he’d go bankrupt by now because of consumers understanding who he is.

      Life is complex, I’m not saying he’s right, just that.

      He’s following the software model of release a minimally viable product and patch it later. Only instead of user frustration at being beta testers, you fucking die maybe.

      The way software industry works, a lot of people have died due to its failures. One has to count people who’ve committed suicide due to events cause by some bug or even UX problem, people who failed to communicate something in time, thus possibly saving someone, people who disclosed what they shouldn’t have, thus possibly causing a criminal death, medical errors due to software problems, wars, catastrophes.

      But yes, it’s already allowed to do that and Elon wants such wonders in other industries, so that we’d have a bit of natural selection in our daily lives. Dystopian cyberpunk is called dystopian because it’s not utopian, but being a billionaire, I guess, one would dream of living in such instead of utopian version of boring past.

    • Freefall@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      23 hours ago

      Nah, he will just get more government grants to “fix” it. (Aren’t they up to like 30% grants at this point?)

    • Rhaedas@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      133
      ·
      2 days ago

      Ford’s reasoning was that it was cheaper to pay out for the injuries and deaths than to change the car. Cybertruck has a much better plot armor, a fanbase that refuses to believe it’s crap.

      • Cyclist@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        52
        ·
        2 days ago

        I think that fanbase is staying to wane. But who knows, maybe the gas loving Maga rednecks will start buying…who am I kidding, most of them can’t afford the ridiculous price tag.

        • Rhaedas@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          43
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          Not only that, it’s not even a proper truck. They could have come up with a standard truck design and used tech and EV to create a new niche that was usable. But no one can tell Elon no, so his 5-year-old self’s vision had to be made because it’s different. Sometimes different doesn’t mean better.

        • frezik@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          21
          ·
          2 days ago

          What often happens in cases like that is people on the edge leave, but those who remain are now distilled insanity.

        • umbrella@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          16
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          2 days ago

          the maga crowd has diesel truck attached to their very masculinity, thats never happening.

          • jj4211@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            23 hours ago

            The MAGA crowd mostly needs to give their truck gender-affirming care by giving them truck nuts.

          • ChickenLadyLovesLife@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            2 days ago

            I read a reddit post recently by a guy who had bought one for $135K after shelling out $50K to a broker to find him one. He was wanting to sell but couldn’t get more than $70K for it lol.

      • tempest@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        2 days ago

        I don’t know. I’m not sure I’ve seen or encountered strong pro cyber truck sentiment. Maybe a bit of online excitement for like a day when they were first rolling out but now it’s been a laughing stock.

        • The Quuuuuill@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          26
          ·
          2 days ago

          IRL owners are something else to deal with. they get mad when you point and laugh at their rolling dumpster

          • harrys_balzac@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            2 days ago

            I sped up and passed one on the freeway just to give him the finger. He even looked like pre-gender affirming surgery Elon. Who looks a lot like Andrew Tate.

            There’s 3-4 Wankpazers around here and I see them around once a week. I flip them off every chance I get.

        • ChickenLadyLovesLife@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          2 days ago

          I’m a school bus driver - kids love the things and go apeshit whenever they see one. Fortunately, not many elementary school kids can afford one.

    • atrielienz@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      37
      ·
      2 days ago

      Nah. The Ford Pinto laid the groundwork for the NHTSA’s regulatory control of forced recalls. The only way this thing doesn’t get recalled for being dangerous is if Musk’s D. o. g. e manages to undercut or defund the NHTSA.

      Additionally, other countries with better regulatory bodies won’t even allow it to be sold or will require mandatory recall of these vehicles which means the end of the cyber truck. They can’t even sell them because people don’t want them.

      The other thing is that insurance companies can absolutely refuse to insure them and if I’m honest, they may be the main reason that the NHTSA doesn’t back down from regulating them (insurance companies are a powerful lobby, and they absolutely can countermand the automotive lobby in some cases).

      My point is, it’s more complicated than just “Musk is a government official now, and historically dangerous cars weren’t recalled”.

      • Tja@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        24 hours ago

        It will take Leon 20 minutes to shut down the whole agency claiming that they actually eat babies and people will just go with it.

        • atrielienz@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          23 hours ago

          I don’t know why you keep saying intentionally inflammatory things that don’t take into account the full list of factors and facts we have about how the real world works, but you do you, I guess.

          • Tja@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            23 hours ago

            Because the way the world worked changed a few months ago. Trump is immune and has pardon powers.

            • atrielienz@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              17 hours ago

              You’d be surprised at how little it’s changed. Oligarchs are still oligarchs. You think the Ford and GMC CEOs are just gonna let Musk come in and eat their lunch when they have a whole swathe of legal teams just waiting for the government to breach a contract?

              • Tja@programming.dev
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                6 hours ago

                I hope you are right, but all oligarchs fell in line real quick so far. Donating millions to Trump, getting rid of DEI, unbanning nazis, etc. Tax breaks are coming and they don’t want to be excluded.

      • psmgx@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        20
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        NHTSA

        Project 2025 has explicit targets for reforming NHTSA. It is unambiguously in their sights, just lower on the priority list.

        • atrielienz@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          2 days ago

          Agreed. And that’s where consumer choice comes in. People don’t want them. Tesla is having to rework their entire plant to use the assembly lines that produce cybertrucks because they can’t sell the ones they’ve already made. They projected and prepared to manufacturer and sell 500,000 and they’ve sold something like 40,000 and the rest are just sitting in retail lots or holding lots collecting dust. The best estimate seems to be that they might be able to sell another 30,000 in 2025. But with tax credits for EV’s going away and other regulations going into effect world wide, that is probably a pipe dream.

          • Tja@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            24 hours ago

            On a scale from 0 to 3 (out of 10), how surprised would you be to read that the DHS decided to purchase 250.000 cybertrucks, because they are bulletproof? Before you go to Google it - I made it up, but there is a 50% chance of it coming in the next weeks.

            • atrielienz@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              13 hours ago

              I would be surprised for a lot of reasons. The main one being, they’d have to be dirt cheap and have an exceptional warranty agreement attached in order to compete with other automakers who make bulletproof vehicles. And, further there’s too many other problems with the amount of information they collect that the DHS would not have full and direct control over. Tesla’s are well known for recording anything and everything. We learned when they blew one up outside that Trump Hotel that they can be remotely locked by Tesla the company. A private company should not have that kind of direct access to government vehicles of any kind.

              • jj4211@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                21 hours ago

                I think that really underestimates how corruption would work. Tesla might make a show of a “government edition” software loadout, whether because they had to or even as theater to pretend they catered to government requirements when in actuality it’s largely the same but maybe with some branding.

                In terms of pricing, I’m sure that any actually “bulletproof” vehicles cost plenty. Which is why even departments like the DHS have largely unarmored fleets. Tesla wouldn’t meet those standards, but the marketing might be sufficient to serve as a bullet point over the current non-armored vehicles they use.

                • atrielienz@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  13 hours ago

                  I think we can count on the corruption and legal rights of other companies more than you think apparently. Tesla’s not the only car company. They certainly don’t have the same pull in the government as Ford and GMC and Dodge. Tesla is a brand new player who cannot be trusted to follow the rules and deactivate or unequip any sensors and components for tracking that the government would require (on trucks they have already manufactured for the civilian market - which would be the case because Tesla already has significant stock it can’t sell). The government don’t have the qualified personnel to upkeep these vehicles, and that’s assuming they even have a place to store a fleet of them that’s covered parking.

                  A government software load out is not going to be enough. When the government buys vehicles they specifically have them manufactured to a spec and that spec would have to involve the removal and or lack of installation of most of the sensors and capabilities the vehicle comes with stock. So they either have to buy them as is and modify them (which requires personnel with a specific set of training and qualifications), or they have to be manufactured to that spec at the Tesla factory (or retrofitted to remove the unwanted components).

                  DHS’s armored and unarmored fleets can be washed, can be parked in an uncovered lot, can be maintenanced by the personnel they already have. There’s way more to buying a fleet of vehicles than just the price tag for individual units.

                  I work on planes for a living including government planes when we get the contract for those and let me tell you, they differ quite a lot from conventional civilian planes even when the base plane is the same. Tesla doesn’t already have a contract, and even if they get one that money isn’t allocated to them in the budget. There’s plenty of other reasons why I think this is a BS take, but man even corruption has a shelf life. Trump may be out of office in a couple of years but the entire government won’t just up and retire with him. Their corruption will definitely conflict with his because these are career politicians and Trump is liable to die in office.

                  The skin is literally handgun resistant not anything more than that. And the windows aren’t bullet proof. They’d have to modify each door to take bulletproof glass. It’s prohibitively expensive on a vehicle that wasn’t engineered for that.

                  It’s the kind of thing I’ll believe when I see it and not a moment before.

              • Tja@programming.dev
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                23 hours ago

                You mean that dog killer lady and Nazi weirdo care about competition and data security?

                • atrielienz@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  17 hours ago

                  They aren’t the only people who have a say in what happens. It’s funny to me that y’all clearly don’t know how the government works or how much red tape there is. Tesla is an overvalued and under performing company that barely deserves to be called an automotive manufacturer.

                  The government has already signed contracts with other car manufacturers for the purposes of armored vehicles. Those manufacturers will absolutely sue for breach of contract in the event that the government doesn’t pay them and utilize their vehicles. Further, there are still regulations and specifications that are required to be met. They can’t fire everyone no matter how much they think they can. And Congress will not jeopardize their cash cows.

                  It’s a lot of different echelons of the government that this type of thing has to go through and it’s definitely not going to happen overnight. I’m not saying it can’t happen. I’m saying that it’ll take time and the other automotive companies will fight back against anything they see as a conflict of interest.

                  I can understand that people think things look bleak. But like half of what’s going on right now is scare tactics to make the general populace capitulate without a fight. The people who know how things work are very rarely ever at the top of anything. The people who get shit done are rarely at the top.

                  The budget is already signed sealed and delivered. Where’s DHS gonna get this money? Because I would bet other car manufacturers have already bid for the contract for new vehicles. So unless you’ve got something that says Tesla won the bid, quit playing with me.

      • dnzm@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        2 days ago

        I believe they’re absolutely not street legal in the UK, nor in the EU. Those were never “ridiculous sized trucks” Walhalla to begin with (although I see more Rams than I care to, these days), so there’s roughly zero chance those things will become mainstream here.

        Heck, we have rain here, that’s enough of a wankpanzer repellant.

        • atrielienz@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          They haven’t been banned from sale in the UK or EU so far as I can tell, according to the article.

          But the relevant safety organizations and municipalities have been impounding them when they show up, so that’s something.

          • xthexder@l.sw0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            2 days ago

            They don’t have to explicitly ban the Cybertruck if it doesn’t pass the existing regulations. It’s not legal to drive in UK/EU. You could buy one for display-only or something I’m sure.

        • atrielienz@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          14
          ·
          2 days ago

          To be fair, you made a good point. In the article it states pretty definitively that the NHTSA hasn’t been allowed to have the Cybertruck independently crash tested which is bogus as hell.

          The fact that it can’t force that from any car manufacturer doesn’t really make sense. They haven’t even received relevant data related to Tesla’s in house crash testing and I can’t even begin to understand how that’s legal.

      • Shdwdrgn@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        2 days ago

        Let me simplify it for you… Musk has been targeting agencies that stood in the way of SpaceX. Did you hear he started targeting OSHA this week because of the spotlight on Musk’s intentional dismissal of safety regulations? Or that he is also targeting the consumer protection agency? Everything that protects regular citizens is being shut down as “wasteful”, and his only criteria is anything that costs him money or prevents him from exploiting workers.

        • jj4211@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          21 hours ago

          Don’t forget the revelation that USAID was looking into Starlink in a critical way…

          • Shdwdrgn@mander.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            13 hours ago

            Yeah I’ve seen some bits about that, they were looking into how Musk was interfering with the Ukraine war I think?

      • jonne@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        2 days ago

        I mean, the thing is already outright illegal in most countries where pedestrian safety is taken into account. An EU version would have to look completely different.

  • xapr [he/him]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    82
    ·
    2 days ago

    Cybertruck will have 14.52 fatalities per 100,000 units — far eclipsing the Pinto’s 0.85.

    Holy shit, that means the Cybertruck fatality rate is around 17 times higher than the Pinto’s!

    • Phoenicianpirate@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      21 hours ago

      Do you realize how fucking insane that is? From 1921 to 1951 the rate of auto deaths dropped by around 50%, and from 1921 to 2011 the rate dropped by 90%. This is not just due to regulations on cars and pedestrian travel, but also in very large part due to crash safety in cars that steadily improved. With crash safety becoming a science, and crash test dummies being invented, and crumple zones, and air bags and seatbelts and the laws thereof.

      Musk, asshole motherfucker that he is, is trying to destroy all of that.

      • xapr [he/him]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        15 hours ago

        Absolutely! What’s weird is that Teslas have been top-rated for crash-worthiness in the past, so there are a few possibilities I can think of:

        • They need to be top crash-worthy, because of the stupid autopilot trying its best to kill the occupants
        • They need to be top crash-worthy, because otherwise any crash at all would result in a fiery death
        • The Cybertruck is an outlier and is not as crash-worthy as the previous Teslas
        • All of the above

        What was that rule of thumb for taking multiple choice tests? If you don’t know the answer, always select “all of the above”?

    • Greee1911@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      2 days ago

      If you read the article is was specifically died by fire. Not any other cause of death.

      • Excrubulent@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        46
        ·
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        Right but the specific issue with the Pinto was that it would explode into flames on a rear impact, so this is the appropriate metric.

        Like deaths from other accidents would skew the numbers anyway because 70s cars were death traps compared to today, but even in that context, the Pinto’s explosions were alarming.

        Beating it on that isolated metric is a very special kind of achievement.

  • Nougat@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    77
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    The Pinto got well known for a couple of reasons.

    One, the classic “exploding in a rear end collision.” The design flaw here was that in certain rear collisions, the fuel tank would be pushed into the rear differential. Not only could this rupture the fuel tank, it could also produce a spark. Boom. Lots of cars had this same design in the 70s, with the fuel tank low in the rear, right behind the rear differential.

    Two, the infamous Pinto Memo, which did a cost benefit analysis that determined it would be cheaper for Ford to not fix the problem, and just settle whatever cases came up. This very clearly inspired the Fight Club recall formula scene. Take note that the car used in that scene is a Lincoln Town Car, produced by Ford Motor Company.

    The kicker for the Pinto recall? What they did to fix it:

    • Two sheets of 1/8" plastic, each about 18" square
    • Some long zip ties
    • Layer the two sheets over the rear diff, zip tie them to the axle

    That’s it. My dad pointed this out to me in his shop some time in the late 80s or early 90s. He had a Pinto in for an oil change or something, “Hey, let me show you this.” It was such a hacky “repair.”

    • otto@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      2 days ago

      Curious: how effective was that “repair”? Did it actually make a difference at all?

      • Nougat@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        30
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        It would have prevented the “spark” part of the failure condition, but not the tank rupturing part.

    • frezik@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 days ago

      Hackey, but I guess some plastic would be enough to stop metal on metal contact and prevent sparks?

      Not that my Miata “temporarily” has cardboard wrapped in tape wrapped around the cold air intake pipe to prevent it from rubbing against the frame. Nope, definitely not.

      • MutilationWave@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        My challenger’s whole plastic front end is connected with zip ties at this point. Those pathetic plastic clips they use just break apart if you try to work on them. I realize my solution to preventing plastic dragging on the road is less important than preventing metal on metal contact though.

    • ⛓️‍💥@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      Lots of cars had this same design in the 70s, with the fuel tank low in the rear, right behind the rear differential.

      Jeep Grand Cherokees were this way between 1993 and 2004 and Jeep Libertys were this way between 2002 and 2007.

      I do believe they were plastic though.

      But they are jeeps. Quality was never an expectation

    • floofloof@lemmy.caOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      Hard to tell. The picture was widely used in the media, and they’re usually quite careful about that kind of thing. There’s something reddish in it, but it could be material from the truck or its contents. One of the photos the police released of his guns had some red foamy material in it, another photo had some stringy red material (plastic?) lying in the road, and there were various red items in the bed too. I’ll mark it NSFW just in case.

    • catloaf@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      2 days ago

      The driver was inside the vehicle at the time, so I’m sure some of that is his remains. But a lot is probably burned seat material and such. It’s hard to say for sure.

    • CrowAirbrush@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      Apparently it’s a photo from “Cybertruck explosion outside Trump international hotel investigated for terror ties”

  • DrunkEngineer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    20 hours ago

    I believe 4 of the 5 Cybertruck fatalities were from a single crash. While the truck may indeed be dangerous, there is hardly enough data yet to draw conclusions.

  • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    52
    ·
    2 days ago

    And some people wonder why the cybertruck is barely sold outside the US.

    Everything I hear about this thing is bad.

        • NιƙƙιDιɱҽʂ@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          14
          ·
          edit-2
          2 days ago

          I have no problem with something looking stupid. The problem for me is not just that it looks stupid, but that it is stupid. It’s a stupid thing that shouldn’t exist.

    • bus_factor@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      28
      ·
      2 days ago

      It’s barely sold outside the US because other places (like the EU) also care about the safety of people outside the vehicle. That’s why European and Asian cars (except the models explicitly for the US market like the Tacoma) are designed for pedestrians to be deflected, while US cars are a moving brick wall which will squish them like a bug.

      Also, I suspect you’d need commercial plates and a special license to drive it most other places, due to the weight.

    • Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      2 days ago

      It’s only available in North America / Mexico. It won’t fly with many vehicle regulations outside of the US.

      I imagine the sharp edges are more than enough to keep it out of Europe forever. Pedestrians need to be able to roll onto a vehicle in an EU pedestrian collision. The Cybertruck will lop you in half.