Hacker News Reader

Comment by FriedPickles | Hacker News Reader

Are there any vehicle regulations designed to protect pedestrians or cyclists? A quick search of "pedestrian" in the FMVSS returns nothing [1]. We can't blame automakers for marketing whatever they think will sell best that passes the regulatory bar. If new regulations would be helpful, let's make them.

What would it look like to optimize for pedestrian safety? The new USPS truck [2].

[1] https://www.nhtsa.gov/laws-regulations/fmvss [2] https://www.theverge.com/2021/2/23/22297823/usps-postal-serv...

View on HN

Here in Europe yes for sure. For example bull bars are forbidden and also hood ornaments that stick out like Mercedes used to have.

However I think this truck is US only for now so perhaps this is why it didn't matter there? I'm sure they would have thought of it before releasing it.

FWIW bull bars make trucks more dangerous for occupants too, by increasing likelihood of life-threatening injuries to leg arteries.

"Light Vehicles Safety Built in Not Bolted On" - https://autoexpert.com.au/s/Light-Vehicles-safety-built-in-n...

The reality is that if you drive in deer country you're much more likely to hit a deer than another vehicle.

And the bull bar will actually decrease the damage on your vehicle when hitting a deer.

The relevant test in this report simulated a single-vehicle impact. The best insurance policy against kangaroos/deer is a modern, safe vehicle with crumple zones (and, y'know, an actual insurance policy that you'll live to collect).

A problem with hitting a deer, especially in a car, is that the bulk of body mass is sitting just above hood level and will therefore impact directly on and then through the windshield at the driver. Crumple zones won't matter.

On sedans, sure. At least where I live, sedans are in the minority. You’d have to find a good sized buck to worry about that on the average suv.

Moose

> We can't blame automakers for marketing whatever they think will sell best that passes the regulatory bar.

Why not? This is such a cynical take, and I don't think it goes without saying that it's true. Unless you believe that organisations are organisms with an express evolutionary goal to seek profit at all cost, at least. But I think many non-profits and other companies which act in the interest of something other than profit-maximisation make it quite clear that this isn't the case.

(And, no, companies are not obligated to maximise profits. It's quite well-established that this is a myth.)

The EU has some! https://www.fercam.com/en-it/blog/road-safety-in-europe--2-2...

And a quote from TFA about the EU and Cybertruck

> Tesla has not said whether it will sell Cybertrucks in Europe, but its chief engineer this month told motoring publication TopGear that EU safety rules aimed at protecting pedestrians by limiting external protrusions could make it tough to sell there.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com