991
The Cybertruck Appears to Be More Deadly Than the Infamous Ford Pinto, According to a New Analysis (futurism.com)
submitted 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) by to c/technology@lemmy.world
NSFW 173 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

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.)

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 220 points 2 years ago* (59 children)

...and unlike the Pinto, because we are so deep into fucked-reality-ville, it won't get recalled.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 59 child comments
    •
  • [–] 134 points 2 years ago (18 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
    •
  • [–] 53 points 2 years ago (10 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 44 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 17 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    They can just buy a used one since the value of these fucking hunks of junk drops dramatically once its driven at all.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 10 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 27 points 2 years ago (1 child)

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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 8 points 2 years 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 38 points 2 years ago (36 children)

    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".

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 36 child comments
    •
  • [–] 21 points 2 years ago* (20 children)

    NHTSA

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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 20 child comments
    •
  • [–] 14 points 2 years ago (19 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
    •
  • [–] 20 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Look, all I'm asking is that Tesla investors lose all their goddamn money.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago

    I would love it if the board voted Elon out. I know it won’t happen because they’re a bunch of sycophants, but “Elons antics and poor decisions are causing us to lose money” is a great reason to do so.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (15 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (14 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (5 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (4 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 15 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    I'd like to thank you for this measured take in response to my unbridled cynicism.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 15 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 14 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 9 points 2 years 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 13 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
    • load more comments (5 replies)