EU and US testing criteria are very different - in the US, motor vehicles leaving the roadway and impacting stationary objects is the top source of traffic fatalities. In the EU, it's pedestrian impacts (which makes sense corresponding to the urban vs rural environments in each).
The EU has very stringent testing for pedestrian safety: https://www.euroncap.com/en/car-safety/the-ratings-explained.... One of the tests is literally just taking a foam ball, pressing it on spots all around the front of the car, and looking for hard, sharp corners.
The cybertruck is a steel box made of sharp corners. It was never, ever going to be allowed on European roads - and the US Government here is saying they are not even going to fight for the rarest exception.
Not knowing how testing works or the criteria in USA/Canada, I'm surprised it's even allowed here. I'd rather be hit as a pedestrian by almost any other truck since at least F-150s and RAMs don't have sharp edges like the Cybertruck...
I don't care so much about the edges. I'm more worried about the height of these newer trucks and SUVs, which create massive front blindspots. The below report focuses on kids, but I'm an adult and some of these trucks seem taller than me.
I drive a smaller hatchback as well and notice the same thing.
I’ve been on the other side of it once. I got roped into driving an acquaintance’s H3 Hummer years ago. I went to change lanes, checked my mirrors, looked over my shoulder out the window, and all seems clear. It wasn’t. There was a car that was completely invisible to me. Had other people not been in the car and looking, I would have run them right off the road. I have no idea how anyone drives those things on a daily basis. I was a nervous wreck.
I think the best visibility I had in a car was my old GTI. I could see all 4 corners and knew exactly where I was at.
You're neglecting the technology that comes with it to mitigate that. I have far more awareness of my surroundings in my giant truck than I ever have in any previous small or medium sized car, thanks to all of the cameras and sensors everywhere.
> thanks to all of the cameras and sensors everywhere.
Cameras are a band-aid that help a bit, but nothing beats actual clear visibility in all directions, something which newer cars lack.
My partner has a newish VW and it's a menace to drive IMO. For example turning left onto our street, just when I need to see clearly if there is anyone on that street (it's a neighborhood of lots of kids) all I see is a giant A pillar and even more giant rearview mirror, blocking most of the view to the left. I have to contort in all directions back and forth to look around these obstacles which creates its own safety concerns. Visibility to the rear quarters is also terrible.
On my older cars with low doorlines and thin pillars I have perfect visibility into any turn, 100x safer.
A 10cm increase in bonnet height, from 80cm to 90cm, raises the risk of death in a crash by 27% for pedestrians and cyclists, according to a Belgian study involving 300,000 casualties. Children were substantially more likely to be killed as pedestrians in collisions than adults, the report said.
But again, here in the US we are an order of magnitude less likely to be hit by a car. EDIT: Than being in a car accident
Obviously we could get into incentives and prioritizing pedestrian safety and urbanizing. But if you take the current status quo of where Americans live and how they drive, I can very much understand regulators choosing to prioritize the safety regulations that will save the largest number of lives on the roads we have now.
There's a really good video by Road Guy Rob that goes into very good detail about the specific causes of pedestrian fatalities in the US: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEj-pyjA2oo
TL;DW: It's most likely happening at night, on an arterial street, by a truck or SUV.
As someone who lives near two of the largest USAF bases in Europe, I'm glad the Americans can import vehicles too wide for the average street because it allows the locals to identify them at a distance and somewhat anticipate their non-existent (and often illegal) driving habits.
One very likely drunk US soldier driving a huge American SUV and speeding through a red light in Bucharest killed a famous Romanian musician.
The US blocked any attempts of a Romanian investigation and the American investigation found no wrong doing (the musicians much smaller taxi looked like an accordion, I passed on that street after the accident).
Aren't the rejection reasons true of every US EV truck? They all have gross vehicle weight ratings over 3.5 tons, they all lack speed limiters, and they all fail EU pedestrian safety regulations.
The only exception I know of is the F-150 Lightning. It's allowed in Europe outside the EU (Norway & Switzerland), though its maximum load is limited to 805kg (including passengers) to keep it below the 3,500kg limit.[1]
Edit: Some guy in Poland (which is in the EU) has a Cybertruck.[2] I'm not sure how he made it EU compliant. He claims there are at least five Cybertrucks registered in Poland.[3] There's also a Cybertruck registered in the Czech Republic.[4]
“ Another concern is that the Cybertruck would attract a lot of attention when operated in public traffic. This would defeat the purpose of issuing USAREUR-AF cover plates for force protection. It is commonly known that the Cybertruck cannot be registered and operated in Germany.”
Funny, bad OPSEC to drive a huge flashing American flag.
You are ordered where to go, and have little input into that decision. The military will typically ship one vehicle free of charge to your new duty station.
It's a pretty robust logistics system. The tour lengths are 2-3 years. If your job demanded that you relocate to another continent for 3 years I think we'd all expect some relocation assistance.
Free healthcare for the rest of your life. Help with college costs.. Funny how one of the biggest budget items in the country is used for a socialist system...
From quick reading, seems like if you serve at least 2 years (or leave from a service connected injury) and get an honorable discharge, you get VA healthcare, although lower priority levels have to pay copays, so not entirely free?
Looks like signing up for the military is an 8 year commitment, which is often at least 3 years of active duty and the remainder on reserves. Kind of a lot of commitment for health care, and kind of a lot of risk on the job. If you can manage to stay in for 20 years though, the pension seems pretty nice; I live near a navy base and a lot of parents of my kid's sports team are approaching 20 years, getting paid a pension while having a second career is pretty neat.
Yes, that's likely much cheaper than loading up an aircraft carrier with a bunch of Mustangs and Silverados. They're still likely bound to some sort of lowest bidder for contracts. It's also likely to be more economical than having the person find their own transport and reimbursing them.
OK, but maybe they plan to use the same group of commercial shippers for the miltary hardware. (Now you are going to tell me that most of these shippers are Chinese, completely demolishing my conjecture.)
> The Cybertruck has no type-approval from the European Union (EU) due to significant passive safety concerns. Several specifications of the Cybertruck, particularly the sharp-edged, stiff stainless-steel body, violate EU safety standards, primarily for the protection of vulnerable road users.
So it's too dangerous for pedestrians. Good, love to see a government stand up for its people now and then
go to spz.penize.cz and lookup license plate 001CYBER, legally registered in Czechia
go to ufg.pl and lookup the insurance policy for license plate S1K6, legally registered in Poland
both countries are EU members and you can drive those cars anywhere in the EU
They tend to get exceptions for much stuff, that makes it newsworthy.
They even get exempted from criminal law. Remember Anna Sacoolas who killed a teenager in the UK and quickly got repatriated before he could be brought to court?
There might be some argument that brews in this thread and I just want to say that it's nearly impossible to debate someone into believing they should care about people they don't know.
EU and US testing criteria are very different - in the US, motor vehicles leaving the roadway and impacting stationary objects is the top source of traffic fatalities. In the EU, it's pedestrian impacts (which makes sense corresponding to the urban vs rural environments in each).
The EU has very stringent testing for pedestrian safety: https://www.euroncap.com/en/car-safety/the-ratings-explained.... One of the tests is literally just taking a foam ball, pressing it on spots all around the front of the car, and looking for hard, sharp corners.
The cybertruck is a steel box made of sharp corners. It was never, ever going to be allowed on European roads - and the US Government here is saying they are not even going to fight for the rarest exception.
Not knowing how testing works or the criteria in USA/Canada, I'm surprised it's even allowed here. I'd rather be hit as a pedestrian by almost any other truck since at least F-150s and RAMs don't have sharp edges like the Cybertruck...
I don't care so much about the edges. I'm more worried about the height of these newer trucks and SUVs, which create massive front blindspots. The below report focuses on kids, but I'm an adult and some of these trucks seem taller than me.
https://www.wthr.com/article/news/investigations/13-investig...
> I'm more worried about the height of these newer trucks and SUVs, which create massive front blindspots.
There's a bit of meme that an M1 Abrams tank has better forward visibility than many SUVs/pickups:
* https://old.reddit.com/r/fuckcars/comments/140dgn8/many_popu...
I drive a Mini. I frequently notice how the hoods of these trucks are taller than my entire car.
I drive a smaller hatchback as well and notice the same thing.
I’ve been on the other side of it once. I got roped into driving an acquaintance’s H3 Hummer years ago. I went to change lanes, checked my mirrors, looked over my shoulder out the window, and all seems clear. It wasn’t. There was a car that was completely invisible to me. Had other people not been in the car and looking, I would have run them right off the road. I have no idea how anyone drives those things on a daily basis. I was a nervous wreck.
I think the best visibility I had in a car was my old GTI. I could see all 4 corners and knew exactly where I was at.
You're neglecting the technology that comes with it to mitigate that. I have far more awareness of my surroundings in my giant truck than I ever have in any previous small or medium sized car, thanks to all of the cameras and sensors everywhere.
> thanks to all of the cameras and sensors everywhere.
Cameras are a band-aid that help a bit, but nothing beats actual clear visibility in all directions, something which newer cars lack.
My partner has a newish VW and it's a menace to drive IMO. For example turning left onto our street, just when I need to see clearly if there is anyone on that street (it's a neighborhood of lots of kids) all I see is a giant A pillar and even more giant rearview mirror, blocking most of the view to the left. I have to contort in all directions back and forth to look around these obstacles which creates its own safety concerns. Visibility to the rear quarters is also terrible.
On my older cars with low doorlines and thin pillars I have perfect visibility into any turn, 100x safer.
They showed some of that technology in the video. The owner of the car had no idea it existed.
There is an issue of having the tech, and then a secondary issue of awareness and use. All three need to be true for it to be useful.
You're neglecting observed empirical data:
~ https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jun/11/ever-rising-he...Apparently having all those cameras isn't correlating well with people actually paying attention to them.
But again, here in the US we are an order of magnitude less likely to be hit by a car. EDIT: Than being in a car accident
Obviously we could get into incentives and prioritizing pedestrian safety and urbanizing. But if you take the current status quo of where Americans live and how they drive, I can very much understand regulators choosing to prioritize the safety regulations that will save the largest number of lives on the roads we have now.
https://usa.streetsblog.org/2020/10/10/exactly-how-far-u-s-s...
You're right, I misrepresented the idea. Part of the thing is that US roads are just so much more dangerous in every way. Here's the actual data:
US pedestrian fatalities 2 per 100k. US driver fatalities ~7 per 100k.
European pedestrian fatalities: 0.5 per 100k. European driver fatalities: ~2 per 100k.
So it's somewhat understandable that regulators may disproportionately favor crash protection for drivers.
> But again, here in the US we are an order of magnitude less likely to be hit by a car.
hard disagree, in places where cybertrucks are most sold it is urban populated areas and pedestrian incidents and fatalities are very high
> But again, here in the US we are an order of magnitude less likely to be hit by a car.
Huh - do you have a source for that stat?
There's a really good video by Road Guy Rob that goes into very good detail about the specific causes of pedestrian fatalities in the US: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEj-pyjA2oo
TL;DW: It's most likely happening at night, on an arterial street, by a truck or SUV.
> In the EU, it's pedestrian impacts (which makes sense corresponding to the urban vs rural environments in each).
The US has a comparable urban population to Western Europe or Scandinavia. However, the urban areas are far more car centric.
wonder if importers can qualify the truck for europe?
They used to do this for lamborghini countach in the US by adding ridiculous bumpers:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/42/Lamborgh...
As someone who lives near two of the largest USAF bases in Europe, I'm glad the Americans can import vehicles too wide for the average street because it allows the locals to identify them at a distance and somewhat anticipate their non-existent (and often illegal) driving habits.
There was a CIA worker in the UK that drove on the wrong side of the road, killed someone and fled the country.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Harry_Dunn
An increasingly common problem in the UK: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cy4kqq8dw00o
I thought it was the wife of the official, but maybe I'm misremembering things..
She was CIA too.
One very likely drunk US soldier driving a huge American SUV and speeding through a red light in Bucharest killed a famous Romanian musician.
The US blocked any attempts of a Romanian investigation and the American investigation found no wrong doing (the musicians much smaller taxi looked like an accordion, I passed on that street after the accident).
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teo_Peter
Speculation, hearsay and edge case. Classic.
Anyone living near an US base has similar stories to tell
Makes you wonder why America was so desperate to suppress an impartial investigation.
Aren't the rejection reasons true of every US EV truck? They all have gross vehicle weight ratings over 3.5 tons, they all lack speed limiters, and they all fail EU pedestrian safety regulations.
The only exception I know of is the F-150 Lightning. It's allowed in Europe outside the EU (Norway & Switzerland), though its maximum load is limited to 805kg (including passengers) to keep it below the 3,500kg limit.[1]
Edit: Some guy in Poland (which is in the EU) has a Cybertruck.[2] I'm not sure how he made it EU compliant. He claims there are at least five Cybertrucks registered in Poland.[3] There's also a Cybertruck registered in the Czech Republic.[4]
1. https://www.motor.no/bil/ford-f-150-lightning-klar-for-norge...
2. https://x.com/norbertcala/status/1814394368452862270
3. https://x.com/norbertcala/status/1838862685724651738
4. https://www.expats.cz/czech-news/article/czechia-sees-its-fi...
Not the sharp edges, no. That's a cybertruck "special".
This was obvious shortly after the Cybertruck was presented to the world and it never seemed like a smart move to let it on the road the way it is.
In related news, I also cannot import Bratwurst into the US ;)
Why not? Too wide? Sharp edges?
> Why not? Too wide? Sharp edges?
IIRC, US customs is really strict about produce and meat.
Is there some dumb urban legend about this? You absolutely can buy imported Bratwurst in the United States (and there's a lot of it made locally too).
Or pork pies. Americans don't know what they are missing.
or Kinder Surprise ;-)
Or black currants
Update: Oh. The federal ban was lifted in 1966. Full your boots!
or mimolette cheese
I think that was fixed (again). I can still buy real mimolette at the grocery store near me.
“ Another concern is that the Cybertruck would attract a lot of attention when operated in public traffic. This would defeat the purpose of issuing USAREUR-AF cover plates for force protection. It is commonly known that the Cybertruck cannot be registered and operated in Germany.” Funny, bad OPSEC to drive a huge flashing American flag.
I was so happy to read that part of the statement. A refreshing bit of common sense.
I am more surprised we are paying for soldiers to ship their vehicles around the world.
You are ordered where to go, and have little input into that decision. The military will typically ship one vehicle free of charge to your new duty station.
It's a pretty robust logistics system. The tour lengths are 2-3 years. If your job demanded that you relocate to another continent for 3 years I think we'd all expect some relocation assistance.
I am more surprised we are paying for soldiers to ship their vehicles around the world.
When you drive near a military base, it's a great time to play license plate bingo.
I've seen both Hawaii and Guam in Arizona.
Troops have families.
Home goods get shipped too, of course.
Free healthcare for the rest of your life. Help with college costs.. Funny how one of the biggest budget items in the country is used for a socialist system...
By dollars spent, the US operates the largest health and human services system in the world.
YTD, the US has spent approximately $4.5T[1] on health and human services, of which approximately $1.9T are health-related alone.
In 2024, the US Government's total revenue was approximately $4.9T[2].
[1] https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/feder...
[2] https://www.cbo.gov/publication/61185
Thank god most of that money goes to good capitalist middle men, or it would look like some kind of socialized welfare.
From quick reading, seems like if you serve at least 2 years (or leave from a service connected injury) and get an honorable discharge, you get VA healthcare, although lower priority levels have to pay copays, so not entirely free?
Looks like signing up for the military is an 8 year commitment, which is often at least 3 years of active duty and the remainder on reserves. Kind of a lot of commitment for health care, and kind of a lot of risk on the job. If you can manage to stay in for 20 years though, the pension seems pretty nice; I live near a navy base and a lot of parents of my kid's sports team are approaching 20 years, getting paid a pension while having a second career is pretty neat.
Most jobs don't get you shot at though. I mean shooting at my colleagues is frowned upon by HR in my office.
Most jobs in the US military don't involve shooting, or being shot at, either. Last major war, only 11% were combat forces. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tooth-to-tail_ratio
Shooting at your colleagues is frowned upon in the military, too.
Oh yeah true but in my job my colleagues are the enemies lol
high school understanding of "socialist system"
The Army needs to be able to move military hardware around the world quickly. Maybe they consider this good practice.
Unless things have changed, these are typically shipped on commercial vessels with the DOD covering the cost.
Yes, that's likely much cheaper than loading up an aircraft carrier with a bunch of Mustangs and Silverados. They're still likely bound to some sort of lowest bidder for contracts. It's also likely to be more economical than having the person find their own transport and reimbursing them.
OK, but maybe they plan to use the same group of commercial shippers for the miltary hardware. (Now you are going to tell me that most of these shippers are Chinese, completely demolishing my conjecture.)
If its an American to American port, the Jones act would mean an American shipper. I'm guessing they would use Chinese if it wasn't though.
> The Cybertruck has no type-approval from the European Union (EU) due to significant passive safety concerns. Several specifications of the Cybertruck, particularly the sharp-edged, stiff stainless-steel body, violate EU safety standards, primarily for the protection of vulnerable road users.
So it's too dangerous for pedestrians. Good, love to see a government stand up for its people now and then
Must be nice to live under a semi-functional government that tries to stop dangerous designs before they’re on the road.
Of course not. Over here we care about safety.
Good. I'm glad no exception was made for this reason.
Excellent news.
It's the same story for Australia, didn't we know this when it was launched?
In other news, the army thinks someone in the Army could afford one of those bizarre things.
If you remember Atari "Battlezone," one of the targets for your tank looks remarkably like a Cybertruck.
In 1980.
It absolutely can be imported and registered.
go to spz.penize.cz and lookup license plate 001CYBER, legally registered in Czechia go to ufg.pl and lookup the insurance policy for license plate S1K6, legally registered in Poland both countries are EU members and you can drive those cars anywhere in the EU
How? Even if it violates the safety standards? Or are you saying it doesn’t?
In many East European countries you can likely still get a license plate by bribing the right people
And the U. S. Army says otherwise. Soooo, got anything else?
Bottom story of the day?
> It is commonly known that the Cybertruck cannot be registered and operated in Germany.
Nothing much to do with the US Army.
They tend to get exceptions for much stuff, that makes it newsworthy.
They even get exempted from criminal law. Remember Anna Sacoolas who killed a teenager in the UK and quickly got repatriated before he could be brought to court?
Awful. But CIA, not army. And complicated by claims of immunity and police incompetence.
There might be some argument that brews in this thread and I just want to say that it's nearly impossible to debate someone into believing they should care about people they don't know.