There's no reason why an entire sedan should fit under the trailer of a truck.
This is what a truck designed for safety looks like: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3f/Artic.lo...
Notice how no part of it is higher off the ground than a foot or so. Way too low for a car to fit under.
This is what truck in the US looks like: http://www.center-linecurtains.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/0...
Notice how you could hide a sports car underneath.
There is, it's called capitalism, and a safety skirt costs money.
The fix is, as in many cases, regulations. However, I believe that even the shown safety skirt leaves too much space below, and especially exposed tires, which is still dangerous for pedestrians and bikers.
As for pedestrians and bikers, I really really like Europe's solution to that problem: Pedestrian and Bikers are illegal on the freeway. Big trucks are made strongly and forcefully impractical in cities, towns, and villages.
It's crazy that I live in downtown SF and there are huge freight trucks driving past my bedroom window every day.
It's dangerous as hell, but impractical to do any other way...
Deliveries inside the city are done with smaller lorries which are a bit safer maybe. If not safer, definitely more practical on tight inner-city streets.
I don't think it's practical for trucks to be designed as pedestrian safe as modern city buses are, so it's better to keep them away from pedestrians as much as possible.
I don't think capitalism is the issue.
Saving resources by skipping on safety features is not exclusive to capitalism. If anything, the correlation seems to run backwards - capitalist countries are generally safer (mostly, I'd say, because they're rich enough to spend extra resources on safety).
In case of non-profits and the government people might actually sue for wasting of money because money is spent on stuff that is not required by law.
Can you give an example of such a lawsuit ever having succeeded?
Tesla have statistics on their side so far, but they still have not done a fraction of kilometres travelled by conventional means.
I hope the technology moves forward, but the technology is not there yet and won't be appearing on a majority of new cars for decades.
I predict - moreso than fear - that as more of these incidents occur (and I am confident there will be more), more people will lose their trust in self-driving cars.
Consider the following: The safest form of transportation is air travel. Yet despite the overwhelming evidence in air transport's favour, a significant portion of people are afraid to get on an aeroplane. Indeed, an aeroplane can practical fly itself (and have been able to for decades), yet few of us would feel safe if there wasn't a pilot on board.
Surely the same fears will soon apply to self-driving cars?
I also hear people telling me that they would not be comfortable with a passenger on a self-driving bus. Anecdotal evidence, I know. And since they haven't actually experienced one, I still think the jury is out on this one; but it still strike me as curious that rational people are not always swayed by statistics.
Even if it's statistically safer than the alternative.
This is the future of roadsafety.