> The important thing to note about the moose test is that it doesn't specify that the moose has to survive.
The moose test is about safely dodging around a moose that wanders out onto the road without wrecking the vehicle.
Why did you write this long comment as if you were an expert on the moose test if you don't even know what the moose test is? That's an incredibly disingenuous thing to do.
I assume because they want to see less vehicle traffic on the road. Arguments along these lines are thrown out by people that hate cars on the road to help change the argument from facts to 'what about the children'.
Your second point is also untrue. The shape and structure of traditional car crumple zones and impact areas like the hood and headlights have a significant impact on pedestrian survivability: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257775117_Crumple_z...
These zones are explicitly designed with pedestrian safety in mind, as it is a specific area of testing for roadworthiness certifications: https://www.euroncap.com/en/vehicle-safety/the-ratings-expla...
> The important thing to note about the moose test is that it doesn't specify that the moose has to survive. It's simply a test of whether the occupants will survive hitting a moose.
Completely wrong: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moose_test
The car fails the test (at that speed) if the "moose" is hit at all (or it skids, turns or tips over).
Ideally in the moose test the moose and car never make contact. It is a test of the car's ability to safely support extreme evasive manoeuvres, rather than its crash survivability.
Tall SUVs typically fare worse at this because of their higher centre of gravity causing instability:
The important thing to note about the moose test is that it doesn't specify that the moose has to survive. It's simply a test of whether the occupants will survive hitting a moose. I would wager anything that is designed to pass the moose test will kill anything that it hits that is below the moose's center of gravity. So actually the vehicle is way less safe for pedestrians than a vehicle that would fail the moose test.
But if all that matters is the safety of the occupant I guess this is okay.
> * The lack of engine means the entire front part of the car is a huge crumple zone. This gives designers more wriggle room for pedestrian protection too. This is an increasingly important requirement in road safety standards.
The kind of "crumple zone" that enhances pedestrian and cyclist safety is more like a beer can. Again, the crumple zones in this vehicle are designed to keep the occupants safe but not designed to keep any other road user safe.