The strength requirements are similar to the US standard (resistance to point loads of 50kN at 1/8th of the horizontal member from the outside, 100kN at the centerline, and 50kN at 355~635mm from the centerline), but the EU has mandated front and side guards (as well as back which the US also mandates) since 1994.
Of note: a 2012 IIHS study indicated that only 15% of collisions between cars and large trucks were rear collisions , 22% are to the side of the truck, and 63 to the front.
Bicyclists have way less momentum, so sliding under would be less of a risk, I think. They experience plenty of other risks though.
I'm not in the market (nor the region), but for a new semi-truck plus bed I guess you're going to expend north of $200K. A thousand or two in security features is absolutely nothing. So instead of a low percentage of vehicles expending a little money on security features, they want the rest of the world to buy way more expensive and ridiculously big cars? Upgrading a single vehicle to a SUV would be way more expensive than their upgrades.
Regular cars have all sorts of active and passive safety features for the people inside, and for pedestrians and other vehicles outside, and that's fine. I don't tell pedestrians to buy an armor if they want to be safe when I'm driving around.
From the article:
> The beefier, more robust rear guards would’ve cost an additional $127 each, according to industry estimates.
I'm inclined to think that 127 USD (even if the side rails were a little bit more expensive because they're larger) is not too expensive for a feature like this.
Also, I think that in Europe these rails are already mandatory. At least the rear guard is required in The Netherlands if the trailer protrudes >60cm at the rear iirc.