Interested to see how this turns out. I'd like to see a size comparison. Is this actually a reasonably-sized vehicle, like a pre-2000 pickup, or just a cheap modern monster truck? Sadly it's not on carsized.com (yet).
If the company is still around 5 years from now, I could see myself getting one of these to replace our current "compact" (but still enormous) SUV.
Yet it still has a relatively tall, straight hood that tends to drag people underneath the car. These designs are terrible in pedestrian accidents; to a significantly greater degree when children are involved.
The hood is very short and you sit way closer to the ground. I have driven one of their comparison vehicles (the 1985 toyota) with a very similar profile. There is no way you are missing someone in front of you compare to other vehicles. This thing sits lower and gives better visibility than many SUVs people are driving. This truck is small.
Compared to that Toyota the sightlines are objectively worse with the longer hood. Using the comparison cars the hood stands at 1.12m before the sloped part; a 6 year old could easily stand in front of that and you'd never see them.
Compared to a Toyota corolla, there's at least a 50% higher fatality risk in pedestrian accidents solely from the higher hood. That's for the general population. Given how these fatalities usually work, the risk to children is exponentially higher. There are dozens of studies on this.
No, this car isn't the worse offender, but lets not forget the important part here: This hood design is exclusively done for aesthetics.
You've got the direction right, but the numbers are inflated in the Slate's disfavor. The 1.12m is an unmeasured estimate of the hood's high point; the figure that actually drives risk is the leading edge, realistically ~40–42" here — the very floor of the "tall" category. The "50%+ solely from the hood" is really IIHS's 45%, and that's a bin average for everything over 40", a group dominated by full-size trucks whose leading edges sit at 46–50"+. A vehicle sitting right at the 40" line doesn't carry that average, and the 45% bundles height with front-end shape, so it was never "solely" the hood. The F-150 and Silverado people are actually buying are a clear tier worse than the truck you're complaining about.
Kids, women, and the elderly do take a disproportionate share, but nobody measured anything "exponential". "Dozens of studies" is fair. "Exclusively for aesthetics" isn't, though: the front houses a 7 cu ft frunk, and more importantly the Slate's short hood and modest height give it a smaller forward blind zone and better sight-lines than a full-size truck, which is the axis that decides whether the driver sees the kid at all, and the one the 45% fatality stat doesn't even cover. The real villains here are taller, longer-nosed, and parked in way more driveways than this thing will ever be.
This vehicle is a step in the right direction, especially for the urban environment. If we really cared, everyone would drive a Honda Acty in urban zones.
It's still square rather than sloped, and higher than massive vehicles like the Pacifica. It might be low enough that it'll bounce an adult off the hood rather than drag them underneath, but it'll still drag kids underneath.
That 1985 Toyota had a radiator in the grill so had a reason for that shape. This truck doesn't.
If the company is still around 5 years from now, I could see myself getting one of these to replace our current "compact" (but still enormous) SUV.