Calling a cybertruck too dangerous shows a quite high degree of regulatory conservatism. That could be good from some perspectives, but in the long-term it will leave the EU increasingly irrelevant as things develop, because new things always come with risks. But if your standard of unacceptable danger is 'hardened electric truck' then you'll be increasingly far behind on the curve of adoption, to say nothing of creation, of new tech because they'll all certainly go well beyond that.
Go back to times past and think about electricity for instance. Can you even imagine? 'Yeah we'd uh like to set up these poles all around the countryside and string some wires between them. And yeah if anybody touches those wire, they die and all the electricity gets screwed up. If lightning strikes them or a tree falls on them, yeah they're gonna fall and start fires. And there will be live wires - and uh yeah again, touch 'em and you die. Anyhow, we good to go? In exchange for this totally-safe-tech we'll be able to have electric lights! I mean how cool is that? Err and in full disclosure about those lights, uh don't touch the sockets or well.. you know, yeah - you die. Okay, so we good to go?'
Don't be daft, I don't think Europe's at risk of becoming irrelevant because they put a greater emphasis on pedestrian safety than the US.
Perhaps just look at a few ancient European towns with cobbled streets with no pavements, no wider than 2.5M and hairpin turns at many junctions. Perhaps it's just a product that doesn't suit the market.
If gasoline cars were invented today, they would be immediately banned because gas is a deadly poison and fire hazard. It would be considered crazy to allow just anyone to pump gas into their car.
Ironically it's the US that's a lot more regulatorily conservative when it comes to automobiles than the EU, if you look at things like matrix headlamps, replacing the wing mirrors with cameras, flashing brake lights, etc.
"A car with sharp metal edges that slices up pedestrians" is not a technical development.