How often does it happen in Chevys or Toyotas? Getting trapped in a car after a crash is common enough that there’s a cutesy nickname for the machine used by rescuers to get people out.
If I can't open the door on my CR-V after a crash it will be because there has been serious damage to the door itself or to the frame around the door. The locking and latching mechanisms are entirely in the door and do not rely on any other systems in the car to function. If the door is not severely damaged I can unlock it. If the frame is not damaged then if I can unlock it I can open it.
The incidents people are talking about with cars with electric locking or latching mechanisms I believe are where the door cannot be unlocked because the locking or latching mechanism depends on other systems in the car, typically the 12V power system.
A collision that takes down the 12V system but causes no damage whatsoever to the door or frame can then leave you with a door that would open just fine if you could unlock it, but you can't unlock it because it has no power.
Does the Bloomberg reporting distinguish between these cases?
One of their examples involves a driver who called 911 post-crash and reported they couldn’t open the door. Teslas have mechanical door handles on the interior of the front doors. It’s not hard to find. In fact, it’s so obvious that passengers unfamiliar with the car tend to use it rather than the button.
So what happened here? Did he never try the mechanical handle, or did he try it and it somehow didn’t work? Given how easy the handle is to find, I’d bet on the latter. And there’s nothing about this which makes me think your CR-V’s latch would have fared any better.
Did Bloomberg distinguish between “occupant would have been saved if there had been a mechanical handle” and “occupant would have been saved if the structure hadn’t jammed the door”? It doesn’t sound like it.
The basic fact is, people do get stuck inside crashed cars for all sorts of reasons. Electronic door handles add a new failure mode. But I’d like to know how the aggregate incidents compare, not just declare to be dangerous because it’s an additional failure mode.
This is not even remotely close to what I'd call "so obvious." The fact that to some people the button is even less obvious than the nearly-invisible "emergency" handle is not credit to your argument, I think.
There's a reason this video exists, and there is a reason many rideshare drivers with Teslas have stickers all over the place explaining how to use the thing. I suspect that's all related to the reason that Tesla is being investigated for trapping people.
You're right, it would require thorough analysis to fully bottom out (that's what investigations are for)
The reason rideshare drivers have stickers is because they don’t want people using the emergency release. It makes an alarm sound and scrapes the glass on the trim a bit when you use it.
I have one of these cars. I’ve never had a passenger who couldn’t immediately open the front door from the inside. I have had most of them try to open it the “wrong” way.
> they don’t want people using the emergency release. It makes an alarm sound and scrapes the glass on the trim a bit when you use it.
wait. waitwaitwaitwait.
previously, you said:
> Teslas have mechanical door handles on the interior of the front doors. It’s not hard to find. In fact, it’s so obvious that passengers unfamiliar with the car tend to use it rather than the button.
I'm having trouble believing those two things are both true.
are you seriously saying that Teslas have an "emergency" mechanical door handle...and it's placed in an obvious spot where passengers tend to grab for it...but using it sounds an alarm and scrapes up the car?
Yep. Model 3/Y do, anyway. I don’t think there’s typically any damage, but the potential is there. The alarm is a quick alert sound, similar to what you get if you open a door while in drive, or simultaneously press the accelerator and brake pedals.
It’s a silly design choice. But not, in my opinion, a dangerous one.
three things in life are certain: death, taxes, and whataboutism from Tesla apologists
from the article I linked:
> In an effort to take a comprehensive and systematic look at this issue, Bloomberg sought to examine every fatal EV crash in the US involving a fire. From there, the reporting centered around cases in which there was documented evidence that victims had survived initial impact, and that nonfunctional electric doors had impeded either the occupants’ efforts to escape or rescuers’ attempts to save those inside the vehicle.
this has nothing to do with the Jaws of Life. this is about the car catches fire and the door handles stop working.
There are a number of possible reasons that any car's doors might not work. Tesla, Ford, Toyota, doesn't matter. Those are just due to the laws of physics. No one is disputing that.
Teslas have an additional reason that their doors might not work in an emergency. And given the frequency with which it sounds like this is happening, it may be much more common in an emergency scenario for this particular situation to occur than for any of the others.
No one is claiming that any other car on the road is 100% safe in all situations. They are pointing out that Tesla has this extra, totally unnecessary, method of killing its occupants. Dying in terror. Trapped.
What you're doing is effectively like saying, "It's not bad that Evil Water™ With Cyanide kills you! People drown in water all the time! You can even die by drinking regular water if you drink too much! You really shouldn't focus on the cyanide in Evil Water™ With Cyanide!"
That’s a pretty good analogy. Water with cyanide in it does exist. How much of a problem is it? If given a choice between this world and an otherwise identical world with no cyanide-containing water, how eager are you to make the switch? If someone says to you that you should switch because 15 people died from cyanide water, would it be reasonable to inquire about the prevalence of other water-related deaths before making your decision?
Given that, to make the analogy work, the Evil Water™ With Cyanide costs more than most other water, and both types are readily available...I rather think I would never have picked up the Evil Water™ With Cyanide in the first place.
You’re in the grocery aisle choosing between, for whatever reason, almond milk and Coca Cola. Which one is healthier? I say, the almond milk contains cyanide so obviously the Coke is healthier. You’d have to be crazy to even ask how healthy Coke is after I told you that almond milk contains cyanide, right?
You really are absolutely determined to insist that this should not be a factor for anyone in deciding whether to get a Tesla, aren't you?
To the best of my knowledge (and I would be willing to bet money on it), no one in the history of the world has died from the cyanide in almond milk. Despite many millions of cartons of almond milk being sold and consumed every year.
A nontrivial number of people are known to have died specifically because of this failure of Teslas. It is not a hypothetical. It is a real, measurable danger.
Is that number high enough for any given person to choose not to get one? Well, it's high enough for me. And I think that arguing that it shouldn't be even a consideration, as you appear to be, is, at best, disingenuous, and at worst, actively risking people's lives for the sake of supporting a company you happen to like.
I’m absolutely determined to convince people to judge based on all the relevant facts.
An absolute shitload of people die in cars every year. It’s the most dangerous thing most of us do. I want to know what the increment is here. How does it compare to, say, my refusal to cut hamburgers out of my diet?
I’m not arguing it shouldn’t be a consideration. I’m arguing it should be considered as part of the totality of the evidence.
I can guarantee you that there are cars out there much more dangerous than a Tesla. (Anybody want a used Pinto?) If you were ever presented with that choice, I bet you’d have no problem understanding that the one with the electronic door handles is the better choice. And yet when I try to apply this idea more generally, I get attacked, belittled, and accused of risking people’s lives.
> One of the reasons the door handle would stop working is if the structure was bent enough to jam the doors.
right...if a car gets T-boned, that might jam the doors such that they couldn't open. that's true of every model of car.
I have a non-Tesla car, with "old-fashioned" manual door handles. if I got rear-ended, and my driver's side door wasn't physically damaged, I can reasonably expect that my door handle still works, right?
on a Tesla, that's not true. a rear-end collision that damages the electrical system can cause doors that are physically undamaged to stop working. that is a ludicrous design flaw.
You can still get out in a Tesla in that situation. There’s a mechanical release. Depending on the model, it’s either the regular handle, or a big obvious thing that people tend to pull instinctively instead of pushing the button.
The issue here is the exterior handles. Those are only electronic.
One of the reasons I’m skeptical of this reporting is that it doesn’t seem to distinguish. They talk about conscious, mobile drivers being trapped after a crash. If that happens, it’s not because of electronic door handles.
