This is a failure of regulation.

Companies come and go. The idea is that we have simple, efficient, long lasting gov orgs that can make sure each new company doesn’t repeat moronic mistakes like this in the name of design.

▲

mediaman 10 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The funny thing is that Elon has been very critical of regulation in car design, such as the rules around the side-view mirrors (he wanted to get rid of them and replace with cameras).

But then they find something unregulated and manage to flub it so badly it makes a strong case for regulation.

I'm not sure if Elon was involved in these door handles on the interior, though I do recall he was very involved in the early touch-to-expose exterior handles and insisted they use them despite internal engineering pushback. I think a lot of the bad engineering designs seem to originate from internal engineers getting overruled by Elon.

▲

jp191919 10 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Many countries (EU, Japan) allow cameras instead of side mirrors, but not the US.

	▲	kennywinker 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		But are they a good idea? Many countries allow these dumb door handles…

▲

kypro 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I always found what we regulate and don't regulate when it comes to motor vehicles interesting...

Demanding Tesla's need door handle regulation because of safety concerns lacks perspective given how relatively safe Teslas are, and that current regulation allows people to buy vehicles which go 60MPH+ on just two wheels, no airbags, and no doors at all.

It would be cool if Tesla can come up with something a bit safer if there are problems with their door handles, but ultimately I think the only regulation required would be transparency of safety data. If Tesla's are really dangerous people should know that and decide if they want to buy one anyway. Although two-wheeled motor vehicles are death traps, I don't think we should introduce regulation requiring all motor vehicles have four wheels. If people want to buy a vehicle with two-wheels, that's up to them.

I disagree that something as insignificant as a car door handle needs to be regulated to save at best a handful of lives a year – lives which probably could have been saved more effectively with other safety changes (perhaps many of which Teslas already have). Ultimately if you're in a car where your life depends on the design of a door handle, that's a problem already, and not one door handle regulation will necessarily be best suited to address.

Just let manufacturers innovate... If a car is extremely unsafe so long as consumers know that then manufacturers will have a strong incentive to improve safety in innovative ways.

	▲	kennywinker 5 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> current regulation allows people to buy vehicles which go 60MPH+ on just two wheels, no airbags, and no doors at all Are you talking about motorcycles?? Yeah nobody thinks motorcycles are safe. But the issues with them are inherent to the form, not created by the design. To be clear, i also think motorcycles should be regulated better. The tiny signal lights on a honda cbr are obviously a creation of valuing design over safety. > Just let manufacturers innovate... We did. They innovated door handles that depend on the car electronics functioning, headlights that blind other drivers, and monthly subscriptions to unlock heated seats.
	▲	gamblor956 9 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Bloomberg found over 140 people who had suffered injuries in Tesla crashes due to Tesla using a non-standard mechanism for opening the doors. To put things in comparison, there were fewer injuries associated with the infamous Ford Pinto and its explosive fuel tank, and that was considered one of the most dangerous cars ever made in the U.S.

▲

potato3732842 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

This isn't a failure of regulation. It's a failure of engineering culture. It's an industry fad or circle jerk, same as any other.

Blaming "but the law didn't say I couldn't do this" fails to properly ascribe blame and serves to excuse the peddlers of bad culture.

The Telsa handle and copycats are figment of stupid engineering circle jerk culture allowed to run unrestrained. These people are disposed to do all sorts of insane actuator and automation implementations to avoid having to design a simple part to withstand the force of a human operating it.

There are many ways to do a fold flush manual handle/lever and hook that up to a traditional door mechanism and/or make it automatic (the latter is a feature of every high end minivan side door in the past 20yr).

The problem isn't that there was no regulator saying no The problem is that they wanted to do the stupid at all. If there was a law forbidding this particular implementation of stupid they'd find a different one. You can't legislate them all. You have to solve the culture.

	▲	kennywinker 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		It can be both. That the engineers have bad culture means they suggest a moronic idea. That the regulators have been neutered means nobody stopped them. That nobody stopped them means they got away with it, which means no motivation to change culture. And the circle jerk goes ‘round and round.