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.
