German automotive club ADAC warns against retractable door handles

[Senzelian]

Summary

 

The German automotive club ADAC (Algemeiner Deutscher Automobil Club) warns against retractable door handles, as they can be a safety risk to those trapped in a car due to an accident.

 

In order to quickly rescue people from an accident vehicle, it is important for first responders to be able to open a vehicle from the outside quickly, easily and intuitively. Even more so if there is a vehicle fire. From the ADAC's point of view, retractable door handles, i.e. those that retract flush into the side of the car when parking and driving, could make this task significantly more difficult, especially for laypeople. But even professional rescue workers would take longer to get to the occupants.

 

 

 

 

Quotes (Translated by Google Translator)

 

Quote

 Some handles can be folded out manually by pressing on the front part of the handle, but many solutions rely on electric servomotors that only extend the handle automatically for operation. The automobile club points out that especially if the power supply is disrupted after an accident, the handle can remain retracted and accident helpers cannot reach the car occupants.

 

 

 

 

 

 

My thoughts

 

I'm completely with ADAC on this one. These things suck! Not only are they a pain to use compared to regular door handles, but they also are a major safety risk that is seemingly ignored by authorities. Not only can they fail and stop working, it's also not very intuitive to know where the emergency release is located and how some of them operate. If I would find a person stuck in a Tesla, BMW, Mercedes or any other car with such door handles, I would not know how to get the door open, if they stopped working or are still retracted.

 

 

 

 

Sources

 

https://de.motor1.com/news/714788/sicherheitsrisiko-versenkbare-tuergriffe-adac-warnt/

https://presse.adac.de/meldungen/adac-ev/technik/adac-warnt---versenkbare-tuergriffe-koennen-ein-sicherheitsrisiko-sein.html

[Spotty]

> Moved to Off Topic. Door handles and motor vehicle safety are not Tech News.

Tech News means news regarding technology or gaming. Please don't post topics in this forum that don't have a strong relation to technology/games.

[Stahlmann]

Not to mention, some parts of Germany can get very cold during the winter. It's great to stand in front of your car without any way to get in because the handles are frozen over.

 

If people are trapped inside a crashed vehicle, most of the time the doors are automatically locked, unless there is a feature that automatically opens the doors upon impact. So firefighters typically need to break off the doors or smash the windows to get people out quickly.

[Poinkachu]

First time I ever heard of a retractable door handle on car...

Honestly.., with so many parts jutting out on a car, why bother making door handles retractable.... especially motorized one...

 

1 less shit to worry about when shit happens, yes please.

[Senzelian]

Just now, Spotty said:

> Moved to Off Topic. Door handles and motor vehicle safety are not Tech News.

Tech News means news regarding technology or gaming. Please don't post topics in this forum that don't have a strong relation to technology/games.

Sorry, electrically operated door handles seemed like tech to me.

[Stahlmann]

2 minutes ago, Poinkachu said:

First time I ever heard of a retractable door handle on car...

Honestly.., with so many parts jutting out on a car, why bother making door handles retractable.... especially motorized one...

2 reasons mostly:

- Aesthetics

- Aerodynamic drag

[Poinkachu]

Just now, Stahlmann said:

2 reasons mostly:

- Aesthetics

- Aerodynamic drag

How about side mirrors and useless jutted out accessories

[Stahlmann]

1 minute ago, Poinkachu said:

How about side mirrors and useless jutted out accessories

They're already working on getting rid of side mirrors and putting small cameras in their place, with accompanying displays in the door to show the camera feed.

 

[Poinkachu]

Just now, Stahlmann said:

They're already working on getting rid of side mirrors and putting small cameras in their place, with accompanying displays in the door to show the camera feed.

 

Oh boi...

I would hate that...

[Senzelian]

4 minutes ago, Stahlmann said:

2 reasons mostly:

- Aesthetics

- Aerodynamic drag

Realistically companies are building these door handles into their cars for marketing purposes. It looks futuristic and attracts attention. The aesthetics argument I kind of get, but aerodynamics are not the reason they do it. They claim to do it for that reason, but we all know flush door handles have been a thing for decades, without them being electrically operated.

[Stahlmann]

13 minutes ago, Poinkachu said:

Oh boi...

I would hate that...

Yes, we're already a few years down the road where cars are getting worse with each new generation because they're moving further and further away from making functionality a priority. Replacing a foolproof physical mirror with a camera and display that can both fail is not the way to go. Or replacing dedicated buttons for AC control or windscreen wipers with a submenu on a touch screen...

 

Not to mention that every tiny bit of useless technology they put in jacks up the price, which you can easily see by some models like the Audi A6 (which represented a standard mid-range family wagon some years ago) starting at 57,000 € nowadays in it's base configuration. And if you know German car brands, base configuration means you're lucky if it includes AC. EVERYTHING is optional and configurable. So a decent configuration with maybe a different color will quickly go over 60-70K. What normal family can afford a 70K car?

 

So while some people may not be bothered by these "features", they're still paying for them.

[Motifator]

23 hours ago, Stahlmann said:

which you can easily see by some models like the Audi A6 (which represented a standard mid-range family wagon some years ago) starting at 57,000 € nowadays in it's base configuration. And if you know German car brands, base configuration means you're lucky if it includes AC. EVERYTHING is optional and configurable. So a decent configuration with maybe a different color will quickly go over 60-70K. What normal family can afford a 70K car?

 

So while some people may not be bothered by these "features", they're still paying for them.

Including AC is luck? Lol, what era are we in? A lot of cheap cars come with manageable AC, come on.

But I'm going to agree with the jacked up prices when options are picked. This is exactly why second hand cars carry a lot more value per euros or whatever.

The dawn of cheaply built electric cars caused all this. Back in the old days, it required a lot of components to come up with a luxury car. Nowadays even premium segment EVs look like children's toys in lots of areas. I figure this is happening over profit margins.

[atxcyclist]

On 4/4/2024 at 7:12 AM, Stahlmann said:

2 reasons mostly:

- Aesthetics

- Aerodynamic drag

I’m extremely OK with the little bit of drag VS all the servos, sensors, and hardware required to have retractable door handles. It’s added complexity where there truly doesn’t need to be any, like many things being put into cars these days.

[Neroon]

On 4/4/2024 at 2:18 PM, Poinkachu said:

Oh boi...

I would hate that...

Why?

 

Obviously, if they break down it's far more problematic than a broken mirror, but if they work properly, they can work way better than regular mirrors and be a lot safer. Imo this is the kind of tech in cars that actually improves a car.

 

To be clear, I prefer the look of nice mirrors and all that, but purely from a safety standpoint, these should win this.

[Poinkachu]

1 hour ago, Neroon said:

Why?

 

Obviously, if they break down it's far more problematic than a broken mirror, but if they work properly, they can work way better than regular mirrors and be a lot safer. Imo this is the kind of tech in cars that actually improves a car.

 

To be clear, I prefer the look of nice mirrors and all that, but purely from a safety standpoint, these should win this.

Less things that requires me to rely on just the monitor inside my car = better.

That's my preference.

 

If it's just retractable side mirror if the cable in is somehow broken, I can just force push it to open.

If it's a camera and somehow the cabling inside is broken... well......

Like I've said, less shit I need to worry about when shit happens is better.

 

When it's about safer or not safer, to me mostly it depends on the driver.

 

I don't even bother looking at my mom new car's monitor when reverse parking or going on reverse.

Last time I tried to, the car ended up around 30cm more forward than other cars in the parking lot, so I ended up looking behind the old way anyway.

[atxcyclist]

2 hours ago, Neroon said:

Why?

 

Obviously, if they break down it's far more problematic than a broken mirror, but if they work properly, they can work way better than regular mirrors and be a lot safer. Imo this is the kind of tech in cars that actually improves a car.

 

To be clear, I prefer the look of nice mirrors and all that, but purely from a safety standpoint, these should win this.

They will break, there’s countless failure points compared to a simple mirror. These systems will be dependent on the model of car, so down the line it will make a car unfixable when the parts are no longer available. You can always kludge something to work as a mirror.

 

I would argue that in the last half-century, computerized fuel injection, air bags, and ABS are the only added complexities in cars that were worth the trade-off in repair difficulty. Almost everything else drivers really benefit from (power windows, power locks, power steering, and air-conditioning), came earlier.

The last almost twenty years of car engineering has made the long-term, and even short-term reliability of cars worse, with the added complexity of things like video mirrors and all the radio equipment for tire pressure monitoring. Drivers just don’t need that stuff.

[Neroon]

4 hours ago, Poinkachu said:

Less things that requires me to rely on just the monitor inside my car = better.

That's my preference.

 

If it's just retractable side mirror if the cable in is somehow broken, I can just force push it to open.

If it's a camera and somehow the cabling inside is broken... well......

Like I've said, less shit I need to worry about when shit happens is better.

 

When it's about safer or not safer, to me mostly it depends on the driver.

 

I don't even bother looking at my mom new car's monitor when reverse parking or going on reverse.

Last time I tried to, the car ended up around 30cm more forward than other cars in the parking lot, so I ended up looking behind the old way anyway.

An how would a screen be different from a mirror? Like actually, what would the difference be?

How would the cable break? There are no moving parts. Do you have any idea whatsoever how many cables there are in your car, and how most if broken it won't be allowed on the road or function? A cable breaking is a really irrational fear.

 

Something can be objectively safer regardless of the driver, it's that simple. Vision is key here, and a camera will be able to pick up more than the mirrors we use on cars. We all know we have a blind spot, and you can argue that you never make a mistake there, somethings, like bikers, can be much easier to miss, even when you check your blind spot properly. I've been in that position where I thought I saw something in my mirror, didn't see anything over my shoulder, not switching lanes only to see a bike a second later passing me on my right. This would not be an issue with a camera.

 

I don't care that the biker was wrong, that he made an illegal move, the camera would have picked it up, and I barely did, if I had looked 0.3 seconds later, I would have hit him.

 

Trucks (Semi's) have been using them more and more here, and they contribute to safety.

The difference between driving with a camera monitor system and mirrors | Volvo Trucks

3 hours ago, atxcyclist said:

They will break, there’s countless failure points compared to a simple mirror. These systems will be dependent on the model of car, so down the line it will make a car unfixable when the parts are no longer available. You can always kludge something to work as a mirror.

 

I would argue that in the last half-century, computerized fuel injection, air bags, and ABS are the only added complexities in cars that were worth the trade-off in repair difficulty. Almost everything else drivers really benefit from (power windows, power locks, power steering, and air-conditioning), came earlier.

The last almost twenty years of car engineering has made the long-term, and even short-term reliability of cars worse, with the added complexity of things like video mirrors and all the radio equipment for tire pressure monitoring. Drivers just don’t need that stuff.

I find the fear of technology in car quite surprising, especially at places like this.

 

Technology in vehicles are made in a different way then in most other cases, especially when they are part of the safety of the car. They don't use high end hardware in tight packages that pushes the limit and cooling of a device. Instead they use older hardware that is known for their reliability. Our cars are already filled with technology, and most of it doesn't break. Mind you, I don't know if we are there yet with these mirrors, the argument here isn't that they should be pushed in every car now, but rather that they should find their way in every vehicle when they are proven to be perfectly reliable. Obviously anything can break, but then I would recommend walking.

 

I see a lot of people pushing against technology in cars, because they don't like large Tesla screens etc, and I agree that Tesla's approach is horrible, and others following Tesla is even worse. However we shouldn't fear technology in cars because of it, and we should realize they are filled with it. My car is from 2009 and it's loaded up with technology, and all without any failures btw.

 

But as always, technology needs to be absolutely safe. I remember reading about 1 of those sensors in the mirrors that detects whether you can safely change lanes, except in that car it wouldn't always detect bikers. That is absolutely unacceptable. 
I've also driven a car with lane assist, except it was a pile of trash and when I moved to the left of the lane because a truck wasn't paying attention and crossed over to my lane, it pushed me back to the middle of the lane because it thought I was the 1 fucking up. Horrible stuff. But again, if made reliable, I'm all for it.

[Poinkachu]

1 hour ago, Neroon said:

An how would a screen be different from a mirror? Like actually, what would the difference be?

How would the cable break? There are no moving parts. Do you have any idea whatsoever how many cables there are in your car, and how most if broken it won't be allowed on the road or function? A cable breaking is a really irrational fear.

 

Something can be objectively safer regardless of the driver, it's that simple. Vision is key here, and a camera will be able to pick up more than the mirrors we use on cars. We all know we have a blind spot, and you can argue that you never make a mistake there, somethings, like bikers, can be much easier to miss, even when you check your blind spot properly. I've been in that position where I thought I saw something in my mirror, didn't see anything over my shoulder, not switching lanes only to see a bike a second later passing me on my right. This would not be an issue with a camera.

 

I don't care that the biker was wrong, that he made an illegal move, the camera would have picked it up, and I barely did, if I had looked 0.3 seconds later, I would have hit him.

 

Trucks (Semi's) have been using them more and more here, and they contribute to safety.

The difference between driving with a camera monitor system and mirrors | Volvo Trucks

I find the fear of technology in car quite surprising, especially at places like this.

*Sigh*
Like I've said, that's my preference.

And yet you are sounding like I'm fearmongering or something.

I simply do not like to rely on monitors that much when its not needed.

And I simply don't like heavier burden on me when it does break, or when I bought the car.

 

I do not fear tech, It's just that for me this particular thing is not that useful at the very least, and in fact in some countries, like mine, it might even be even useless and/or a very heavy burden in the long run.

 

For me personally, I doubt I can miss bikers. There is only around 125 million REGISTERED motorbike in my country, which at 2022 has a population of 275 million. In my city alone there's around 17 millions at 2022, and it increases exponentially each year.

And their driving habit is IMHO second to India, if not worse by now.

 

90% of the scratches and bumps on my car happened when my car is standing still, mostly by a motorbike. Not to mention they often hit my side mirror too when my car is standing perfectly still. Will digital side mirror help with that? no. Why? because my car can't move anyway.

Reimbursement? good luck.

edit : to emphasize "standing still", I don't mean I just stopped, I mean my car has not been moving at all for atleast 30 seconds.

Forgot to add, yes, I can stop farther from the front car and give me more room to move forward if I sense a motorbike gonna bump into me, but it will only either :

- Good for the next 5 minutes

or

- The motorbike will use the space as a shortcut and might bump into the front end of my car anyway.

or

- One will be pissed off that I didn't use space "efficiently", pass by my car and then slam my hood using either fist or helmet.

 

This is daily basis, non rush hour today

 

Rush hour today, well, pretty much double it.

edit : removed 2nd video because it's pointless, first video should suffice as example too.

Edited April 6 by Poinkachu

[da na]

58 minutes ago, Neroon said:

An how would a screen be different from a mirror? Like actually, what would the difference be?

How would the cable break? There are no moving parts. Do you have any idea whatsoever how many cables there are in your car, and how most if broken it won't be allowed on the road or function? A cable breaking is a really irrational fear.

 

Something can be objectively safer regardless of the driver, it's that simple. Vision is key here, and a camera will be able to pick up more than the mirrors we use on cars. We all know we have a blind spot, and you can argue that you never make a mistake there, somethings, like bikers, can be much easier to miss, even when you check your blind spot properly. I've been in that position where I thought I saw something in my mirror, didn't see anything over my shoulder, not switching lanes only to see a bike a second later passing me on my right. This would not be an issue with a camera.

 

I don't care that the biker was wrong, that he made an illegal move, the camera would have picked it up, and I barely did, if I had looked 0.3 seconds later, I would have hit him.

 

Trucks (Semi's) have been using them more and more here, and they contribute to safety.

The difference between driving with a camera monitor system and mirrors | Volvo Trucks

I find the fear of technology in car quite surprising, especially at places like this.

 

Technology in vehicles are made in a different way then in most other cases, especially when they are part of the safety of the car. They don't use high end hardware in tight packages that pushes the limit and cooling of a device. Instead they use older hardware that is known for their reliability. Our cars are already filled with technology, and most of it doesn't break. Mind you, I don't know if we are there yet with these mirrors, the argument here isn't that they should be pushed in every car now, but rather that they should find their way in every vehicle when they are proven to be perfectly reliable. Obviously anything can break, but then I would recommend walking.

 

I see a lot of people pushing against technology in cars, because they don't like large Tesla screens etc, and I agree that Tesla's approach is horrible, and others following Tesla is even worse. However we shouldn't fear technology in cars because of it, and we should realize they are filled with it. My car is from 2009 and it's loaded up with technology, and all without any failures btw.

 

But as always, technology needs to be absolutely safe. I remember reading about 1 of those sensors in the mirrors that detects whether you can safely change lanes, except in that car it wouldn't always detect bikers. That is absolutely unacceptable. 
I've also driven a car with lane assist, except it was a pile of trash and when I moved to the left of the lane because a truck wasn't paying attention and crossed over to my lane, it pushed me back to the middle of the lane because it thought I was the 1 fucking up. Horrible stuff. But again, if made reliable, I'm all for it.

Electronics that have broken in my mother's car over the past 2 years, with no involvement in accidents:

-Left mirror camera

-Automatic tailgate open/close switch

-Rotary encoder to enable 4WD

-Button to retract sunroof

 

All electronics. 

 

Also, a real mirror will look way better than a camera and screen. Optical is always > digital. Why add screens and cameras anyway if a mirror can do the same job cheaper and better.

 

Electronics that add useful features, like lane assist, are appreciated. Electronics that can be ignored or turned off and have a manual override, like the automatic tailgate and camera system, are fine. 
But when a critical part of a car is dependent on tiny electronics, with no alternative... 

[atxcyclist]

42 minutes ago, Neroon said:

I find the fear of technology in car quite surprising, especially at places like this.

I spin wrenches on my own vehicles as well as family and friend’s stuff, it’s absolutely not ‘fear’, it’s knowing from experience that those types of things usually have a higher failure rate than traditional designs; They are more complicated to diagnose and typically much harder to get replacement parts for. Car parts are cost-down as much as possible, people that don’t like all the added stuff are not luddites, they’re in many cases just pragmatic and understand that tech is a failure point.

 

I bought new basically the cheapest Japanese-made car you could get in the U.S. in 2005, it has an acceptable level of complication as far as I’m concerned: Fuel injection, power amenities like locks, windows, and mirrors, ABS, and while mine is a stick shift the 4-speed automatic that was offered is very reliable as well.

I can diagnose any OBD-II problem with a $60 scanner, and fix basically anything with a regular tool set. That simplicity means down the line that car can stay on the road, rather than going to a scrapyard because a piece of overly-complicated safety equipment has failed, and cannot be replaced.
 

[Poinkachu]

1 hour ago, da na said:

Electronics that have broken in my mother's car over the past 2 years, with no involvement in accidents:

-Left mirror camera

-Automatic tailgate open/close switch

-Rotary encoder to enable 4WD

-Button to retract sunroof

 

All electronics. 

 

Also, a real mirror will look way better than a camera and screen. Optical is always > digital. Why add screens and cameras anyway if a mirror can do the same job cheaper and better.

 

Electronics that add useful features, like lane assist, are appreciated. Electronics that can be ignored or turned off and have a manual override, like the automatic tailgate and camera system, are fine. 
But when a critical part of a car is dependent on tiny electronics, with no alternative... 

Hell... even my cabin lamp acted weird one time, which mechanic said because of loose cable. I'm guessing due to vibration or something.

Thankfully it's just something that doesn't have any impact on whether or not I can drive without accident, annoying though since it acted when I actually needed it.

 

If it's something like side mirror cam... and I'm in the middle of freakin nowhere, I'd be pissed and starting to regret some decisions.

[wanderingfool2]

On 4/4/2024 at 5:13 AM, Poinkachu said:

How about side mirrors and useless jutted out accessories

Fun fact, side mirrors can increase EV range 2 - 9% in some cases.  [Some people estimate for Tesla vehicles it's around 6%]

 

EV's and their range are greatly dependent on aerodynamics.

 

So even if you use side mirrors as an example, it doesn't mean you don't want to minimize it as much as you can elsewhere.  While the handles might only make up for a small percent, every bit ends up helping [even if it was 0.5% extra range, that's an extra $5 for every $1000 spent on electricity]

 

As an fyi, Tesla has wanted to get rid of side mirrors and just use their repeater cameras as alternatives for years now, but NHTSA has pretty much disallowed it and makes it a requirement.

 

3 hours ago, da na said:

Also, a real mirror will look way better than a camera and screen. Optical is always > digital. Why add screens and cameras anyway if a mirror can do the same job cheaper and better.

Not necessarily true, some of the cameras being deployed in vehicles now are better than you could see at night-time.  In cases like that digital is better than the optical equivalent mirror.  Also the cameras can offer a better range of view than conventional mirrors for the blind-spots

[BlueChinchillaEatingDorito]

10 hours ago, da na said:

Electronics that have broken in my mother's car over the past 2 years, with no involvement in accidents:

-Left mirror camera

-Automatic tailgate open/close switch

-Rotary encoder to enable 4WD

-Button to retract sunroof

 

All electronics. 

 

Also, a real mirror will look way better than a camera and screen. Optical is always > digital. Why add screens and cameras anyway if a mirror can do the same job cheaper and better.

 

Electronics that add useful features, like lane assist, are appreciated. Electronics that can be ignored or turned off and have a manual override, like the automatic tailgate and camera system, are fine. 
But when a critical part of a car is dependent on tiny electronics, with no alternative... 

My rain-sensing wipers only work in bright sunny conditions. 

[Monkey Dust]

On 4/4/2024 at 1:09 PM, Stahlmann said:

Not to mention, some parts of Germany can get very cold during the winter. It's great to stand in front of your car without any way to get in because the handles are frozen over.

 

If people are trapped inside a crashed vehicle, most of the time the doors are automatically locked, unless there is a feature that automatically opens the doors upon impact. So firefighters typically need to break off the doors or smash the windows to get people out quickly.

If a vehicle has automatic locking, it should auto unlock in the event of an accident. The big issue is when the handles aren't connected to the locking mechanism by mechanical means. If the power fails as a result of the accident, the regular door handle won't work, and the emergency override ones are frequently too well hidden.

8 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Fun fact, side mirrors can increase EV range 2 - 9% in some cases.  [Some people estimate for Tesla vehicles it's around 6%]

 

EV's and their range are greatly dependent on aerodynamics.

Making it somewhat infuriating that so many new EVs are SUVs.

45 minutes ago, BlueChinchillaEatingDorito said:

My rain-sensing wipers only work in bright sunny conditions. 

Rain sensing wiper are a weird one. I thought they should be getting better, but still, the best rain sensing wipers I've ever used was on a 2001 Alfa 147. And as much as I loved that car, its electronics weren't something I normally praised...

[wanderingfool2]

6 hours ago, Monkey Dust said:

If a vehicle has automatic locking, it should auto unlock in the event of an accident. The big issue is when the handles aren't connected to the locking mechanism by mechanical means. If the power fails as a result of the accident, the regular door handle won't work, and the emergency override ones are frequently too well hidden.

Honestly though, in a lot of accidents your door is part of the crumple zone so it makes the handle pretty pointless [as even at low speeds, like sub 40 km/h is enough to make the passenger doors really difficult to open due to the warpedness].  Honestly, the only situation at the moment that I can think of is really when it's a lower speed accident and your car catches fire.

 

As for the emergency override, it's something that drivers should be responsible and know before driving...just like checking your mirrors, rear-view mirrors before driving, when you buy a new car figure out the safety features...and buy one of the window smashers, seat belt cutters, as if you fall into water that can be pretty vital.