Burnend alive inside a Tesla as rescuers fail to open the car's door

Door handle design and emergency release

• Several comments focus on Tesla’s emergency latches: they exist, but are seen as unintuitive and poorly documented for panicked use.
• A key criticism is the lack of an obvious, purely mechanical way for outsiders (bystanders, rescuers) to open doors when power or electronics fail.
• People note that Tesla itself has acknowledged the problem and plans changes, which reinforces the sense that the current design is flawed.

Over-complex tech in safety‑critical controls

• Many see door handles, wipers, and turn signals as “solved problems” that have been needlessly redesigned to be clever rather than safe.
• There’s anger at a “tech company” mindset that values novelty, software, and UX gimmicks over robustness and human factors, especially in life‑critical systems.
• Some frame this as a product/management failure, not just developers, driven by a need to “make impact” with visible changes.

Auto‑locking doors and safety tradeoffs

• Long subthread around cars that autolock while driving (e.g., VW ID.3):
  • Concerns: being unable to open doors after a crash if electronics or central locking fail; inability to disable the feature in some models.
  • Others respond that crash sensors and standards require automatic unlocking when airbags deploy, and that internal handles typically retain a mechanical override.
  • Disagreement over the primary purpose: structural rigidity in crashes vs. anti‑carjacking/child safety.

Regulation and standards

• Commenters cite Euro NCAP protocols and EU rules expecting doors to unlock automatically after impact, and retractable handles to present themselves after airbag deployment.
• It’s unclear whether Tesla’s implementation met these expectations in this incident, or whether there was a mechanical/electronic failure.
• Some argue this is a textbook case for stricter regulation of electronic door systems; others note that doors can jam in any severe crash.

Windows, glass, and rescue tools

• People ask why windows weren’t broken; others point out that modern Teslas use laminated dual‑pane glass that is significantly harder to shatter, though side windows in many cars are still tempered and designed to break.
• There is mention of specialized glass‑breaking hammers and saws, with the implication that such tools may become more necessary as glass gets stronger.

Brand and risk perception

• Some see Teslas as uniquely dangerous “death traps” and refuse to ride in them; others caution that the article lacks detail and that similar entrapment tragedies predate EVs.
• Underlying tension: is this a Tesla‑specific design failure, or an industry‑wide trend of over‑computerized, under‑engineered safety basics?