中国拟禁止电动车隐藏式“死亡门把手”

cpadaei
likes: 86
I own an EV with flush handles and a powered/automatic charge port door, and I'm a fan of neither.
Both seem like solutions in search of a problem
 
我有一辆带隐藏式门把手和电动/自动充电口盖的电动车，这两样东西我都不喜欢。
感觉它们都是为了解决一个本不存在的问题而设计出来的方案。
 
kjm99
likes: 19
I didn't mind the automatic charge port door too much at first, but after the first time it kept trying to force itself closed on an adapter I'd much rather have something manual.
 
一开始我不太介意自动充电口盖，但自从有一次它夹着一个转接头还非要强行关闭之后，我宁愿要个手动的。
 
GarethBaus
likes: 8
Plus a spring latch like my charge port door has is pretty easy to use.
 
而且，像我的充电口盖那种弹簧锁扣也相当好用。
 
LoomingDementia
likes: 3
I mean, in some cases, you only discover that something is far better, despite the old method not technically being a problem. The … solution, as such, is just a better way of doing things.
Damned if I can think of a way that the lay-flat handles are *meaningfully* better. It can't be anywhere near a 1% increase in power efficiency. And once you discover significant downsides, screw the new system.
 
我的意思是，在某些情况下，即使旧方法本身没毛病，你也会发现新方法要好得多。这种所谓的“解决方案”，其实只是一种更好的做事方式。
但你要是让我说出隐藏式门把手到底在哪方面有“实质性”的提升，我真想不出来。它对能效的提升连1%都到不了吧。而一旦你发现了它的重大缺陷，那这套新系统就该滚蛋了。
 
myrichphitzwell
likes: 2
I guess this really depends on the design. Flush mounted like Tesla does where they are the wrong direction for leverage...ya that's a problem
 
我想这真的取决于具体设计。像特斯拉那种隐藏式设计，发力方向都不对……那确实是个问题。
 
Intrepid_Cap1242
likes: 2
same. It's obnoxious. And just friggin brilliant when it freezes shut. I also immediately disable the stupid motorized sideviews that flip in, before they break themselves.
 
同感。真烦人。冬天冻住的时候，那设计简直是“天才”。我还立刻禁用了那个愚蠢的电动折叠后视镜，免得它们自己把自己搞坏了。
 
molniya
likes: 2
I’m not wild about the flush handles, but my Ioniq 5 doesn’t have walk-away-to-lock, and they’re a nice visual indicator of whether the car is unlocked. Though I suppose that cuts both ways, since it makes it obvious to everyone that it’s unlocked if you forget.
 
我对隐藏式门把手也无感，但我的 Ioniq 5 没有走开自动上锁功能，所以这门把手倒成了一个很好的视觉提示，能看出车是否锁了。不过我猜这是一把双刃剑，因为如果你忘了锁车，所有人也都能看出来。
 
Kitchen_Clock7971
likes: 2
Likewise with the electrically actuated glove box latch. Fixing something that was never broken, adding a part where "no part" would have been better, to borrow a concept.
 
电动手套箱锁也是一个道理。修一个根本没坏的东西，借用一个概念来说，就是在一个“不需要零件”的地方硬加了个零件。
 
soaringspoon
likes: 2
Love my powered charge door. Forget to close it the car does it for me when I swap into drive. Just wish I had a charge port on each side like my mom's Porsche, although she wants my powered charge doors lol it's always greener I suppose.
 
我喜欢我的电动充电口盖。忘了关的话，我一挂前进挡车就自己关了。只希望我的车能像我妈的保时捷一样两边都有充电口，不过她倒是想要我的电动充电口盖，哈哈，果然是邻家的草分外绿啊。
 
BigMax
likes: 1
Definitely a case of 'form over function.' They certainly look cool, but... they sacrifice too much.
 
这绝对是“形式大于功能”的典型案例。它们看起来确实很酷，但是……牺牲了太多。
 
Thin-Engineer-9191
likes: 1
Sounds like crypto
 
听起来像加密货币。
 
steadvex
likes: 11
Just wondering, if the handles had melted how would a non flush handle have been better? Surely that would of also melted?
 
只是好奇，如果门把手都熔化了，那非隐藏式的门把手又能好到哪里去呢？肯定也一样会熔化吧？
 
OldDirtyRobot
likes: 3
The answer is yes...but I want to be outraged about something.
 
答案是肯定的…但我就是想找点事来发发火。
 
Joe_Immortan
likes: 6
I don’t think it would. I think the issue is less about flesh versus non-flush and more about electronic versus mechanical.
 
我认为不会。我觉得问题不在于隐藏式与非隐藏式，而在于电子式与机械式。
 
rasvial
likes: 5
Then target that and not “flush mounted” handles
 
那就针对电子和机械的问题，而不是“隐藏式”门把手。
 
Legal_Stock2078
likes: 3
The mechanical release on a Tesla is literally in the same place as in my ICE…
 
特斯拉上的机械解锁装置，位置和我那辆燃油车里的一模一样…
 
razorirr
likes: 1
Right? But its 2025 and people are like "frxless windows? What is this magic". Like guys the challenger you rode in with me back in 2014 was also frxless. Both had electronic door handles
 
就是啊！但这都2025年了，人们还像是“无框车窗？这是什么魔法”一样。拜托，伙计们，你们2014年坐我那辆道奇挑战者也是无框的，而且两辆车都是电子门把手。
 
Ambitious5uppository
likes: 1
Typically (not always but typically) if a normal handle melts, the metal cable will still be on the outside. But a flush handle it'll be inside the door.
 
通常情况下（不总是，但通常是这样），如果一个普通的门把手熔化了，金属拉线通常还在外面。但隐藏式门把手的拉线就藏在车门里了。
 
ERagingTyrant
likes: 2
And passersby will totally have pliers on hand to pull pull a small, flaming hot cable....
 
是啊，路人肯定会随身带着钳子，就为了拉一根又小又烫得着火的线缆……
 
Ambitious5uppository
likes: 1
Glovea aren't that unheard of. Neither is a tshirt wrapped around your hand.
Maybe you wouldn't... But quite a lot of passers-by would happily pull on a hot wire for less than a couple of seconds, rather than watch 3 people burn to death.
Smashing the window and reaching in is easier though tbh.
 
手套也不是什么稀罕物吧。用T恤包着手也行啊。
也许你不会这么做……但很多路人宁愿忍受几秒钟的灼热去拉一根线缆，也不愿眼睁睁看着三个人被烧死。
不过说实话，砸碎玻璃伸手进去更容易。
 
commanche_00
likes: 46
About time. Flushed handles design has horrible UX
 
是时候了。隐藏式门把手的用户体验太糟糕了。
 
Big-Bat7302
likes: 42
Those handles are stupid.
 
那些门把手蠢爆了。
 
No-Belt-5564
likes: 7
This article is stupid. Melted handles that wouldn't melt if they were not flush? What about locking doors, they should be banned too! Imagine if a car hits a tree and the doors are locked, that guy couldn't get the family out either.
Truth is when an accident is that big, the frx is usually compromised and the door won't open, no matter the handle, or if it's locked. This is a great example of how you can use a tragedy to push a narrative that is a logical fallacy
 
这篇文章很愚蠢。门把手熔化了，难道不是隐藏式的就不会熔化吗？那车门锁也该被禁！想象一下，如果一辆车撞了树，车门锁着，那个人同样也救不出家人。
事实是，当事故严重到那种程度，车架通常已经变形，无论是什么门把手，无论锁没锁，车门都打不开了。这是一个绝佳的例子，说明了如何利用一桩悲剧来推销一个逻辑上根本站不住脚的论调。
 
LoomingDementia
likes: 12
Window breakers/seatbelt cutters should be standard, for that matter. I have two in both of my vehicles, one in the driver's door and one in the passenger's door.
 
说到这个，破窗器/安全带切割器应该成为标配。我的两辆车里都有两个，驾驶座和副驾驶座门边各一个。
 
MichaelMeier112
likes: 4
Please be aware that window breakers doesn’t really work on newer cars that has laminated glass.
 
请注意，破窗器对使用了夹层玻璃的新款汽车效果并不好。
 
LoomingDementia
likes: 1
They still work with enough effort. The windows aren't attached at the top and sides.
It takes quite a bit to compromise them enough, structurally speaking. It isn't easy, but it's better than nothing.
 
只要用力还是有用的。车窗的顶部和侧边并没有固定。
从结构上说，需要相当大的力气才能破坏它们。这不容易，但总比什么都做不了要好。
 
MichaelMeier112
likes: 2
Right. It’s better than nothing. You need a lot of force. Best if you somehow can use your feet to stump out the window after using the glass breaker. Another thing is that the rear windows aren’t laminated.
 
没错，总比没有好。你需要很大的力气。最好是在用破窗器之后，能想办法用脚把窗户踹出去。另外，后车窗不是夹层玻璃。
 
LoomingDementia
likes: 2
>Right. It’s better than nothing. You need a lot of force.
And several strikes with punctures at multiple places, to weaken the window enough that you can kick it out. I imagine it's lot of work. I've never had to do it.
I bench about 125, doing high reps, and I'm fairly well balanced with everything else. I could probably do it. Not so sure about my wife, but it's a chance.
>Another thing is that the rear windows aren’t laminated.
Yup, good thing to remember. I wasn't sure about that, myself. It might be a bit harder to get to the back windows, in a 3-row SUV. Depends upon the situation. Still, if you can get there, then it'll be easier from that point on.
 
>没错。总比没有好。你需要很大的力气。
而且要多点敲击，在几个地方都打出裂口，才能把玻璃的结构削弱到可以踹开的程度。我猜这很费劲，我从没试过。
我卧推大概125磅（约57公斤），做高次数组，其他方面力量也还算均衡，我大概能做到。我老婆就不太确定了，但总算是个机会。
>另外，后车窗不是夹层玻璃。
是的，这点要记住。我自己也不太确定。在一辆三排座的SUV里，要够到后窗可能会有点难，得看具体情况。不过，只要能过去，那后面就容易了。
 
Ambitious5uppository
likes: 7
Doors automatically unlock in the case of an accident, and that's been the case since the 90s at least.
The EU did actually nearly ban automatic locking doors about ten years ago, and there was a period of time when some brands started not including them proactively, but they scrapped that as auto-unlocking was reliable enough.
But, if the handles are purely electronic, they won't work whether the door is locked or not if there's no power coming from the battery.
> Truth is when an accident is that big, the frx is usually compromised and the door won't open.
No. This is rarely the case.
[As you can see](https://youtu.be/mWegXQ81TKw?si=w5jjwjRaCTawt0NK) even 25 years ago. You could hit a tree at 55mph/90kmh and the doors should still be fine.
Especially on an electric car, becuase they are beyond piss easy to make safe without the engine there.
When it comes to handles melting, actually yes, flush handles are worse. Because if an exterior handle melts, you'll still have the metal cable accessible typically (not always, but more often than not), which you can pull. But with flush handles, the cable will always be inside the body of the door.
 
发生事故时车门会自动解锁，这至少从90年代开始就是标配了。
欧盟其实在十年前差点就禁了自动落锁功能，也确实有一段时间一些品牌主动取消了这个功能，但后来因为自动解锁技术足够可靠，这个禁令就没实行。
但是，如果门把手是纯电子的，一旦电池断电，无论车门锁没锁都打不开了。
> “事实是，当事故严重到那种程度，车架通常已经变形，车门打不开了。”
不，这种情况很少见。
[你可以看看这个视频](https://youtu.be/mWegXQ81TKw?si=w5jjwjRaCTawt0NK)，即便是在25年前，以55英里/小时（90公里/小时）的速度撞树，车门应该还是能打开的。
尤其对电动车来说，因为没有发动机，在安全性设计上简直不要太容易。
至于门把手熔化的问题，实际上，是的，隐藏式门把手更糟。因为如果一个外置门把手熔化了，通常金属拉线还能从外面够到（不总是，但多数情况是这样），你可以拉动它。但隐藏式门把手的拉线永远都藏在车门内部。
 
OldDirtyRobot
likes: 1
Almost every car made has plastic components/lixages in the door panel that would melt as well. This is a tragic circumstance, but flush door handles aren't to blame.
 
几乎所有汽车门板里都有塑料部件/连杆，它们也一样会熔化。这是一个悲剧，但不该怪罪于隐藏式门把手。
 
Real-Technician831
likes: 5
Even one life saved is worth it.
What kind of ghouls defend obviously dangerous unnecessary powered flush handles?
Mechanical flush handles wouldn’t be as dangerous but they often are full electric.
 
哪怕只能多救一条命也值得。
都是些什么冷血的人在为这种明显危险且不必要的电动隐藏式门把手辩护？
机械式的隐藏门把手没那么危险，但它们往往是纯电动的。
 
PeppermintWhale
likes: 1
The point isn't that saving one life isn't worth it, it's that EVs are currently an easy target to go after so media will blow everything negative out of proportion. If we genuinely wanted to save lives, we'd start with something like making speed limiters mandatory on all cars, but good luck getting that sort of legislation through, even though it would be a significant benefit to public safety.
 
重点不是说救一条命不值得，而是电动车现在是个容易攻击的目标，所以媒体会把任何负面消息都无限放大。如果我们真心想拯救生命，我们应该从强制所有汽车安装限速器开始，但祝你好运能通过这种立法，尽管它对公共安全有巨大的好处。
 
Real-Technician831
likes: 1
Quite a ghoul aren’t you.
To value vanity handles more than lives.
Hint it’s never ever just a single casualty, but better to draw the line on the first one.
 
你可真是个冷血的家伙。
竟然把虚荣的门把手看得比人命还重。
提示一下：伤亡从来都不是孤例，最好在第一次出现时就划下红线。
 
OldDirtyRobot
likes: -1
No every life can be saved. Sometimes accidents happen. If a fire was hot enough to melt a flush door handle, it would melt any door handle.
 
不是每条生命都能被拯救。意外有时就是会发生。如果火势大到能熔化隐藏式门把手，那它也能熔化任何类型的门把手。
 
Real-Technician831
likes: 3
You probably missed the point about powered door handles such that most flush handles are, no power, and the door wont open.
Also good luck applying significant force to flush door handle even if the door would be unlocked but stuck.
There simply is nothing good about that design.
 
你可能没搞懂电动门把手的重点，大多数隐藏式门把手都是电动的，一旦断电，门就打不开了。
而且，就算门没锁只是卡住了，祝你能对一个隐藏式门把手用上大力气好运。
这个设计简直一无是处。
 
ptemple
likes: 8
If the door handles were completely melted then how would not being flush help? The Tesla Model S pop-out handles used to be notoriously unreliable when they came out, not sure about now, but the 3/Y are simple mechanical handles.
These cars can pop doors open remotely. Perhaps they should automatically open in the case of an accident?
 
如果门把手都完全熔化了，那非隐藏式的设计又有什么用呢？特斯拉 Model S 刚出来时，它的弹出式门把手是出了名的不可靠，不知道现在怎么样，但 Model 3/Y 都是简单的机械式门把手。
这些车可以远程弹开车门。或许它们应该在发生事故时自动打开？
 
donsqeadle
likes: 5
I found that article to be jumping all over the place, but my thoughts were the same. It’s antagonizing exterior handle, interior handle, aero, repair……
 
我觉得那篇文章东拉西扯，但我的想法和你一样。它把外部把手、内部把手、空气动力学、维修……全都对立起来了。
 
MakalakaPeaka
likes: 14
Which is good, they’re unsafe. Same with electronic only doors that you have to search for the mechanical interlock or handle.
 
这很好，因为它们不安全。同样不安全的还有那些纯电子门，你得费劲去找机械联动装置或拉手。
 
FledglingNonCon
likes: 9
I feel like the electronic door handles are much more of an issue. I have flush, but mechanical door handles on my EV6 and while they're slightly annoying with your hands full, they're largely fine.
 
我觉得电子门把手才是更大的问题。我的EV6用的是隐藏式但机械的门把手，虽然在你两手都占着的时候有点烦人，但总体上还行。
 
NinjaN-SWE
likes: 1
My EV3 has flush handles when locked, but they're mechanical in nature. Even when locked you can pop them out rather intuitively which exposes a keyhole as well. It's not perfect since figuring it out in a panic might cost seconds you can't afford. But at least the rear doors are more conventional if brain power isn't available. Fully mechanical from the inside. Electric on the inside is a deal breaker for me after the Tesla incidents.
 
我的EV3在锁车时门把手是隐藏的，但本质上是机械的。即使锁着，你也能凭直觉把它们弹出来，里面还有一个钥匙孔。这并不完美，因为在惊慌中弄明白怎么操作可能会浪费你耽误不起的几秒钟。但至少在脑子一片空白时，后门的使用传统设计会更好。车内是完全机械的。在经历了特斯拉的那些事件后，车内是电子开关对我来说是绝对不能接受的。
 
Exact_Setting9562
likes: 18
China leading the way in safety. Who would have thought?
 
中国在安全方面引领潮流了，谁能想到呢？
 
lelarentaka
likes: 17
Actually they are stealing this idea from the West, using the time machine technology that they also stole from the West. Later on, the West will reverse-steal the idea from China, thus making it available in the future-West for present-China to future-steal.
 
实际上，他们是从西方偷来了这个想法，用的是他们也从西方偷来的时间机器技术。然后，西方将来会从中国反向偷回这个想法，从而让未来的西方拥有这个创意，好让现在的中国能在未来偷走它。
 
BOKEH_BALLS
likes: 0
LMao
 
笑死我了。
 
Odd_Palpitation5990
likes: 4
Also [China bans misleading ads for autonomous driving](https://www.electrive.com/2025/04/17/China-bans-advertising-ban-on-misleading-autonomous-driving-functions/)
China will ban car manufacturers from using the phrases ‘intelligent driving’ and ‘autonomous driving’ when advertising driver assistance functions. Manufacturers will also no longer be allowed to conduct public beta tests, and over-the-air upxes can only be transmitted after validation has been completed.
 
还有，[中国禁止误导性的自动驾驶广告](https://www.electrive.com/2025/04/17/China-bans-advertising-ban-on-misleading-autonomous-driving-functions/)
中国将禁止汽车制造商在宣传驾驶辅助功能时使用“智能驾驶”和“自动驾驶”等词语。制造商也将不再被允许进行公开测试，并且OTA更新必须在验证完成后才能推送。
 
MakalakaPeaka
likes: 1
Astonishing, really.
 
真是令人惊讶。
 
omnibossk
likes: 5
The problem is more that the handles are electric and not mechanical. But still, it doesn’t help to have handles if the doors are locked
 
问题更多在于门把手是电动的而非机械的。但话说回来，如果车门锁了，有门把手也没用。
 
Real-Technician831
likes: 3
It does help, quite often car doors are partially stuck after a crash, but sometimes can be opened with force.
Even couple lives saved are enough to justify proper handles.
Also in many cars doors automatically unlock after a crash. But that requires power to stay on, or mechanical locks.
 
有用。车祸后车门经常会卡住，但有时用力也能拉开。
哪怕只能多救几条命，也足以证明传统门把手的合理性。
另外，很多车在碰撞后会自动解锁。但这需要电力持续供应，或者使用机械锁。
 
Another_Slut_Dragon
likes: 4
Door handles should be able to be operated by an elderly driver with arthritis. Just a nice easy handle you pull. That way when it's crusted with 6mm of ice it still works. I'm looking at you Tesla.
Mandate a mechanical release that can operate without electricity. Inside and out. Power fails during car crashes all the time. The PRIMARY door handle must open the car door. Not some hidden bullshit hiding in the bottom of the door pocket. Your uber passenger won't know where that release is.
If the air bags go off, unlock the doors when firing the air bags. No exceptions.
 
门把手的设计应该让患有关节炎的老年司机也能轻松操作，一个好用易拉的把手就行。这样即使上面结了6毫米厚的冰也还能用。我说的就是你，特斯拉。
强制要求一个无需电力就能操作的机械解锁装置，车内车外都得有。车祸中断电是常事。主门把手必须能打开车门，而不是某个藏在车门储物格底下的鬼东西。你的优步乘客可不知道那个解锁装置在哪。
如果安全气囊弹出了，就在弹出的时候解锁车门，没有例外。
 
jonnyrockets
likes: 8
It’s a design element showcasing something that looks cool and technologically advanced.
At the cost of practicality.
They should go away
 
这是一种为了展示酷炫和科技感的设计元素。
代价是牺牲了实用性。
它们早该消失了。
 
szatrob
likes: 2
Agreed, but there was an element of trying to justify them by car designers since they believed that video tech could replace physical side mirrors.
 
同意，但汽车设计师试图为它们辩护，也有部分原因是他们相信视频技术可以取代实体后视镜。
 
Tman11S
likes: 3
Normal handles work perfectly fine and are a lot easier to grab and pull. Why change something that’s been tried and tested over the last decades?
The same goes for replacing your mirrors with cameras tbh. A camera can fail when software fails, a mirror can’t.
 
普通门把手用得好好的，抓握和拉动都容易得多。为什么要改变一个经过几十年考验的东西呢？
说实话，用摄像头取代后视镜也是一个道理。软件出故障时摄像头会失灵，但镜子不会。
 
Fuzzmiester
likes: 2
yep. Cameras are nice \\\\_extras\\\\_. not replacements.
 
是的。摄像头是不错的“附加品”，而不是替代品。
 
238_m
likes: 3
Good for them. This reminds me of how Chrysler screwed up the gear sextor resulting in injuries and death all in the name of pretty design.
https://www.core77.com/posts/54026/When-Bad-UI-Design-Kills-Is-Poor-Shift-Lever-Design-to-Blame-for-Death-of-Star-Trek-Actor
 
他们做得对。这让我想起克莱斯勒是如何为了所谓的好看设计，把换挡杆搞砸，导致人员伤亡的。
https://www.core77.com/posts/54026/When-Bad-UI-Design-Kills-Is-Poor-Shift-Lever-Design-to-Blame-for-Death-of-Star-Trek-Actor
 
xrp_oldie
likes: 4
honestly it’s a dumb design. very douchy and impractical too
 
老实说，这设计很蠢，又装又不实用。
 
PandaCheese2016
likes: 2
Musk: Just mandate that everyone carry glassbreaking gear at all times. Problem solved!
 
马斯克：只要强制要求每个人随时携带破窗工具就行了。问题解决！
 
Sorry-Programmer9826
likes: 6
Flush handles seem like such a terrible idea that you wouldn't have expected to need regulation just because they're so obviously stupid no one would have made them in the first place.
Alas human stupidity has no bounds
 
隐藏式门把手这个想法实在太糟糕了，你都想不到竟然需要法规来禁止它，因为它蠢得那么明显，根本就不该有人会去造它。
唉，人类的愚蠢真是没有极限。
 
CaptGunpowder
likes: 1
Flush handles and similar poorly-thought-out design elements created to satisfy a childish need to have FutURisTiC cArS are why I'm seriously considering paying someone to convert an older car, like a 2000 WRX. Why does my car need flush handles, a massive dash screen, and assisted steering? Trick question; it doesn't.
 
隐藏式门把手和类似这种为了满足“未来感汽车”的幼稚需求而创造的、考虑不周的设计元素，是我认真考虑花钱请人改装一辆老车（比如2000年的WRX）的原因。我的车为什么需要隐藏式门把手、巨型中控屏和辅助转向？这是一个陷阱问题，答案是：它不需要。
 
Murky_Brief_7339
likes: 1
This is the one thing I hate about my EV9. Walking up to the door handle with baby? Oh it's not fucking there and I have to get the door unlocked or something.
 
这是我讨厌我的EV9的一点。抱着孩子走到门边想拉把手？哦，它他妈的根本不在那儿，我得先解锁车门或者什么别的。
 
obxtive_Chance4173
likes: 1
It doesn’t pop out when you walk up?
 
你走近时它不会弹出来吗？
 
Murky_Brief_7339
likes: 1
I usually leave the car on to keep air running and then it only pops the driver door. I'm not sure why.
 
我通常为了让空调一直开着而不熄火，那样的话就只有驾驶座的门把手会弹出来。我也不确定为什么。
 
Temporary-Job-9049
likes: 1
For the love of god, just make it so people don't get locked in and burnt to death! We've had door handles that work for a hundred years, and if it ain't broke DON'T FIX IT.
 
看在上帝的份上，只要别让人被锁在车里活活烧死就行了！我们用能正常工作的门把手已经一百年了，既然没毛病，就别去动它！
 
Calm_Historian9729
likes: 1
On the outside for aerodynamics its ok but not on the inside. Inside it should be large and highly visible in all light situations so in emergencies you can always get out.
 
为了空气动力学，在外面用还行，但车内不行。车内的开门装置应该做得又大又醒目，在任何光线条件下都清晰可见，这样在紧急情况下你总能逃出去。
 
Zizou1516
likes: 1
This is a terrible design. Tesla did it first and it stuck as 'cool'.
I would gladly sacrifice 0.5% of range for proper handles, that are better better ergonomically and safer!
 
这是个糟糕的设计。特斯拉首创，然后就作为“酷”的象征流传下来了。
我宁愿牺牲0.5%的续航，也要换来更符合人体工程学、更安全的正常门把手！
 
cookiesnooper
likes: 0
In Tesla defense, they have a whole ass chapter in the manual pointing out how to use where the safety releases are.
 
为特斯拉辩护一句，他们在手册里有整整一章指出安全解锁装置在哪里以及如何使用。
 
Akward_obxt
likes: 2
It's not of much use if you have passengers that don't know it and you are groggy and panicking...
 
如果你有不了解情况的乘客，而你自己又头昏脑胀、惊慌失措……那这就没什么用了。
 
PUTASMILE
likes: 2
I couldn’t open the burning door to get to the manual in the glovebox, sorry crispy dudes
 
我打不开着火的车门去拿手套箱里的手册，抱歉了，被烤焦的哥们儿。
 
cookiesnooper
likes: 1
You're supposed to familiarize yourself with the vehicle after you purchase it. Guess, no one reads manuals anymore
 
你买车之后就应该熟悉你的车辆。我猜，现在没人再读说明书了。
 
IvoryHKStud
likes: 1
No, i typically as a passenger dont ask to read a cars manual before i get in the car for a ride.
 
不，我作为一个乘客，通常在上车前不会要求先读一下车主手册。
 
Dan1elSan
likes: 1
Hiding the release behind the speaker grill is criminal.
 
把解锁装置藏在音响格栅后面简直是犯罪。
 
Accomplished_Fan_487
likes: -1
Why is nobody mentioning life hammers? Those things are just so essential it's crazy nobody has them. Use them to knock out the windows and cut the seat belts. Done. Screw the doorhandles.
 
为什么没人提安全锤？那东西太重要了，居然没人配备，简直疯狂。用它砸窗户、割安全带。搞定。去他的门把手。
 
raculot
likes: 3
And what, I'm expected to walk around carrying one at all times in case a flush handled car crashes near me and I have to break the windows to get the unconscious occupants out?
Because I have trouble understanding how they'll help the core issue of "unable to rescue occupants in an emergency" that's being discussed here
 
所以呢，我是应该随时随身携带一个，以防附近有辆隐藏式门把手的车撞了，我好去砸窗救出昏迷的乘客？
因为我很难理解，这东西对我们正在讨论的核心问题——“紧急情况下无法救援车内人员”——有什么帮助。
 
Fuzzmiester
likes: 2
The hammer which is inside the car, and the people outside the car can't use to get into the car.
That's the point.
 
锤子在车里，而车外的人用不了它进到车里来。
这才是重点。
 
konwiddak
likes: 1
A lot of new cars, particularly EV's, are coming with laminated windows on the sides. Usually the rear window isn't laminated, but it's not always easy to clamber over the car to get out the back!
 
很多新车，特别是电动车，侧窗都开始用夹层玻璃了。通常后窗不是夹层的，但要爬过整个车厢从后面出去可不总是那么容易！