Why aren't door handles positioned to require "Dutch Reach" ?
 

Desiging for one usage but legislating another is proven unworkable, so let's make it simple.

Why aren't we mandating that new car door handles be positioned back at roughly shoulder station, to practically mandate a "Dutch Reach" with the incumbent body turn to hopefully check for approaching cyclists and traffic?

It's closer to where the actual latch is, and about where the external handle is already, so it's entirely feasible.

Yes, people would hate it, because people hate change. But if it were required for a certain model year it would be fair, and people would adapt, and deal.

Because "we" aren't very many?

No dispute about that but laws are getting written and passed anyway.

Design that causes behaviour beats laws that require things contrary to habit and design cues.

For example you can't build a "pull" shaped handle and label it "push" and expect good results.

Similarly, you shouldn't build an outside hand handle and then expect it to be operated with the inside hand.

They would almost certainly not be placed where you suggest for safety reasons.

I'm not sure there is any place on the door that is easy to reach with the far hand, but difficult to reach with the close hand. If it is, is surely would be an ADA issue for people with limited flexibility.

It would be easy enough to design a door to say open 4", turn on lights around the edges, then slowly open over a couple more seconds. Give a cyclist time to react.

The other option would be to build doors that say don't open outward more than say 6".

I.E.
Scissor Doors
Sliding Doors
Possibly certain gullwing or folding gullwing designs.

With the electronic systems available in modern cars, it would theoretically be possible to:
1) integrate rear facing radar systems with door locks so it would be impossible to open the door into an approaching vehicle (auto or bicycle)
2) integrate navigation systems, which usually will show you the speed limit of the road you are on, into the electronic throttle control so it would be impossible to speed
3) modify the software in forward camera systems used for anti-collision and lane departure systems to recognize yellow and red lights, and integrate it into automatic braking systems so it would be impossible to run a light
4) integrate the electronic steering assist system with turn signals, so you couldn't turn onto that side street without signaling

This isn't science fiction. Those systems already exist on many models, and are already integrated (modern cars often run on LAN systems connecting all the control units together so they can communicate with each other.) All it would take is some updated software logic.

The list could go on and on. So, you ask, why don't they do this?
Simple. Very few people would buy the car. Sure, they would save lives, but all you have to do is watch the news to see how some people react when told they have to do something potentially live saving. Good grief, I worked in the auto industry when automatic seat belts became standard equipment on some cars, and you would be surprised at how many times we were asked to just 'remove those stupid things'.

Okay, so people would turn for the door handle and still not look. Doesn't solve the problem.

Just teach people to look first. Thats all the dutch reach thing is, right?...its a habit some people do.

just mandate "lambo" or "minivan sliding" doors. two options under a mandate makes it impossible for an OEM to fight the enforced change!

What a ridiculous notion. People are either going to look before opening doors on a vehicle or they aren't.

As a cyclist, I have 100% control over dooring.

I agree with Paul.

How about just a little a common sense? You should look in your mirror and then left over your shoulder before opening the door. I do it every time I open the door when I park on the street. Which has nothing to do with which hand you use to open the door.

How about...How Having a Brain and Using your Side Mirror Could Save Lives? Or as a cyclist...just swing wide when approaching a parked car.

Working in engineering, one of the things you learn is the fallacy of designing something that encourages one usage and then telling people they have to use it a different, less physically intuitive way.

Some will develop a purposeful habit of doing the theoretically "proper" thing in defiance of the physical cues to do something else.

But people are for the most part heavily influenced by physical cues, the classic being push vs pull door handles that need to be shaped rather than signed for their direction of usage.

Another classic one that's starting to be recognized is that of road designs which suggest high speed, ineffectively countered by signs requiring low speed.

It's relatively easy and cheap to make radar which measures closing speed.

It's much harder to make one that can distinguish something on a vector to pass a half meter away from one on track to pass a meter and a half away.

It's highly dubious to make one which can predict the future behavior of a human, eg, are they going to change to a different lane position?

​​​​Possibly it still works in a setting where users don't expect anything to be coming by at all, but "nag" warnings can be counterproductive.

"Caution, overtaking traffic"

"Hey bucket of bolts, what do you expect when we're pulled over on a busy road?"

The car industry has bigger, way bigger, problems than whether or not to over engineer the doors to satisfy the whims of the scant 0.1% of cyclists that spend significant amounts of time in door zones. In fact, I'm surprised at all the concern over dooring exhibited here since it was my thinking from the many, many, posts on the subject that none of you rode in the door zone anyway. Since no one rides in door zones why should carmakers invest millions in making door zone travel safer?

This feature is available in some markets.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...g-cyclist.html

With an existing "blind spot warning" systems and electric door locking systems the cost is going to be for Non-recurring Engineering to develop the software.

My first PC in the 80's was way more expensive than my current PC.

Whether its by decree of regulation or satisfying the wants of consumers, things get less expensive quickly when the manufacturing scales up to supply millions instead of a few.

Most other technology doesn't work like computer technology.

Cars are more expensive than they were in the 80's.

I actually meant to quote this post:

What's already in cars has been scaled up and some of what you are describing is more complicated stuff. That is, some of what you are talking about won't be less expensive than what's currently being used.

For example, air bags have certainly gotten a lot less expensive but they are much more expensive than not having them.

Expensive.

How would sliding doors work for front doors?

Step vans often have sliding front doors.

There are several options including making 2-door vehicles. Also, one could design front sliding doors in the front and rear sliding doors in the back. The slider doesn't need to fully support the door like a closet door, but rather can support the door at the bottom and middle, or do a 3-point support.

A vertical opening articulated gullwing door should be able to be designed for both front and rear.
It is hard to say with 40 years of inflation. But, like your PC, modern cars aren't the same as 1980's cars. How much would a 2021 VW Bug cost? Perhaps a good comparison is the Tata Nano that costs about $3,243 new.

But, if it wasn't a "classic", the old Bug wouldn't be allowed in the USA, nor is the new Nano.

So, do people really want the bone shakers of years past? I'd have to say not. Of course there are the "resto-mods" that take the vintage classics and make "new" cars worth hundreds of thousand of dollars, changing engines, transmissions, suspension, cooling systems, interior, etc.

It is likely that consumers would find benefits of sliding doors or vertical opening gullwings that go beyond just bicycles. For example making it easier to get in and out of the cars in tight spaces, fewer parking lot dings, perhaps improved for handicapped access, and many other potential benefits.

They also have flat sides and don't have to deal with rear doors.

??? Doesn't seem easy to do at all.

Too expensive.

These doors have been around for years and have only been used rarely (because it's too expensive).

The Nano isn't made any more (anywhere).

Huh? No one was talking about "bone shakers of years past".

If these things were that compelling (compelling enough to overcome the extra expense), it would have been done already.

The cheapest way to deal with bicycles is to leverage technology that is already (fairly commonly now) exists: use the side collision warning detectors. Some manufacturers are already doing that.

I don't frequently parallel park in high traffic areas, but as a driver, I think it is pretty natural to check for traffic before opening the door. Perhaps one concentrates on cars and not bicycles.

In fact, it may well be safer to check the mirror rather than turning the body so the mirror can't be seen.

Unfortunately passengers usually aren't equipped with rear mirrors.

Some new vehicles are equipping rear seats with TV screens. Perhaps one could add a rear camera view to a rear passenger TV screen. When the car is stopped, activate the TV screen.

Heck, with the age of smart accessories, a TV screen should be able to recognize a parallel parking situation.

At the same time, smart door locks could be designed to prevent opening a door into traffic.

Technology aims at preventing "dooring" accidents

The heyday for these has passed, I believe. They were never that common either.

People are much, much more likely to use the tablet/phones they already have. (It's not like too many people want to watch DVDs in their cars any more.)

I mentioned that. It's not new. I remember talking about it here a few years ago.