Headlights. Indicators. Trunk releases. Seatbelts. Airbags. Just about any part of a car you can think of is governed by a long and complicated government regulation. It’s all about safety, ensuring that the car-buying public can trust that their vehicles won’t unduly injure or maim them in regular operation, or in the event of accident.

However, one part of the modern automobile has largely escaped regulation—namely, the humble door handle. Automakers have been free to innovate with new and wacky designs, with Tesla in particular making waves with its electronic door handles. However, after a series of deadly incidents where doors wouldn’t open, regulators are now examining if these door handles are suitable for road-going automobiles. As always, regulations are written in blood, but it raises the question—was not the danger of these complicated electronic door handles easy to foresee?

Trapped

A number of automakers have developed fancy retractable door handles in recent years. They are most notably seen on electric vehicles, where they are stated to have a small but measurable aerodynamic benefit. They are often paired with buttons or other similar electronic controls to open the doors from the inside. Compared to mechanical door handles, however, these door handles come with a trade-off in complexity. They require electricity, motors, and a functioning control system to work. When all is well, this isn’t a problem. However, when things go wrong, a retractable electronic door handle often proves inaccessible and useless.

It’s not hard to find case reports of fatal incidents involving vehicles with electronic door handles—both inside and out. Multiple cases have involved occupants burning alive inside Tesla vehicles, in which electronic door handles failed after a crash. Passengers inside the vehicles have failed to escape due to not finding emergency release door pulls hidden in the door panels, while bystanders have similarly been unable to use the retracted outside door handles to free those trapped inside.

In response, some Tesla owners have gone so far as to release brightly-colored emergency escape ripcords to replace the difficult-to-spot emergency release pulls that are nearly impossible to find without prior knowledge. In the case of some older models, though, there’s less hope of escape. For example, in the Tesla Model 3 built from 2017 to 2023, only front doors have an emergency mechanical release. Rear passengers are out of luck, and must find another route of escape if their electronic door handles fail to operate. No Tesla vehicles feature an easily-accessible mechanical release that can be used from outside the vehicle.

It’s worth noting that in the US market, federal regulations have mandated glow-in-the-dark trunk releases be fitted to all sedans from the 2002 model year onwards. You could theoretically escape from the trunk of certain Teslas more easily than a Cybertruck or Model 3 with a failed electrical system.

Tesla isn’t the only company out there building cars with retractable door handles. It does, however, remain the most prominent user of this technology, and its vehicles have been involved in numerous incidents that have made headlines. Other automakers, such as Audi and Fiat, have experimented with electronic door handles, both for ingress and egress, with varying degrees of mechanical backup available. In some cases, automakers have used smart two-stage latches. A small pull activates the electronic door release, while a stronger pull will engage a mechanical linkage that unlatches the door. It’s smart engineering—the door interface responds to the exact action a passenger would execute if trying to escape the vehicle in a panic. There are obviously less concerns around electronic door releases that have easily-accessed mechanical backups; it’s just that Tesla is particularly notable for not always providing them.

Over the years, national automotive bodies have thrown up their arms about all sorts of emerging automotive technologies. In the United States specifically, NHTSA has famously slow-walked the approval of things like camera-based rear-view mirror systems and replaceable-bulb headlamps, fearing the worst could occur if these technologies were freely allowed on the market.

Meanwhile, despite the obvious risks, electronic door handles have faced no major regulatory challenges. There were no obvious written rules standing in the way of Tesla making the choice to eliminate regular old door handles. Nor were there strict regulations on emergency door releases for passengers inside the vehicle. Tesla spent years building several models with no mechanical door release for the rear passengers. If your door button failed, you’d have to attempt escape by climbing out through the front doors, assuming you could figure out how to open them. Even today, the models with mechanical door releases still often hide them behind interior trim pieces or carpets, where few passengers would ever think to look in an emergency.

Obvious Mistakes

Things are beginning to change, however. Chinese regulators have led the charge, with reports stating that electronic retractable door handles could be banned as soon as 2027. While some semi-retractable styles will potentially avoid an outright ban, it’s believed new regulations will require a mechanically redundant release system as standard.

As for the US, the sleeping giant of NHTSA has finally awoken in the wake of Bloomberg‘s reporting on the matter. As reported by CNBC, Tesla has been given a deadline of December 10 to deliver records to the federal regulator, regarding design, failures, and customer issues around its electronic door release systems. The Office of Defects Investigations within NHTSA has already recorded 16 reports of failed exterior door releases in the a single model year of the Tesla Model Y. It’s likely a drop in the ocean compared to the full population of Tesla vehicles currently on roads. Meanwhile, the US automaker also faces multiple lawsuits over the matter from those who have lost family members in fatal crashes and fires involving the company’s vehicles.

In due time, it’s likely that automotive regulators in most markets will come out against electronic door handles from a safety perspective alone. No matter how well designed the electrical system in a modern vehicle, it’s hard to beat a lever flipping a latch for simplicity and robustness. The benefits of these electronic door handles are spurious in the first place—a fraction of a percent reduction in drag, and perhaps a little more luxury appeal. If the trade-off is trapping passengers in the event of a fire, it’s hard to say they’re worthwhile.

The electronic door handle, then, is perhaps the ultimate triumph of form over function. They’re often slower and harder to use than a regular door handle, and particularly susceptible to becoming useless when iced over on a frosty morning. For a taste of the future, lives were put at risk. Anyone could see that, so it’s both strange and sad that automakers and regulators alike seemed not to notice until it was far too late. Any new regulations will, once again, be written in blood.

We’re taught how to call emergency numbers from a young age; whether it be 911 in the US, 999 in the UK, or 000 in Australia. The concept is simple—if you need aid from police, fire, or ambulance, you pick up a phone and dial and help will be sent in short order.

It’s a service many of us have come to rely on; indeed, it’s function can swing the very balance between life or death. Sadly, in Australia, that has come to pass, with a person dying when their Samsung phone failed to reach the Triple Zero (000) emergency line. It has laid bare an obscure technical issue that potentially leaves thousands of lives at risk.

Peril

Australia’s Triple Zero emergency service becoming a hot-button issue. September 2025 saw widespread failures of emergency calls on the Optus network, an incident that was tied to at least three deaths of those unable to reach help. A series of further isolated cases have drawn more attention to edge case failures that have prevented people from reaching emergency services.

A bigger potential issue with the Triple Zero service has since bubbled up with the increased scrutiny on the system’s operation. Namely, the fact that a huge swathe of older Samsung smartphones cannot be trusted to successfully call 000 in an emergency.  The potential issue has been on the radar of telcos and authorities since at least 2024. Since then, on November 13 2025, an individual in Sydney passed away after their phone failed to dial the emergency line. Their phone was using a Lebara SIM card, as managed by TPG and using the Vodafone network, when the incident occurred. Subsequent investigation determined that the problem was due to issues already identified with a wide range of Samsung phones.

The issue surrounds the matter of Australia’s shutdown of 3G phone service, which took place from 2023 to 2024. If you had a 3G phone, it would no longer be able to make any calls after the networks were shut down. Common sense would suggest that phones with 4G and 5G connectivity would be fine going forward. However, there was a caveat. There were a number of phones sold that offered 4G or 5G data connections, but could not actually make phone calls on these networks. This was due to manufacturers failing to implement Voice-over-LTE (VoLTE) functionality required to carry voice calls over 4G LTE networks. Alternatively, in some cases, the 4G or 5G handset could make VoLTE calls, but would fail to make emergency calls in certain situations.

Communication Breakdown

It all comes down to the way voice calls work on 4G and 5G. Unlike earlier 2G and 3G cellular networks, 4G and 5G networks are data only. Phone calls are handled through VoLTE, which uses voice-over-IP technology, or using Voice over NR (VoNR) in a purely 5G environment. Either way, the system is a data-based, packet-switched method of connecting a phone call, unlike the circuit-switched methods used for 2G and 3G calling.

The problem with this is that while 2G and 3G emergency calls worked whenever you had a tower nearby, VoLTE calling is more complex and less robust. VoLTE standards don’t guarantee that a given handset will be interoperable with all LTE networks, particularly when roaming. A given handset might only like IPv4, for example, which may be fine in its home region on its regular carrier. However, when roaming, or when doing an emergency call, that handset might find itself only in range of a different network’s towers, which only like IPv6, and thus VoLTE calling will fail. There are any number of other configuration mismatches that can occur between a handset and a network that can also cause VoLTE calling to fail.

Usually, when you’re in range of your phone’s home network with a modern 4G or 5G handset, you won’t have any problems. Your phone will use its VoLTE settings profile to connect and the emergency call will go through. After all, older models with no VoLTE support have by and large been banned from networks already. However, the situation gets more complex if your home network isn’t available. In those cases, it will look to “camp on” to another provider’s network for connectivity. In this case, if the phone’s VoLTE settings aren’t compatible with the rival network, the call may fail to connect, and you might find yourself unable to reach emergency services.

Specifically, in the Australian case, this appears to affect a range of older Samsung phones. Testing by telecommunications company Telstra found that some of these phones were unable to make Triple Zero emergency calls when only the Vodafone network was available. These phones will happily work when a Telstra or Optus network is available, but fallback to the Vodafone network has been found to fail. Research from other sources has also identified that certain phones can reach Triple Zero when using Telstra or Optus SIM cards, but may fail when equipped with a Vodafone SIM.

For its part, Samsung has provided a list of models affected by the issue. Some older phones, mostly from 2016 and 2017, will need to be replaced, as they will not be updated to reliably make emergency calls over 4G networks. Meanwhile, newer phones, like the Galaxy S20+ and Galaxy S21 Ultra 5G, will be given software updates to enable reliable emergency calling. Telecom operators have been contacting users of affected phones, indicating they will need to replace or upgrade as necessary. Devices that are deemed to be unable to safely make emergency calls will be banned from Australian mobile networks 28 days after initial notification to customers.

Broader Problem

This issue is not limited to just Australia. Indeed, European authorities have been aware of issues with VoLTE emergency calling since at least 2022. Many phones sold in European markets are only capable of making emergency calls on 2G and 3G networks, and could fail to reach emergency services if only 4G connections are available. This issue was particularly noted to be a risk when roaming internationally, where a handset sold in one country may prove inoperable with VoLTE calling on a foreign network.

Some blame has been laid on the loose standardization of the VoLTE standard. Unlike 2G and 3G standards, global interoperability is pretty much non-existent when it comes to phone calls. This wasn’t seen as a big issue early on, as when 4G devices first hit the market, 2G and 3G phone networks were readily available to carry any voice calls that couldn’t be handled by VoLTE. However, with 2G and 3G networks shutting down, the lack of VoLTE standardization and interoperability between carriers has been laid bare.

While Australia is currently tangling with this issue, expect it to crop up in other parts of the world before long. Europe is currently working towards 2G and 3G shutdowns, as our other jurisdictions, and issues around roaming functionality still loom large for those taking handsets overseas. Ultimately, end users will be asking a very simple question. If 2G and 3G technologies could handle emergency calls on virtually any compatible network around the world, how did it go so wrong when 4G and 5G rolled around? Old networks existed as a crutch that avoided the issue for a time, but they were never going to last forever. It surely didn’t have to be this way.