Talk:Suicide door

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Needs a picture

Needs a picture. I can't imagine how this works in my mind. Dysprosia 09:30, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

I put a link to one up ([1]), at least until someone here can get to an auto show and take a picture. I don't go to too many, myself, but I'll take one if I get the chance. -- Djinn112 11:28, May 6, 2004 (UTC)
Also look at the red convertible at Lincoln Continental. Unfortunately the picture I put up at Ford Thunderbird of my '67 suicide-door doesn't really show them. I'll probably shoot some pictures of it specifically for this article. —Morven 01:46, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
Great, it all makes sense now :) Thanks Dysprosia 09:20, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

Interesting, never heard the term 'suicide door' before. London taxis have such doors at the back only, so the driver can reach out the window and open the rear doors for the passenger without getting up. Don't know what make or model these cabs are. --Auximines 11:40, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

Well, the door style is rare these days, so it gets less mention. I seem to remember them being called that sometimes in the UK as well. —Morven 01:46, 7 May 2004 (UTC)


I reckon the Mazda RX-8 came before the Rolls-Royce Phantom, if we're looking at 21st Century uses of suicide doors.

[edit] Suicide Doors

Its not a "suicide door" because of how it is hinged. It is called that because if you have to jump out of the car in an emergancy the doors would hit you. Dudtz 9/6/05 5:27 PM EST

[edit] This Century? Erroneous?

I always associate the term with 1920's and 30's Dusenbergs and the like. Death might or might not be suicide (e.g. if one were pushed out of the back seat of a moving car with the back door open).

Not named because of the way it's hinged?

But it's the way it's hinged which would cause you to be hit by it if you did fall or jump out of the back seat while the car was moving). True, a similar effect could be gained by exiting the front seat with a front-hinged rear door open, although the impact would in that case tend to close it.

I.e. primarily, I agree with the previous commenter. (commentator?) Except for the "how it is hinged" comment.

An aging online OED doesn't appear to have the term at all (not even in a random citation). A web search finds little, but did suggest that it's more likely that you will fall out of such a car while the door is moving. (If you lean on it, and it starts to open, forces will tend to open it further rather than pushing it back shut, I suppose).

We need a corpus, and earliest citation etc, to see if we can determine who first called them that and determine or infer why.

Alright, I see, looking at the history of the article, that the explanation (originally omitted entirely) here was "perceived danger of door falling open at speed", and changed to its current explanation in August 2005. E.g. http://www.answers.com/topic/suicide-door gives (copies, reproduces) (currently) an earlier version of this Wikipedia article.

To a certain extent, it's always a little suicidal to get out of a door into the road, and many passengers will exit any car's rear seat by shuffling across to the curbside, suicide doors or not.

To another certain extent, derived etymologies cannot be erroneous. People hear "suicide door", look at how it functions, and derive their own reasoning for the term.

To lend substance to the claim that the "falling out", or "being hit by", claims are erroneous, a citation from an early source, perhaps an automobile magazine, must be given in which the author clearly links their use of the term, ideally the original (coining) use, to the worry about the open door obscuring an exiting passenger. (And, true, preventing the passenger from minimizing their encroachment onto the roadway space). But I still say there will be nothing suicidal about the door on the curb side of the car (usually the "passenger side", but not necessarily, depending up on parking regulations).


Unless documented historical proof of the etymology of the term can be found and cited, I think all possible explanations should be mentioned with near equal weight (ie. "others say", rather than "some erroneously claim").--SportWagon way before 22:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

  • I have undertaken to add {{POV check}} to this item, specifically with regard to the sentence
(although some erroneously claim it refers to an increased danger of the door falling open while at speed)
As I said above, the article presents no proof of its etymological claims, and upon reading of Neutral point of view I cannot see how the words "claim" and "erroneously" can be considered to adhere to NPOV. IMHO, changing to "others say" would be sufficient.
That said, I can see that this is a very minor point. My suspicion is that this article has merely been overlooked by any senior members who would feel entitled to rule. My hope is that some such member will agree with my proposed edit, but if someone assertively disagrees I wouldn't wish to invoke any machination to continue the dispute. Had the article not been this way for so long, I would have simply made my proposed edit.--SportWagon 23:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
I've done a little research on this. Here's what I've discovered:
  1. The term "suicide door" refers to any door hinged to the back of the vehicle. This definition was quite ubiquitous and I feel its pretty safe.
  2. If the intent of the disputed sentence is that suicide doors have or had a tendancy to open spontaneously, a little knowledge of physics and aerodynamics is enough to safely slap the "erroneous" label on it. Therefore, if such a claim is made, "erroneous" is not biased. However....
  3. I could find no source at all that said that suicide doors had that tendancy at all. I therefore recommend the entire parenthetical be removed as there's nothing cited to support the claim.
  4. I also found the etymology of "suicide doors" suspect. The origin most often quoted is that if the door became unlatched while the car was in the motion, the door would fly open rather than be forced closed. I quote from The San Diego Reader:
If a door came unlatched, because it was hinged at the back the air moving past the car flung the door open, and passengers often fell out. In crashes the door latches tended to fail, and the backseat passenger would fly out of the vehicle. Hence, the nickname.
So, I pretty much am proposing an entire rewrite of the opening paragraph. In the meantime, I've been bold and switched the NPOV tag to a {{fact check}} -- ShinmaWa(talk) 06:06, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for all that. While the citation might agree with my overall contention that the "others erroneously claim" statement is false, I would put zero stock in it. It is not a citation dating from the time of the origin of the term. (In other words, the current author would say, "Yes, that citation is one of those erroneous claims". It is unlikely that we will find on the internet a citation, with an explanation, of early use of the word. (pre-1940 would be good; one wonders when the notion first appeared that there was something dangerous about these doors, however).
Or do you mean the citation to support the "some erroneously claim"?
Note that the meaning of the word might correctly arise from erroneous assumptions. That is, "The word arose from people's fear, unfounded if one does the proper physics analysis, that air would tear the door wide open if it became unlatched as the car was moving." You seem to think the physics analysis to disprove that is obvious. It is not obvious to me. Perhaps it would be appropriate to briefly explain or cite such analysis in the article.
I dispute your assertion of the meaning of the parenthetical sentence in question. The sentence means to me that people's belief that that is the derivation of the meaning of the word is erroneous. I repeat, it's perfectly possible for a word to be correctly derived from an erroneous belief.--SportWagon 17:07, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

"People hear "suicide door", look at how it functions, and derive their own reasoning for the term." "I repeat, it's perfectly possible for a word to be correctly derived from an erroneous belief." I think SportWagon is correct. I've come up with a few more, possibly erroneous, dangers below. Unless we get some definitve source on the derivation, I think the article should say that it is named "suicide door" because it is thought to be dangerous, but what possibly dangerous aspect of the door it was named for is not known. Then, the possible dangers of the door should be given along with the likelihood of the situation happening. -- Kjkolb 17:44, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

My only feedback on this is that we have a citation of a newspaper (San Diego Reader), whose reporters supposedly did the research on our behalf. I think SportWagon might be setting the verifibility bar a mite too high here. To find a citation from the time of origin is overkill and not necessary. Under WP:V, we are not required to fact-check newspapers as they are considered trustworthy enough for citation. For your convienence, here's a quote from this policy:
[Emphasis theirs] One of the keys to writing good encyclopedia articles is to understand that they should refer only to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by a reputable publisher. [...] "Verifiability" in this context does not mean that editors are expected to verify whether, for example, the contents of a New York Times article are true. In fact, editors are strongly discouraged from conducting this kind of research, because original research may not be published in Wikipedia. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable or credible sources, regardless of whether individual editors view that material as true or false. As counter-intuitive as it may seem, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.
As it is, the current article has NO citations at all. Unless you have a better source or have some convincing reason why we should not trust the San Diego Reader as a trustworthy source, I don't see any reason why we can't leverage the information it provides. I also wholeheartedly disagree with Kjkolb's idea of stating that the etymology of the term is unknown. Saying so is a positive assertion that is counter to citable references. In other words, unless you have a citation from a reputable publisher stating the etymology is unknown, that assertion should not be added, per WP:V. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 22:37, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
But taken the way you suggest, the newspaper citation contradicts what you asserted as a NPOV use of "erroneous". It says, amongst other things, exactly the "erroneous" claim. Regarding the actual comparative danger of a rear-hinged door opening, after some thought, my non-expert understanding of physics caused me to decide there was no extra danger of it spontaneously coming open if unlatched ("wind force" still keeps it shut), but that if it was pushed open until the point where wind got inside the door, at that point it would have more tendency to fly open than a front-hinged door. But you say we would need to find a published analysis of such. But you also say we can assume your citation as verified. (That citation seems to be from an advice column; I'm not sure myself that they might not have more latitude for unverified opinions than actual news reports; should we attempt to contact that author and ask his sources?)--SportWagon 17:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
There's a big difference between unverified and biased. I still find nothing biased with that statement. It might be inaccurate and unverified, but its not biased. However, on the accuracy front: I have to admit that I was splitting hairs a bit on the difference between the citation and the article. The article seems to refer to the door opening on its own at speed (which is counter to aerodynamics) versus the citation which was specific about the door being unlatched first, either manually or because of a crash. I saw these as two very different assertions even though the difference was subtle. In either case, what we currently have in the article is an uncited assertion. What I'm suggesting is to replace it with a cited assertion, because that is Wikipedia policy. If you want to contact the author and get his sources, more power to you. However, please remember not to violate WP:NOR when you do so.
At any rate, my interest in this article was to resolve the NPOV check that you requested. I'm fairly convinced that I have done so. What you have here is a verifibility issue, not a bias issue. If you'd like to discuss any potential bias further, feel free to contact me on my talk page. Best to you, -- ShinmaWa(talk) 18:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
To find suitable citations for the meaning, I would suggest looking for reports which led to the apparent banning in the late sixties. Note that modern "suicide doors" (e.g. RX-8) are actively held shut by the front door. Edit: Er, sorry, I missed the Rolls Royce Phantom. Perhaps there was never a legal ban, but one would guess there must have been some consumer write-ups at the time which helped cause manufacturers to discontinue them--SportWagon 17:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
I note ShinmaWa makes special note of if the door became unlatched. I would argue that a large number of those "erroneous claimers" would assume that was a necessary condition for the flying open at speed. (Some old-fashioned door-handles might open when leaned-on or accidentally snagged). But I'd say, sure, make that nuance specific.--SportWagon 17:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other danger

The article says that the main danger, or at least the reason for the name, is another car hitting the door while entering or exiting the car. However, a more common danger would seem to be the vehicle moving while someone is getting in or out (by the driver's inattention to a passenger or forgetting to set the parking brake). The person might be dragged along with the car or go under the back wheel.

Aside from getting in or out, it would be more dangerous than a regular door if left open while the vehicle was moving. If a pedestrian was hit with a car door, a regular door would deflect (and tend to not stay wide open in the first place), but a suicide door would hold strong and possibly drag you. -- Kjkolb 11:26, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Mini Clubman

The New Mini Clubman (see www.motoringfile.com/2005/03/16/the_new_mini_clubman) has suicide rear doors.

Article dated March 3, 2005. --SportWagon 23:56, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Second-Order Research

Here is an online "report of a report"

It claims that "suicide doors" have been banned in Germany since 1961. It also claims the modern versions are required to have some measure of interlock to prevent them from being opened while moving (often implemented by preventing them from being opened before the front doors are opened, which sounds dangerous, but could be no more dangerous than a regular two-door car.--SportWagon 00:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

This has answered the question. I looked up the other cars that are bringing back suicide doors and they also cannot be opened unless the front doors are opened. That indicates that suicide doors are dangerous mainly in motion, which excludes the possibility of the danger being getting in and out of the car and having a vehicle hit the door. Also, there are deadbolts for suicide doors that can be retrofitted to old cars so that they cannot be opened while the car is moving or unless the front doors are opened. I doubt that every car manufacturer is getting the danger wrong, so I suggest that the article be changed.

Stiil, they wouldn't be as safe as regular doors. People might not be able to get out in fire, or get help after being severely injured in a crash, unless the driver is able to open his/her door, and the driver may be killed or incapacitated. Also, if there is no one to open the passenger side front door, someone in the backseat on the passenger side will have to escape through the other door, which will take more time and might be blocked by a dead or incapacitated person on the driver's side. Even if they are able to get out, they may receive more severe burns than they would have otherwise. Not being able to open the doors if the vehicle is moving would be the safest option. However not allowing the rear doors to open may be dangerous as well. For example, if the driver parks the car on a slope and gets out and leaves, a passenger may need to get out if the car starts rolling because the driver didn't leave it in gear and/or set the parking brake. It would be tricky, though. You might want to jump out as far as you can if it's moving faster than a couple miles an hour. This is assuming that the hill is steep or long, or the car could roll into the right of way of fast moving traffic. Otherwise, you would be safer if you just put your seatbelt on. You could try to get the car to stop by climbing into the front seat if you have time, but if you crashed before you get there, you'd be really screwed. -- Kjkolb 02:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

It was the following anonymous revision which first suggested the fear was unfounded. (using the term "quite safe" which is trans-Atlantically ambiguous.)
It was the following two quick successive anonymous revisions which added the "erroneously" claim, and parenthesized the remark.
I really don't see why this second wasn't just treated as a case of (mild)vandalism?
--SportWagon 17:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
I think you should change the article, if you want. I'm working on some other stuff right now, but I might get around to it later. -- Kjkolb 17:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
I won't change it today (on Friday; I have reduced access until Monday...). Next week if it's not done by then. --SportWagon 23:50, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another Anecdote

I remember my father (born in 1923) explaining to me that the doors used to have hinges in back, and, the door opener handle was a lever. People would rest their arm on the lever, and the door would open. (our car had a levered handle, but not suicide doors). He did not refer to it as a suicide door, but, he did say it was unsafe.

Also, a comment - the "kidnapper door" paragraph is superfluous. It's also poorly written.

[edit] Properly (something like) Rear-Hinged Doors

This is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. We should be describing the engineering concept, not people's linguistics. The main article should be (something like) "Rear-hinged doors", with a brief mention that they are sometimes called "suicide doors". "Suicide door(s)" should redirect to that.

I will attempt to confirm that vendors avoid the term "suicide door", and perhaps find out how they do refer to them.

--SportWagon 21:10, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

A Google search for rear-hinged automobile door currently finds lots of matches, including:
  • www.chalkhillmedia.org/Museum (another unsubstantiated definition of suicide door)
  • autos.msn.com; article clearly uses rear-hinged doors in reference to what this article talks about, and does not mention "suicide"
--SportWagon 23:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


I disagree. That's like saying Aspirin should properly be under Acetylsalicylic acid since its more "technically correct". People aren't going to be looking up "rear-hinged door"; they will be looking up the term they've actually heard: "Suicide door". I have no problem with setting up a redirect though. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 07:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Both of you have good points. It is most commonly known as a suicide door, and it is probably what people will search for most. However, it is a slang term. Rear-hinged door is more neutral and descriptive. I'm leaning towards rear-hinged door, but I would not be opposed to either name, as long as one redirected to the other. -- Kjkolb 08:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't consider it a slang term. It is a popular term, much like "seat belt" is the popular term for "safety restraint" or "safety belt" (the vendors' preferred terms). Vendors, of course, don't like to refer to suicide doors by that name since it is poor marketing. I really don't want to fall prey to marketing political correctness. "Gull-wing doors" are not called "top-hinged doors" and seat belts aren't called "safety restraints" in this encyclopedia. I don't see any reason why this article should be any exception. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 08:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
My Subaru Impreza owner's manual uses "seatbelt(s)" consistently. NPOV is itself a type of political correctness. Avoiding undue negativity can be argued to be political correctness, but in the case of "suicide doors" it's not really evasiveness on the part of the manufacturers/marketers--they really are attempting to avoid invalid connotations. Just because something is contentious doesn't mean it's better than its non-contentious alternative. Citations for "rear-hinged doors" should be easier-to-come-by, and the possible origins of the (not universally known) contentious name can be relegated to a sub-issue. Apart from anything else "kidnapping doors", FWIW, fits in better then. This is an encyclopedia of things, not words/phrases.--SportWagon 18:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Fine. Let's make this a numbers game. On Google:
  • "Rear-hinged door" and "Rear-hinged doors" - 15,610 hits.
  • "Suicide door" and "suicide doors" - 235,700 hits.
  • "Safety belt" - 2.2 million hits. :)
You are never, ever going to convince me that a term that is over an order of magnitude less previlent is "better" based on some vague notion that an adjective-noun pair is somehow more encyclopedic than the term it is actually known by. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 03:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
To be fair, 'Seat Belt' beats 'Safety Belt' by four-fold on Google by your rules. 68.219.104.145 23:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Positive aspects

The article (including the title) currently reads as one long criticism; if these doors are so bad, why are manufacturers putting them on cars again? There must be some positive aspects to them, which the article should mention, even briefly. Do the doors make it easier to get in and out of the car? Are they stylish and popular among a certain crowd? What? (I know nothing about them so I won't modify the article myself; just stumbled onto here.) --ScottAlanHill 21:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


As I understand it one advantage is that someone wearing a dress can turn and get out of the seat more elegantly and with less contortions than is the case with a front-hinged door. There is less chance of a 'knicker flash'.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/u/i/Talk%7ESuicide_door_a2f6.html"