Group 1 - The core viewpoint of the news is the introduction of a new mandatory national standard for automotive door handles, which aims to enhance safety and eliminate the use of hidden door handles in vehicles by 2027 [2][4]. - The new standard requires mechanical release functions for both interior and exterior door handles, ensuring they can be manually operated in extreme situations such as power failure [2][4]. - The standard mandates specific dimensions for hand operation space and mechanical strength requirements, such as exterior handles needing to withstand a force of at least 500 Newtons [2][4]. Group 2 - The hidden door handle design, popularized by Tesla's Model S in 2012, is set to become obsolete due to safety concerns, as it has been found to provide minimal aerodynamic benefits while posing risks in emergency situations [3][4]. - The transition period for compliance with the new standard allows for gradual implementation, with new models needing to meet most requirements by January 1, 2027, and all requirements by January 1, 2028 [4][5]. - Several automotive companies are already adapting their designs to comply with the new regulations, with examples including AITO's M8 and M7 models featuring semi-hidden handles and multiple unlocking mechanisms [5]. Group 3 - The new standard is seen as a return to the "safety first" principle in automotive design, pushing manufacturers to prioritize safety over aesthetic innovations [2][4]. - The emergence of the new standard has sparked discussions about other "anti-human" designs in the automotive industry, such as the elimination of physical buttons and the adoption of half steering wheels, which may also require regulation [6][7]. - The automotive industry is expected to face challenges in redesigning vehicles to meet new safety standards, but the trend towards eliminating unreasonable designs is anticipated to continue [8].

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the concept of "anti-human design" in automobiles, categorizing designs into two types: those that compromise user experience for aesthetics or cost, and those that, while seemingly counterintuitive, are based on engineering logic or industry standards [3]. Group 1: Unreasonable Designs - Hidden door handles are a popular design among new energy vehicles, reducing drag coefficient by 0.003 Cd, which translates to a minimal energy saving of 0.15-0.18 kWh per 100 km, but they pose usability issues in cold weather and emergency situations [6][7]. - The trend of eliminating physical buttons in favor of touchscreens can create safety hazards, as drivers must navigate menus to adjust settings, which detracts from driving focus [9][10]. - The removal of physical "close" buttons for electric tailgates in favor of remote or sensor activation can lead to awkward situations when the sensor fails [12]. Group 2: Reasonable Designs - The gear shift logic of placing the R (reverse) gear in front of the D (drive) gear is based on long-standing conventions that enhance usability and safety during parking maneuvers [14][16]. - The design of rear seat angles, which may feel uncomfortable, is actually intended to improve comfort and safety by preventing occupants from sliding during collisions [20][23]. - The thickening of the A-pillar for structural integrity in collisions is a necessary compromise for safety, despite creating blind spots [24][26]. - Delayed response in automatic window controls is a safety feature designed to prevent accidents involving children or pets, reflecting a preference for safety over speed [29][30]. Group 3: Impact of Smart Technology - The rise of smart technology in vehicles has led to a new wave of interface confusion, as many designs prioritize aesthetics over practical usability, often neglecting the driving context [32]. - Market feedback is increasingly influencing design choices, leading to a return of some physical controls and a shift away from purely aesthetic features like hidden door handles [33]. - The effectiveness of a design should be judged not just on its innovation but on its understanding of user needs and daily usability [35].

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the concept of "anti-human design" in automobiles, categorizing designs into two types: those that compromise user experience for aesthetics or cost, and those that, while seemingly counterintuitive, are based on engineering logic or industry standards [1][36]. Group 1: Unreasonable Designs - Hidden door handles are popular among new energy vehicles for their aesthetic appeal and slight reduction in drag coefficient, but the energy savings are minimal, leading to user inconvenience in cold weather and potential safety issues [3][4][5]. - The trend of eliminating physical buttons in favor of touchscreens can create safety hazards, as drivers must navigate menus instead of using simple buttons to adjust settings [7][8]. - The removal of physical "close" buttons for features like electric tailgates can lead to awkward user experiences when the sensor fails [10]. Group 2: Reasonable Designs - The gear shift logic of placing the reverse (R) gear in front of the drive (D) gear is based on historical conventions that enhance usability and safety during parking maneuvers [11][12]. - The design of rear seat angles, which may feel uncomfortable, is actually intended to improve comfort and safety by preventing passengers from sliding during collisions [15][18][21]. - The thickening of the A-pillar, while reducing visibility, is a necessary compromise for structural integrity and safety during collisions, with modern technology providing solutions to mitigate blind spots [23][25][28]. Group 3: Safety Considerations - Delays in automatic window operations are designed to prevent accidents, particularly for children and pets, reflecting a safety-first approach in engineering [29][30]. - The article emphasizes that many designs perceived as "anti-human" are actually rooted in safety, comfort, and regulatory compliance, highlighting the importance of understanding the rationale behind these choices [33][36].