Why cars stopped having “suicide doors”

They largely disappeared because rear-hinged doors were riskier with mid‑century latch technology: if a door wasn’t fully latched, the airstream tended to pull it open and could contribute to occupant ejection. As safety standards, crash tests, and structural requirements tightened in the late 1960s onward, front‑hinged doors were simpler to make compliant, cheaper to engineer, and easier to package with strong center pillars. Today, rear‑hinged doors survive only in tightly engineered niches (for example, Rolls‑Royce) with robust latches, interlocks, and reinforced structures.

What “suicide doors” are and how they became common

“Suicide door” is the colloquial name for a rear-hinged door. They were common on many cars from the 1910s through the 1930s, and persisted into the postwar era on some models. The nickname reflects the risks associated with early designs: in the pre‑seatbelt era, if such a door opened while the vehicle was moving, wind pressure could swing it wide and make it easier for an occupant to be pulled out. As engineering progressed and mass‑market safety expectations rose, manufacturers migrated to front‑hinged doors, which the slipstream tends to push closed, not open.

The main reasons they fell out of favor

The following points summarize the core technical, regulatory, and market forces that led most automakers to abandon rear‑hinged doors for decades.

• Aerodynamic and latch physics: At speed, airflow tends to pull a rear‑hinged door farther open if it’s not fully latched; by contrast, it pushes a front‑hinged door toward closed. Early door latches and check straps were less robust, increasing the risk if a door were ajar.
• Occupant ejection risk in the pre‑seatbelt era: Without widespread seatbelt use (before the late 1960s), any door opening in motion materially raised ejection risk; rear‑hinged geometry made containment harder once ajar.
• Structural integrity and the B‑pillar: Modern side‑impact and rollover protection rely heavily on a strong center pillar (the B‑pillar). Traditional “clamshell” layouts that delete or weaken the B‑pillar for a wide opening complicate crash performance and add cost and weight to compensate.
• Regulatory compliance: From the late 1960s, door latch/hinge standards (for example, U.S. FMVSS 206) and later side‑impact rules increased the engineering burden. Rear‑hinged doors aren’t banned, but meeting retention and crash requirements is generally more challenging.
• Cost and manufacturing simplicity: Standardizing on front‑hinged doors simplified tooling, parts commonality, and assembly, lowering costs across high‑volume lineups.
• Usability and consumer perception: The “suicide” label carried negative connotations, and consumers became accustomed to front‑hinged operation. Rear‑hinged rear doors often require sequencing (front door must open first), which can be less convenient.
• Door‑opening-in-traffic hazards: Any door opened into traffic is risky, but rear‑hinged fronts can be harder to control if a passing vehicle catches the leading edge and wrenches it open.

Taken together, these factors made front‑hinged doors the pragmatic default for mainstream vehicle design from the late 1950s onward.

What regulations actually require

There is no blanket ban on rear‑hinged doors. But compliance is nontrivial.

• Door locks and retention: U.S. FMVSS 206 (and analogous UNECE rules, such as R11 for latches/hinges) set strength and performance requirements so doors resist inadvertent opening and remain closed in crashes. Rear‑hinged layouts can comply, but typically need stronger latches, secondary catches, and robust check mechanisms.
• Side‑impact and roof strength: Standards such as FMVSS 214 (side impact) and roof crush requirements, plus global equivalents, make the B‑pillar a critical load path. Designs that split or delete it for wide openings must add reinforcement elsewhere, adding mass and cost.
• Child protection and interlocks: Modern rear‑hinged rear doors often include interlocks so they cannot open unless the adjacent front door is open, speed‑dependent locks, and child safety features to prevent misuse.

For high‑volume vehicles where every kilogram and dollar matters, these requirements favor conventional front‑hinged doors. Low‑volume luxury or specialty models can absorb the engineering and cost to keep rear‑hinged doors compliant.

How the transition happened

The following timeline outlines the shift away from rear‑hinged doors in mainstream cars.

1. 1910s–1930s: Rear‑hinged front doors are common. Latch technology is basic; seatbelts are virtually nonexistent.
2. 1940s–1950s: Gradual move toward front‑hinged doors accelerates as speeds rise, body engineering improves, and safety concerns grow.
3. Late 1960s–1970s: Regulatory era begins (e.g., FMVSS in the U.S.). Seat belts become standard equipment; door retention standards take effect. Front‑hinged doors dominate mass production.
4. 1990s–2010s: Select reappearances of rear‑hinged rear doors on niche or utility models (e.g., extended‑cab pickups, Honda Element, Mazda RX‑8), typically with interlocks and strong B‑pillars or reinforced sills.
5. 2010s–2020s: Luxury brands, notably Rolls‑Royce, normalize rear‑hinged rear doors with advanced latching and structural solutions; occasional special editions (e.g., Lincoln Continental Coach Door) showcase the format.

By the time safety standards matured, the industry had already converged on front‑hinged designs, making a broad return to rear‑hinged doors unlikely outside niches.

Modern exceptions—and why they’re safer now

When rear‑hinged doors do appear today, they’re supported by multiple layers of engineering to reduce the historical risks.

• High‑strength latches and hinges tested to modern retention loads, often with secondary catches.
• Door sequencing/interlocks so rear‑hinged rears cannot open unless the front door is already open, preventing accidental opening at speed.
• Speed‑sensitive locking, intrusion beams, and reinforced sills/rockers that substitute for or supplement a B‑pillar.
• Comprehensive occupant restraints and airbags that greatly mitigate ejection risk compared with the pre‑seatbelt era.
• Sensors and warnings to detect ajar conditions and prevent movement or alert the driver.

These measures don’t eliminate all tradeoffs, but they allow limited use of rear‑hinged doors without compromising compliance or safety expectations.

Recent and notable vehicles with rear‑hinged doors

These examples illustrate how contemporary automakers implement the concept in controlled contexts.

• Rolls‑Royce Phantom, Ghost, Spectre, and Cullinan: Rear‑hinged rear doors with powered closing, robust latches, and heavily reinforced bodies.
• Mazda RX‑8 (2003–2012): Small rear‑hinged rear “freestyle” doors interlocked to the front doors, retaining a strong central structure.
• BMW i3 (2013–2022): Compact rear‑hinged rear doors paired with a carbon‑fiber passenger cell to maintain side‑impact strength.
• Honda Element (2003–2011), Toyota FJ Cruiser (2007–2014 U.S.), MINI Clubman (first gen): Rear‑hinged auxiliary rear doors to improve access in compact packages.
• Extended‑cab pickups (e.g., Ford F‑150 SuperCab, Chevrolet Silverado Extended Cab, Ram Quad Cab, Toyota Access Cab): Rear‑hinged rear doors to ease entry to the second row while preserving a robust B‑pillar and cab strength.
• Lincoln Continental Coach Door Edition (2019–2020 limited run): Rear‑hinged rear doors on a reinforced structure, emphasizing luxury access.

In each case, the vehicles either preserve a strong B‑pillar or compensate with reinforced sills and advanced materials, plus modern latching and electronic controls.

Will they make a mainstream comeback?

Unlikely. While electric “skateboard” platforms and new materials give engineers more freedom, the cost, complexity, and packaging compromises of rear‑hinged doors still outweigh their benefits for mass‑market cars. For luxury brands seeking theater and easier rear ingress, or for specific utility use cases, they will continue as a curated design choice rather than a widespread norm.

Summary

Cars moved away from “suicide” (rear‑hinged) doors chiefly because they were less forgiving with early latches and no seatbelts, increasing the risk if a door opened in motion. As safety standards and crash performance demands grew, front‑hinged doors were simpler, cheaper, and structurally advantageous. Today, rear‑hinged doors persist in limited, carefully engineered applications—proof that they aren’t banned, just harder to execute safely and economically at scale.