Sick of touchscreens in cars? Maybe good news is coming.

[Tony Lockhart]

Carmakers Must Bring Back Buttons, Says Europe - Hagerty Media

Key dashboard touchscreen functions will soon be kicked into touch and physical switches required for car makers to be granted the highest safety ratings.

www.hagerty.com

If NCAP start marking safety ratings down for cars that rely on f****** touchscreens for crucial actions, that’s a bloody good thing, for a change.

 

[gez]

It's not nearly enough.

Everything that you might want to do when on the move should be physical buttons, or at the very least large buttons that are always in the same place on the touch screen irrespective of what else is being viewed, and only if they are replacements for a physical push on/off/select mode etc button. No dials replaced with sliders on screen, if it's something you might need to adjust while driving using, (e.g radio/phone volume or air con temp etc), must be physical.

I have no problem with "change and forget" type settings being buried in a touch screen menu, but absolutely everything that anybody reasonably might want to change whilst driving should be physical. It's such an obvious safety issue it staggers me that people have taken this long to do something about it.

 

[Ginger]

For those key functions, absolutely right. I’d add a few more of my own .

I’m ok with a small-ish screen for music and Waze and phone, and some other info/settings that I only want occasionally , but fiddling with a screen or twiddling knobs on the move is a no-no for me.

I should add that for phone, the ability to verbally command should be a requirement, in my view.

 

[Rodrat]

one of the reasons we went for an iPace. I think it is safer being about to access the most used controls without scrolling through a large display.

 

[Mike Hughes]

I’ll never be a car driver so i’ve no skin in the game in that sense but i think there’s a strong argument nothing should be in software and not even set once settings. All software crashes and when it does there is no predicting what may have ceased to function or reset itself. Even the idea of large software buttons is appalling. Screens, and areas of screens, fail on all devices.

 

[Colin L]

BMW had it right with the Idrive knob controlling the menus on the display. Touch screens are awful and dangerous. My Volvo XC60 company car is a prime example and one I won’t repeat solely because of the touchscreen.

 

[Minio]

My first car was a 1970 VW Beetle.
It had a quality Blaupunkt push button radio which changed the channels.

I currently have a Citroën C4 with a touchscreen for the radio, air con, satnav and various lighting and mode settings.

Whenever I change the radio channel, which is a struggle even after I've found and got into the right menu, it takes several attempts to get the pressure correct to change channel.

I'm fairly tech savvy but there must be many out there totally bewildered by modern car touchscreens.

Fond memories of that old Beetle. It had no fuel gauge.

But it did have reserve a fuel tank lever.
Proper cars them.

 

[gingermrkettle]

Not sure it is just touchscreens, the point about physical switches is that you can use them as an unconscious competency without needing to look at anything to know that they are doing what you want.

 

[boneman]

absolutely detest touch screens. Dials, clock hands. All easy to read at a glance. We have a Qashqai and the clock is this tiny digital bit that you need a microscope to read.

 

[James]

It's doubly bad if you have to take a hand off the wheel and eyes off the road. I would actively avoid owning a car that didn't have tactile switches for things I'm likely to do whilst driving. I barely tolerate the finger-print smudges on my phone.

P/S: I was initially skeptical of the value of Head Up Display as an extra-cost option when ordering my 2013 BMW. Now, I think it is the bestest thing ever. I can see who is calling me, follow satnav directions, monitor my speed and scroll through radio stations without ever taking my eyes off the road or hands off the wheel.

 

[sean99]

I’ll never be a car driver so i’ve no skin in the game in that sense but i think there’s a strong argument nothing should be in software and not even set once settings. All software crashes and when it does there is no predicting what may have ceased to function or reset itself. Even the idea of large software buttons is appalling. Screens, and areas of screens, fail on all devices.

So you'll never fly anywhere then. Nor go to the hospital where there are safety critical machines running ......yikes ..... software.
Hardware also has faults - faults that can develop over time.
Safety critical software has a long history (e.g. see MISRA-C).

I don't have a car with a screen, and they hold no appeal, but, provided the screen has large "buttons" in non-changing and obvious places, and provides tactile feedback (vibration) I don't see why it would be less safe than myriad buttons for radio, climate control, cruise control, suspension setting etc. I suspect a good UI design is the answer.

 

[raysablade]

Interestingly enough I was with wife today looking at the potential of the new new Mini replacing her Polo GTI. Bucking the post post-modern trend of returning to knobs and switches, BMW seem to have gone all in and almost entirely dispensed with buttons and "i drive" . One massive touch screen covers it all.

I was expecting her to be horrified, however once she was satisfied that she could just tell it what to do, and could fill the touch screen with any picture wants she was content stop looking at alternatives and order one.

 

[Snufkin]

My first car was a 1970 VW Beetle.
It had a quality Blaupunkt push button radio which changed the channels.

I currently have a Citroën C4 with a touchscreen for the radio, air con, satnav and various lighting and mode settings.

Whenever I change the radio channel, which is a struggle even after I've found and got into the right menu, it takes several attempts to get the pressure correct to change channel.

I'm fairly tech savvy but there must be many out there totally bewildered by modern car touchscreens.

Fond memories of that old Beetle. It had no fuel gauge.

But it did have reserve a fuel tank lever.
Proper cars them.

Agree with you about the Beetle and I still have one. I have owned many Beetles over the years and the only one with a reserve lever was a 1961 model (it did have a fuel gauge as well but that was an ‘extra’). Where was yours made because I thought all European models had fuel gauges after 1962?

 

[Snufkin]

Interestingly enough I was with wife today looking at the potential of the new new Mini replacing her Polo GTI. Bucking the post modern trend BMW seem to have almost entirely dispensed with buttons and "i drive" . One massive touch screen covers it all.

Shame as the "i drive" works really well.

 

[raysablade]

Shame as the "i drive" works really well.

Agreed, but i guess in the white heat of the AI revolution nothing beats thinking "the windows need demisting" saying "mini, demist the windows and whilst you are at it start my abysmal 80's playlist" and it being done.

 

[James]

So you'll never fly anywhere then. Nor go to the hospital where there are safety critical machines running ......yikes ..... software.
Hardware also has faults - faults that can develop over time.
Safety critical software has a long history (e.g. see MISRA-C).

I don't have a car with a screen, and they hold no appeal, but, provided the screen has large "buttons" in non-changing and obvious places, and provides tactile feedback (vibration) I don't see why it would be less safe than myriad buttons for radio, climate control, cruise control, suspension setting etc. I suspect a good UI design is the answer.

Most newish cars rely on software to control many aspects of the driving experience. Even with a manual gear box, my car has the 'smarts' to increase engine speed slightly as an anti-stall feature if I start to release the clutch without touching the throttle. I think one will have to go back to the days of carburetors and mechanical distributors etc. to avoid dependence on software. By my estimation, that'll be the 1970s or earlier.

The line in the sand for me is internet connectivity, where software can be updated by the manufacturer remotely. I'm sure that is fine for non-safety critical stuff like my computer or phone. But even then, I have the choice of accepting the update and knowing that there is a brief outage during installation. Not sure about that when I'm driving ...

 

[Mike Hughes]

So you'll never fly anywhere then. Nor go to the hospital where there are safety critical machines running ......yikes ..... software.
Hardware also has faults - faults that can develop over time.
Safety critical software has a long history (e.g. see MISRA-C).

I don't have a car with a screen, and they hold no appeal, but, provided the screen has large "buttons" in non-changing and obvious places, and provides tactile feedback (vibration) I don't see why it would be less safe than myriad buttons for radio, climate control, cruise control, suspension setting etc. I suspect a good UI design is the answer.

Generally speaking my hospital doesn’t move at 80mph; isn’t prone to reflections causing problems with seeing the screen, and, the equipment in both hospitals and aircraft is built to much higher tolerances than those in your average Toyota or is so old, simple and reliable that it’s not an issue. Plenty of UK hospitals still using Windows.XP as do GP practices Similarly when software crashes in hospital it’s usually on testing/measuring kit which can be and is just rebooted. Let’s see you read this and still feel confident on an aircraft. https://spectrum.ieee.org/how-the-boeing-737-max-disaster-looks-to-a-software-developer

The issue with cars of course is that if the software fails and the driver is in trouble then the front seat passenger is barely in a position to retrieve the situation. In an aircraft there are these people called co-pilots… albeit that certain companies, despite stories like the above, are determined that major airlines will start flying with only a pilot.

Maybe sit in some of these cars? The UI is often brilliant. It’s really not an issue or the issue. The issue is reliability and redundancy. In a streaming system you will have a backup set up for your NAS. In a plane most critical stayers are run by pilots and monitored by software. Yes stuff can be automated at non-critical moments but there is redundancy in having a non-automated pilot and co-pilot and frequently having other crew on board who can also fly if required. In a car? If your software screws you over there is nothing to fall back on bar an airbag if you’re lucky.

Some examples? Of course. Friend had a TVR. She was driving on the motorway when the doors locked her in; the windows shut and the software controlled engine shut down at 80mph and then refused to let the brake function cos… no power. No UI improvements to be made there. Another friend locked their car into cruise control. Car refused to “cruise” until it had accelerated of its own volition… to 90mph. Literally had to take a chance and take it off the motorway into a field and through some fences before the software ceased its attempt to kill him.

 

[sean99]

Most newish cars rely on software to control many aspects of the driving experience. Even with a manual gear box, my car has the 'smarts' to increase engine speed slightly as an anti-stall feature if I start to release the clutch without touching the throttle. I think one will have to go back to the days of carburetors and mechanical distributors etc. to avoid dependence on software. By my estimation, that'll be the 1970s or earlier.

The line in the sand for me is internet connectivity, where software can be updated by the manufacturer remotely. I'm sure that is fine for non-safety critical stuff like my computer or phone. But even then, I have the choice of accepting the update and knowing that there is a brief outage during installation. Not sure about that when I'm driving ...

Again, this is a solved problem. The various ECUs in the car will have sufficient non-volatlle storage for multiple copies of the firmware. New images are downloaded and validated, most likely using secure boot, based on public key cryptography, before they are applied. The process of applying a firmware update (after it's downloaded and validated) takes a few seconds, tops, so it can be done when the car is not being driven. This is all basic firmware stuff.

 

[sean99]

Generally speaking my hospital doesn’t move at 80mph; isn’t prone to reflections causing problems with seeing the screen, and, the equipment in both hospitals and aircraft is built to much higher tolerances than those in your average Toyota or is so old, simple and reliable that it’s not an issue. Plenty of UK hospitals still using Windows.XP as do GP practices Similarly when software crashes in hospital it’s usually on testing/measuring kit which can be and is just rebooted. Let’s see you read this and still feel confident on an aircraft. https://spectrum.ieee.org/how-the-boeing-737-max-disaster-looks-to-a-software-developer

The issue with cars of course is that if the software fails and the driver is in trouble then the front seat passenger is barely in a position to retrieve the situation. In an aircraft there are these people called co-pilots… albeit that certain companies, despite stories like the above, are determined that major airlines will start flying with only a pilot.

Maybe sit in some of these cars? The UI is often brilliant. It’s really not an issue or the issue. The issue is reliability and redundancy. In a streaming system you will have a backup set up for your NAS. In a plane most critical stayers are run by pilots and monitored by software. Yes stuff can be automated at non-critical moments but there is redundancy in having a non-automated pilot and co-pilot and frequently having other crew on board who can also fly if required. In a car? If your software screws you over there is nothing to fall back on bar an airbag if you’re lucky.

Some examples? Of course. Friend had a TVR. She was driving on the motorway when the doors locked her in; the windows shut and the software controlled engine shut down at 80mph and then refused to let the brake function cos… no power. No UI improvements to be made there. Another friend locked their car into cruise control. Car refused to “cruise” until it had accelerated of its own volition… to 90mph. Literally had to take a chance and take it off the motorway into a field and through some fences before the software ceased its attempt to kill him.

Mechanical systems can also fail and kill you. Stuck throttle cables, for example. I just don't accept that software is the weak link "because it's software". Anyone who thinks that is about 20 years behind the state of the art in terms of safety critical software development.

 

[Mike Hughes]

Mechanical systems can also fail and kill you. Stuck throttle cables, for example. I just don't accept that software is the weak link "because it's software". Anyone who thinks that is about 20 years behind the state of the art in terms of safety critical software development.

Yes they can but generally their failure is far more predictable. Software failure, as we have seen repeatedly, is not.

I don’t really care what you “just don’t accept”. It makes zero difference to the objective state of play.