Technology in cars and the young

[Primus1]

Having a recent discussion with a work colleague about cars, it all started when another colleague was going to look at a second hand Audi e tron, I said that everything was controlled through the touchscreen and to make sure she could be comfortable with this, ( she wasn’t and ended up buying a RR evoke, ,,!!) , anyway, talking to the other person about how distracting it would be , she said that younger people would be able to cope with this as they are so comfortable with todays tech and would do it without thinking, I still said it’s distracting and potentially dangerous, so much so, that car manufacturers are reverting back to physical controls for heating ect, even thatcham are getting involved with talk of awarding safety stars for companies that have separate buttons for some controls with cars losing marks if they don’t…but my work colleague was convinced that the younger generations would be able to operate things through the touchscreens…is she right..?

[APS]

No. Age does not change fundamental ergonomics. Pressing a big, physical button is always easier than selecting an option buried two submenus down in a touch screen user interface.

Why do they not move the horn button from the steering wheel to the touch screen? Would be a heck of a lot cheaper.

[Mjolinor]

It is bad enough having a touch screen on my car radio. Technology in cars rarely improves anything in terms of safety and even if it is supposed to be safer humans absorb it by not concentrating as hard so you are back at square one apart from more things to malfunction.

A classic example is dimming interior lights. The traditional way is a bulb and a switch but now they have a microprocessor and some software and ten times as many wires and connections just to make it come on and go out with increasing / reducing brightness.

[Haliotis]

My C-HR has 17 buttons on the steering wheel alone, most of which I never use.  I bought the car on the basis that it satisfied me “as a normal car” - not a technological toy.

I very rarely use the horn, to the extent that I sometimes give it a toot just to confirm it still works.   The best design car horn control (I had one on a 1956 Hillman Minx) was the horn ring. If needed, all that was necessary was thumb movement anywhere around the steering wheel.

Regarding driver ability with technology - mostly it is the young drivers who will handle it the easiest. But, unfortunately, that alone will not make them better or safer drivers.  Much of a car’s technology, as far as the driver is concerned, is twofold.  It introduces distracting “entertainment” that can reduce proper attention to the road and surrounding activity, and the actual driver aids can encourage over-dependency on these, rather than physically paying attention.  One example is the door mirror warnings of passing traffic from the rear.  I still constantly check all my rear view mirrors, which I believe is the only way to stay safe from the rear.  Often, when I pass a stationary object (it could be a pillar box), the car will sound a warning and, if I am approaching a stationary car on my side of the road, and I wait until last minute to pull out (which may be due to a closely parked vehicle on the opposite side), the MFD turns red a shows BRAKE.

So I treat my car as a dumb instrument, and use my driving experience and discipline to make it behave in a manner that all other road users expect of it.  Simples!!! 

[Primus1]

Yes I agree, the driver aids are just that, to aid the driver and not replace them, although when the driverless car does appear it might be different..

[Roy124]

Mind you, we oldies can quickly adapt to new technology.   Not long after getting my Corolla I had a loan Yaris.  After my first stop I tried to restart it.  I found the ignition keyway and turned the key.

Lots of lights but the car didn't start.

I rang the garage who talked me through the procedure: insert key, press brake,  turn key, select reverse, apply gas.

Of course I had done all that up to turn key.  It never occurred to me that I would not HEAR the engine.

[Cyker]

9 hours ago, APS said:

No. Age does not change fundamental ergonomics. Pressing a big, physical button is always easier than selecting an option buried two submenus down in a touch screen user interface.

Why do they not move the horn button from the steering wheel to the touch screen? Would be a heck of a lot cheaper.

That pretty much sums it up my opinion too.

The proliferation of touch screens is driven by two things:

1) They look impressive and high-tech to the uninformed

2) They are much cheaper to implement than physical switches and buttons

So for the manufacturers it's win-win - The customer thinks they're getting a big expensive show-off touch interface, and the manufacturers make double because they can charge more for the 'premium' screen while actually saving money vs having switches!

 

 

[Gren]

My first hybrid was a hire car - I had that too - turned key etc but no engine sound.  After several attempts at this the engine came on.  I was in a hurry otherwise I'd have raged at the hire company for giving me a dodgy car.  Then it dawned on me....

[Bper]

Hi Alan,there's some truth to both sides of the argument.

Distraction is a concern touchscreens can be distracting, taking your eyes off the road to use them can be dangerous. Studies show it takes longer to use a touchscreen than physical buttons while driving.

That's probably why safety regulators are pushing carmakers to include physical buttons for critical controls like climate and hazard lights. Voice control is also being developed as a safer alternative.

Age isn't everything: While younger generations might be more comfortable with tech in general, that doesn't mean touchscreens in cars are safer for them. The distraction risk applies to everyone on the road.

So, while younger drivers may be more tech savvy, touchscreens can be distracting for everyone. For safer driving, physical buttons and voice control are emerging as better options. 

[Haliotis]

2 hours ago, Primus1 said:

Yes I agree, the driver aids are just that, to aid the driver and not replace them, although when the driverless car does appear it might be different..

But some drivers are naturally lazy, and will put over-reliance on these aids.

As for driverless cars - which will nob truly “driverless” because a qualified driver will be behind the wheel a a legal requirement - but I predict a higher accident rate than the government and safety gurus would have us believe.

Drivers of these cars will in many cases subconsciously demote themselves to “attendants”, and loose concentration. Then accidents will occur for two main reasons:  (1) Regardless of technical progress, there will be times when the technology breaks down, either due to a system failure, a manufacturing fault or improper maintenance procedure.  (2) Another road user, possibly driving a conventional vehicle, making a mistake in which a “driverless car” cannot by itself prevent a collision.  In both scenarios, the resultant collision will be compounded by the  Driver of the “driverless car” losing concentration and over-relying on the car to sort things out.

[Cyker]

That's one concern I have with all the ADAS systems - Instead of improving driver standards, they implementing more and more of these systems and the net result is driving standards are being lowering by them. Even I catch myself relying on them instead of doing proper checks sometimes because it's easier and faster.

[Bper]

29 minutes ago, Haliotis said:

But some drivers are naturally lazy, and will put over-reliance on these aids.

As for driverless cars - which will nob truly “driverless” because a qualified driver will be behind the wheel a a legal requirement - but I predict a higher accident rate than the government and safety gurus would have us believe.

Drivers of these cars will in many cases subconsciously demote themselves to “attendants”, and loose concentration. Then accidents will occur for two main reasons:  (1) Regardless of technical progress, there will be times when the technology breaks down, either due to a system failure, a manufacturing fault or improper maintenance procedure.  (2) Another road user, possibly driving a conventional vehicle, making a mistake in which a “driverless car” cannot by itself prevent a collision.  In both scenarios, the resultant collision will be compounded by the  Driver of the “driverless car” losing concentration and over-relying on the car to sort things out.

Hi Albert, your right with your comments but i honestly believe by the time we become a fully driverless society, man will be living on mars. We have to remember the infrastructure involved for this to happen.We can't build nuclear power stations without decades delay and building a EV charging system nationwide has about as much chance of me winning an argument with my wife. We will all still be driving our own cars long after this BS gets confined to the history books.

[Roy124]

Hard switches can be better than soft, but they must be easily accessible ideally by touch.

Putting the headlight levelling out of sight/reach is probably OK, but Auto Headlight and steering wheel heating should be easy to locate.  The gear stick console switches are OK except for Brake Hold.  I prefer to use it but frequently forget before I am driving.

 

[APS]

1 hour ago, Cyker said:

The proliferation of touch screens is driven by two things:

1) They look impressive and high-tech to the uninformed

2) They are much cheaper to implement than physical switches and buttons

So for the manufacturers it's win-win - The customer thinks they're getting a big expensive show-off touch interface, and the manufacturers make double because they can charge more for the 'premium' screen while actually saving money vs having switches!

3) You don't have to make your mind up or worry about mistakes because it's super cheap to change or fix the UI. Shorter development times.

It's a win-win-win.

Not only that - the fact that interfaces are software driven (this includes hard buttons) means they (the manufacturers) can collect user telemetry from all vehicles. Which they can later mine for intelligence to improve user experience and... sell on to third parties for monies. win-win-win-win-kaaching! 🏆 💰 

Agreed Cyker, there are a million reasons screens and software drives how vehicles are controlled these days. I'm a little surprised the bling-factor of screens has not worn off more by now. I remember getting my E12 Corolla with the big DVD satnav back in 2002 - at that time it was cool. Nowadays, meh, it's a bit of a con 🫤  

[Cyker]

It's the same silliness as wheel rim sizes - Always selling bigger ones as a 'feature' as if that's a good thing - I would not be surprised when they're boasting about 37" touch screens in the future despite how ridiculous that would be  

[Haliotis]

22 hours ago, Cyker said:

It's the same silliness as wheel rim sizes - Always selling bigger ones as a 'feature' as if that's a good thing - I would not be surprised when they're boasting about 37" touch screens in the future despite how ridiculous that would be  

Making wheel rim sizes larger, and reducing the depth of the side wall of the tyre has three distinct effects:  (1) The tyre is less flexible, giving the car a harder ride. (2) It probably makes the suspension work harder (shorter life?). (3) Due to the rims being much lower to the ground, there is  greater risk of kerbing the rims, and resulting in expensive cosmetic repair.

[Paul john]

5 minutes ago, Haliotis said:

Making wheel rim sizes larger, and reducing the depth of the side wall of the tyre has three distinct effects:  (1) The tyre is less flexible, giving the car a harder ride. (2) It probably makes the suspension work harder (shorter life?). (3) Due to the rims being much lower to the ground, there is  greater risk of kerbing the rims, and resulting in expensive cosmetic repair.

You missed out (4) larger rims make you more susceptible to pot hole damage. 15” survive because of larger rubber cushion. Lol. 19” not so much. 

[Haliotis]

16 hours ago, Paul john said:

You missed out (4) larger rims make you more susceptible to pot hole damage. 15” survive because of larger rubber cushion. Lol. 19” not so much. 

Strangely, my C-HR with 18” rims seems to handle potholes better than did my previous VW Caravelle with 15” rims.  Perhaps one explanation could be that the Caravelle was significantly heavier, and the C-HR suspension might be of superior design?

[APS]

48 minutes ago, Haliotis said:

Strangely, my C-HR with 18” rims seems to handle potholes better than did my previous VW Caravelle with 15” rims.  Perhaps one explanation could be that the Caravelle was significantly heavier, and the C-HR suspension might be of superior design?

The stiffer body in modern cars, and particularly smaller cars, allows the suspension to do its job and absorb the impact better. Larger cars are rarely as stiff, although they may have a better unsprung:sprung mass ratio, and you will feel more of a judder.  Modern cars do have some benefits 🙂

[Haliotis]

32 minutes ago, APS said:

The stiffer body in modern cars, and particularly smaller cars, allows the suspension to do its job and absorb the impact better. Larger cars are rarely as stiff, although they may have a better unsprung:sprung mass ratio, and you will feel more of a judder.  Modern cars do have some benefits 🙂

The Caravelle was a 2017 model, with very low mileage, so I would rate it just as “modern” as my 2021 C-HR.  It is also a rigidly-built vehicle, being based on the VW Transporter.  Perhaps, it having a very large load rating, the suspension would be much stiffer than that of a small SUV, and more evident of this in its service as a private passenger vehicle.

[APS]

22 minutes ago, Haliotis said:

The Caravelle was a 2017 model, with very low mileage, so I would rate it just as “modern” as my 2021 C-HR.  It is also a rigidly-built vehicle, being based on the VW Transporter.  Perhaps, it having a very large load rating, the suspension would be much stiffer than that of a small SUV, and more evident of this in its service as a private passenger vehicle.

I agree. The combination of having that larger load capacity, while also being a five metre two tonne van body will make it a bit less 'crisp' than the smaller C-HR.