I would love to see some EU legislation about car dashboards. As an occasional driver of many different brands and types of vehicles, I continue to be amazed at the usability crimes being committed in the name of 'looking cool' (stated reason) as well as 'cost savings' (most likely the real reason).
Any function that needs to be invoked or setting that needs to be changed by a reasonable person while driving should have dedicated hardware in a predictable position. So, that's direction indicators, outside lights (incl. high beams and fog lights), windshield wipers, cruise control, window defrost/defog, interior temperature/fan, media volume (am I forgetting anything?).
There is nothing more utterly annoying and outright dangerous than having to navigate some crappy touchscreen when your windows start fogging up or you need to turn off the radio in order to talk to that nice cop that just pulled you over.
Offenders here do not only include the T-brand, but also the B-brand, which has seen it fit to replace most of the controls in some of its cars with a single multi-function stalk (iDrive, I think?) that isn't good for anything, except as a reason to return your car for a refund...
In the Tesla FSD video[0] the driver spent a lot of time swiping back and forth on the map. If that touchscreen were an iPad, that behaviour would be illegal in the UK. I don't know what the road law is in the US, and if they sell the same Tesla model in the UK.
As with most things in the US, it varies by state. For the past five years or so, it has been illegal in Georgia for a driver to use a phone or tablet that is not set in a mount attached to the vehicle. Other states have adopted similar laws but not every state has and the details vary between states that do have such laws.
The most worrying increase I see around here is the use of a vehicle as an assault weapon. I think it was popularized by ISIS terrorists (Nice and Berlin IIRC), but over the past year we've had multiple incidents of people driving into crowds or cops over a previous altercation. I cannot fathom why such an offense does not lead to a lifelong driving ban.
But that's not really on-topic when discussing driving controls: luckily, most vehicle crashes are still accidents, not attempted homicides. And for these cases, whether the car has buttons or a touch screen does matter.
> people driving into crowds or cops over a previous altercation. I cannot fathom why such an offense does not lead to a lifelong driving ban.
I'd hope that someone who consciously drives a car into another person would spend the rest of their life in prison (which effectively includes a driving ban)
Legality is relevant because the law would apply to cars being sold, which is a lot easier to enforce than preventing drivers from using what’s already in the car.
Here in SoCal Tesla’s are second only to Nissans on the aggressively dangerous driver scale in my experience.
In the past few years no other brand demographic comes close with the possible exception of lifted full size trucks and Chargers, but they are a ways back.
What's the proper control to use for interacting with a navigation aid in the UK? Or are you saying that UK law forbids in-car maps?
These arguments always end up in this kind of hyper-specific realm where they seem to apply only to Tesla's particular design choices. But, in car maps are everywhere now (and, yes, Tesla's implementation is by far the best), and the natural way you use them is with touch. They absolutely make finding your way around easier and safer.
Back in the day I did a long cross country trip with a Garmin 60CSx hiking GPS, held in my right hand, which I was also shifting with. I didn't use it for turn by turn navigation (not a fan, especially for road trips), but rather a detailed map with a live "you are here" indicator. To look at it, I held the unit halfway up and glanced down when I could naturally spare the attention. For input, I pushed the buttons without looking, since I could predict the unit's states (push button X to zoom out, push button Y 3 times to get from map screen to statistics screen, etc). It even had text input, in the form you'd probably grimace at (alphabetically-ordered grid of letters, move using arrow buttons, select using enter button), which I believe I did while driving with no problem (it took quite a while to enter anything, of course). Due to the predictable input states and physical buttons that I never had to consciously locate (same position in my hand), it never felt like it affected my OODA loop or otherwise stole my attention.
That is probably true these days, unfortunately. The held-in-hand aspect was key to the device being easy to use safely. If the GPS had been mounted to the dash/vent instead (per current customs), then each button press would have taken more effort to visually register where the button was and verify that I was hitting it, similar to a touchscreen. Also, I suspect focusing on a more vertical screen would have required my eyes adjusting to cancel the ambient backlight, greatly slowly my ability to change focus.
I also did most of the driving barefoot, which it turns out actually is not actually illegal as many urban legends would have you believe. That too gave me much better control modulating the clutch, handy for things like rough dirt roads.
My Audi has a knob which I can rotate in order to navigate through the menus without taking my eyes off the street. It also has a touch screen, but I only use it when standing still.
Mazda has something similar. I realized that "do __ without taking your eyes off the road" isn't really true, for the same reason that it's hard to read your phone and listen to someone at the same time. Most of the time you can strike a balance, but every once and a while your mind will completely blank and take a few moments to realize you stopped processing what you were hearing. Not a risk worth taking while driving.
I try to avoid using the knob while in motion as well.
There's also a difference between taking your eyes off the road momentarily to look at a simple predictable display in a fixed location, like a light or a needle or a fixed text display, and taking your eyes off the road indefinitely to look at a screen that displays something unpredictable, complex and arbitrary as part of an interactive session, usually with animations.
Do you refuse to ride in Ubers, or avoid Amazon delivery vehicles? I have to admit that the level of tech-denial in this thread seems to be getting out of hand. Everyone uses in-vehicles maps. Everyone deploys them on touch screens. They're pervasive and everywhere, and none of the arguments change when you bolt them to the dash.
Why is "Tesla" being held to a different standard than UPS/FedEx/Amazon/Uber/Doordash/etc...?
I would say because Tesla is doing something similar to this (well, not the ditching, but the bad part that comes before the eventual ditching) and basically what the study found:
Navy ditches touchscreens for knobs and dials after fatal crash
Things did get diverted on a maps drove tangent but that usually on our pose to enable the same argument you're making now.
The argument started by asking why windshield wipers, environment controls or basic radio functions need to be buried in a touch screen.
Also most vehicles limit what's allowed in navigation screens while the vehicle is moving. Which is annoying when it prevents a passenger get from using it but sensible when there is a single driver.
The only navigation thing I can do that feels safe while driving is “Hey Siri, take me to XYX.” Any non-verbal way to interact will take your eyes and hands away from driving far too much.
Many places forbid driving while distracted, and this often applies regardless of the source of distraction. Just because something is connected to the vehicle doesn’t mean that any use of that equipment is necessary legal.
That's... no, I think that's just objectively wrong. Have you actually used all these systems? Display latency in the device-remote schemes is really pretty awful, where the Tesla screen scrolls like butter. Obviously no one is an expert on all these things, but I watch friends' vehicles and the occasional rental, and it's really not close.
I went quickly to youtube to check, and pulled up this comparatively recent Mach-E video showing carplay. It's... janky and clumsy. Buttons take 300ms+ to actuate. See the sequence starting around 3:15. No wonder it feels unsafe:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ongr-sptxto
Now watch this one, which is actually two years old (not showing the current UI, and running on what is now one-generation-old MCU hardware):
There are likely better examples, these are just ones that popped up first for me. But yeah, that's the state of in-car navigation UIs. And Tesla is absolutely the best.
You touch on one of the key problems here. "Not showing the current UI". Allowing cars to follow the same ui refresh cycle as cell phones undermines the predictability of operating the vehicle.
There has to be a balance between the "always new" and "never updated" approaches here.
I'd say a car's core ui, everything from how to wipers work, to brake pedal sensitivity(changed in a few tesla updates?!), should require a manual update, a discussion with a car tech, and a sign off by the customer.
None of this stuff should ever, ever change in an update, without blaring, in your face, clear walkthroughs on the change.
And none of them should be forced, or preclude other updates. EG, by no means, should the control system of a car you paid tens of thousands for, suddenly change post sale.
Consumers first, safety first, cost savings and "cool factor" complete last.
Getting lost and staring at a map is vaguely dangerous. Having a map that gets you a clear answer faster is safer. This really doesn't seem controversial to me, it only seems so in this thread because "Tesla".
If you frame it in other ways, it seems more obvious. Is anyone demanding that FedEx drivers or Doordashers use paper maps? Should your Uber driver pull over every time the route changes?
I feel like the paper map comparison is a red herring. Most people who are in favour of the UK’s rule against ‘interacting with a device while driving’ would probably also say you should pull over before messing with a paper map too; it’s probably just much harder to legislate for that (or maybe less necessary because people do that so rarely). No one is arguing that using a paper map while driving is safer.
Not that I necessarily support the legislation, I lean pretty libertarian, I just don’t take your argument that it’s ‘obviously’ safer to let people use phones in their cars because otherwise they’ll use paper maps. That’s just not what happens. What actually happens is either they interact with their phone more briefly and surreptitiously to avoid detection by police, or they just pull over and interact with their phone at the side of the road before getting going again. Either way I suspect the law has the desired effect of reducing the amount people are distracted while driving.
I agree that GPS makes finding where you are easier but it's a fallacy to pretend maps are hard to use. Anyone with an IQ above room temperature should be able to locate themselves on a map. It's only when you become so oblivious to your surroundings because you only know how ot listen to the GPS that this seems difficult...
Locating yourself on a map while stationary and locating yourself on a map while operating a 3 ton vehicle at speed and looking for a particular turn are quite different things.
Why would that be banned? The wording talks about holding the device in the hand. I'm only talking about the recent UK phone law. Previously you could hand hold a phone as long as you weren't using it as a phone. It's now broader in terms of what the devices are, but still only applies to holding something in the hand.
When we bought our last car we specifically avoided touchscreen-heavy interfaces. Worst we looked at was Peugeot, which not only had framerate stuttering _on the actual digital dashboard_, the radio turned on loud for us and although the digital volume button was large, you couldn’t just hold it down - you needed to repeatedly tap/lift/tap/lift/… to move it more than just one volume notch.
We bought a (non-peugeot) car with a physical dial in the end.
Oh, thank you for mentioning digital dashboards, I completely forgot about those! So, in addition to mandatory physical controls for common functions, my imaginary EU legislation would also prescribe that all essential vehicle information (speed, outside light status, fuel level) has a physical representation (lights, dials, etc., in the sense that there is nothing that could be described as 'software' driving these).
The last 'owned' car that I drove was my wife's quite-high-end Audi. It had a digital dashboard, which was OK and looked extremely cool... until those moments when it froze mid-drive, requiring an engine off/on cycle to recover. Which was really lovely on the highway, cruising along at an unknown speed... (Another charming feature of this car was that the AC would sometimes decide that going into full-blast, no-you-can't-turn-this-off, full-heat mode was a really great idea. This only took, like, five software updates and 18 months to be resolved. The issue where you couldn't cancel the keyfob-based seat personalization was never fixed, so whenever I (6'5") grabbed my wife's (5'2" on a warm day) car keys by mistake, there was lots of grinding of seat motors, trying to drive my knees and head into the car interior, while ignoring my desperate inputs to the 'move the seat back and down please' controls. Comfort feature indeed!)
> So, in addition to mandatory physical controls for common functions, my imaginary EU legislation would also prescribe that all essential vehicle information (speed, outside light status, fuel level) has a physical representation (lights, dials, etc., in the sense that there is nothing that could be described as 'software' driving these).
We're way past that. All (to a rounding error) modern analogue dials are also controlled by software via the ECU. This has been true for decades now.
Few cars even have a mechanical throttle linkage anymore.
> my imaginary EU legislation would also prescribe that all essential vehicle information (speed, outside light status, fuel level) has a physical representation (lights, dials, etc., in the sense that there is nothing that could be described as 'software' driving these).
Even "analog" gauges have been software driven for a long time now. My simracing seat setup has a gauge cluster out of a mid-2000s VW Passat that runs entirely on CAN.
If it does a gauge sweep when you turn it in you can be pretty certain it's software controlled, even if it has physical dials. This obviously hasn't been a major problem, so software control is not the issue here, bad quality software control is.
I like the dashboard in my 2014 Prius. The speedometer is digital numbers, which is great because I have trouble reading dials. Never had an issue with anything freezing up.
Later Toyotas I’ve rented have full color screens. They work okay.
Anecdata and another case against center-dash touch control panels -which are integrated with control units.
Our 2013 Prius just had the center-dash unit crash likely due to the audio sub-system. And it would have burned but for a fuse blowing (replacing the fuse lead to smoking.) This took out the rear camera display along with climate controls, audio, ...
Fortunately someone at the Toyota shop we patronize had just replaced their same model year working unit with an iPad (hence learned that's a thing in the US even if illegal in the UK.) So what was going to be a ~$2,000 USD rebuilt unit (~$5,000 OEM new but a guy in town rebuilds them because there is apparently enough demand) was going to be less expensive.
Unfortunately, our Prius's unit seems to be unique to a particular finish/package for the model. And this particular unit type (a JBL variant) has connectors different from all other Toyota center console units.
Gist of the situation: failure of what is likely the audio section of the integrated center-dash unit took out rear camera, climate controls, audio, etc. with high price tag to repair when simple loss of audio unit would have been ignored.
Oh, I'm fine with digital readouts, as long as there is an analog backup for when you hit that unavoidable software bug. Airplanes get this right: even on the latest Airbus, you still have the basic altitude, air/vertical speed and heading instruments, in a familiar place and configuration, based on boring physical/analog principles, just in case you need them... (and, because they're mandated by FAA [14 CFR 91] and equivalent EASA rules, which probably is for a good reason as well)
Those are included on Airplanes because you need those to make a safe stop (aka Landing)
you DO NOT need a speedometer or any dash display at all to safely pull a car to the side of the road and stop. Therefore they should not be mandated under safety regulation, if you have a car with a digital display and it fails you pull your car to the side of the road, put on your hazards and call for a tow to the mechanic
Just like in a airplane if it has a problem you find the closest safe landing spot, put the plan down, and call for a mechanic.
Given that it's unsafe to drive too fast and "too fast" depends greatly on the specific road you're driving on and weather conditions, speedometers are safety equipment.
In those cases speed dependent on driving condition is a feeling based on the experience of the driver. Speedometer does not help you there.
If you do not have a feeling for the safety under which you are operating, then perhaps you should not be driving in the first place? Which I believe that is the underlying problem here, We are too lax with whom we issue driving licenses too.
Oh but it does! A blind corner will kill drivers going by feel alone, who don't have experience on that particular stretch of road. Feel alone doesn't inform you that you're in a school zone (until catastrophically too late). Remember, the driver isn't just a hazard to themselves, they're a hazard to everybody in their path.
How do you propose to limit licensing to experienced drivers in such a way that inexperienced drivers are capable of gaining the experience necessary to drive?
>> A blind corner will kill drivers going by feel alone, who don't have experience on that particular stretch of road.
What exactly does not have to do with a speedometer? that is about road signs.
Knowing exactly what speed you are going has no bearing on your ability to navigate a blind corner. I am very confused by this statement
Based on visual cues alone you should know with in 10MPH how fast you are going anyway, if you can not tell how fast you are traveling generally with out looking at the speedometer you should not be driving
>How do you propose to limit licensing to experienced drivers in such a way that inexperienced drivers are capable of gaining the experience necessary to drive?
Well it seems to be popular in this thread to make flying a plan an analog for driving so how about simulators like they do for pilots, longer training, more time having to drive with an experienced driver. There are lots of things that could be done
> What exactly does not have to do with a speedometer? that is about road signs.
How do you know your speed without a speedometer?
Your insistence that driving is just like flying and that cars only need to stop is a bit ludicrous. Your endurance on this thread alone is impressive. That's not a good thing, but thanks for all the chuckles.
> you DO NOT need a speedometer or any dash display at all to safely pull a car to the side of the road and stop.
You do if there isn't a good place to stop and you need (or would rather) keep driving for awhile first, say in the middle of an obnoxious construction zone with no shoulder, or on a mountain pass with no shoulder, or in a sketchy area in the middle of the night (summoning a tow truck can literally take hours depending on where you are), etc.
Then you can slow to a reasonable safe speed and proceed on visual cues alone
Still do not need a speedometer, you should be able to judge you speed with in 5-10mph by visual alone, if you can not you probably should not be driving in the first place.
But there are no analog backups in cars. Engines also operate on software. Not sure to what extent, but I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that steering wheels and brakes too. I know that sounds a bit scary, but somewhat doubt modern traction control is all analog.
Depends on the vehicle, but most vehicles still have directly coupled hydraulic brakes. However, they are boosted (by engine vacuum or some other means). I can still apply the brakes without the boost, but it takes stratospheric amounts of force. Nearly my entire body weight.
Those backup instruments are starting to be replaced with digital systems using a battery backup. And analog gyros have always needed a power source. (Doesn’t have to be electrical.) :)
I cannot imagine how anybody can stand the constantly changing value of a digital speedometer as it flickers around whatever your intended speed is. Give me a needle any day.
I have a digital speedometer with a 7 segment display in my Citroen and it doesn't flicker at all. It updates roughly once a second or so -- quick enough to feel responsive, but slow enough to not annoy me.
My 2 cents: generally the speedometer is always somehow just enough out of "default driving view" that I don't really see it, I have to actively look at it. And when I do, a plain number is easier and faster to parse.
>The last 'owned' car that I drove was my wife's quite-high-end Audi. It had a digital dashboard, which was OK and looked extremely cool... until those moments when.....
So, wtf did you put up with all that (presuming it wasnt a company car)? And, even then, you should have a trail of paperwork a mile/ kilometre long to audi - publish all that.
I’ve had 2 Audis now with the virtual cockpit and literally never had an issue- this seems like something an Audi dealer would replace under warranty as defective right away.
My VAG car (VW/Audi/Skoda/SEAT/etc) has a great digital dash. It's super responsive, it's clear in all sun light, no framerate issues or anything.
I think digital dials and things like that are excellent and aren't a problem. These have been around for around 10 years now. They have clear benefits such as having navigation info up front, music info, customizable dials, speed as a number, etc.
Peugeot has always had shitty technology in their cars, they are a budget brand trying to be a premium brand.
Ford Focus, recent enough to have the Sync3+ software (2018+). Except for the Carplay interface, everything has physical buttons, and even then - the physical media controls (and on-steering-wheel buttons, including a physical "activate siri voice control" button) will do what you expect with the connected device. It has both digital speedometer (as an optional page in the dashboard) and physical speedometer.
However, I haven't looked to see if this is continues with the more recent models/focus line alternatives.
Interesting. Last time I rented a car, I had a choice of multiple SUV brands, and I ended up picking the Ford one because it wasn't too big, had Carplay, and had lots of physical buttons. It was a pleasurable experience.
However, we've owned several Fords in the past 30 years (Sierra, Mondeo, and Fiesta) and they all have had a few reliability issues, mostly electric. I'm not sure I would buy another Ford today. I hope you have better luck. But I must say that in terms of driving comfort and driver experience, they've all been great.
I agree using the touchscreen is annoying on occasion; but more legislation I’m totally opposed. We’d get much worse results over time as bad practices are enforced by the largest of car companies to further prevent new stuff from being tried.
Honestly having the m3 dash clear of the clutter and most features on automatic gives me personally more focus on road and those around me. But yeah hitting the rear defroster is more inconvenient.
As a M3 driver I both love and hate the touchscreen. Everything is easy except when you are driving in traffic, being an older 60+ person with the car bouncing up and down at 100KMH, I find myself not being safely able to use the touchscreen at all in these situations I ask the passenger if there is one or use the voice control, though getting the correct wording for this takes a little bit of training and things like directing the air vents I have no clue how to do.
Maybe a senior mode with big touch buttons and text and less of the bling would work for me or as someone else suggested some sort of USB add on with physical switches which integrated with the bottom of the touchscreen. Im not holding out much hope for either though.
Why does the EU believe every facet of life needs to be ordered and control by government regulation, is there any area of life at all in the EU that should be free from government interference? That is an honest question because every time anything comes up the first response from citizens of the EU is to declare government should be the right and proper resolution to the problem
Generally, it only tends to come up in any area where the market seems to be failing consumers. This is interpreted as an externality that the market doesn't account for (in this case consumer safety, in the case of USB-C charging e-waste), which regulations are then introduced to correct for.
Ironic since safety laws is what put the screens in the cars in the first place, the regulation requiring backup camera's which required large screen to show the picture.
>>in the case of USB-C charging e-waste
lol, yea that is not the reason for USB-C regulation, nor was that needed at all, and that will handicap either the EU or global innovation. What ever comes next to replace USB-C either now will never be made and will be stuck (I hope not, because USB-C is terrible) or the EU will be left behind has the rest of the world moves on to the better thing
> Ironic since safety laws is what put the screens in the cars in the first place
Screens themselves aren't the issue. They didn't mandate touch screens, or the removal of non-touch controls.
(EDIT: in fact, the removal of non-touch controls in place of touch controls is a perfect example of the market resulting in a race-to-the-bottom cost-saving measure that you're in denial of in your other comments).
> lol, yea that is not the reason for USB-C regulation
Care to elaborate on what the reason is then? Because that's the reason I've seen given.
> What ever comes next to replace USB-C either now will never be made and will be stuck
This is misleading. The law is flexible in that regard, and in fact the commission will be required to regularly amend the law.
> or the EU will be left behind has the rest of the world moves on to the better thing
ofcourse... they just mandated a large expensive screen that naturally the automakers and consumers would love to have right up front visible to the driver for about 10secs per use of the vehicle and be used for nothing else ever.
This is the kind of "forethought" that makes for terrible regulation, and unintended consequences, I bet you would make for a great elected official, ever consider running for office?
If you are going to mandate some large and expensive be put in a predominant spot of a product, that thing is going to be used for multiple functions, it is unrealistic, and a denial of reality to expect anything less
>>Care to elaborate on what the reason is then? Because that's the reason I've seen given.
I am sure that is the stated reason, there is no actual data to back that up since converters to and from the various charging standards are easily available there is no reason to believe that a device having or not having USB-C contributes at all to ewaste. No one is toss out their iPhone because it has a lighting cable, and most are not even tossing the chargers as for less than $5 you can get any adapter to any other port...
EU addiction to regulation is a real problem.
>>Fortunately, the EU market is too big to ignore.
For now, the EU economy has been largely stagnant since about 2008, Though this year seems to have has a bump largely due to inflation which means it is still flat.
> No one is toss out their iPhone because it has a lighting cable, and most are not even tossing the chargers as for less than $5 you can get any adapter to any other port...
You must have forgotten the days where all chargers had a molded cable instead of the USB-A socket that is standard these days, and the plug was different for each and every brand. So each phone came with both a custom cable and a custom charger.
So you have changed your problem from finding one of N charger to finding one of N(N-1) adapters, assuming someone actually built and sold for example a Samsung-to-LG adapter. Not a great improvement.
nominal gdp went from 11 tril in 2008 to 14.5 tril in 2021, averaging about 1.66% per year. That's not flat. Are you using some different kind of metric?
PS more to the point, the next entity that comes anywhere close to that number is Japan and its several times smaller, so eu will remain relevant for a while even if it completely stops growing.
>ofcourse... they just mandated a large expensive screen that naturally the automakers and consumers would love to have right up front visible to the driver for about 10secs per use of the vehicle and be used for nothing else ever.
Im fine with that and maybe music playlist control
> Ironic since safety laws is what put the screens in the cars in the first place, the regulation requiring backup camera's which required large screen to show the picture.
The ggp post was about EU requirements. A backup camera is not required in the EU, that's a US requirement. EU requires a warning system when going backwards, but that's beeping, not showing a picture (a camera/screen wouldn't satisfy the warning-requirement).
You don't mention purpose or outcomes at all, just "ordered and control by government" and "interference".
Obviously it comes down to government competence but the EU has shown itself to be mostly competent.
Government regulations are a last resort, not the first as you insinuate.
An example is roaming charges. The EU warned phone companies that it would regulate in the absence of reforms. They did nothing and the EU rolled out regulations that have benefited everyone who uses a phone across borders at almost no additional cost. Very inexpensive plans are still available as always (for example I have a 2.65 euro plan that gives me 1GB of data each month, with full EU roaming).
In respect to cars, if there are safety regulations that err on the side of being a bit onerous, then so be it, but there's no evidence they are problematic.
An example is my 2016 Kia Rio. I paid approximately $12,500 (about 11,000 euros at the time). The EU mandates that all new cars must have tire pressure monitoring, anti-lock braking and stability control. Because this is existing, mature technology the added cost to the car is marginal, and very cheap cars are still available, such as my Kia.
Meanwhile, those car features have definitely saved my life on 4 separate occasions.
Free markets are not some panacea for the world's ills. They work well in most cases but since there is no perfect market there will always be market regulation. The extent and the development of smart regulations requires good goverment, and that's where our responsibility to be politically engaged comes in. Government is a tool like any other, imperfect as it is, but we can influence its form.
> Why does the EU believe every facet of life needs to be ordered and control by government regulation
It doesn't, the author is just projecting their authoritarian nanny state fantasies.
The EU regulates the internal market and sets minimal common standards for example for medication, food safety and allowed pesticides and fertilizers etc. These are necessary for the well functioning of the common market and need to be specified to a high degree of detail, otherwise states would try to cheat and flood the common market with products grown with the cheapest most toxic methods, and you wouldn't be able to remove them from your national market without breaking the free trade rules.
This nature of the internal competition needs detailed regulations that states need to negotiate and specify very well (and then try to cheat anyway), and it's unlike a national unified market like the US has. This gives the appearance of over-regulation, but in reality the UE is quite neoliberal and doesn't give a fuck about your car controls.
Like the iPhone for example? Or maybe the Porsche 911 GT3 RS? Markets have a lot of segments. Government should regulate the minimum absolute necessity. Like seatbelts... who were ironically a market invention/idea first.
My personal opinion on this is that the minimum should protect me from others. This doesn't even include seatbelts I gave as example because I can (realistically) only hurt myself. This would include gas emissions, noise limits, headlight angle/strength rules, ... Certainly not the dashboard layout.
You do know that Touch Screen got included in Cars due to government regulations right? The government mandated Backup Camera's and once you had to put in a screen to serve as display for the backup camera then it only makes since to use that screen for more and more things
This is yet another unintended consequence of government regulations, where by now people want to use government regulation to "fix" the problems the regulation caused in the first place, which will cause even more problems as regulation always does
>>"to the market" is always a race to the bottom
Absolutely false, the market more than anything in human society has driven more wealth, and higher standards of living. If it incredibly ignorant to say the market is a "race the to bottom" backed by ZERO data or facts
Nobody ever demanded touch screens. Cars already had navigation built in that had no touch screens nor a need for them. Car companies choosing cheap, substandard designs to save a buck is something the car companies decided on.
The market being a race to the bottom is visible in every single space where only a few companies control an entire industry. From supermarkets to cars, from soft drinks to tech, when competition dies down market regulation is the only way to get the interest or the general population taken care of. I'm 100% certain PepsiCo and Big Tobacco would market to toddlers if we allowed them to. Car companies have started to move to electric not because Tesla's cars were such a good business model but because governments are moving to ban internal combustion engines somewhere within the next decade; regulation is forcing these companies to innovate in ways that don't provide an immediate financial profit.
Obviously a state controlled market will always fail, but a purely free market has proven to only serve the richest of the rich. Balanced regulation is key. In my opinion, cars that put common driving controls on touch screen a should never been allowed on the road.
>>where only a few companies control an entire industry.
I feel like we are now into the absurd... You know what kills competition. REGULATION.
Every industry where you can cite limited competition I can tell you the regulations that killed that competition.
Unregulated industries have LOTS of innovation and competition. Regulated industries have slow innovation and no competition.
Free market work because of competition, no competition no free market.
>>Car companies have started to move to electric not because Tesla's cars were such a good business model but because governments are moving to ban internal combustion engines somewhere within the next decade;
This is a complete revisionist history, and it is very very very very unlikely any nation will actually ban ICE cars in the next decade.
While I will not deny regulation played some role in the speed of transition, it is unlikely that role would be more than moving the needle more 5 years ahead of where it would have naturally gone anyway.
Electric cars where being made long before the Tesla, Tesla simply timed the market correctly at the same time technology got to the point where an BEV was even possible.
To put 100% of the transition to BEV on government is simply false, and in fact I can make a good case that government accelerating the natural progression is in the long run going to be HARMFUL and may even set back the transition in many ways
And every industry where you can cite zero regulation I can tell you the industry killed lots of people or destroyed ecosystems.
Unregulated industries have LOTS of leeway to prioritize profits over their environment. Case in point: look up the article yesterday about Salt Lake being drained for agriculture, risking millions of homes' access to drinking water.
> I feel like we are now into the absurd... You know what kills competition. REGULATION.
That is absurd.
Regulation takes many forms, and if you think that monopolies are only broken by reducing regulation, then there isn't any point in continuing this conversation.
There is no fair market without someone ensuring a fair market. Before the FDA grocers were selling milk to families which "was routinely adulterated with water, rotten eggs, flour, burnt sugar and other adulterants with the finished product then marketed falsely as "pure country milk" or "Orange County Milk".
People like you went on about how regulation would kill the industry and hurt the market, but what was really killed was more than 8,000 infants (ibn one year alone)[0].
Industry does not care about your life or your family or babies because they have no feelings. They exist to compete and win, at any cost.
Without something (democratic government is a good option for this) looking out for consumers, and for the other market players, your Ayn Randian fantasy will come about, and it will not be the utopia of consumer choice and meritocracy, it will be the later 1800s all over again, with most people poor to the point they are feeding their children milk with plaster in it, and a few robber barons controlling entire industries and killing competition before it can compete.
Do not look at 'free markets' with some rose colored glasses, because without ensuring industry deals with externalities and without ensuring that competition can happen by preventing on company from owning entire supply chains or cartels setting prices and preventing innovation, then the market would not be fair a t all, and most people's lives would be exponentially more miserable.
“The milk drawn from the cows was routinely adulterated with water, rotten eggs, flour, burnt sugar and other adulterants with the finished product then marketed falsely as "pure country milk" or "Orange County Milk".”
Yikes. Hard pass on being a poison-tester for every entrepreneur that dreams up a cost-cutting measure to increase their profits selling me food. Looks like it took years for the image of milk to recover.
Are we reading the same page? because what you linked to is an example of Government shielding a bad actor from liability. At multiple points in the wiki entry they talk about how government protected the Swill Milk factories.
I dont know if that is the shining example of government protection, nor the indictment of free markets you think it is.
>>your Ayn Randian fantasy
Nope, not an Objectivist. I am small l libertarian, very different from Objectivism which is Randian philosophy. Rand hated libertarians.
I am also not opposed to all government, or government regulation. I am opposed to extreme amounts of regulations (like regulation what type of interface a car must have be it touch screen or buttons), and I prefer the government to get out of my life. and I believe we have become a massively over regulated and criminalized society that in large part has created many of the problems we have today such as these huge corporations.
Some basic minimalist safety regulations are ok. Regulation numbers in the billions of pages where no one human can ever know and understand them all... Hard pass on that.
> I dont know if that is the shining example of government protection, nor the indictment of free markets you think it is.
Notice I mentioned the FDA -- which has as a mandate to ensure safe food and drink, not the local official who had no such mandate and powered monied interested held more sway than poor dead infants. You use a local official as evidence of a regulatory body in a time when local officials were actors for industry -- and expect me to think you spent more than 3 seconds thinking critically about that?
> I am small l libertarian
And, like most libertarians, (who are not just closet fascists calling themselves libertarians because libertarians don't bother to exclude them), your definition of 'extreme' could be anything from 'driver's licenses' to 'not being able to sell your own children', so who knows what line you stand on. Whatever it is, I would like you to remove yourself from all of the government protections you disagree with and see how long you and your libertarian friends last. Hint -- it has been tried numerous times, and always ends in hilarity and completely predictable outcomes.
>>like most libertarians, (who are not just closet fascists calling themselves libertarians
Facism which is a totalitarian collectivist ideology has nothing in common with libertarianism, your assertion there are closet fascist calling themselves libertarians is plainly false most likely because you misapply the term fascist due your are probably complete ignorance of both. Which is common today where alot of people that seem to have world view closely aligned with classic fascist leaders proclaim themselves to be "anti-fascist" unironically.
>so who knows what line you stand on.
well if you had read my entire comment instead of cherry picking the quote you wanted you find where my line is.
I never applied the term fascist or defined it. I stated an opinion in line with m experiences. I happen to know what a fascist is -- in fact just last week I re-read Umberto Eco's Ur Fascism[0]; it is brilliant and I suggest you check it out.
> well if you had read my entire comment instead of cherry picking the quote you wanted you find where my line is.
I read your comment -- you used the term 'extreme' and then said the government over-regulates, and you want 'minimal safety' regulations. However, your arguments do not line up with this, since I have read your comments and they are quite a bit more on the 'let corporations do what they wish' than 'the government is too damn nanny-state'.
So, forgive me if I don't take you at your word. My experiences with libertarians has led me to just assume that your 'line' is whatever you feel like, that benefits you, until it doesn't anymore, then you are on the other side of it.
> the market more than anything in human society has driven more wealth, and higher standards of living.
Competition occurs because it is promoted through regulations. Contracts, private property, stock markets, etc. all exist due to regulations. If competition tends to stop (e.g. a company cornering a market), then regulators can step in to change things so that competition is once more possible. If your goal is to increase wealth and standards of living, you should support regulations making that possible.
> Absolutely false, the market more than anything in human society has driven more wealth, and higher standards of living. If it incredibly ignorant to say the market is a "race the to bottom" backed by ZERO data or facts
A rational actor tries to maximize profits, and that involves either cost-cutting while minimally passing on cost savings; or disruption.
Disruption is what has driven wealth, but an unregulated market is terrible at encouraging risk taking.
The easier path is to make things cheaper (to
make), and the evidence is every off-shored manufacturing and industry over decades.
Now you’ll say that this cost increase is due to regulations; but the argument against that is even Chinese labor has become expensive and that’s simply due to a rising middle class. The market.
But like the US once had, they have the manufacturing knowledge and scale that we’ve foolishly given up a long time ago so US businesses can’t simply lift and shift.
To the point where I doubt our ability to wage a long-term war.
> You do know that Touch Screen got included in Cars due to government regulations right? The government mandated Backup Camera's and once you had to put in a screen to serve as display for the backup camera then it only makes since to use that screen for more and more things
Backup cameras were mandated in the US in 2018. Almost every vehicle on the market had a touchscreen years before that. The few vehicles I can think of that didn't yet have a screen as standard by that point got in-mirror camera displays to comply.
A government regulation that was announced in 2014 and took effect in 2018 had nothing to do with my 2015 Fiesta, which does not have a backup camera, having the same touch screen a 2010 model had.
Ford introduced MyFordTouch in 2010. Chrysler's Uconnect system came out in 2011, GM's various systems (CUE, MyLink, etc) in 2012, and of course the big daddy of stupid touch-focused designs the Tesla Model S came out in 2013. All of these were well established across entire lineups by the time backup camera regulations were being discussed.
The primary reason for the current state of automotive touch interfaces is entirely capitalism doing what it does. Touch interfaces are more expensive than a few buttons, but they can replace hundreds of individual controls and components that all have their own design, testing, and production requirements with one where almost everything about it can be changed on the fly. A model that offers options for heated seats as well as heated/cooled seats means you have three different sets of buttons for whatever panel those go in, three different sets of control boards, etc. With touch controls, as bad as they are to use those three variants are now effectively free to the manufacturer. They "cost" a few if()s in software.
Regulation is in fact the only reason this nonsense hasn't gotten even stupider. Tesla's new models have a set of hidden controls for drive mode selection and hazard lights, which are primarily intended to be controlled via the touch screen, because they are legally required to have something that would work without the screen.
Let me repeat that, Tesla does not want to have these controls, the only reason they have them is because regulation forces them to. Tell me again how the big bad government is ruining Tesla's freedom to do the stupidest things...
>>Tesla does not want to have these controls, the only reason they have them is because regulation forces them to. Tell me again how the big bad government is ruining Tesla's freedom to do the stupidest things
You think the stupidest thing, I am not anti-touch screen like most here are. In-fact I replaced alot of the factory buttons in my older car with a Aftermarket Large display that is basically a huge android tablet that controls alot of the car functions (including HVAC)
I prefer touch controls.
Why the government preventing me from choosing the control I like the best, and then you can feel free to not buy a car that does not have physical controls.
I am sure you are not going to agree or like my response to this argument then.
It should be incumbent upon the driver to learn how to operate their car safely. If our ultimate goals are to maximize highway safety, we should be punishing reckless driving. It shouldn't matter if it's caused by alcohol, sleep deprivation, prescription medication, text messaging, or Touch Screens. If lawmakers want to stick it to dangerous drivers who threaten everyone else on the road, they can dial up the civil and criminal liability for reckless driving, especially in cases that result in injury or property damage.
The punishable act should be violating road rules or causing an accident, not the factors that led to those offenses.
I'm not even convinced you're arguing in good faith any more, because frankly I can't imagine how a rational and empathetic individual could have reasoned themselves into these opinions.
I'm not going to argue with you any more, because you're either a troll, or someone to who can't be reasoned out of their opinions simply because they didn't reason themselves into them.
Empathy and rationality are often in conflict, you seem to side more on the empathetic side where I do not. I am purely on the logical / rational side and freely admit to having very low Empathy.
>>someone to who can't be reasoned out of their opinions simply because they didn't reason themselves
I literally linked to a site called Reason.com.... It provides a very reasoned case for the abolishment of Drunk driving laws, and the unintended consequences to civil liberties those laws have created. (similar to the consequence to civil liberties the war on drugs has caused)
I think I have very reasoned and logical positions that are not based at all in empathy or emotion, which IMO is where all government regulation and law should be, devoid of emotion. Laws created because of emotional response are almost universally bad laws.
For a site called reason the article surely is dumb AF.
First the author argues back and forth about BAC levels. Maybe it should be .05? Or .08? Or something else? Well how about 0.00 as is in many other countries??
Then he somehow misses the fact that BAC levels can be deduced from blood samples taken hours after the actual police stop.
No wonder they let him go in 2011.
Logic and rationality are not inherently opposed to empathy.
That being said, one does not need to be empath to value not causing accidents to other people. "This will lead to more accidents" is both logical and rational claim.
The ideological investment into idea that one must be selfish to max to look "logical" is irrational.
Now where do I, nor the link, advocate for ignoring accidents to other people. In fact the goal is to actually lessen them which I and others advocate is not the actual goal of people pursing some of these regulations. Control and power seems to be the control. In the case of DUI laws in the US it seems to be primary born out of the desire to get around 4th amendment search provisions not about safety
I fail to see how advocating for very harsh punishment for people that cause accidents to other people, including prison and revocation of driving license has been twisted here to be something that is illogical and disregarding to others.
I also fail to understand why a person should not have the responsibility upon buying a vehicle to understand how to operate it safely, no matter if the interface is a Button or Touch screen. Do we give a pass to someone if they were fumbling with buttons? It is insanity to me how much society has drifted away from personal responsibility to everything being everyone else's fault
I did not said that you advocated "ignoring accidents". You was against regulation against making it safer, with argument that punishing those who make mistakes or cause accidents harder is better option.
Then you created dichotomy between "empathy" and rationality, while responding to person accusing you of missing both.
Then you literally made strawman arguing I wrote something else then I wrote.
Legislation like this would 'protect persons' as making the wise decision not to buy a car with the offending UI won't stop you from being t-boned by someone who did.
Consumers need protection from people who make selfish decisions.
That's not what you said. You said "why does the EU believe that every part of life needs government regulation."
And it's because, as Milton Friedman once said, "a corporation's responsibility is to make as much money for the stockholders as possible."
Without a counter balance you wouldn't have seat belts, crumple zones, fuel efficiency standards, the list goes on and on. Safety is not the responsibility of the corporation. Their only priority is profit.
>>as Milton Friedman once said, "a corporation's responsibility is to make as much money for the stockholders as possible."
That is an over simplification of his Position, and often misused as you have here, just like people that misuse Poppers paradox of tolerance to justify censorship of people they dislike, you misuse Friedman to criticize a economic system you dislike
>>Safety is not the responsibility of the corporation.
Yes and no. They still face liability if not protected by the government. Which often time government regulation come with liability shields protecting said corporations that is why large corporations like regulation; as it often prevents competition while at the same time protecting them from liability
Further they face competition based on safety, automotive companies compete widely on the safety records of their vehicles with many marketing the features and safety testing results that exceed government requirements, this means there is a MARKET driver to increase safety and it is not just government regulations that drive safety.
Infact some automakers are at odds over the government because technology in the area of safety (lighting is the big one) is changing faster than regulations can keep up and many manufacturers would like to make changes to their cars that would make them safer but are prohibited because of regulations.
UI in a car that makes drivers potentially more distracted.
I don't care about how comfortable or uncomfortable this makes people with touch screens driving, there's large evidence for them being more dangerous.
Because “Best Practices“ and “Interface Ergonomics“ guidelines provide excellent parameters for legislation. Why would we want anything other than the best functional design/interface for something as important as our vehicle controls?
Because it is a socialist construct, despite what they may tell you. I mean that in the purely theoretical sense: the government “knows better, know everything, and solves better, and everything”, which just means “everything needs to be legislated.
The last car I rented had the lane assist mode on a physical button. That was surprisingly convenient as lane assist is nice on highway but a lot less so on small rural roads with more spotty markings.
Only issue is the lane assist switch 1. is not a physical toggle (it's a change mode button which doesn't change position) and 2. it's the same shape and around the buttons for quick beam adjustment and dash lighting level
Though none of the three is utterly critical, and all three are rather well notified through the dashboard (a little icon is displayed for dipped beams) so even if you get it wrong by sole touch it's not really critical.
The somewhat sadder part is as a rental (and thus entry level) only like 5 of the 8 possible buttons under the touchscreen have a function associated. Seems a bit of a shame to not put some more minor function on the last 3.
The designers also put the "mute" function on pressing both "volume up" and "volume down" at the same time, which is easy to mistakenly do (they're at the end of the same stalk, the position is convenient but it's very easy to hit both when trying to increase or decrease volume).
> also the B-brand, which has seen it fit to replace most of the controls in some of its cars with a single multi-function stalk (iDrive, I think?) that isn't good for anything, except as a reason to return your car for a refund
This is exaggerated and inaccurate. I have a recent BMW and it has numerous physical controls for climate, radio and various settings like auto-hold or disable engine auto-stop/start.
The multifunction puck in BMWs is fantastic, it even allows for text entry while looking at the road. I have trained myself to not use the touchscreen as much as possible and now feel very comfortable even navigating Apple Carplay with it.
I also have a recent model Audi, which is far more egregious with the touch screen. Disabling auto-stop/start cannot be done persistently and it is a touch screen button, along with hill descent. Climate controls have their own dedicated touch panel, and there is no real alternative to touching anything like iDrive. The exception is that it does have an actual volume knob with on/off and next-prev functionality.
It’s also worth noting that both cars also have audio controls on the steering wheel itself.
It is definitely worse, but there are also dedicated buttons for next/prev, max defrost and max rear defrost as well as the driving mode, parking guidance.
Ok, but don't you agree that touchscreen controls look very cheap compared to real knobs? Shouldn't that be a factor too, especially in higher end cars?
The luxury automakers’ most modern glass cockpits were first incubated in their highest end models and are only now percolating down to the entry/mid levels, so no unfortunately I don’t think they read as cheap, they read as “oh awesome! just like an S class now!”
Particular in the context of car sharing (ShareNow, Miles, WeShare, etc.). Because you need to do the crappy touchscreen thingy every time you enter a vehicle.
You drive different models from different vendors all the time. Everything is slightly different. The IVI system has commonly incomprehensible UX with deep menus.
It mostly feels designed by committee (which it is, I worked on one such system for the flagship modes of one of the top German car makers a few years ago and good deep insight into the process).
Physical, standardized buttons would go a long way.
If you buy a car you'll have an initial learniung curve and while it sucks you can cope.
As a occasional user, you're in a world of pain. I don't understand why vendors do not do IVI firmware that is tailored for the car sharing/car renting market.
It needs two buttons after booting up (and they can be on a touch screen even):
1. Connect phone (Android Auto/Apple CarPlay)
2. Connect Bluetooth
That's it. Many cars still do not offer the former at all. Either way, the latter or both options are commonly hidden deep in nested menus in the IVI's preferences.
Early on, there were attempts. For example, car2go (now ShareNow) which was owned by Daimler, had a function, ca. 2014/2015, where it would remember the radio statio based on who was using the car.
I.e. the IVI firmware of the Smart car (they only had Smarts then) was somehow integrated with the car sharing app/user profile. And it was location based. Driving car2go in Milan, Italy the cars recalled my fav. radio station there but when I was coming back to Berlin, the station I had set using a car there was automatically on.
And then the next generation of Smarts was rolled out and the feature was not only gone, the firmware the cars had was just stock standard. I.e. they didn't add something like the bluetooth shortcut I mentioned above which I had expected and deprecated the feature the previous model had.
It's almost a decade later and nothing has improved -- rather the opposite.
I use voice commands in situations where I feel that touching the screen would be dangerous. But I can also use the steering wheel scroll wheels for many functions like answering the phone, changing cabin temperature, adjusting media volume, etc. Cruise control, gear selection, wipers are all on stalks that are just a few centimetres from the steering wheel. No need for an array of buttons that I would have to move my hands from the steering wheel to use.
The very last thing I want is some authority forcing the car makers to fill the dashboard with buttons or require some ghastly centre console.
I think the EU should really just force any cars display to communicate with an openly documented protocol (maybe it should be standardized too but at least open) with readily available connectors. And I mean all information that is displayed on the touch screen and all input that is sent back. That way third-party products could potentially replace or enhance the screens.
Given their plans seem to be headed towards making every feature a subscription plan, the only "logical" (from a business perspective) way to do that is an interface that can be updated for minimal cost at any time.
There shouldn't need to be any law. Solid design principles should dictate how cars are built. Instead we get trendy styling dictating what is built. No concern for human factors or basic control theory.
If your car doesn't have any internet connected software, then there is no mechanism to make a feature artificially scarce, requiring you to pay money on an on-going basis to remove the artificial limit.
People may have sold subscription services for cars before 2010, but they were luxuries and without "teeth". This is different.
> If your car doesn't have any internet connected software, then there is no mechanism to make a feature artificially scarce
Here are things which were actually shipped for decades prior to internet restrictions:
* charging for updates to mapping, and later GPS, software
* restricting features based on physical dongles
* restricting features based on dates (don’t forget that times can be set passively using radio so you can’t just easily roll the clock back)
* restricting features based on use counts (anyone think some MBA isn’t dreaming of “pay $1000 for 200 crush-it™ acceleration boosts!”)
* having some indicator of feature use (burnt out fuse, EEPROM, etc.) so using something you haven’t licensed means you can’t get any official service or warranty claims
Beyond that, we’re talking about controls. Touchscreens are not internet access and there’s no reason to think the two would be linked here when they aren’t in any other area.
It’s especially sad because you can have both - a touchscreen that is only active when the vehicle is in park - and buttons for the other things needed whilst driving.
Any function that needs to be invoked or setting that needs to be changed by a reasonable person while driving should have dedicated hardware in a predictable position. So, that's direction indicators, outside lights (incl. high beams and fog lights), windshield wipers, cruise control, window defrost/defog, interior temperature/fan, media volume (am I forgetting anything?).
There is nothing more utterly annoying and outright dangerous than having to navigate some crappy touchscreen when your windows start fogging up or you need to turn off the radio in order to talk to that nice cop that just pulled you over.
Offenders here do not only include the T-brand, but also the B-brand, which has seen it fit to replace most of the controls in some of its cars with a single multi-function stalk (iDrive, I think?) that isn't good for anything, except as a reason to return your car for a refund...