Review of the Buick Riviera’s ‘touchscreen’ from 1986 [video]
youtube.com
youtube.com
One reason this didn't take hold is that they found that this interface forced a driver to take their eyes off the road to do basic functions like changing the climate settings.
When I got to ride in this, there was a maintenance screen you could pull up by pressing three of the buttons. This screen had functions like displaying and modifying the throttle angle, fuel-air mixture, etc. While driving around, we were able to change the fuel air mixture such that the car started running badly and we could smell gas.
...which still applies today just as well as it did back then.
The large touchscreen trend in automotive is a unnecessary risk for everyone on the road and needs to be reverted.
[0] R Ramnath, N Kinnear, S Chowdhury, T Hyatt, (2020) 'Interacting with Android Auto and Apple CarPlay when driving', TRL, Transport Research Foundation, UK
https://trl.co.uk/publications/interacting-with-android-auto...
Most people are not terrible at judging risk and generally limit use of touchscreens in moments of elevated risk (e.g. intersections).
If it really is a problem we should be able to see it in real world crash statistics.
This is perhaps something you self-perceive that you can do well so others must also be able. It reminds me of those studies of how sleep deprived people do poorly in cognitive tests but still self-assess as having performed well.
> world crash statistics
Until we start seeing police and investigators actually requesting for manufacturer's infotainment logs, I would question the statistics on this matter.
Arguably very few people would admit to have crashed because of infotainment screens unless there was video footage to prove it.
People are famously bad at assessing disparate risks. The unit micromort is useful for clarifying mortality risk of various behaviours.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micromort
———————
With respect to crash statistics, obviously we're not going to ask people why they crashed. I would have thought this is so self-evidently flawed as a methodology that it didn't warrant pointing out. It's probably safer to assume that most people will lie about why they crashed.
Fortunately, the statistical question is much simpler than it might seem: are people crashing newer cars more than older cars? Where answering this question becomes complex to answer accurately is when isolating this from both environmental change and vehicle age, because you can't isolate both variables at the same time.
That said, man... I sure miss my Note 4. Plastic back, plastic all over the place. Great phone, removable battery, fast, the works! Cat peed on it. Total loss.
An ex years back had a cat with that kind of attitude. I had this really nice surround receiver that I'd rescued off a curb and recapped, getting a $600+ unit back into service for about twenty bucks in parts and a few hours' work, and while I wasn't really getting the most out of it, it made a splendid headphone and speaker amp for my office. This cat took a liking to sleeping on top of it, for the warmth of the ventilation slots.
No problem - until she got in a mood one evening, looked me dead in the eyes, and proceeded to throw up into the thing. It went bang and sent up a sad little wisp of smoke, and that was all she wrote - cats may not laugh, but they sure as hell smirk.
She was probably pissed because my cat had beat her up again, but it wasn't as if she or anyone else could blame him for that; she'd made his kittenhood a living hell, and he carried the grudge all the way into adulthood and twenty pounds of muscle. She couldn't take it out on him any more, but everyone in that house knew I was his person, so she took it out on me.
Dogs are a bit smarter, I think, most times - some dogs, anyway. But cats in my experience are considerably more subtle.
I do not know about smarter. Our cats can manipulate and intimidate our larger dogs...
But more boundary aware? Dogs for sure.
Still pissed about it. That was a great phone, and I did lose some data I value.
It’s the best modern physical ux I have used.
That's not really the discussion, in my view. It's all about revenue and marketing.
The perceived value of those exceeds potential costs and liabilities.
Basically, if one can drive at night, no cab illumination beyond a dim dash, the controls make sense. They make better sense when fewer of them are not modal.
I love vi but not on the dashboard while I'm driving! :D
In state terms, a flat model is best. Store as little state in our heads as possible, so the driving, things we don't control have the grey matter resources and capacity necessary to travel safely.
Frankly, I like it when my cars don't do much. Some things, like ABS, traction controls are good. They are just on, and with a test or two, I know what they will do, and when they won't do it, I am notified clearly so I can fall back to more manual mode, no automation driving mode gracefully.
The car itself was not sexy at all, and was later named as the first of all the GM Deadly Sins.[0] The Reatta was only slightly better.
[0] https://www.curbsideclassic.com/curbside-classics-american/c...
Good winter tires (Nokian Hakkapeliitta in my case, but there are plenty of good winter tires to choose form) plus traction control and ABS will help a lot, but you also need to modify your driving behaviour as the car can only do so much.
Give yourself more time, apply all inputs (gas, brake, steering) slowly and deliberately - sudden movements are more likely to give you a bad time. Understand how your car behaves in various conditions, empty mall parking lots are good for this. Leave more distance between you and the car ahead of you. Know what do to when you lose traction. Keep your car maintained - properly inflated tires, functional wiper blades and keeping the washer fluid topped up are important. Keep your gas tank at least half-full, which helps during unexpected delays and the additional weight helps with handling. Know what spots are bad in your city and avoid them. Know how to get your car free when it's stuck in snow - if you're going to rock it out, you'll probably need to disable traction control to do it successfully.
Personally, I also avoid driving the first day or two after the first big snowfall. This gives the city time to deal with the snow and gives other drivers time to re-learn winter driving.
Source: I've daily-driven a RWD car for years in Edmonton, AB.
Compared to 4WD, AWD, or FWD; its the worst setup for winter driving.
Good winter tires (Nokian Hakkapeliitta in my case, but there are plenty of good winter tires to choose form) plus traction control and ABS will help a lot, but you also need to modify your driving behaviour as the car can only do so much.
That and the paragraph that follows applies equally to any other drive setup. Traction control is a mixed bag depending on manufacture. If you are stuck in the snow, you probably want to disable it for a bit to help you get unstuck. Its amazing how some manufactures (looking at you Chevy) goofed that up.
Personally, I also avoid driving the first day or two after the first big snowfall. This gives the city time to deal with the snow and gives other drivers time to re-learn winter driving.
Most folks cannot take the time off and need to get to work.
Source: North Dakota rural driver.
As a side note, keep a survival kit in the car. Some tire chains and a tow rope are not out of line. Know where to attach a tow rope to your car is a good idea, you don't want to end up on YouTube.
I don't think the person was comparing them, just stating that RWD, when handled properly, is indeed fine for winter. Having driven extensively in Canada and Scandinavia I agree with that, although 4WD, AWD, and FWD are superior.
My previous car was FWD without any assistance mechanisms (ABS, traction control), but with winter tires, and it was definitely easier to drive it in winter.
Most people just use 4wd to push then farther in the ditch.
Oooohhh. That's just nice, and that is all. I love those displays.
There was a trend in the 80s, tailing off in the early 90s, of using accurate but unusual descriptions like this to suggest that fairly mundane technology was in fact exotic and special. You saw it a lot on stereo equipment in particular, but American carmakers weren't shy in participating. If I had to guess at an origin, I'd say it probably had something to do with the "Japanese economic miracle" that was much in the zeitgeist then, and maybe not nothing with the fear of obsolescence and inability to compete that beset much of the US technology and industrial sector (excluding software, but not electronics) at the time.
Would have said CRT otherwise.
On a spacious 4" x 3" screen.
It also... spoke to you, in a very creepy high school girl voice.