[in 2013, I leased a vehicle that had a touchscreen. In 2016, I requested
one that had the more "spartan" controls. They are a lot less distracting,
and are a lot less likely to malfunction! -- Mike]

Shock, horror! In-car touchscreens are way more distracting than we first thought, says new study

Date:
Mon, 22 Dec 2025 13:54:11 +0000

Description:
New research suggests that using a touchscreen when behind the wheel makes
you a pretty terrible driver.

FULL STORY

The results of a new study by the University of Washington (UW) and Toyota Research Institute have provided pretty daming evidence against the use of large, distracting touchscreens when driving a vehicle.

Rather eloquently titled Touchscreens in Motion: Quantifying the Impact of Cognitive Load on Distracted Drivers, the study saw 16 participants placed in ultra-realistic high-fidelity driving simulators while researchers tracked
eye and hand movements, pupil dilation, and skin conductivity.

Participants were asked to drive around a typical urban environment and then interact with various side-tasks presented on the touchscreen ; nothing
major, simply adjusting car functionality or changing the radio station.

Their ability to both drive and their accuracy when interacting with the touchscreen were measured.

According to Car Scoops , the researchers measured a mix of driver
performance metrics and physiological markers, from eye movements, index
finger tracking and steering consistency to reaction time and stress signals. This helped them build a better picture of stress and cognitive load on the human in the driving seat.

As you would expect, the results werent pretty for those peddling an
increased reliance on touchscreens over physical buttons. Firstly, pointing accuracy on said touchscreen and the speed of use were reduced by more than
58% when compared to non-driving conditions.

Already, this reveals that us humans struggle to physically interact with a touchscreen when busy processing whats going on out of the windscreen of a moving vehicle. This then requires the driver to apply more focus to tapping digital menu screens.

As a result, the study revealed that lane deviation increased by over 40%
once touchscreen interaction was introduced. The vicious cycle then
continues.

Bring back buttons

We have already covered this extensively , but some manufacturers are reintroducing physical buttons for often-used features in a vehicle. This is, in part, a reaction to consumer backlash, but also because some of the
leading safety bodies will penalize automakers for an over-reliance on touchscreens in the future.

I strongly believe that things like volume control, lighting, window
de-misters and windscreen wipers should all be mapped to physical buttons
that can be committed to muscle memory after a few uses.

This means drivers dont have to go hunting through often hyper-sensitive touchscreens to activate very basic functionality. Getting stuck in a loop of mis-tapping, shuffling through incorrect menus or activating the wrong
function is frustrating but also very dangerous.

The research conducted by the University of Washington (UW) and Toyota
Research Institute suggests automakers look to reduce the number of menus required to perform a function, with hard-buttons implemented that can be customized to jump to the most used items.

Otherwise, it states that future systems should get smarter and adapt when it detects the driver is becoming more distracted, by enlarging buttons or limiting some functions when it deems things are becoming unsafe.

Unfortunately, it's simply much cheaper for modern automakers to commit absolutely everything to a touchscreen and then rely on software updates to improve things. Not only are we now faced with completely homogenous care interiors, but also the prospect of an increasingly button-free future.

======================================================================
Link to news story: https://www.techradar.com/vehicle-tech/hybrid-electric-vehicles/shock-horror-i n-car-touchscreens-are-way-more-distracting-than-we-first-thought-says-new-stu dy

$$
--- SBBSecho 3.28-Linux
* Origin: Capitol City Online (1:2320/105)

[in 2013, I leased a vehicle that had a touchscreen. In 2016, I requested

>one that had the more "spartan" controls. They are a lot less distracting,
>and are a lot less likely to malfunction! -- Mike]

Shock, horror! In-car touchscreens are way more distracting than we first

>thought, says new study

I'm not even sure if my Escape has touch on the screens. If so I obviously don't use it much. (Some models have it depending on option packages.)

That said, I'm not sure it's a whole lot better if you are using
arrow buttons to work the screens instead of touching the screen.

Mine has very few of the super high-end options on it. Probably more
than I'd prefer but a lot less than most people. Only the one backup
camera and no heated seats and such and it won't steer the car for
me or hit the brakes for me if I'm not paying attention and the
traffic stops in front of me. I use cruise control more than most
of the other toys and have recently left it set to turn the lights
on and off dependant on how dark it is just so I don't forget to do
it since the daytime driving lights are so bright a couple of times
I drove home with my lights off in the dark. I could see fine but
that means I had no taillights on.. If it's raining or super cloudy
it does sometimes turn the lights on during the day..

I ignore the car complaining that my phone isn't synced to the
car speaker system as I don't really use my phone while driving.

---
* SLMR Rob * You can lead a horse to water & drive a man to drink
* Origin: Capitol City Online (1:2320/105)

[in 2013, I leased a vehicle that had a touchscreen. In 2016, I requested

>one that had the more "spartan" controls. They are a lot less distracting,
>and are a lot less likely to malfunction! -- Mike]

Shock, horror! In-car touchscreens are way more distracting than we first

>thought, says new study

I'm not even sure if my Escape has touch on the screens. If so I obviously don't use it much. (Some models have it depending on option packages.)

That said, I'm not sure it's a whole lot better if you are using
arrow buttons to work the screens instead of touching the screen.

Spartan controls = no screen. Well, it does have a small screen that is
only on when the backup camera is on, or when the radio is on. Otherwise,
it is just a clock.

There is another small screen between the spedo and the tach. It is set to show the fuel/mileage numbers and the odd error message.

In other words, nothing I have to touch. All the air/heat, radio, etc., controls are manual.

Mike

---
* SLMR 2.1a * "Monkeys point!" "Monkeys cry..."
* Origin: Capitol City Online (1:2320/105)

Hello Rob!

** On Thursday 25.12.25 - 09:07, Rob Mccart wrote to MIKE POWELL:

I'm not even sure if my Escape has touch on the screens. If so I
obviously don't use it much. (Some models have it depending on option packages.)

Ah.. so you *do* have an SUV. Generally, the Ford Escapes have
a "lock wheels" option to improve traction, no?

--
../|ug

--- OpenXP 5.0.64
* Origin: My Westcoast Point (1:153/757.21)

I'm not even sure if my Escape has touch on the screens. If so I obviously

>> don't use it much. (Some models have it depending on option packages.)

That said, I'm not sure it's a whole lot better if you are using

>> arrow buttons to work the screens instead of touching the screen.

Spartan controls = no screen. Well, it does have a small screen that is

>only on when the backup camera is on, or when the radio is on. Otherwise,
>it is just a clock.

I have 2 smallish screens on mine, one that flips between the backup
camera and info about the radio station or other things running,
outside temperature and such. Both screens, the only controls you
have are to do with Menus, setting speedo and fuel diplay and such.
There's a small graphic of the car that shows what lights are on
and cruise control settings if on and such, nothing too exotic.

There is another small screen between the spedo and the tach.

>It is set to show the fuel/mileage numbers and the odd error message.

In other words, nothing I have to touch. All the air/heat, radio, etc.,

>controls are manual.

Mine are as well, although I have duplicate controls for a lot of
that (radio volume, phone controls, Menu arrow keys and such) on
the steering wheel where they are a little easier to get at..

---
* SLMR Rob * Found out I'm a Hypochondriac and I'm just sick about it!
* Origin: Capitol City Online (1:2320/105)

I'm not even sure if my Escape has touch on the screens.

Ah.. so you *do* have an SUV. Generally, the Ford Escapes have

>a "lock wheels" option to improve traction, no?

Mine is only front wheel drive. There is some sort of setting for
improved traction but I'm not sure how well that works when you
don't have 4 wheel drive.

It is surprisingly good on slippery roads and snow covered hills
though, especially considering I just have Michelin 'Mud and Snow'
tires on it. Obviously a good make but not True snow tires.

---
* SLMR Rob * Sorry I'm late dear. I was held up by a slow bartender
* Origin: Capitol City Online (1:2320/105)

I'm not even sure if my Escape has touch on the screens. If so I obviousl

>> don't use it much. (Some models have it depending on option packages.)

That said, I'm not sure it's a whole lot better if you are using

>> arrow buttons to work the screens instead of touching the screen.

Spartan controls = no screen. Well, it does have a small screen that is

>only on when the backup camera is on, or when the radio is on. Otherwise,
>it is just a clock.

I have 2 smallish screens on mine, one that flips between the backup
camera and info about the radio station or other things running,
outside temperature and such. Both screens, the only controls you
have are to do with Menus, setting speedo and fuel diplay and such.
There's a small graphic of the car that shows what lights are on
and cruise control settings if on and such, nothing too exotic.

I also drive a Ford, so that sounds a lot like mine. ;) I have a 2016
Fusion. The 2013 I had before it had the touch screen. It was a lot more difficult to work things... pretty much had to wait until the car was stationary, which was no fun when you were driving along and the car
decided to turn on MAX heat defrost for no reason. :(

I really liked the 2013 otherwise but ultimately decided to get a slightly newer one that didn't have the "modern" controls on it.

Mine are as well, although I have duplicate controls for a lot of
that (radio volume, phone controls, Menu arrow keys and such) on
the steering wheel where they are a little easier to get at..

Mine also does but, IMHO, those wear out awful easy. I can no longer set
the cruise control with the "+" key ('-' still works), and the arrows and
"OK" that work the central display only work if the wheel is in a certain position.

Mike

* SLMR 2.1a * HaHaHa! Yuk, Yuk. Snort. Harumph.
--- SBBSecho 3.28-Linux
* Origin: Capitol City Online (1:2320/105)

On 27 Dec. 2025 09:09, you wrote to AUGUST:

Mine is only front wheel drive. There is some sort of setting for
improved traction but I'm not sure how well that works when you
don't have 4 wheel drive.

I thought all Ford Escapes were some form of 4WD. Ie. SES 4WD, AWD etc..


--- AfterShock/Android 1.7.5
* Origin: Mobile Pixel 3aXL (2:221/1.59)

Hello Rob!

** On Saturday 27.12.25 - 09:09, you wrote to me:

Mine is only front wheel drive. There is some sort of
setting for improved traction but I'm not sure how well
that works when you don't have 4 wheel drive.

It is surprisingly good on slippery roads and snow covered
hills though, especially considering I just have Michelin
'Mud and Snow' tires on it. Obviously a good make but not
True snow tires.

Just don't put any heavy loads over the rear tires. That could
fishtail the back-end out of control.

I am looking at some Escapes listed at my local dealer. There
is a cute 2019 Bronco Sport 4x4 that looks interesting. But I
am still inclined to consider an Escape - and *only* AWD or
4WD.

--
../|ug

--- OpenXP 5.0.64
* Origin: My Westcoast Point (1:153/757.21)

I have 2 smallish screens on mine, one that flips between the backup

>> camera and info about the radio station or other things running,
>> outside temperature and such. Both screens, the only controls you
>> have are to do with Menus, setting speedo and fuel diplay and such.
>> There's a small graphic of the car that shows what lights are on
>> and cruise control settings if on and such, nothing too exotic.

I also drive a Ford, so that sounds a lot like mine. ;) I have a 2016

>Fusion. The 2013 I had before it had the touch screen. It was a lot more
>difficult to work things... pretty much had to wait until the car was
>stationary, which was no fun when you were driving along and the car
>decided to turn on MAX heat defrost for no reason. :(

Mine is just a 2017 too. My previous car was a 2006 so it didn't have
any of the modern goodies.

Mine are as well, although I have duplicate controls for a lot of

>> that (radio volume, phone controls, Menu arrow keys and such) on
>> the steering wheel where they are a little easier to get at..

Mine also does but, IMHO, those wear out awful easy. I can no longer set

>the cruise control with the "+" key ('-' still works), and the arrows and
>"OK" that work the central display only work if the wheel is in a certain
>position.

I see.. Mine all seem to still work. I don't drive a lot but I do
use Cruise Control a lot and it's still fine. I've not run into the
steering wheel position thing, but I'm not sure I've ever used the
arrow keys without the wheel in pretty much straight upright position.

---
* SLMR Rob * Help! I'm being held prisoner in the attic.
* Origin: Capitol City Online (1:2320/105)

Mine is only front wheel drive. There is some sort of setting for
improved traction but I'm not sure how well that works when you
don't have 4 wheel drive.

I thought all Ford Escapes were some form of 4WD. Ie. SES 4WD, AWD etc..

Apparently not all.. At times I wish I had some sort of AWD..
Mine is the Turbocharged 1.5 Litre engine, higher HP than the
2 Litre engine, which also worried me a bit but it sounds like they
usually stand up fairly well. No estimate on how long the Turbos
last since so few have failed. I haven't had any problems with it so
far, but mine only has about 72,000 km on it.

---
* SLMR Rob * I need a woman real bad!... Are you real bad?
* Origin: Capitol City Online (1:2320/105)

I also drive a Ford, so that sounds a lot like mine. ;) I have a 2016

>Fusion. The 2013 I had before it had the touch screen. It was a lot more
>difficult to work things... pretty much had to wait until the car was
>stationary, which was no fun when you were driving along and the car
>decided to turn on MAX heat defrost for no reason. :(

Mine is just a 2017 too. My previous car was a 2006 so it didn't have
any of the modern goodies.

My other "car" is a 1993 Dodge Dakota. It is nice to drive in part because
it has no "modern goodies" to speak of. The radio doesn't even work. :D

Mike


* SLMR 2.1a * Risking moderation again!
--- SBBSecho 3.28-Linux
* Origin: Capitol City Online (1:2320/105)

Rob Mccart wrote to AUGUST ABOLINS <=-

Apparently not all.. At times I wish I had some sort of AWD..
Mine is the Turbocharged 1.5 Litre engine, higher HP than the
2 Litre engine, which also worried me a bit but it sounds like they usually stand up fairly well. No estimate on how long the Turbos
last since so few have failed. I haven't had any problems with it so
far, but mine only has about 72,000 km on it.

Back in the 80s, friends with Saab Turbos swore by letting the car
settle for 10 seconds to let the turbine slow down before turning the
car off and depriving it of oil. Sounds like a good idea.

I would love an old Saab 99 turbo, myself.



--- MultiMail/Win v0.52
* Origin: http://realitycheckbbs.org | tomorrow's retro tech (1:218/700)

Hello Rob!

** On Monday 29.12.25 - 08:12, you wrote:

I thought all Ford Escapes were some form of 4WD. Ie.
SES 4WD, AWD etc..

Apparently not all.. At times I wish I had some sort of
AWD.. Mine is the Turbocharged 1.5 Litre engine, higher HP
than the 2 Litre engine, which also worried me a bit but
it sounds like they usually stand up fairly well. No
estimate on how long the Turbos last since so few have
failed. I haven't had any problems with it so far, but
mine only has about 72,000 km on it.

My Rav4 is 2.4L. I think I would miss that size. Factory
mileage has been pretty consistent between 10L/100km and 9L/
100km. Winter driving and winter fuel grade is dragging it
down to 12L/100km though.

Mine has just squeezed past 145K km since 2007.

Most of the Escapes I see at the local dealer are all 1.5L.

--
../|ug

--- OpenXP 5.0.64
* Origin: My Westcoast Point (1:153/757.21)

Hello Mike!

** On Monday 29.12.25 - 09:29, Mike Powell wrote to ROB MCCART:

My other "car" is a 1993 Dodge Dakota. It is nice to
drive in part because it has no "modern goodies" to speak
of. The radio doesn't even work. :D

LOL. :D

--
../|ug

--- OpenXP 5.0.64
* Origin: My Westcoast Point (1:153/757.21)

It is surprisingly good on slippery roads and snow covered
hills though, especially considering I just have Michelin
'Mud and Snow' tires on it. Obviously a good make but not
True snow tires.

Just don't put any heavy loads over the rear tires. That could

>fishtail the back-end out of control.

I drive fairly sedately these days. Too many of my younger years
driving Supercars so I don't feel the need to push things when
I'm driving around. I rarely carry anything heavier than my
groceries in this car anyways..

I am looking at some Escapes listed at my local dealer. There

>is a cute 2019 Bronco Sport 4x4 that looks interesting. But I
>am still inclined to consider an Escape - and *only* AWD or
>4WD.

I like mine well enough. It's bigger than most of the other
compact SUV's, which I prefer. My biggest complaint with the
car would be paint related. I've had some minor paint peeling
issues so I've had to touch up a couple of areas that should
not be a problem spot, and there's no rust involved, just paint
peeling off of the primer.

---
* SLMR Rob * Sssss.. Gotta go! My girlfriend's developed a slow leak
* Origin: Capitol City Online (1:2320/105)

Mine is just a 2017 too. My previous car was a 2006 so it didn't have

>> any of the modern goodies.

My other "car" is a 1993 Dodge Dakota. It is nice to drive in part because

>it has no "modern goodies" to speak of. The radio doesn't even work. :D

Until recently I was usually buying cars just rebuilt that were older
and I'd only keep them for 3 or 4 years. As long as a car looks and
runs okay I don't worry too much how new it is. These days it's a lot
harder to tell how old a car in in any case. Not like things were back
in the 50's and 60's.. B)

A local Wreckers had a thing for Neons and were always fixing those
up to sell. I bought two Neons from them. They had better than
average warranties on them and, if the car needed work after the
warranty period, they often did it ridiculously cheap. If it wasn't
complex work, only charging me not much more than minimum wage rates
since their apprentice could do it and that's all he was being paid..

---
* SLMR Rob * Must be Jelly 'cause Jam don't jiggle like that
* Origin: Capitol City Online (1:2320/105)

No estimate on how long the Turbos last since so few have failed.

Back in the 80s, friends with Saab Turbos swore by letting the car

> settle for 10 seconds to let the turbine slow down before turning the
> car off and depriving it of oil. Sounds like a good idea.

I've heard that too. I probably don't keep that in mind all the time
but I also am rarely in a big rush so it would be left to idle for
a while before I shut it down. I assume the turbo is spinning all
the time. Too bad it couldn't be set up to only turn on when extra
power is required, then I'd almost never use it. I drive pretty
sedately for one who was into muscle cars in my misspent youth.. B)

Okay.. I had a look online and found various info on Turbo speeds
and in general most turbos spin very slowly at low RPM's, say
1000 rpm at idle compared to up to 200,000 rpm when pushed..

But, that said, I looked it up for my specific car and it said
that the turbo does not spin at all unless you put the engine
under the stress of high acceleration or when pulling a heavy
load, which might be why the lifespan on that model is usually
quite long.

---
* SLMR Rob * I'm a serial monogamist
* Origin: Capitol City Online (1:2320/105)

Mine is the Turbocharged 1.5 Litre engine, higher HP
than the 2 Litre engine, which also worried me a bit but
it sounds like they usually stand up fairly well.

Correction.. The 2 litre engines are usually turbocharged
as well and have fairly high HP (250), but the Ford 2.4 litre
engine that is not turbocharged puts out about 140 HP compared
to my 1.5 liter engine's 180 HP..

My Rav4 is 2.4L. I think I would miss that size. Factory

>mileage has been pretty consistent between 10L/100km and 9L/
>100km. Winter driving and winter fuel grade is dragging it
>down to 12L/100km though.

Mine is usually about that or a little better when the computer
actually checks it but, in theory, I should be able to get as
high as 7.8L/100km.. Mixed Highway/City is supposed to be 9.1.

Yes, winter gas especially, and most gas year round contains
ethanol and the only benefit of that in winter is you never
get frozen fuel lines. The rest of the year it's a scam to
employ farmers who grow any of several crops used in making
ethanol but, if you put 10% ethanol in the gas, your fuel
economy drops by 10%.

Mine has just squeezed past 145K km since 2007.

The high miles used to worry me, having grown up back when
most engines didn't last much longer than 160K km, but one
of the Neons I bought had 175K on it which worried me a bit
until I looked into it and most if properly cared for were
good for 250K to 300K km.. (300K = 186,000 miles)

Most of the Escapes I see at the local dealer are all 1.5L.

If they stand up as well as claimed it seems a good engine for
general use, although if I were pulling heavy trailers or something
I'd want a bigger engine not turbcharged.

---
* SLMR Rob * Old Accountants never die. They just lose their balance
* Origin: Capitol City Online (1:2320/105)

My other "car" is a 1993 Dodge Dakota. It is nice to drive in part because

>it has no "modern goodies" to speak of. The radio doesn't even work. :D

Until recently I was usually buying cars just rebuilt that were older
and I'd only keep them for 3 or 4 years. As long as a car looks and
runs okay I don't worry too much how new it is. These days it's a lot
harder to tell how old a car in in any case. Not like things were back
in the 50's and 60's.. B)

I never had a thing for new cars, either, until the price of older ones
went up so much ~15 years ago. After a bad experience buying a used one, I startred to figure that if I am going to spend that much money on
one that doesn't come with any warranty, I might as well buy a new one.

That said, the first brand new one was a lease. The next one was also. On
the second one, when the lease was near up, I saw that new cars the same age were selling for about $10k more than the contracted "resale to me" value on the lease contract. So, knowing all of its history, I bought that car
"used." ;)

So I guess I still have not bought new. :D

A local Wreckers had a thing for Neons and were always fixing those
up to sell. I bought two Neons from them. They had better than
average warranties on them and, if the car needed work after the
warranty period, they often did it ridiculously cheap. If it wasn't
complex work, only charging me not much more than minimum wage rates
since their apprentice could do it and that's all he was being paid..

My sister had a Neon back in the late 1990s. IIRC, she liked it. I rode
in it a few times and it was not a bad car.

Mike


* SLMR 2.1a * Pregnancy is a side effect of sloppy birth control.
--- SBBSecho 3.28-Linux
* Origin: Capitol City Online (1:2320/105)