We just have zero reasons to have touch screens in cars. They need to be removed, not restricted.

Yeah, the passenger seat is a problem. I've been very annoyed with my phone before for locking out when my car is in motion--even when I'm not the one handling the phone.

I would not.

I would support legislation that forced a recall of all defective cars (ones that required touchscreens to do basic car things).

Mazdas do lock the screen when in motion.

Actions can be accomplished using a 'big knob' button that can be turned or pressed. The driver can still distract themselves, but I believe it's to a lesser extent that the touch screen.

I do not like touch screens, in general. I do not drive a car, but as a passenger I have found some functions (but not all functions) locked while the car is moving, even though it could sometimes be helpful for the passenger to operate it (or read it out loud) for the driver so that the driver does not have to (although this is only because the driver wanted me to do it; I otherwise have no use for them). However, physical controls would be better.

One not-so-fun place this could go is mandatory voice recognition commands, leading to everything said in the car being recorded and stored by the manufacturers.

I would support that, as long as it specified all new cars (not existing ones).

I drive a car with a touchscreen. Obviously, I'm not touching it in motion otherwise my position would be dumb… sometimes it does dumb things and I'll just have to ignore it for the drive or find a parking space to stop and deal with it.

Really? All new cars seem to have heating controls on a touchscreen. Are you sure you aren't thinking of something else, like the regulations against the use of mobile phones while driving? (Even that is allowed so long as it's on a mount.)

Voice controls are much better for that kind of thing anyway. I expect they'll continue to improve.

The Bluetooth thing infuriates me. If the connection fails on my way to work, I have to fucking pull over and park to reconnect my phone. It's literally just pushing the Bluetooth button on my dash. But oh no, that is not available when in motion. Navigate through multiple screens to adjust anything else? Totally fine.

It's an Apple thing to limit keyboard access when the car is moving. Android Auto doesn't have it.

This doesn't work if the entire market has converged, which it has. It's very similar to telling people who don't want a smart TV to "just buy something else", because that limits you to used options.

Used is great, but it means you aren't participating in the market and manufacturers will not account for you. In other words, you literally cannot "vote with your wallet". This is coincidentally also a big reason why monopolies and duopolies are bad.

You know, seatbelts were also once optional, and something like less than 10% of people got them with their cars.

When it comes to safety regulations, it's definitely not "if you don't like it don't buy it".

Also, if you're distracted and get in a crash, you're not the only one who dies. It's your passengers and the people in the car you collide with that might die as well.

That's not a very good argument when we very directly socialize the risks of operating motor vehicles on public roads.

Your poor judgment impacts me, so I get a say

Childish take. This isn't a matter of preference, it's a matter of life or death for every road user put at risk while you're fiddling with your touch screen.

It's becoming increasingly more difficult to find cars that don't pull this nonsense, as removing physical controls (in favor of a fiddly awful touch OS) is a cost saving measure during manufacturing.

... also, whether I purchase it or not makes little difference if I am the pedestrian killed by some other driver who was sold an unsafe vehicle.

The fraction of car owners who die every year is relatively tiny. The fraction of car owners who die due to their own mistakes, where those mistakes were caused by the car, is even smaller. It's a segment of the market that is safe to ignore, financially speaking.

Survivorship bias, information asymmetry and product design is at play here.

100% rational and 100% informed consumers do not exist. There's both information asymmetry between manufacturers and consumers. I'm sure there's man fatal accidents that can be traced back to faulty components and improper design that gets covered up by manufacturers. The Volkswagen emissions scandal was just easily measurable.

Everyone likes it that way. Consumers are attracted to features, gimmicks and marketing because that's what works for marketing and sells. No one wants to buy a "900% less accidents than others" car. But everyone wants a bluetooth and wifi enabled car with seat subscriptions. Besides, what's a rational consumer gotta do? They gotta get up at 06:30 and make breakfast for little Timmy and take him to daycare. They need a new car by the end of the month so they better choose between big touch screen or little touch screen with a control knob.

If I can't get a dumb TV, I just don't buy a dumb TV or watch any TV at all. But you can't not travel by car.

Cars don't kill their drivers typically, they kill people outside of the vehicle.

If that were the case they'd be no need for seatbelt laws

People buy a new car generally every 5-7 years.

furthermore there does not seem to be any great brand loyalty in the market

https://cardealermagazine.co.uk/automotive-consumers-more-di...

maybe because of being afraid of dying but probably not, but given how often people buy new cars (not that often) and the lack of loyalty, I think it would not make any sense from a business perspective to give a damn if the customers die (disregarding moral perspective which I'm sure is a primary concern for automotive manufacturers)

Being so ideologically rigid that you suggest survival of the fittest over legislation...

The other factors being that enough people get killed so that a shrinking market share forces their management decide to change their car designs?

I have a libertarian streak when it comes to drugs, porn/prostitution, free speech, patent law, etc. but in this case I’m perfectly fine with governments “getting involved” to ensure that I can shop for a vehicle without becoming a random sample in a statistical study of car safety. Especially if a possible outcome is my preventable death.

Cars kill more than only their customers. Can we at least have legislation to prevent cars from killing the people in front of them, who were never customers to begin with? Somehow we have laws requiring passenger airbags, but not pedestrian airbags...