Skip to main content

It’s time to stop and think about in-car HMIs

The sophistication of automotive human machine interfaces (HMIs) is easy to underestimate.
August 30, 2019 Read time: 2 mins

The sophistication of automotive human machine interfaces (HMIs) is easy to underestimate.

But – and it’s a big but - research suggests that text messaging and using an entertainment system are more distracting than a hands-free mobile phone call. But we also know from research that making a hands-free call is actually more distracting than driving under the influence of alcohol. Using unfamiliar car controls and car displays, or add-on media such as music devices can in turn be more distracting than using a hands-free device.

So this is an area where we should begin to exercise caution. The variety of tasks that are now routinely conducted via HMIs has increased significantly – and this means that so has the likely growth in distraction effects. Safety research group 491 TRL rightly suggests that we need to know more: the work that we have on mobile phone use in cars, for example, may not be relevant to modern HMIs. Also, maybe there is a need to limit the features that can be added to HMIs.

We must at least think it possible that, given the pace of technological change, we can’t be sure what effect this is having on road safety. The law, as it stands, does not outlaw HMI development. But as Dr Shaun Helman, chief scientist of TRL, points out: “A legal HMI in your car has plenty of scope to be badly designed.”

This is not to criticise any car manufacturer – or indeed, any driver. But there is enough danger on the road without adding to it. Distraction – any distraction – makes driving more risky. We need to understand the effects that these services have on the way we drive. Just because we can in effect turn our car dashboards into smartphones, it doesn’t mean we should.

For more information on companies in this article

Related Content

  • Enforcement needs automation and communication
    February 1, 2012
    TISPOL's Peter van de Beek questions whether the thought processes which drive enforcement technology development are always the right ones. Peter van de Beek sees an ever-greater role for technology in traffic enforcement but is concerned that the emphasis of technological development and discussion is not always in the right places. 'Old-fashioned' face-to-face policing remains as valid as it ever did, he feels, but adds that there should be greater communication with those engaged at the sharp end of saf
  • Drover AI’s Alex Nesic: ‘We’re still in the basement level of micromobility’
    April 12, 2022
    The micromobility revolution has reshaped the way we get around cities, but it has created some problems too. Drover AI’s PathPilot is here to help cities – and pedestrians – Alex Nesic tells Adam Hill
  • Machine vision standards definition moves forward with establishment of new forum
    December 3, 2012
    The new Future Standards Forum will homogenise standards develop in the machine vision and partnering sectors. Here, machine vision industry experts discuss developments. By Jason Barnes At the Vision Show, which took place in Stuttgart at the beginning of November, the European Machine Vision Association, the US’s Automated Imaging Association and the Japan Industrial Imaging Association (JIIA) established a joint initiative, the Future Standards Forum (FSF). This, said the EMVA’s President Toni Ventura, a
  • Smart cities: first, define your strategy
    April 27, 2020
    How smart are we really being about smart mobility? Martin Howell of Worldline UK and Ireland reckons we could do better – but to do so you have to start asking the right questions…