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

  • Dutch survey shows drivers are in favour of road user charging
    January 16, 2012
    'Keep it simple, stupid' is an oft-forgotten axiom but in terms of road user charging it is entirely appropriate. So says the ANWB's Ferry Smith. A couple of decades ago, it might have been largely true that the technology aspects of advanced road infrastructure were the main obstacles to deployment. However, 20 years or more of development have led to a situation where such 'obstacles' are often no more than a political fig-leaf. Area-wide Road User Charging (RUC) is a case in point; speak candidly to syst
  • V2X: “The stars are aligning,” says Qualcomm’s Jim Misener
    July 5, 2023
    The roll-out of Vehicle to Everything technology has been given a massive boost by the US Federal Communications Commission: Adam Hill talks to Qualcomm’s Jim Misener and Andres Castrillon to find out why it matters so much – and what the next steps to mass deployment are
  • Distraction danger rises with in-car tech, says TRL
    April 2, 2020
    The increasing sophistication of in-car technology is creating new dangers in terms of driver distraction, a new study finds.
  • Q&A: Samuel Johnson, IBTTA
    February 18, 2020
    Samuel Johnson, chief operations officer for the Transportation Corridor Agencies in Orange County, California - and 2020 IBTTA president - talks about his background and career...