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.

Related Content

  • The benefit of Lidar: touch, don’t look
    September 28, 2020
    The benefits of Lidar as a safety device for automobiles rather than as an enabler for AVs are easy to overlook – but Dr Jun Pei of Cepton Technologies tells Adam Hill why that would be a big mistake
  • Ken Leonard talks to ITS International
    August 21, 2014
    Ken Leonard, director of the USDOT’s ITS Joint Program office made time in his schedule during the Helsinki Congress to speak to ITS International. It has been 18 months since Ken Leonard took over as the director of the Intelligent Transportation Systems Joint Program Office at the US Department of Transportation. With 30 years of technical experience behind him, to say he is enjoying the challenge would be to put it mildly: “It is incredibly exciting to be working in intelligent transportation systems, th
  • Google Glass ‘as dangerous as texting while driving’
    September 29, 2014
    Texting while driving with Google Glass is clearly a distraction, a new University of Central Florida UCF) study has concluded, but there is a twist. In the study, texting Glass users outperformed smartphone users when regaining control of their vehicles after a traffic incident. The study, conducted in cooperation with the Air Force Research Laboratory, is the first scientific look at using Google Glass to text while driving. Distracted drivers are a hazard on the road and according to the National S
  • Assessing the potential of in-vehicle enforcement systems
    December 4, 2012
    Jason Barnes considers the social and ethical ramifications of using in-vehicle safety technologies to fulfil enforcement functions. Although policy documents often imply close correlation between enforcement, compliance and safety – in part, as a counter to accusations that enforcement is rather more concerned with revenue generation – there is a noticeable reluctance among policy makers and auto manufacturers to exploit in-vehicle safety systems for enforcement applications. From a technical perspective t