6 ms·

> You do know that Touch Screen got included in Cars due to government regulations right? The government mandated Backup Camera's and once you had to put in a s

by wolrah 4y ago

> You do know that Touch Screen got included in Cars due to government regulations right? The government mandated Backup Camera's and once you had to put in a screen to serve as display for the backup camera then it only makes since to use that screen for more and more things Backup cameras were mandated in the US in 2018. Almost every vehicle on the market had a touchscreen years before that. The few vehicles I can think of that didn't yet have a screen as standard by that point got in-mirror camera displays to comply. A government regulation that was announced in 2014 and took effect in 2018 had nothing to do with my 2015 Fiesta, which does not have a backup camera, having the same touch screen a 2010 model had. Ford introduced MyFordTouch in 2010. Chrysler's Uconnect system came out in 2011, GM's various systems (CUE, MyLink, etc) in 2012, and of course the big daddy of stupid touch-focused designs the Tesla Model S came out in 2013. All of these were well established across entire lineups by the time backup camera regulations were being discussed. The primary reason for the current state of automotive touch interfaces is entirely capitalism doing what it does. Touch interfaces are more expensive than a few buttons, but they can replace hundreds of individual controls and components that all have their own design, testing, and production requirements with one where almost everything about it can be changed on the fly. A model that offers options for heated seats as well as heated/cooled seats means you have three different sets of buttons for whatever panel those go in, three different sets of control boards, etc. With touch controls, as bad as they are to use those three variants are now effectively free to the manufacturer. They "cost" a few if()s in software. Regulation is in fact the only reason this nonsense hasn't gotten even stupider. Tesla's new models have a set of hidden controls for drive mode selection and hazard lights, which are primarily intended to be controlled via the touch screen, because they are legally required to have something that would work without the screen. https://www.motortrend.com/news/tesla-model-s-plaid-shifter/ https://www.motortrend.com/news/tesla-model-s-plaid-shifter/ Let me repeat that, Tesla does not want to have these controls, the only reason they have them is because regulation forces them to. Tell me again how the big bad government is ruining Tesla's freedom to do the stupidest things...

phpisthebest 4y ago
>>Tesla does not want to have these controls, the only reason they have them is because regulation forces them to. Tell me again how the big bad government is ruining Tesla's freedom to do the stupidest things You think the stupidest thing, I am not anti-touch screen like most here are. In-fact I replaced alot of the factory buttons in my older car with a Aftermarket Large display that is basically a huge android tablet that controls alot of the car functions (including HVAC) I prefer touch controls. Why the government preventing me from choosing the control I like the best, and then you can feel free to not buy a car that does not have physical controls. That is the market. that is how it should be.
- messe 4y ago
  > Why the government preventing me from choosing the control I like the best For the same reason you can't drive while on the phone or drunk. If it's less safe than buttons, it's putting others in unnecessary danger.
  - phpisthebest 4y ago
    I am sure you are not going to agree or like my response to this argument then. It should be incumbent upon the driver to learn how to operate their car safely. If our ultimate goals are to maximize highway safety, we should be punishing reckless driving. It shouldn't matter if it's caused by alcohol, sleep deprivation, prescription medication, text messaging, or Touch Screens. If lawmakers want to stick it to dangerous drivers who threaten everyone else on the road, they can dial up the civil and criminal liability for reckless driving, especially in cases that result in injury or property damage. The punishable act should be violating road rules or causing an accident, not the factors that led to those offenses. //Some statements herein are rephrased / updated statements from "Abolish Drunk Driving Laws" https://reason.com/2010/10/11/abolish-drunk-driving-laws-2/ https://reason.com/2010/10/11/abolish-drunk-driving-laws-2/
    - messe 4y ago
      You're right. I'm not. I'm not even convinced you're arguing in good faith any more, because frankly I can't imagine how a rational and empathetic individual could have reasoned themselves into these opinions. I'm not going to argue with you any more, because you're either a troll, or someone to who can't be reasoned out of their opinions simply because they didn't reason themselves into them.
      - phpisthebest 4y ago
        >>I can't imagine how a rational and empathetic Empathy and rationality are often in conflict, you seem to side more on the empathetic side where I do not. I am purely on the logical / rational side and freely admit to having very low Empathy. >>someone to who can't be reasoned out of their opinions simply because they didn't reason themselves I literally linked to a site called Reason.com.... It provides a very reasoned case for the abolishment of Drunk driving laws, and the unintended consequences to civil liberties those laws have created. (similar to the consequence to civil liberties the war on drugs has caused) I think I have very reasoned and logical positions that are not based at all in empathy or emotion, which IMO is where all government regulation and law should be, devoid of emotion. Laws created because of emotional response are almost universally bad laws.

by wolrah 4y ago

phpisthebest 4y ago

>>Tesla does not want to have these controls, the only reason they have them is because regulation forces them to. Tell me again how the big bad government is ruining Tesla's freedom to do the stupidest things You think the stupidest thing, I am not anti-touch screen like most here are. In-fact I replaced alot of the factory buttons in my older car with a Aftermarket Large display that is basically a huge android tablet that controls alot of the car functions (including HVAC) I prefer touch controls. Why the government preventing me from choosing the control I like the best, and then you can feel free to not buy a car that does not have physical controls. That is the market. that is how it should be.

messe 4y ago
> Why the government preventing me from choosing the control I like the best For the same reason you can't drive while on the phone or drunk. If it's less safe than buttons, it's putting others in unnecessary danger.
- phpisthebest 4y ago
  I am sure you are not going to agree or like my response to this argument then. It should be incumbent upon the driver to learn how to operate their car safely. If our ultimate goals are to maximize highway safety, we should be punishing reckless driving. It shouldn't matter if it's caused by alcohol, sleep deprivation, prescription medication, text messaging, or Touch Screens. If lawmakers want to stick it to dangerous drivers who threaten everyone else on the road, they can dial up the civil and criminal liability for reckless driving, especially in cases that result in injury or property damage. The punishable act should be violating road rules or causing an accident, not the factors that led to those offenses. //Some statements herein are rephrased / updated statements from "Abolish Drunk Driving Laws" https://reason.com/2010/10/11/abolish-drunk-driving-laws-2/ https://reason.com/2010/10/11/abolish-drunk-driving-laws-2/
  - messe 4y ago
    You're right. I'm not. I'm not even convinced you're arguing in good faith any more, because frankly I can't imagine how a rational and empathetic individual could have reasoned themselves into these opinions. I'm not going to argue with you any more, because you're either a troll, or someone to who can't be reasoned out of their opinions simply because they didn't reason themselves into them.
    - phpisthebest 4y ago
      >>I can't imagine how a rational and empathetic Empathy and rationality are often in conflict, you seem to side more on the empathetic side where I do not. I am purely on the logical / rational side and freely admit to having very low Empathy. >>someone to who can't be reasoned out of their opinions simply because they didn't reason themselves I literally linked to a site called Reason.com.... It provides a very reasoned case for the abolishment of Drunk driving laws, and the unintended consequences to civil liberties those laws have created. (similar to the consequence to civil liberties the war on drugs has caused) I think I have very reasoned and logical positions that are not based at all in empathy or emotion, which IMO is where all government regulation and law should be, devoid of emotion. Laws created because of emotional response are almost universally bad laws.