‘It’s madness’: Safety fears prompt calls to bring back buttons on car dashboards

Road safety advocates concerned that complex touch screen consoles in modern cars are distracting drivers and contributing to crashes want the government to consider forcing vehicle manufacturers to reintroduce physical buttons and dials for common and critical functions.

The Australasian College of Road Safety’s (ACRS) call for the government to review whether existing safety standards have kept pace with increasingly complicated in-car controls comes at a turning point in the industry, including a push from insurance giant Allianz for automakers and authorities in all jurisdictions to take more seriously the distraction risk drivers face in modern vehicles.

Central to their concerns is that functions once performed by touch alone now require drivers to take their eyes off the road. While laws forbid drivers from holding mobile phones and severely restrict when they can touch a phone when legally mounted, rules governing integrated touchscreens are vague. Displaying video in motion is banned, but broader careless driving laws do not specify distractions linked to in-car controls.

Testing from the Australian Automobile Association conducted by the University of Newcastle found the most poorly designed menus demand up to 11 taps to perform functions such as changing air conditioning or entering a navigation destination. This costs six seconds of visual attention, the study found. At a speed of 60 km/h, a driver travels about 100 metres blind in that time.

Earlier this year, China announced it will require physical buttons for critical controls in new cars sold in the country. While it doesn’t apply to the export market, it’s expected to shape vehicle design out of China when the law comes into effect from mid-2027.

As of this year, the Australasian New Car Assessment Program (ANCAP), which determines safety ratings for new cars in Australia, came into line with its European counterpart with new protocols that penalise an over-reliance on touchscreen menus. A manufacturer now loses points if it doesn’t provide either a physical button or stick or a permanently dedicated section of a touchscreen to engage indicators, hazard lights, windscreen wipers, headlights and sound the horn.

However, a car penalised for distracting controls can recoup points in other areas to still achieve a 5-star overall rating.

Ultimately, poor ANCAP ratings do not ban cars from the market. For Australia to follow in China’s path, the government would need to update the Australian Design Rules which govern the mandatory standards for all new vehicles in the market.

Dr Ingrid Johnston, chief executive of the ACRS, said there is now “a strong case for Australian authorities to review whether existing vehicle safety standards adequately address the distraction risks associated with modern touchscreen interfaces”.

She said existing rules do not comprehensively assess the distraction or complexity associated with operating in-vehicle systems. Johnston said that when updating the requirements, authorities should consider the number of interactions required to complete common tasks, the time drivers spend looking away from the road, and whether complex functions should be restricted while driving.

“ACRS would support consideration of stronger, evidence-based requirements, including whether frequently used or safety-critical functions should have physical controls or other interfaces that remain readily accessible without requiring prolonged visual attention,” Johnston said.

Allianz, in calling for stricter car design rules, pointed to the findings of research it commissioned comprising a review of 80 studies on driver distraction, as well as new experiments using retina-tracking technology in real vehicles and analysis of claims data and more than 34,000 injury-causing crashes since 1999.

The review reassessed historical crashes for additional indicators of distraction such as a lack of braking or evasive action. While distraction is recorded as the cause in just 1.4 per cent of crashes, Allianz now believes distraction contributes to as many as one in three road crashes.

Allianz also released survey data of Australian motorists which found 75 per cent of the 1200 respondents believe in-vehicle technology distractions have increased in recent years, with 41 per cent rating the risk of driver distraction as high or very high.

About 29 per cent of respondents said they experienced a critical situation, such as hard braking, a near miss or a crash, while using a vehicle touchscreen. One in five Australian drivers surveyed reported causing or partly causing a crash in the past three years, with 67 per cent of those saying distraction definitely or possibly played a role.

Allianz’s studies also assessed how a distracted driver’s performance compared with an intoxicated driver, and found in certain scenarios such as on rural roads, a two-second glance away from the road can be more dangerous than a 0.08 blood alcohol content in a driver.

Michael Regan, an emeritus professor at the University of NSW who has studied road user behaviour and in-vehicle distraction, was critical of newer generation cars that required a touchscreen to adjust settings such as side mirrors, air conditioning and radio.

“It’s madness because it’s extremely distracting,”

Michael Regan, emeritus professor at UNSW

“It’s madness because it’s extremely distracting,” said Regan, who oversaw Allianz’s findings. “We know from research that when a driver takes their eyes off the road, they typically miss traffic signs, signals and subtle changes, and that means they take longer to react in the presence of danger, largely because they haven’t been able to predict it.”

Regan cited studies which have found that when a driver looks away from the road for more than two seconds, their risk of having a crash doubles, and for every second after that the “risk rises exponentially”.

“You’re not only taking you’re eyes off the road, you’re taking your mind off the road,” Regan said.

Whether car manufacturers agree to stricter design rules is unclear. Tony Weber, chief executive of the Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries, which represents the industry, said Australia acting ahead of other jurisdictions could harm local supply and cost. “International harmonisation ensures Australians benefit from globally developed vehicle safety standards. Introducing additional Australian requirements could increase complexity and cost for consumers,” Weber said.

A spokeswoman for Transport Minister Catherine King also noted the importance of international harmonisation for Australian Design Rules due to the nation’s reliance on vehicle imports.

“The Australian government is continually adding to or amending Australian Design Rules (ADRs) based on changing vehicle technology and road safety risks,” she said.

The Business Briefing newsletter delivers major stories, exclusive coverage and expert opinion. Sign up to get it every weekday morning.