Touchscreen infotainment systems in modern cars create greater distraction and safety risks than texting while driving, according to research published by road safety organizations in January 2026. The findings have prompted calls for regulatory intervention forcing manufacturers to reintroduce physical buttons and dials for essential vehicle functions, reversing a decade-long trend toward touchscreen-dominated dashboard designs.
Studies conducted by the Transport Research Laboratory, commissioned by road safety charity IAM RoadSmart, measured driver distraction during common tasks including adjusting climate controls, changing radio stations, and activating navigation systems. The research found that drivers using touchscreen interfaces took their eyes off the road for an average of 12 to 15 seconds per task, substantially longer than the 4 to 6 seconds typically required for similar activities using traditional physical controls.
By comparison, studies of texting while driving show that composing and sending a brief message typically requires 5 to 8 seconds of attention, making touchscreen interaction potentially more dangerous than the behavior that road safety campaigns have targeted for years through legislation and public awareness efforts.
"The irony is striking," said Neil Greig, policy director at IAM RoadSmart, during a press conference announcing the research findings. "We've criminalized mobile phone use while driving, rightly recognizing the distraction it creates, yet we've simultaneously allowed vehicle manufacturers to install systems requiring even longer periods of visual attention. The regulatory inconsistency is indefensible."
The research utilized driving simulators and instrumented vehicles to measure task completion times, eye movement patterns, and lane positioning while drivers interacted with touchscreens versus physical controls. Results showed that complex touchscreen menus requiring multiple screen transitions created the longest distraction periods, with some tasks demanding over 20 seconds of intermittent attention as drivers navigated through nested menus.
Physical buttons and rotary dials, by contrast, allow drivers to develop muscle memory and operate controls through touch without visual confirmation. Experienced drivers can adjust climate temperature, change radio stations, or modify other settings while maintaining visual attention on the road ahead, a capability that touchscreen interfaces eliminate by requiring constant visual feedback.
The safety implications prove substantial when considering vehicle speeds. At 70 mph on a motorway, a vehicle travels approximately 31 metres per second. A 15-second distraction means covering 465 metres, roughly one-third of a mile, with compromised attention to road conditions, surrounding traffic, and potential hazards. Even brief glances away from the road accumulate dangerous inattention when repeated across multiple touchscreen interactions.
European New Car Assessment Programme, the organization conducting crash testing and safety ratings for vehicles sold in Europe, announced in December 2025 that it would introduce penalties in its rating system for vehicles lacking physical controls for essential functions. Starting with 2027 model year assessments, vehicles requiring touchscreen interaction for climate control, hazard lights, or windscreen wipers will face deductions in their overall safety scores.
"Physical controls for critical safety functions should be non-negotiable," stated Dr. Michiel van Ratingen, Euro NCAP secretary general, in the organization's announcement. "Manufacturers have prioritized interior aesthetics and cost reduction over driver safety by eliminating buttons. Our rating adjustments will incentivize reversing this trend."
The automotive industry's embrace of touchscreens accelerated following Tesla's introduction of the Model S in 2012, which featured a large central touchscreen controlling nearly all vehicle functions. The design proved influential, with traditional manufacturers adopting similar approaches to appear modern and technologically sophisticated. Cost considerations also favored touchscreens, as single screens can replace dozens of individual switches, buttons, and dials, reducing parts count and assembly complexity.
However, the pendulum appears to be swinging back toward physical controls. Volkswagen acknowledged customer complaints about its touchscreen-heavy interior designs and announced in November 2025 that future models would reintroduce physical buttons for climate controls and audio volume. Porsche maintained physical controls for essential functions even as other manufacturers eliminated them, with company executives citing driving dynamics and safety concerns.
"Porsche drivers demand tactile interaction with their vehicles," explained Michael Steiner, Porsche's research and development director, in a 2024 interview with Automotive News Europe. "Forcing them to navigate touchscreen menus for basic functions contradicts our performance-oriented philosophy. Physical controls contribute to driving engagement and safety."
Consumer surveys support this position. Research conducted by What Car? magazine in December 2025 found that 73 percent of British drivers prefer physical buttons and dials over touchscreens for frequently used controls. Complaints focused on distraction, difficulty using touchscreens while driving on rough roads where vehicle motion makes accurate screen touches challenging, and system crashes or freezes that temporarily disable access to essential functions.
Voice control systems, promoted by manufacturers as solutions to touchscreen distraction, have failed to deliver on their promise. The same Transport Research Laboratory studies found that voice control often requires multiple attempts to achieve desired outcomes, creating frustration and extended distraction periods as drivers repeat commands or manually intervene when voice recognition fails.
"Voice control works well in ideal conditions with clear commands for simple functions," Greig explained. "But background noise, accents, or complex requests frequently cause failures. Drivers end up abandoning voice control and reverting to touchscreens, having wasted time and attention on unsuccessful voice interactions."
Legislative responses have begun in some jurisdictions. The European Union is considering regulations requiring physical controls for specific safety-critical functions as part of its General Safety Regulation updates expected in 2026. California's Department of Motor Vehicles proposed similar rules for vehicles sold in the state, though automotive industry lobbying has delayed implementation.
Manufacturers argue that touchscreens provide flexibility for over-the-air software updates, enabling new features and improvements without hardware changes. They also allow customization and integration with smartphone ecosystems that modern consumers expect. However, critics maintain that these advantages don't justify compromising driver safety through excessive distraction.
The accessibility implications deserve attention as well. Touchscreens create challenges for drivers with visual impairments, reduced fine motor control, or cognitive difficulties processing complex visual information. Physical controls with distinct shapes, textures, and positions allow these drivers to operate essential functions through touch and spatial memory, capabilities that flat touchscreens eliminate.
Some manufacturers have attempted compromise solutions. BMW's iDrive system combines a central touchscreen with a rotary controller allowing menu navigation without touching the screen. Mercedes-Benz offers touchpads on steering wheel spokes for common functions. These approaches acknowledge the limitations of pure touchscreen interfaces but add complexity that may not fully address safety concerns.
The data raises questions about regulatory priorities and safety philosophy. If touchscreens genuinely create greater distraction than mobile phones, why do regulations penalize one while accommodating the other? Part of the answer involves regulatory capture and industry influence shaping standards in manufacturers' favor. Another factor involves timing, as mobile phone legislation preceded widespread touchscreen adoption and regulators have been slow recognizing the parallel safety concerns.
Road safety advocates argue that the evidence now demands action. The same scientific methodology showing mobile phone distraction's dangers demonstrates comparable or worse effects from touchscreen interaction. Regulatory consistency requires addressing both threats equally through legislation mandating physical controls for essential functions and potentially restricting touchscreen interaction while vehicles are in motion.
Technological solutions exist. Manufacturers could implement software preventing non-essential touchscreen functions when vehicles exceed walking speeds, forcing drivers to pull over for complex system interactions. Physical controls could be mandated for climate, audio volume, and driver assistance functions while allowing touchscreens for navigation and entertainment system configuration when stationary.
Whether regulators impose such requirements or industry self-corrects through market pressure and safety ratings adjustments remains uncertain. What appears increasingly clear is that the wholesale replacement of physical controls with touchscreens represented a safety backward step that prioritized aesthetics, cost reduction, and technological novelty over driver distraction minimization.
The road back to buttons has begun, driven by consumer frustration, safety research, and emerging regulatory pressure. How quickly manufacturers respond and whether regulations accelerate the transition will determine how many drivers continue navigating touchscreen menus while hurtling down motorways at dangerous speeds, eyes off the road, hands off the wheel, attention anywhere except where it belongs.
