Modern vehicles arrive laden with technology that few customers requested, much of it creating problems rather than solving them. Touchscreens demand visual attention that traditional buttons didn't require. Driver monitoring systems scold adults for glancing away from the road while searching for children or the elderly. Connectivity features that promised convenience instead enable data harvesting and subscription fees for functions that once came standard. The automotive industry's rush toward "smart" cars has produced vehicles that distract drivers, invade privacy, and prioritize technological complexity over the fundamental task of providing reliable, enjoyable transportation.
The Touchscreen Plague
The wholesale replacement of physical buttons and dials with touchscreen interfaces represents perhaps the most universally loathed aspect of modern car technology. What manufacturers marketed as sleek, modern design has created genuine safety hazards and usability disasters that traditional controls never presented.
Touchscreens demand visual attention. Adjusting climate temperature via physical dial requires no more than a glance, often not even that, as drivers develop muscle memory for control locations and can operate them by feel. Touchscreen climate controls require looking at the screen, finding the correct menu, tapping precisely on the right area, and confirming the adjustment worked a process consuming 10 to 15 seconds of visual attention according to transport safety research.
The irony proves bitter. Regulations criminalize mobile phone use while driving, recognizing that touchscreen interaction creates dangerous distraction. Yet manufacturers install larger touchscreens in vehicles, requiring the same visual attention and precise tapping that makes phone use dangerous, and regulators approve these designs without apparent recognition of the contradiction.
Older drivers and those requiring reading glasses face particular difficulties. Touchscreen fonts and icons, sized for aesthetic appeal rather than legibility, become illegible for people over 50 who need reading correction. Dashboard touchscreens sit at distances requiring reading glasses for close work, yet driving demands distance vision. The constant need to put on and remove glasses, or peer at screens through incorrect prescription lenses, creates frustration and safety risks that simple, large physical buttons would eliminate.
Glare and reflection make touchscreens unusable in certain lighting conditions. Direct sunlight can render screens completely invisible, while night driving creates reflections from dashboard illumination that obscure information. Physical buttons work equally well in all lighting conditions because they can be felt and operated without visual confirmation.
The reliability problems compound frustration. Touchscreens freeze, crash, and require rebooting—behaviors intolerable in devices controlling essential vehicle functions. Imagine the climate control failing on a motorway in August, forcing you to pull over and restart the entire infotainment system just to turn on air conditioning. This isn't hypothetical; it happens regularly in modern vehicles where software glitches disable functions that mechanical controls would never fail to perform.
Driver Monitoring: The Nagging Nanny
Driver monitoring systems, marketed as safety features, function more like invasive supervisors constantly judging and criticizing. Cameras and sensors track eye movement, head position, and steering inputs, triggering warnings or interventions when algorithms detect behavior deemed inappropriate.
The systems lack context and common sense. They warn drivers for looking away from the road to check blind spots before lane changes. They trigger alerts when drivers briefly glance down to help elderly passengers locate medication or retrieve items children have dropped. They penalize careful, attentive driving because it doesn't match narrow algorithmic definitions of acceptable behavior.
Parents of young children face particular absurdity. A toddler dropping a bottle or crying in distress naturally demands parental attention, even briefly. Yet driver monitoring systems provide no allowance for these real-world situations, instead treating any deviation from forward-facing stare as dangerous distraction requiring immediate correction.
The systems assume incompetence and treat drivers like children requiring constant supervision. This proves particularly galling for experienced drivers who have operated vehicles safely for decades without algorithmic oversight. The infantilization inherent in these systems the presumption that adults cannot be trusted to drive responsibly without technological supervision breeds resentment far exceeding any safety benefit the monitoring might provide.
False positives create boy-who-cried-wolf dynamics where drivers learn to ignore warnings because they trigger so frequently in response to benign behavior. When systems warn constantly about non-problems, drivers tune out all warnings, including legitimate alerts about genuine hazards. The safety benefit thus reverses into safety detriment as driver monitoring creates alarm fatigue that reduces rather than enhances attention.
The Surveillance State on Wheels
Modern vehicles collect vast amounts of data about driver behavior, location, and vehicle usage. This information flows to manufacturers, insurance companies, and data brokers with minimal transparency and often without meaningful consent beyond buried clauses in purchase agreements or app terms of service that buyers never read and couldn't realistically decline even if they did.
The purposes for this data collection remain opaque. Manufacturers claim it improves vehicle development and safety, though the specifics of what data gets collected, how it's used, and who accesses it rarely receive clear explanation. Insurance companies increasingly demand telematics data to assess driver risk, penalizing behaviors they deem dangerous based on algorithms that drivers cannot inspect or challenge.
The lack of control proves particularly frustrating. Owners cannot easily disable data collection without losing functionality they've paid for or voiding warranties. The vehicle you purchased becomes a surveillance device monitoring and reporting your behavior to third parties, and you have no meaningful recourse to prevent this beyond not buying modern vehicles at all.
Privacy invasion extends beyond abstract concerns about data. Real-world consequences emerge when insurance companies use driving data to deny claims, increase premiums, or modify coverage. Divorce proceedings have involved vehicle location data proving infidelity. Employers with company vehicle fleets monitor employee behavior beyond work hours. The potential for misuse and abuse multiplies as data collection becomes more comprehensive and sharing more promiscuous.
Subscription Services for Standard Features
The ultimate insult involves manufacturers charging subscription fees for features the vehicle already possesses. BMW attempted charging monthly fees for heated seats already installed in vehicles. Tesla locks software-limited range behind paywalls despite the battery capacity existing physically. Manufacturers increasingly view vehicles as platforms for recurring revenue rather than products sold once, and customers bear the burden through ongoing payments for functionality they've already purchased in hardware form.
The justification that software development requires ongoing investment and therefore justifies subscription revenue collapses under scrutiny. Heated seats require no software updates. The wiring, heating elements, and controls exist whether you pay the subscription or not. Charging monthly fees represents pure profit extraction enabled by software locks preventing use of hardware customers have already bought.
This model threatens to extend to ever more vehicle functions. Climate control, advanced cruise control, performance modes, even navigation could become subscription services despite the hardware existing in every vehicle. The precedent, once established, creates incentives for manufacturers to install capabilities in all vehicles but enable them only for customers willing to pay monthly fees indefinitely.
The Reliability Catastrophe
Complexity breeds fragility. Modern vehicles contain millions of lines of software code, dozens of electronic control units, and interconnected systems where failure in one component cascades through entire vehicle functions. A simple software glitch can disable the car completely, requiring dealer visits and lengthy diagnostic procedures where traditional mechanical problems could be identified and resolved quickly.
Over-the-air updates, marketed as convenient improvements, create new failure modes. Badly tested updates can brick vehicles, rendering them inoperable until dealers manually reinstall previous software versions. The lack of opt-out means owners wake to discover their vehicles won't start because overnight updates failed, transformed from reliable transportation to expensive paperweights without warning or consent.
The long-term reliability implications remain unclear but concerning. Electronic components degrade differently than mechanical parts. Software becomes obsolete as manufacturers discontinue support. A 20-year-old mechanical car can run indefinitely with maintenance. A 20-year-old software-dependent vehicle faces uncertain future when manufacturers stop providing updates or supporting systems required for basic operation.
What Buyers Actually Want
The disconnect between manufacturer priorities and customer preferences has never been wider. Buyers want reliable, safe, comfortable vehicles that perform their transportation function without drama, surveillance, or complexity. They want controls that work intuitively, interfaces legible in all conditions, and features that function predictably without requiring software updates or subscription fees.
Physical buttons and dials. Simple, clear instrument displays. Climate controls that adjust temperature without navigating menus. Seats that heat when you press the button without checking subscription status. These aren't revolutionary demands or technophobic resistance to progress. They represent reasonable expectations that vehicles should prioritize usability over technological showmanship.
The minority who desire maximum technology can choose vehicles offering it. But forcing technology on buyers who don't want it, particularly when that technology creates safety hazards, privacy violations, and ongoing costs, serves manufacturer interests at customer expense.
Why We're Getting It Anyway
Manufacturers pursue technology for reasons having little to do with customer benefit. Touchscreens cost less than dozens of individual switches once production scales sufficiently, reducing manufacturing expenses while appearing modern and sophisticated. Data collection creates valuable information streams manufacturers can monetize through insurance partnerships and third-party sales. Subscription services generate recurring revenue that transforms one-time vehicle purchases into ongoing relationships producing profits years after the initial sale.
Regulatory pressure also drives technology adoption. Safety regulations increasingly mandate features including automatic emergency braking, lane-keeping assistance, and driver monitoring, forcing manufacturers to implement systems many buyers would prefer to avoid. The regulations assume that more technology equals more safety without adequately considering usability problems, distraction risks, or unintended consequences from complex systems that behave unpredictably.
Fashion and competition create arms races where manufacturers add technology because competitors do, regardless of customer demand. If one brand offers 15-inch touchscreens, rivals feel pressure to offer 17-inch screens, not because buyers want larger screens but because bigger implies better in marketing materials and showroom comparisons.
The result is an industry that has largely stopped listening to what many customers actually want simple, reliable, well-built vehicles that transport people safely and comfortably without technological excess, surveillance, or recurring fees.
The Path Forward
Change requires customer rebellion and regulatory intervention. Buyers must vote with wallets, prioritizing vehicles from manufacturers that resist technological excess. Models offering physical controls, minimal data collection, and straightforward operation deserve support even when they lack the latest technological bells and whistles.
Regulators need to recognize that touchscreen proliferation creates safety hazards comparable to mobile phone use and should face similar restrictions. Mandating physical controls for essential functions including climate, audio volume, and hazard lights would force manufacturers to maintain usability standards rather than prioritizing cost reduction and aesthetic minimalism.
Data collection requires transparency and consent that actually means something. Buyers should be able to disable telematics without losing functionality or voiding warranties. Manufacturers should face obligations to disclose clearly what data they collect, how they use it, and who accesses it, with meaningful opt-out mechanisms that don't punish buyers for asserting privacy rights.
Subscription services for features existing in vehicle hardware should face legal challenge as deceptive trade practices. You bought the heated seats. The manufacturer should not be allowed to disable them and charge monthly fees to enable functionality you've already purchased.
The fundamental question is whether cars exist to serve drivers or whether drivers exist to generate data and subscription revenue for manufacturers. The answer should be obvious, but current industry trajectory suggests it's not. We didn't ask for smart cars that monitor, monetize, and frustrate us. We asked for transportation that works well and stays out of the way. The industry has delivered the opposite, and unless buyers and regulators push back forcefully, it will only get worse.
