My wife’s 2015 Honda has a similar setup for the climate controls. One morning the windshield fogged up after a few minutes of driving when the cabin was warming up on a cold day. Not being my daily driver, I had to look low on the dash to find the defogger button, while driving in the rain. Nothing bad happened, but I remember feeling a little helpless in the moment. That nothing went wrong was really just pure luck.

You could always have pulled over.

You still have to see where you're going to pull over, and it's not always possible.

You can always slow to a stop with your hazards on.

I rail against touch and ambiguous controls in safety critical applications more than most, but continuing to drive when you can't see properly is akin to get-there-itis.

> You can always slow to a stop with your hazards on.

With low visibility slowing down in the middle of the road is not save either though, given that those behind you don't expect it, and that few people keep sufficient distance. Same with standing on the side in such conditions.

In the described situation I think the best option is to be able and use the right buttons quickly, sticking to the original subject of the discussion. The option that would let you safely keep going with the flow is the best one I would say, under the given conditions.

Even if a million scenarios and alternatives can be thought of, what's the point of derailing a discussion focused on a particular subject? We only have a few hundred comments of room here, I think there is more value in keeping the focus.

The discussion isnt derailed, it branched off. The point is to bring up an adjacent point.

And while the ideal scenario is of course that no problem arises, and second being that the problem is swiftly and efficiently resolved.. given those scenarios do not occur, and you have to decide between "keep going without seeing the road" and "putting hazards on and slowly coming to a complete stop", the latter definitely seems more reasonable in every way.

Of course specific scenarios where stopping will be less safe can be thought up, but statistically speaking, I dont see how an uncontrolled multi-ton moving object would be more safe that a stationary one.

> In the described situation I think the best option is to be able and use the right buttons quickly, sticking to the original subject of the discussion.

Yes, obviously, but poorly designed or failed equipment does not absolve you of your responsibility to drive safely.

> Even if a million scenarios and alternatives can be thought of, what's the point of derailing a discussion focused on a particular subject?

The topic is road safety and the point is both pertinent and revealing. The attitude in your comment and others are highlighting basic failures in driver training, independent of the equipment design.

Honestly, I think you should reflect on your attitude here before you end up a road traffic statistic.

Nothing you've said is valid or solves the problem any better than what they originally said. The problem has already happened and remains a problem regardless what the driver attempts to do about it at that point.

You are already operating the vehicle in traffic in bad conditions for yourself and everyone else, and still need to be able to operate the vehicle and still need to be able to see no matter which of the possible reactions you believe is least-risk at that particular time.

Whether you judge that the least-risk response is to turn on hazards and slow down or even stop right in the road where other drivers who you can not see are not expecting it, whether you can find a place to pull over and see it clearly enough to be absolutely sure there is not a child standing there, or to make no changes to current behavior at all so that you are the most predictable to everyone else, you still need to be able to operate the vehicle and see the road and other vehicles in order to do any of those. None of your suggestions gets around that, even coming to a full stop with hazards on.

Your theory also depends on other drivers to see you and your hazards. Where is the hazard control? This whole discussion is about poor controls.

Even if they did exactly what you who were not there presumes to declare they should have done, it doesn't change anything. It doesn't change the problem or solve the problem or work around the problem.

It actually does solve the problem safely and effectively. The fact you don't recognise this is a driver training failure.

I mean this in the most charitable way possible - you should refrain from driving until you rectify this issue, either through self reflection or remedial training. Until then, you are a danger to yourself and others.

>> Yes, obviously, but poorly designed or failed equipment does not absolve you of your responsibility to drive safely.

I agree with you on this -- but that is not how people behave. Just because people should behave that way, doesnt mean they do. People have a natural inclination to try and fix the problem by giving up a bit of attention -- that is bad for all of us who are affected by these decisions -- and this means -- fix the design.

If drivers feel compelled to take their eyes off the road for extended periods to locate critical controls, it doesn’t matter if they could have made other choices. The safe choice should be easy or it’s a bad user interface.

You could, and hear me out because I know it could be super difficult to do…move one arm a little bit and wipe away some of the fogging so you can see where you are going to pull over…

Why are people so exceptional lazy that they would put other people at risk while they wait for a machine to do something for them, rather than reaching up and wiping away some of the condensation so they can safely operate the vehicle? Are people really this astonishingly incompetent?

Yes, you could. This doesn't make touch control for basic features any better.

On highway, in dense traffic? Sure you can put the car in emergency lane, but that's a risky place to be increasing risk of accident on its own, plus traffic police comes immediately if they see you / are called for such car.

Another situation - narrow intercity winding roads, 0 room for safe stopping of car for next 2km. Again, asking for a crash especially in situation when your windshield fogs which is usually during heavier rain.

Yet another situation - driving in even semi-dense traffic in any bigger city. Again, no place to just stop and block others safely.

I could go on for a while. Not always the smartest move.

I'm somewhat disturbed by the idea that anyone would think that you shouldn't stop when "driving in even semi-dense traffic in any bigger city" if you can't see. Of course you should slowly come to a halt and put warning slights on to give people time to react, but not coming to a stop in such a situation seems at the very least highly negligent. Sure, stopping in the middle of the road will be annoying to other drivers, but it's generally preferred to annoy people over killing them.

Do you drive a car and did such a situation happen to you, in situations I describe?

It did happen to me in dense traffic, there are few ways to mitigate it but stopping in multilane road for anything but a serious medical condition or car dying would be about weighting which risk is greater, this is not about annoying somebody but safety. If I had 0 visibility through windshield and nothing else helped, in lower speed I would pop my head out a bit for example (which would clear the windshield too).

But maybe you don't drive around many french drivers :) They run very aggressively with minimal gaps, and our roads (and parking spaces) are much narrower than US ones for example. You have to drive at the limit, whole crowd always does.

Not always of course, but I dont understand this reasoning. For every example you give, one can make up a different one where stopping would yield a better outcome.

I do believe though that if we took literally all possible scenarios and weighed them by the probability of them occuring, the results would show that a stopped vehicle is safer than a moving vehicle whose driver can not see.

In all those cases, it is safer to come to a stop - an action advertised by your brake lights - than to continue on without proper visibility.

In fact, I feel confident in saying that based on this comment, you are an unsafe driver and should voluntarily undertake remedial training, as you are unfit to be on the road.

Once I was driving on a highway, in the left lane, in heavy traffic, entering a tunnel at some 140kmh, when due to enormous temperature and humidity difference literally blanked out all my windows and windshield. The tunnel had no ventilation and was filled with fog as well. It was literally as if someone hit a switch that turned off my screen. I started braking, turned in emergency light and toggled windshield fan all in less than a second. You could hear other people's tires screeching around me as well. I was in many hard situations on road and in life, but this was blood chilling. I hate to think what would happen if I wasn't able to get my windshield clear again so fast. I drove blindly for 2-3 seconds in a tunnel at 140kmh mate. No pulling over, no stopping with hazards on since guy behind you probably can't see you either.

Surely you see the issue here. Slowing to a stop with your hazards is by far the safest option and you dismissed because of a lack of driver competence.

>I wonder how many people have literally been injured or died due to this pursuit for better "design".

One famous example is Anton Yelchin, who played Chekov in the new Star Trek movies. The new Jeep shifter design made it less obvious whether you put it in neutral or park, and so it rolled toward him when he got out and pinned him to death.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-36572649

He was also in a movie with Patrick Stewart.

This is awful news to me. I've driven a wagoneer that had the spinning knob for the shifter, and yeah, I wasn't a fan.

Green Room (2015). Yelchin was a talented guy and (would have) had a solid career. Patrick Stewart is also cast well against type in that flick.

> to this pursuit for better "design"

Quotes appropriate, because I don't believe this is about safety, usability, or even aesthetics. It's about reducing the number of parts on the vehicle, i.e. lowering cost. It's car manufacturers deliberately making driving less safe to save a few bucks.

No quotes, just my observation - that the buttons are more optimized for the good look (symmetrical, sleek) vs usable. Building a plastic molding form with some shape/tactile difference shouldn't be significantly more expensive.

Re Touch screen, I agree - that's pure cost cutting. But that's just crazy. I'm surprised regulators are not preventing it.

> I'm surprised regulators are not preventing it.

Regulators are, from a long time, paid by car manufacturers.

Thank you. I think lots of people assume touch controls are for design, or to be cool, or maybe just "modern". It's just cheaper, though. That's why you see them on all generic Chinese made electronics (even stuff that could have no electronic component at all, like a fan).

Sounds to me like Material design/theme in software UIs. Very flat, sometimes cannot see what is a button and very little feedback, compared to those Windows 98 style buttons, or default browser buttons.