by Modern cars: more screens, but more distractions?
Modern cars are equipped with ever-larger screens, more powerful processors, and, at first glance, smarter interfaces. However, according to a new Swedish test, performing everyday tasks behind the wheel actually takes drivers longer than it did four years ago. If these findings are representative, this represents a certain shortcoming in the work of infotainment system interface designers. However, some aspects of this study’s methodology should be considered.
The Swedish publication Vi Bilägare repeated a driver distraction test they first conducted in 2022. The time it took drivers to complete a set of typical tasks while traveling at 110 km/h on a closed airfield was measured. On average, drivers covered 813 meters before completing all actions, which is more than the 756 meters four years ago. This means approximately two additional seconds during which the driver’s attention is at least partially diverted from the road.
How the test was conducted
The test included four routine actions: turning on the seat heating while simultaneously raising the cabin temperature and activating the windshield defroster, switching radio stations, resetting the trip computer, and reducing the instrument panel brightness while turning off the central display.
Drivers were given time to familiarize themselves with each vehicle beforehand. Any attempt during which the driver left their lane or could not maintain the required speed was repeated. Each task was timed separately, starting from the moment the driver placed both hands on the steering wheel and ending upon task completion.
Each vehicle was tested by two drivers. Voice control was excluded from the test because its functionality varies significantly from model to model. The testing took place at Lund Airport near Uppsala at a temperature of 12 degrees Celsius. The study also assessed phone operation, touchscreen usage with different gloves, the viewing distance to the display, and the first impressions of a group of drivers of various ages.
It’s not about the screen, but the layout
Perhaps the most telling result is that touch screens themselves are not the problem. Proof of this is the Volvo XC60, which completed the test in just 485 meters. Its results indicate that the car’s interface is intuitive, fast, and allows the driver to focus on the road. On the other hand, almost equally unexpected is the result of the 2016 Volvo V60, which represented a button-only approach. It took 863 meters to perform the same tasks.
Even worse results were shown by the Mazda CX-60. Its touch screen locks while driving, forcing the driver to rely on physical controls. Completing the tasks took 37 seconds, during which the car covered 1137 meters. The cabin of this car featured 50 buttons — the most among all models in the 2026 test.
The Tesla interface, which is almost entirely screen-based, improved its performance between the two tests, while the Mercedes showed a worse result, requiring 15 seconds more to complete the same tasks. In other words, design matters more than whether the controls are physical buttons or embedded in the screen. Apart from standard items like window switches, the Model Y has only four buttons, and functions such as mirror adjustment and gear selection are done through the display.
The screen-centric Mercedes CLA took 35 seconds, partly due to a 19-second system startup delay from the moment of unlocking until the display is operational, whereas the Tesla activates immediately upon opening the door. Skoda, which combines physical knobs and a touch screen, achieved the second-best result — 542 meters, with its drivers completing the tasks in 18 seconds.
In the Toyota Corolla Cross, a well-positioned screen was undermined by the instrument panel brightness adjustment being buried deep in the trip computer menu. This caused the car to travel 580 meters before the change was made.
How far the driver’s gaze drops, from top to bottom
Screen placement has at least improved. For the XC60, the driver needed to lower their gaze by 35 degrees, whereas the worst score in 2022 for the MG Marvel R required 56 degrees. The Nissan Qashqai’s display increased from 9 to 12.3 inches compared to the previous test.
Nevertheless, the study has limited evidentiary weight. A sample of ten cars is hardly a complete representation of all types of controls in the automotive industry. Results may be influenced by familiarity with the vehicle, cabin layout, steering wheel controls, and even the specific functions being tested. Despite potential issues, the results obtained appear quite telling.
Thank you to Vibilagare for sharing their findings with us!
Interestingly, the study highlights not so much the superiority of physical buttons over screens, but the importance of thoughtful and intuitive interface design. Even the most advanced touch screen can be dangerous if it responds slowly or requires complex manipulations. At the same time, an excessive number of physical buttons, as in the case of Mazda, also does not guarantee safety if they are positioned inconveniently or are difficult to find by touch. The key factor, it seems, is the system’s ability to minimize the time during which the driver is distracted from the road, regardless of whether physical elements, a touch screen, or a combination of both are used. The test results also serve as a reminder that the pursuit of technological sophistication should not come at the expense of safety, and that automakers should pay more attention to the usability of their systems.
