As an old fogy who's first car had no automation apart from the points and coil providing a spark. Since then I have owned and maintained, mainly my three daughter's, cars with increasing levels of electronics and complexity.  In every case there have been problems caused by damp, connection problems and hardware errors in the clever electronic bits. Given the hostile environment of a car, especially as it gets older, I do not see any attempt being made to ruggedise components by design or manufacture. Many car designs appear to be made to fail with all the connections and computers located where they will get wet when the sunroof drains block or a seal gets damaged or mislaid during maintenance with no attempt being made to damp proof the components. I worked on one car where there had been recalls to stick bits of polythene sheets to stop condensation entering  multiple computers

The result is that I am concerned  that all these "aids" stand a chance of failing to danger when the car is older irrespective of maintenance. Even if they fail will the driver be expecting them to work and have an incident as a result. I read the odd aircraft accident report and if aircraft systems can fail with all the redundancy,  regulations, testing and strict maintenance schedules and procedures what chance does a car built the lowest price stand when it is few years old.

My sister in law recently got rid of her new car as she could not work out how to work all the aids that made her feel she had no control over the car and kept sounding warning sounds that she did not know what they were for  and distracted her from driving. 

I read that people are now questioning the safety of the touch screens for basic controls when compared to simple switches or rotary controls. I must admit I have to look away from the road to alter my heating in my car which I never had to do with the old rotary controls with set positions. 

I feel that progress is often being made for the sake of progress rather than safety.

As an old fogy who's first car had no automation apart from the points and coil providing a spark. Since then I have owned and maintained, mainly my three daughter's, cars with increasing levels of electronics and complexity.  In every case there have been problems caused by damp, connection problems and hardware errors in the clever electronic bits. Given the hostile environment of a car, especially as it gets older, I do not see any attempt being made to ruggedise components by design or manufacture. Many car designs appear to be made to fail with all the connections and computers located where they will get wet when the sunroof drains block or a seal gets damaged or mislaid during maintenance with no attempt being made to damp proof the components. I worked on one car where there had been recalls to stick bits of polythene sheets to stop condensation entering  multiple computers

The result is that I am concerned  that all these "aids" stand a chance of failing to danger when the car is older irrespective of maintenance. Even if they fail will the driver be expecting them to work and have an incident as a result. I read the odd aircraft accident report and if aircraft systems can fail with all the redundancy,  regulations, testing and strict maintenance schedules and procedures what chance does a car built the lowest price stand when it is few years old.

My sister in law recently got rid of her new car as she could not work out how to work all the aids that made her feel she had no control over the car and kept sounding warning sounds that she did not know what they were for  and distracted her from driving. 

I read that people are now questioning the safety of the touch screens for basic controls when compared to simple switches or rotary controls. I must admit I have to look away from the road to alter my heating in my car which I never had to do with the old rotary controls with set positions. 

I feel that progress is often being made for the sake of progress rather than safety.

There is a saying: 'Design for design's sake' which I use quite often when referring to cars. The biggest bug bear I have is the super bright lights that a lot of modern cars now have. As I was saying to a colleague the other day, whatever happened to 'dip don't dazzle' ? Nowadays it seems to be either dazzle or super dazzle when it comes to car headlights. 

Driving home not so long ago and the lights on the car behind me were sooooo bright that it cast a shadow of my own car in front of me making it difficult to see where I was in the road. It was on an unlit country road with no road markings through a wooded area and for good measure it was raining too. I had to slow right down to a snails pace then pull over when I could to let them pass as I just could not see the road in front. 

Quite often I feel that others have their main beam on permanently only to discover that's their standard lights when they do put their main beam on!  

And what's with the need for three sets of lights on the front too? 

And don't get me started with the DRLs........ 

A lot of the "progress" seems to be chasing after the ever-moving goalposts of the Euro NCAP tests.

Originally, it was all about crash safety.  A 5* rating meant that you could walk away from a low-speed crash, without being injured or trapped in the car.

Now it's impossible to get a good rating without a whole raft of electronic driver aids that can't be permanently turned off.  All of that adds cost and complexity to new cars.

But the use of touch screens for everything is a cost-cutting measure, and does nothing for safety.

Daylight running lights apparently saved a lot of casualties when they were introduced.  I never understood why or how.  Who were these people who could only see a car if it was illuminated?  I suspect we are stuck with them and at least in time it will address the idiots who drive with no lights when its raining or dark.  The current generation of cyclists seems to think its fine not to bother with lights so maybe they should be forced to have DRL

The issue I have with DRLs is that it's not applied to the rear lights too.... 

I disagree. I think they reduce safety.  Awkward to use - absolutely no standardisation between vehicles - perpetually updated by the manufacturer so even if you found your fog lights once they are somewhere different today.   No one has yet explained to me why it makes sense to make an evil of mobile phones but welcome car touchscreens.

Paul Ch said:

Who were these people who could only see a car if it was illuminated?

I think it's like having orange flashing beacons on machinery at construction sites.  Anyone can see a big yellow bulldozer, but the beacon tells you instantly that its a bulldozer that's liable to move at any moment, and not just part of the scenery.

In dense urban landscapes, it's all too easy to lose a slow-moving car in amongst a load of parked ones.  To get out of the estate where I live, I have to go through two T junctions before I get to the main road.  I now force myself to stop at each of them and look both ways twice before proceeding.  There have been too many times where I have looked once and started to pull out, only to have a car pass right across right in front of me.

Motorcyclists have used their headlights during the day for many years too.

The problem of course is once you have mis-learnt you need only look for things with lights - unlit cycles or pedestrians or animals are then at a huge disadvantage.
Equally if one drives in India and some other parts of the world where totally unlit cars and lorries even at dusk or night time are common, it rapidly becomes  truly scary for a western European driver brought  up with 'see and be seen' as the mantra.
Would running lights make this road safer to navigate ?

Photo taken from here an article that suggests that the Indian roads are no safer than when I was last there for work a good few years ago.

Mike

DRLs are a good idea, as Simon says motorcycles have had to have their headlights on permanently for years. But my issue is that it's just the front lights and many drivers rely on just having those on in situations where they really should be fully illuminated i.e. in the fog, at dusk/night time or during a heavy rainstorm. 

If the rear lights were also illuminated in some way or if the dashboard lights were not illuminated unless your full lights were on (if you can't see your dashboard then it's dark enough to have your full lights on anyway) then that would be excellent!

I've only recently got rid of my old 14 year-old Fiat.  That was too old to have DRLs.  But it did have the very sensible feature that if you turned the ignition off with the lights on, it would turn the lights off for you.  Then next time you turned on the ignition, it would turn the lights back on.

So for many years, I left the side lights (and hence the tail lights) on all the time.

These various new systems seem to cause wide spread problems/confussion:

Two in five drivers switch off vital vehicle safety features (fleetnews.co.uk)

I've had to turn off the parking sensors when they are covered in snow and bleeping at low speeds.