However, I still question the benefit of this complex, modal control (you have to press a single knob to "cycle between" multiple modes). My ancient, 2016 car features three knobs. This luxury allows me to, without looking, adjust any of three settings (temp, fan, air location), as well as a button which does each seat heater, without any "check what mode it's in, tap, look at the tiny screen, tap again if necessary" step.
True, in this trim, my car does not have a thermostat mode, which in theory is useful, but it is so trivial to modulate the temperature based on "do I feel cold, hot or comfortable right now" and reaching over to twist one of the controls anyway, and even in the other car I have which has this mode, I frequently need to adjust things anyway, except in that car some of the functions require multiple mode changes on the touch screen and looking away from the road.
This is the kind of detail that I love about a well engineered car.
Why does the article want to make a multifunction dial with no tactile feedback? Have they only ever driven a Tesla?
(this also describes my 2009 saturn; I think; unsure, but that's a good sign: I don't look at/think about this knob conciously!)
I hardly ever touch my AC, I just leave it on auto and the car does the rest to get it to the right temperature as quickly as possible.
I suspect this is what most automakers think the real solution should be, just make it easy enough to set a temp and leave the rest to the computer.
(Often due to the slightly bonkers idea that single sensor, often not in any location the user is, will correctly reflect the actual environment)
"Make it warmer/colder" is sufficient input and doesn't pretend a precision it doesn't have.
This is my concern as well. It's a perceived improvement in UI but still a loss over analog UX. I'll end up cranking the knob and wondering why my radio channels are rapidly changing when I wanted to adjust the volume. You're almost forced into retaining state of your knobs in your head if you want to do anything eyes-free. Eyes-free operations should be the ultimate goal, that's what we had with analog.
Buy once, use till the battery dies... rinse and repeat... gear is inconvenient though but can put up with it.
I've changed the channel tuner when I've reached for the volume knob. If the haptic feedback between the two is clearly different, that will help, no?
> I discovered thermal comfort depends on four environmental factors: air temperature, heat radiation, airflow, and humidity.
He's managing more variables than those handled by your three knobs, and also deals with seat temperature in his setting.
You might not want any of the finer control, some don't even want climate control and will run with open windows in dead winter. But I see a lot of benefit of his approach for anyone who cares as much as him about climate control.
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/W9AjhGko2mA/maxresdefault.jpg
The fourth one controls recirculate, and it allowed you to set in-between positions between 100% recirculate and 100% fresh air.
To simultaneously optimize pollution/humidity/CO2 I find I prefer about 80% recirculate and 20% fresh air, but achieving this configuration is impossible in most (all?) modern cars.
Versus... the designer of a custom complex multi-part powered assembly (manufacturing cost not discussed, cleaning not discussed, visibility in varying light conditions not discussed) who has the fantasy that users want to squint at a tiny screen on a knob while driving, and that pushing all this and associated documentation down a global service network is going to come at an acceptable cost to users.
This begs the question: who's the real knob?
Every OEM has used the 3-knob design on and off but it was particualrly hot in the 90s and 00s. It isn't a Toyota thing, or even a specifically Japanese thing.
Here's a random 00s Honda:
https://www.samarins.com/reviews/img/cr-v_04_int_large.jpg
Here's the OJ era bronco:
https://media.carsandbids.com/cdn-cgi/image/width=2080,quali...
Here's a GMT800
https://jandjautowrecking.com/cdn/shop/files/57_8fc2bd4a-2cb...
Here's a radom VW
https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/7w0AAOSwApleAMyP/s-l1600.webp
One of the things I regret a bit about the prototype and demo I originally shared is that I used a press action and the screen as a modal/menu interface. The screen makes for a snazzy demo video, and works great for interfaces where you have the user's full attention (like a smart home control panel) but I think there's a lot more potential for just the haptics, paired with other dedicated buttons to switch to specific (i.e. not a menu of) modes, like this later demo I built using the haptic feedback for a video timeline jog tool: https://youtu.be/J9192DfZplk
I'm starting to feel that full software modifiable screens are not the "new age" of in-car experience, but a v.01 of highly customizable, highly complicated settings control; a lazy first implementation. What we are seeing with your design is more of the refinement of the concept. So, kudos to you!
I concur with many people that this might still not completely cut for "eyes-free" usage which you need while driving a car. But for a lot of applications, it's a way more premium/refined interface. I'd limit the number of options on the main menu to 5 and already you've reduced the number of buttons from 10 to one knob.
On the note of just using the haptic feedback: did you compare things to the surface dial? I really expected that to gain more "mainstream" traction, but it seems to have fizzled out.
It’s notable not just because it is loved by some media people, both art and video, but also because it’s shown up on the pilot’s chair in several notable sci fi movies/series with an outer space theme.
I do want more smart devices with analog inputs and outputs though. I feel like Ambient Technologies were onto something but never found the market fit I hoped they would find.
A. Trying to design down to two knobs makes each knob multi-modal. This removes a lot of muscle memory benefits requiring a glance at a screen, a small screen that is now partially covered by your hand while operating the knob. Haptic feedback might be able to help you know what mode you're in without looking but now you have a lot more to memorize to use it while keeping your eyes on the road which may begin to defeat the simplicity benefits.
B. Haptic feedback... will this work with gloves on? (will you feel it, will it sense your touch)
A lot of manual systems now have 3 knobs, not much more than the 2 presented here, which will always do the same thing each time you reach for them. My concern would be how long it would take the user to be familar with the interface without looking. One quick thought, I would be inclined to think that feedback through a large screen not covered by your fingers might have advantages.
It's a great study on UI consistancy however, esp around how to program the detents, etc.
You could also put a copy of the display somewhere in the driver's HUD. It'd still draw some attention, but having it for example temporarily fill up the center of the speed dial (perhaps in some way only when the driver is touching it?) would be a lot less distractive than having to look all the way over on the infotainment panel.
As to B: it's a physical knob, with a motor pushing against your turning force. It'll have zero trouble with gloves.
Growing up obsessed with cars, I loved seeing how different brands would lay out the cabin. Volvos from the 2000s used a rather large diagram of a seated person to select the HVAC vent for example.
Also, in my brain, a 3000+ pound object just dang requires some stuff to physically press, push, and hear click!
A couple giant touchscreens with touch controls nearly eliminates that.
While I'd have preferred a simple, bulletproof, nonmotorized seat, if one must automate, that's a great interface.
… don’t all cars do this? I can’t remember seeing anything other than that to represent which vents are active.
The main problem stems from the fact that car manufacturers will always choose novel designs over usability. They change components not to improve functionality, but simply for differentiation. As you pointed out, even if a control is well designed like Volvo's HVAC, it's phased out during the next refresh.
A newer problem is that every single car maker is beyond incompetent when it comes to software and UX. It's not part of their culture and expertise. So in addition to bad or missing buttons, even the screens are a nightmare.
This is an entrenched idea in the automotive industry, so it probably won't change, but it's something that really needs to stop in my opinion.
If you are in your twenties and designing things to be seen, invest in your own future as well as a large demographic that usually has more money...
[0] https://www.aoa.org/healthy-eyes/eye-health-for-life/adult-v...
Jeep, for example, has just discovered a predilection for random full-screen alerts with a blaring alarm sound, if, for example, they magically inferred there's a tow-truck somewhere. (There's about a 50% chance you'll encounter a tow truck in the next 10 minutes, at best)
This is great if, say, you're three hours into a night drive, all alone on the road, and suddenly ALARM THE WORLD IS ENDING.
I actively hate car manufacturers. They should not be allowed to use touch screens. Even if they could be useful - they have repeatedly proven they are too stupid to use them well.
This is still too multi function.
You can set the temperature to something moderate like 70 or whatever and then if the air hitting your face and hands is too hot or cold, you just turn the dial, all other vents continue doing their thing at 70, but you can have hot/cold air on your hands at the same time. And, of course, you can do this adjustment in a split second while you merge onto the highway.
Compare that to an old LandCruiser or similar vehicle from the ’80s. Physical controls still work decades later, and worst-case scenario, you replace a button or a switch for pocket change. Meanwhile, modern cars are turning into disposable tech products, destined for obsolescence the moment their proprietary systems fail. It's for this reason when I bought a new car a couple of years ago, I opted for a Toyota LandCruiser, the use of physical buttons (despite coming with touchscreens now) makes a huge difference when you're driving and want to press a button to change music or turn the volume up/down.
ex putting a new carplay double DIN head unit is much easier in older cars, and difficult/impossible in newer cars
Old-enough passenger cars tend to have a standard-enough hole DIN-ish hole to fit a modern aftermarket unit with modern connectivity.
In between those two, there's a world of cars that have touch-screen controls but lack modern connectivity. This is a subset of vehicles that cannot do anything but shrink as they age out.
But there are some aftermarket solutions for these, too, which add modern connectivity while retaining the stock electronics and physical appearance. (There's actually quite a diverse array of these upgrades available, though the origin of these devices feels very strange to me compared to traditional car audio aftermarket, and it is also absolutely exclusively Chinese.)
A lot of iDrive systems can be replaced, though I do worry where the cheap ebay components come from.
Later iDrive was so much better than earlier, probably the best system I have used in a car, but now they have gone with huge touch screens. yes it looks impressive and no I don't want it.
And now they're rolling out iDrive 8 vehicles that move climate control to the touchscreen and don't even have the puck (looking at you, X1) and I can't imagine buying one of those cars. I'm happy with my 2020.
Touch screens are fine for given much more fine-grained access to controls. But they should be limited to controls that you _don't need to set while driving_. It's absurd that it takes 3 taps on a screen -- diverting my attention to the screen -- on my Tesla to turn on defogging (a common event here!) while I can do it with a one touch (now muscle-memorized) on my Subaru.
I agree that physical controls for these things would be ideal, but nowadays the only one that annoys me is lack of the wiper controls. I think even that issue would go away if Tesla used rain sensors instead of cameras to trigger the wipers.
I haven’t found the “auto defogging” - will check for it.
Oh, god. It just keeps getting worse. I don't want a fake knob that simulates a real one except it ignores me and decides the fan speed, blend door position, and probably the recirculation door on its own (allowing only a temporary override). I want a fan dial that is electrically connected to the fan, such that the position of the dial directly controls the voltage being sent into the fan motor, with no computer or robotics in between. In other words, a step switch. And I want a slider that is mechanically connected to the blend door for controlling temperature, again, with no computer or robotics in between. And the same for the recirculation door.
OP mentions the Braun work on pots (potentiometers, the common lingo for rotary dials). I suggest they also check out the entire subculture around pots and faders in the music industry, where a lot of thought goes into them as relates to mixing board design and experience.
One of the most common issues that gets people riled up is Fitts Law:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitts%27s_law
It seems that many synth UI designers have small, thin, bony fingers, and overlook the issues that comes from having knobs placed too close together. They like to design tight, compact, "valuable looking" knob panels, and I like to inform them that these designs are nonsense and some consideration should be given to the spacing of things.
This has an impact on the end user with fat fingers, since moving one knob should not provide the opportunity to accidentally 'bump' or 'jog' another adjacent knob - there simply has to be space to allow for market finger types.
(In spite of the fact that these are mostly German designers, asking them to review their designs in the context of automative controls, has been a herculean effort.)
So one of my favourite toys in my arsenal when confronted with a new, fresh-faced designer full of impactful and dense design ideas, is an Arduino with an LCD display attached to a breadboard, and 4 movable knobs which can be placed in an approximation of the design. I wrote a tool that displays a UI with a fine-tune parameter, and whenever I get a chance I lay out the knobs using the designers intended dimensions, and ask them to fine-tune the parameter.
If they can do it one-handed without bumping other knobs (and thus triggering the :P emoji and siren noise), they get a pass and a check-mark on their design doc.
If, however, their dimensions make it impossible to move only a single knob, they get a little :P mark on their review documents, and my designer-killer tool gets put back in the drawer for another day.
I will have to review this toy for the context of display-in-control style interfaces in the future, it seems ..
This free book Introduction to Embedded Systems - A Cyber-Physical Systems Approach by Lee & Seshia gives a pretty good overview - https://ptolemy.berkeley.edu/books/leeseshia/
I thought of it because someone was talking about their new super-bright, blinking bicycle tail light. I could see someone naively intuiting brighter is better or blinking is better, but I know UI well enough to know that naive intuition has poor accuracy.
I spent a little time looking for empirical information but almost all I could find was cars. (I did find something that said blinking could be a problem because it's hard to visually and mentally track a moving object in the dark - it's in one spot, disappears, and then reappears in another spot. I did come across the standard blink cycle for cars, which includes total cycle length, and the on-period length and off-period length in each cycle.)
This [1] type of control doesn't require taking eyes out the road to adjust temp, fan speed and fan direction. Since it's a simple fscking knob, it can be adjusted by feel alone, and both the clicks and the angle give feedback on what setting it is.
The suggested solution is bad, for these reasons:
It tries to be clever by providing the lost "clickness" with haptic feedback, but it still misses the most important feedback, which is the angle of the knob. So it still requires you take eyes out of the road to see the setting you're in.
It also commits one of the cardinal sins of good UI, which is being a modal control. So, again, you need to take eyes out of the road and keep clicking to put in the right setting.
[1] https://i0.wp.com/weberbrothersauto.s3.amazonaws.com/2022/12...
2. The smart knob is a clever device.
3? Smart knob somehow addresses cars no longer having physical controls.
What stood out in the article was the attention paid to designing intuitive haptics. What our bodies expect in feedback when we turn a weighted dial. Doing it in software allows controlling multiple things, but I would still prefer a dumb dial per function, placed in close proximity to where the function acts. Seat controls near seats, climate controls near vents. Personalization stuffed into the screen and menus and profiles.
I did not think I would like auto climate controls until I lived with one. Even then, I would fiddle with it because I didn’t like the sudden high initial fan speed until I got used to it.
I've had a Tesla for many years now, the temp is set to 21C and I don't miss knobs because I don't change this. I prewarm/cool the car from the app so I never enter a hot or cold car, only a 21C car. Occasionally (ie a dozen times a year) I'll change the temp for some odd reason, but rarely while the car is moving. Seat and steering wheel are also set to auto. I just don't think about the temp in my car, but climate knobs seem like a huge sticking point to lots of people?
Screenshot: https://www.macintoshrepository.org/_resize.php?imgenc=ZmlsZ...
Fortunately, it was changed to just a slider in v5.0 as seen here: https://jablickar.cz/en/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Apple-Qui...
Super useful for reducing distractions while driving at night. Most of the night driving I do today is polluted by light splashing off a central LED on the main console, or dynamic instrumentation on the dash itself. Match that with the blinding headlights manufacturers are wont to put in nowadays and it makes for a much more fatiguing night time driving experience.
I do wonder if it increased the risk of falling asleep at the wheel, but I have no doubt that it improved night vision overall.
People blindly reeeee'ing on touchscreens need to learn how to form a coherent arguments. i.e. they are not great for old and frail or some manufacturers don't know basics of UX.
End of the day getting pissy about climate controls is ridiculous. If you can't operate car for few minutes within couple degrees comfortable temperature then you might be a problem.
If someone in the auto industry reads this:
Can I get a button that says 50, one that says 80 and one that says 130. Right now, you have to hit “set” and then adjust the speed limit with some up and down arrows, which is really annoying and takes your eyes off the road.
99% of the time I need 50/80/130. Yes, those are French speed limits, so if you prefer, you do 1/2/3 where you can set the 3 speeds in the parameters.
Or at the very least, make the arrows adjust the speed in 5kph increments.
Please don’t do this. Presets can be super difficult to understand. Configuring them can feel overwhelming, and you can’t verify your presets easily while the vehicle is stopped.
> Or at the very least, make the arrows adjust the speed in 5kph increments.
Does pressing and holding the arrow not do that for you? I remember (before I went carless) that my Audi used to do 10kph increments, displaying the target speed in the HUD, when I pressed and held the lever.
IIRC Gen 2 Priuses only incremented the speed by 1.604km/h (yes, that 1mi/h, go figure why they didn't adjust for the rest of the world).
But you're right that most of the time it's adjustable by holding the arrows (I've tried Peugeot, Opel, Hyundai).
* 100: happens during construction work on the motorway, and also for some segment of the motorway whose speed limit is dynamically managed depending on traffic
* 110: during long(ish) distance trip (incidentally, to Southern France), I drive at 110 to save some battery for my EV
At this point having cruise control working the way it works now is probably less complex than 5 presets (I agree that having to adjust the speed km-by-km sounds painful though).
From the first time I used it. It felt so natural and intuitive to use.
But unfortunately touch screen infotainment system is pure garbage.
All the complexity of deciding resulting target temperature and fan speed is work that an elegant and intelligent system should then perform for the end user. If it can't be determined automatically, try harder or add more controls.
https://www.ebay.com/itm/387701094464
It has detents, so you can tell when you are moving it. Every button is different, the entire thing can be used without ever setting eyes on it.
The best part is no weird modal lockouts between external air and recirculation.
I got a few to play around with for my home automation system, but haven't had the time.
> Much like a door handle should communicate whether to pull or push a door,
For many common doors it's not the handle, it's the frame. Standing on one side of the frame we see that the door is free and we can pull it. On the other side we see that the door hits the frame and we must push it.
Both sides look exactly the same, so how are you supposed to know? Add a "push/pull" sticker you'll miss 90% of the time?
The Vox vodcast(?) in [1] goes a lot further into the problem, starting from a very similar door. The solution is pretty simple, in hindsight: if they designed the door properly, you won't even be able to pull on a push door. Have a pull handle on the pull side, and a push plate on the push side.
A big thank you to the author, the person posted it here, and all those who upvoted it.
The best kind of control interface is no interface, a set and forget a/c that has it all figured out; you just switch on the car and you’ll always feel comfortable.
Once LLMs are a lot better at understanding intent, that is probably what we'll get, since it will be cheaper than even bargain basement mechanical controls.
.jpg?t=167848960503){kind=link}
- the touch controls are blacked out at night, no backlight, no ambient light touches the black touch controls surface, the temperature control is hidden from occupants at night
- Everything except temperature can only be accessed via the infotainment screen HOWEVER nothing can be accessed from any of the default/ambient screens, you must always first go into the HVAC screen and then select your options
- the car would rather that you don’t operate HVAC in terms of temperature, fan speed and choice of vents to enable, instead defaulting to a “helpful” screen which offers around 8 fairly indistinguishable settings like “warm my feet”
WHAT?!?!!
Turns out I value instant heat above all else, all previous cars have taken a mile or two to begin producing warmth. This (thanks to being an EV) just instantly starts blasting 5kw of heat into the cabin. Amazing.
So I still hate the controls but I wouldn’t give up instant heating to fix them. Obviously I’d rather have instant heating AND sane controls. I just never knew what i valued as a user before, I found it interesting.
[1] VW ID Buzz
Cars basically could use controls like that. Maybe with some sensible defaults; and there's going to be a bunch of things that most people would like to control with a button or a dial. Not that hard to execute and you can sell cars with more and less dials. Or no dials at all. The touch screen is always the cheap fallback. The buttons are a nice up-sell. And with the right APIs and wireless protocols, it wouldn't even be too hard to have third party bluetooth buttons even; or a strip of buttons that plugs in a USB socket. Or similar. You can buy flight simulator hardware that emulate most of a modern cockpit with physical buttons. Most of these things are USB devices. Some of these things are pretty affordable even. Throttle compartments, landing gear buttons, buttons with a satisfying click/thunk/etc. Whatever you want.
Like it or not, this stuff is basically cost related. Buttons have lots of wires, components, etc. That increases cost of assembly and bill of materials. They can also break and cause additional cost under warranty. People need training on how to install and repair that stuff. The nice thing with a touch screen is that it's just a handful of components and wires. Installs in no time and if it breaks, it's easy to replace.
So, the question for manufacturers then becomes what is the car with the least buttons that drivers still pay a premium for? Because, that's the most profitable for them. And the reality of course is that what people say what they'll buy mostly doesn't match their behavior in the show room.
It's the same with a lot of products. It doesn't matter whether people are buying a TV, a phone, a new laptop or whatever. Some people really know what they are buying, but most don't, and some only think they know and talk themselves into buying crap they definitely are not going to be happy with.
In the end, people mostly just select the thing with the largest feature matrix that still fits their budget. And the nice thing with software features is that there's no assembly or component cost involved. Modern cars are smart phones with wheels. Literally made by smart phone manufacturers like Huawei and Xiaomi even (both sell lots of cars in China).
A significant number of people prefer something that looks cool over actual usability
Enough that car companies will put out something that looks cool even if they know usability isn’t great. They aren’t dumb, they just build what sales
Whenever we did ux research for our product, this would come up over and over. Users would always pick designs that looked cooler even when we made them bad on purpose to be sure
Just is what it is. Of course, it’s possible to build something that looks cool AND has good ux, but this is actually hard and ain’t nobody got time for that.
Imagine if there was a standard form-factor, so manufacturers could install a 1x4 unit and then plug in a line of dials or button-clusters, where each section has its own tiny display that can be software-controlled to show what it does.
Yeah, it won't always match the exact lines and swoops designers want to use, but I want usability, I don't buy a car to show off the interior to others. The people who do do that are probably buying much more expensive cars and can easily afford to do things the classic way.
The problem is that it still requires custom per-feature assembly. A single car model needs a dozen different button configs, with a dozen different wiring harnesses. That's a lot more expensive than a simple one-size-fits-all touch screen you install into literally every single car and configure with a software flag.
What I mean is something that is modular per-manufacturer or maybe even across manufacturers, where customization comes from the arrangement in a grid and what is pumped through each control's little display screen to identify its purpose and status.
> A single car model needs a dozen different button configs, with a dozen different wiring harnesses.
That seems to assume every button/dial will have a direct connection, but I'm thinking the harness would terminate in the block-of-sockets, which would be reprogrammable with logic like: "Analog input in socket 1 controls resistance on wires A and D with the following mapping. When value is in this range, show this picture."
The motivating idea here is: "Can we keep a variety of physical controls while making them cheaper, more-functional, and easier to repair?"
My brand-new luxury-brand EV still has blanks. Not all trim levels get the rear fog lights, or a few other things I can't remember. Also, they're used for buttons related to adding the towing package.
IMO, one of contributing factors to ongoing touchscreen apocalypse is "off the lot" model of American car purchasing, which penalizes custom configurations, which in turn eases development of customer hostile integrated infotainment.
If manufacturers can't expect cars to retain stock, standard, integrated infotainment for the life of the car, some of the features can't be implemented by the infotainment team, but must be handled by chassis team to be offloaded to a separate computer. It can happen.
When I was a child, computers were office-based machines, and it seemed, at least, that computers ("bicycles for the mind", "paperless office", "You Will... AT&T") were going to make life simpler, efficient, and leisurely as they took over our menial labor.
But computers came into homes, and just tended to be a plaything where games and pointless activities could be concentrated into your Residential Swiss Army Knife. It seemed promising for awhile, when word processing and spreadsheets and databases could be had. But they really just needed to upskill the everyman--->
If you're productive at this point, it's in spite of these computers, with the complexity and crossed purposes and support difficulties. I could probably just do 16 hour days reading Privacy Policies and paying an attorney to translate them.
I think one end-goal of ubiquitous computing was to offload all those secretarial, clerking, office assistant functions onto the consumer. It's mind-blowing to this guy that ordinary folks could get anything done with paper, a copper pair, and snail mail???
My father would joke at the store: "if they ask people at checkout whether they found everything ok, say yes, because otherwise they'll rearrange the store!" and it rings true with app development and obsolescence, because the drive to innovate and "improve" gives people job security, and produces patents, and press releases to pump your stock. And when the whole chain of tools/components is working this way, nobody can fight anymore. The App Stores seem to gloat when they've updated 23 apps to ratchet up the "let me relearn this from scratch as I simultaneously need a critical-path task to get finished on time"
So what are critical paths on a vehicle? It seems like so many "cushy first class" add-ons that increase the value-add and profit propositions. Perhaps it just maintains dopamine levels enough to cope with a car-based urban wasteland where you only park where you sleep.
I've used so many OS. So many apps. But leveraged tiny fractions of them because the learning curves are insurmountable. What's the average Joe do with malfunctioning computers: consult a 12-year-old STEM student or go to Geek Squad. Eventually high school will just mandate the MCSE/Apple tracks because, computer literacy not being optional anymore, it's not clear how far an 18-year-old can get initiated into the mystery cults and obscure arcana as a Cyberspace Sorceror.
So these in-vehicle computers are maximizing complexity and recapitulating Emacs->Operating System->Reads Mail->MMORPG in meatspace. When I can summon a robot to drive me around. But the edu-info-tainment systems in ordinary cars is nearly getting in our face to make the commute like another 4 hours in the office. Wow!
If I need a car temporarily, these are things I can easily overlook for like the week I have it, but if the controls irritate me, I'm sure as hell not inclined to go out and buy one anyway.
Is that not a choice? That's the confusing bit. People talking about these like they've been held at gunpoint to consume luxury vehicles.
My sense is that car/automobile purchases are just so ingrained as default necessities that the idea of not having one either is or seems to be unthinkable.