Actually, I see nothing wrong with cars feeling like fancy tech gadgets.
The real problem is when fancy tech gadgets designers make unnecessary functional compromises to follow a trend.
Touch screens are functional compromises. In some applications, like smartphones, those compromises are a very worthwhile tradeoff to enable what is otherwise not possible. Smartphones need to fit a lot of features in a very small package. That includes a flexible interface, and they need to get your inputs out of the way when you’re not actually inputting in order to maximize screen real estate.
Cars, on the other hand, have room for tactile controls. They don’t need to make the compromise of putting commonly used controls on a touch screen. Unfortunately, it’s probably going to continue to be common not just because its trendy, but because I suspect we’re at the point where a touch screen is cheaper than the individual parts plus assembly and wiring labor of dedicated controls. And if there is already going to be a screen in the car for a backup camera, and if it’s going to be a touchscreen for more complex functions like navigation, then it becomes easy to look at removing buttons as a cost-saving exercise, not a user interface optimization.
That said, it should be observed that the study linked above was specifically about distracted driving. It compared using a touch screen to focusing entirely on driving. It didn’t compare using a touch screen to doing the same task using dedicated controls. I’m sure the latter will affect driving performance less, but it will have some effect.
That said…weren’t we talking about batteries?