Introduction Cognitive ergonomics is focused on modifying processes to suit the human capability (Budnick 2001, p. 1). Ergonomics in its entirety is focused on redesigning processes to suit human meaning. This can be done through modifying equipments, tools, environments and such like elements to increase efficiency or production (Budnick 2001, p. 1). For example, a lifting job can be redesigned to happen at the waist level for ease of functions; or a tool can be redesigned to reduce awkward postures and instead be more comfortable for human use (Robertson 1995, p. 279). There are many other applications that employ the concept of cognitive economics and some of them include the design of software interfaces (for easy human use), the design of airplane cockpits and automobile controls to reduce human errors and the likes. The concept of cognitive ergonomics is especially relied on when designing complex machines and hi-tech equipments because they are normally difficult to operate, thereby posing a challenge to many people, regarding how to operate them (Cohen 1997, p. 2). For example, a hi-tech mobile phone may not necessarily cause an accident but if it poses a challenge to customers regarding its operability, it may eventually turn out to be a market failure (because it will be shunned by customers). In industrial processes, the concept of cognitive ergonomics cannot be overemphasized because if a plant or equipment is poorly designed, it may consequently lead to the occurrence of errors or accidents, besides increasing the probability of reduced production or the production of low quality goods (Talty 1988, p. 702). Often, people are known to over-trust ergonomics but in other times, they are known to mistrust the concept altogether (Moray 2005, p. 546). For instance, if a ship’s system indicates that all the valves are in working condition, but in real sense, not all of them are working as perfectly as they should, the captain may carry out subsequent procedures based on the assumption that, all the valves are in working condition. This could lead to an accident (Shahbazian 2008, p. 165). Often, people would blame the captain for the accident, but in real sense, the systems are to be blamed. This is a clear example of an over-trust in ergonomics. A case of ergonomics mistrust has also been evidenced in the past. For instance, in an American prison, administrators installed motion sensors to trigger an alarm if a prisoner tried to escape. Within the first month of installation, the motion sensors went off all the time because it was triggered by wind motions and flying animals. This prompted the officers to start ignoring the sensors. One inmate took advantage of the officers’ attitudes and managed to climb off the prison walls into freedom. The Importance of cognitive ergonomics can therefore not be underestimated because in the above scenario, if the same situation was observed in systems, such as fire alarms, the consequences would be disastrous and adverse. Cognitive ergonomics is therefore crucial in the society because almost everything is controlled by systems. This study however focuses on a case of establishing cognitive ergonomic issues of the Toyota Pruis model to establish strategies that can be used to improve the same. Since this study is focused on the cognitive ergonomic issues of the Toyota Prius model, emphasis will be made on the vehicle’s controls. To do so, a brief descr