Slashdot Mirror
Lawmakers Seek To Ban Google Glass On the Road
An anonymous reader writes in with news about a West Virginia bill that would prohibit drivers from "using a wearable computer with head mounted display." Republican Gary G. Howell sponsored the bill in reaction to reading an article on Google Glass and said: "I actually like the idea of the product and I believe it is the future, but last legislature we worked long and hard on a no-texting-and-driving law. It is mostly the young that are the tech-savvy that try new things. They are also our most vulnerable and underskilled drivers. We heard of many crashes caused by texting and driving, most involving our youngest drivers. I see the Google Glass as an extension."
But some cars have a heads up display... which is basically a car-mounted version of the same thing. Can't we just have an administrative ruling that it falls under driving while distracted, or reckless driving, or whatever the legal term is, and not create a new law everytime someone makes something new?
Next up, no looking at your wristwatch while driving! It's the new technological menace!
How would you enforce this law when the glasses could look like simple sunglasses? We've ventured into the realm of unnecessary laws.
It could display driving speed, detect emergencies and notify you of them, pop up weather warnings. Overall I see a device with a HUD giving you an advantage driving..
Such foresight is quite remarkable, when one considers that we have yet to really get our hands on Google Glass. The conspiracy theorist in me wonders if the politician might have been motivated by a third party. Perhaps a competitor to Google Glass. But, who would that be?
What happens when one of those Google automated cars has an accident
The Fire Brigade should send them a bill for cleaning up the mess
before someone gets a puncture
(Of course its not as bad as carbon fibre shards eh Fernando..
It seems a bit to reactionary to something that could actually be a bonus. No, people shouldn't be driving while reading email, etc, but I'd much prefer a HUD stype presentation of speed, RPM, direction, vehicle status than looking at the dash. Some cars used to have HUD displays and it worked reasonable well. Likewise, it would be nice to have a record of what happened in the case of an accident, seeing amn accident, or a drunk driver, etc. This seems to be trying to ban the device in general, not how it's used. There are some uses that it would be an exceptional tool for.
Wasn't that the summary?
Besides don't some high end cars have an optional HUD displaying some data? (speedo, directions).
So how is that different from displaying it on the windscreen HUD?
Seems to be better than the now ubiquitous mobile phone with sat-nav stuck to the windscreen or dash....
Somebody should really work on a system where the single occupant of a car could geek out on the internet with all their little gadgets, and still put nobody in danger. Especially Google would benefit from something like that. Oh wait, might this be why it's Google themselves who are working on driverless cars? And we all thought it was just a sideshow to their main business...
It's in the interests of the police state to keep the number of always-on cameras at a minimum. When they're in the hands of civilians, that is.
In reality, it will rarely be used as a HUD. We all know with a fair degree of certainty it will be used for things like email, video, texting, etc... Sure it may have the possibility of being useful, but that is NOT what it will be used for. Just like most cellphones in cars aren't being used for GPS and traffic allerts. People these days are just too distracted while they drive. Most people barely have enough intelligence to safely pilot a vehicle to begin with. Cellphones have made things much worse. Having things distractions constantly put into your line of sight will be ever worse. While people do have rights, on the road you holding the lives of others in the balance so some of your personal freedom takes a back seat. As a motorcyclist, I think texting while driving should get you a DUI and be pursed just as heavily.
Young people in good health, with good motor skills and high response time are the worst drivers, right?
It could display driving speed, detect emergencies and notify you of them, pop up weather warnings. Overall I see a device with a HUD giving you an advantage driving..
The same was said for texting.
But what WILL happen is that folks are going to install a Tweet app and will be tweeting, texting, looking at news, etc ... while wearing these glasses.
I know without a doubt that it will happen.
Douchebag
Military pilots -- flying multi-million dollar machines loaded with all kinds of nasty stuff -- don't have a problem with heads-up displays and helmet-mounted sights. These are considered to be useful tools. Why doesn't glass fall into the same category? Maybe a driving app coupled to a sensor suite on a car?
...I'd say the lawmaker was worried about the possibility of the Google Glass user recording what transpires at a traffic stop.
Good thing I'm not paranoid.
All the world's an analog stage, and digital circuits play only bit parts.
The Google Glass is likely just the start of the more intimate computing interface industry. So either the industry flops and so no problem, or the industry takes off.
In the latter case, safety would dictate that either cars be made more autonomous (less dependent on driver control) or that public transport be changed to accomodate. Not sure what you could do for the latter but right now the big disincentive to public transport is lack of reliability, privacy, and cleanliness. Improvements would likely turn the tide. As for funding, if say, half the cost of annual private vehicle ownership were instead put completely in to the public transport infrastructure, wouldn't that be sufficient to fuel and sustain the required changes?
"Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.
Please explain why the IP block for this poster isn't blocked from posting on Slashdot.
Enforce the distracted driving laws, done. Covers all current and future technology.
I think an outright ban is the right idea. Then the people who want to use them for HUDs can come up with a practical way to do this (a "driving mode" for example) and then legislate for exceptions to the bill for their use in cars that support such as system.
hosts files
Seriously, do we need a bunch of overly connected people recording EVERYTHING?
What real-life problem does Google Glass solve?
Once again creating a law for a perceived problem with no data to show it is required. I would think this system would be better, you could Bluetooth your cars info onto the display and it would be less distracting than looking down at the speedometer constantly. Also, this is a good way to kill a cool product like this: http://www.bikebone.com/Heads-Up-Display-for-Motorcycles-FAQs.htm
neorush
Shut Up, Put down the G** D*** Computer and DRIVE! You are controlling a piece of heavy machinery that can do an INSANE amount of damage.
No hour on a horse is ever wasted. Winston Churchill
If they care so much about stuff like this, why are touchscreen dash controls still legal?
Agreed. That's why we need to have mandatory signal blockers in cars - engine on, no cell signal.
Just a passenger? Tough shit.
People are incapable of having interactive electronics in their cars.
Some laws should be based on history and common sense. You want to require that their be statistical significance first, at which point hundreds or thousands of people are already dead. We have data on distracted driving and, not shockingly, the results are terrible. This isn't crazy talk, it is a common sense extension. We can loosen the rules later without having caused fatalities.
Some idiot was watching TV in his car this morning, swerving all over the place. Think he'll be using Google Glass for HUD? Yeah, I don't think so either.
CA driver here, or more appropriately rider. I'm actually surprised this bill is coming from WV and not CA, since CA a) has already made handsets and even 'hands-free' phone systems illegal for calling while driving (in addition to anti-texting laws) if they require any direct user interaction (they all do.) and b) is going to be impacted a lot harder and a lot sooner by google glass...
That said, if they pass this law here, I'll ignore it. I've been waiting something like 8 years for a device I could use as a HUD in my motorcycle helmet, and I'm not about to let some insipid lawmaker ruin that for me because "for the children" etc. There will always be some irresponsible retard that does something stupid with anything. The correct course of action is to ban behaviors that get other people hurt, and let behavior that gets yourself hurt work itself out. If teens are using google glass to text and drive, then parents need to be taking care of that, not the state. It's their job. I am sick and tired of not being able to have nice things because some lawmaker decided we need to ban it to prevent some under-developed kid from hurting themselves with it. While we're at it why not ban everything with a 'not for children' label; clearly if a kid might hurt themselves with a nail gun, then construction workers should have no need for it either.
What we have here is a legislative culture of tagging more laws on to existing ones, and it's counter-productive in every way imaginable. It's already illegal to drive recklessly or impaired, but we want extra laws to add extra fines on for the specific things you're impaired with, so they can hit you with more than one thing. I can see why law enforcement loves this: it makes it easier for them to cite a specific law and fine you or put you in jail without needing to prove more than the fact that you were holding or wearing a particular device. The issue with this paradigm is that while it's becoming increasingly true that a LEO's job is to put you in jail, that's not what it's -supposed to- be. They're supposed to serve and protect, which would mean being on the lookout for reckless and dangerous behavior and correcting it before someone gets hurt.
This should fall under distracted driving laws, and if it doesn't (e.g., if they neglected to close a loophole for distractions by electronic devices etc.) then it should be amended to be included. Tweak the wording and be done. All adding additional laws banning more and more devices and activities does is make everyone a criminal, and give prosecutors more completely irrelevant ammunition to slam people with excessive sentences when they want to make an example of someone.
If anything, Glass could make texting less dangerous. Texting is currently highly dangerous because you have to completely look away from driving and focus on the phone. And you can't and never will stop such cell phone use from happening and creating accidents because it's way too difficult for law enforcement to see and prove. (Hint: it's not just texting, it's also things like phone GPS.) So we're going to legislate away something that could make it less dangerous? Brilliant.
If simple distractions really were that high-risk, we shouldn't be driving at all because they happen all the time. Even things like road signs or checking something on the dashboard can be as distracting as Glass would be.
There is no -1 Disagree mod. Slashdot.org/faq defines mod options. USE IT.
If anyone can point me towards something designed to disrupt google glass, that would be awesome. And if there isn't such a thing, someone could make a lot of money by creating some flashing IR sensors on some glasses (yes i've seen the mock anti-pop vid on youtube) that would do the trick... well, they would make a quick buck.
If only there were laws about "dangerous driving" or "reckless driving" or (here in the UK) "Driving without due care and attention" so that the cops could book anybody who clearly wasn't in control of their vehicle, whether they were eating spaghetti, doing their makeup, performing a lewd act with their passenger, coding in FORTH using a Microwriter chord keyboard* or using their quantum degrebulator. Then there would be no need to come up with a new, specific, law for every new gadget that was invented.
If only. Mp>(* to keep your other hand free for operating your mobile phone, of course...)
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
Interestingly, Cadillac was way out ahead in putting HUDs on the road with real drivers, but http://m.techradar.com/news/car-tech/top-5-huds-in-modern-cars-today-1092312 describes the HUD features on five different cars that can be bought today.
The Ford and BMW ones really start to show off how these displays can improve safety for average American drivers.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. When are we as a society going to wake up and enact a ban on building those little ships in bottles while driving? I can't think a of more unsafe practice. It's high time we put a stop to this and every other specific distraction that could feasibly occur while driving. Who is with me on this!?! Call your congressman today. No building bottle ships while driving!!!
Anyone know where I can send my grant proposal? I figure several million dollars will be needed so I can go around the testing this theory that people will be distracted by this HUD thing. I expect tests in age and a few conditions and settings and so forth will be necessary). I expect to end it with a conference in tropical a paradise where notes on this will be shared after my paper on this are sent and accepted by several peer review papers.
Paul: Father... father, the sleeper has awakened! - Dune
Also corrective devices for handicapped people.
A friend is sighted but legally blind. He wears special glasses in order to drive safely and legally. Depending on the technology involved, this type of "stupid" law could restrict people who can already drive safely and legally.
A friend's father lost the use of his legs. His car is fitted with hand-activated brakes. His father is able to drive safely and legally. Depending on the technology involved these days, this technology may become illegal.
I am deaf in one ear and have, at most, 10% of the original hearing in my other ear. I have a cochlear implant and the hearing processor is a quite small electronic device. It permits me to drive safely and legally. Will this "stupid" law be applied to me also?
Based on what I have seen and read of law enforcement personnel, some "dumb cop" will make a mean-spirited decision (in an effort to placate his huge ego) to declare that these currently legal devices are, in fact, illegal and cart citizens off to jail (just to stroke their egos).
Autoglass repair, Autoglass replace
We take the broken glass and we shove it in your face
they're 18.
Maine Statute MRSA 29-A:sec 1921:BR> A person may not operate a motor vehicle equipped with a television viewer, screen or other means of visually receiving a television broadcast that is visible to the operator. This section does not apply to a law enforcement officer using a video camera or other video equipment for law enforcement purposes. [1995, c. 584, Pt. B, 7 (AMD).]
.
And sec1923, "Reading while operating a motor vehicle prohibited"
An operator may not read printed material including but not limited to, a newspaper, book, brochure or pamphlet, while operating a motor vehicle. Printed material does not include a map or written directions to a specific location. [1999, c. 183, 7 (NEW).]
Arizona Statute ARS 28-963, which looks liek it may have (inadvertently, perhaps) exempted text-only devices:
A. A person shall not view a broadcast television image or a visual image from an image display device while that person is driving a motor vehicle and the motor vehicle is in motion on a public roadway or on an off-highway vehicle trail as defined in section 28-1171.
B. A person shall not operate a motor vehicle with an image display device that is visible to a driver seated in a normal driving position when the vehicle is in motion..
C. This section does not apply to any of the following:.
1. Emergency vehicles.
2. Image display devices that do any of the following:.
(a) Display images that provide a driver with navigation and related traffic, road and weather information..
(b) Provide vehicle information, controls or information related to driving a vehicle..
(c) Enhance or supplement a driver's view of the area to the front, rear or side of the vehicle..
(d) Permit a driver to monitor the vehicle occupants seated behind the driver..
(e) Display information intended to enhance traffic safety..
3. Image display devices that are built into the motor vehicle and that do not display images to a driver while the vehicle is in motion..
4. Image display devices that are portable and are not used to display dynamic visual images other than for purposes of navigation or global positioning to a driver while the vehicle is in motion..
5. Image display devices present in vehicles of a public service corporation or any political subdivision of this state and used for service or maintenance of its facilities..
6. Any use of an image display device while the vehicle is parked..
D. For the purposes of this section, "image display device" means equipment capable of displaying to the driver of a motor vehicle rapidly changing images that are either of the following:.
1. A broadcast television image or similar entertainment content transmitted by other wireless means to the image display device..
2. A dynamic visual image, other than text, from a digital video disc or other storage device.
I suspect most other states also prohibit video to the driver. When the courts hold that such devices as Glass fit this definition, game over. Much simpler.
We are allowing our government to play fast and loose with new technology, thinking that they can get away with it because there's no prohibition in law, when in fact there is both applicable law and, in many instances, no ENABLING LAW, by which I mean no permission. Our constitution doesn't intend to limit citizens so much as it intends to limit GOVERNMENT , but that's another rant, another time.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Indeed it is well known that the opposite is true, if you try to devote 100% attention to the road 100% of the time you will fall into "highway hypnosis". It is actually very important for alertness to move your eyes around & focus your attention in different places as you drive.
I ride a motorcycle.
It would be too cool to have a Glass display speed, fuel, and navigation information without having to take my eyes off the street.
This would be a safety feature.
This is hearsay, there is no evidence for or against Google glass, I would expect this to not pass or be overturned on the basis of hearsay until there is EVIDENCE that google glass is a hazard... not just an opinion based on statement or thought... which the hearsay rule is generally aimed at prohibiting. Although the way things are now days I should expect this to be ignored due to lack of respect for our laws and rules over personal feelings and reactions...
A lot of states already have laws on the books that prevent things that restrict the line of sight. A lot of that crap you see hanging from rear view mirrors can get you a ticket if you're already pulled over for something else. And this is as it should be.
Google Glasses fall into this same category. You're blocking part of your field of vision with a display of distracting material. What happens when there's a motorcycle in the same visual area as that cute cat picture you're viewing on your nifty glasses?
Notify the public that these devices are illegal based on existing law and you're fine. There's no need to add another one to the books.
and your response should be to sue the city/state for every dime you can get due to ADA violations.
Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
No, we don't need a Glass-specific law; if we need anything, it is more intelligent drivers.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Make a third-party, augmented reality platform for driving, platform independent so it drives competition to quickly improve.
Will improve safety, driver wakefulness, driver awareness of environment, and so on. Also may provide an open platform on which to develop smart systems (like following other cars or warning about road conditions in the next mile that other cars have seen) that work on any brand of car.
Components:
- Imaging sensors such as infrared, microwave or something else distributed mostly in front of the car, some behind, a little on the sides. Use something that cuts through mist, snow, rain, smog so you can see the sides of the road in freezing mist or see a deer in the road far away at night. Also some low light sensors might be good to pick up where the taillights of cars in front of you are.
- Displays: Google Glass might be perfect. HUD might be useful or something else. I like the idea of being able to take glasses off but an HUD that always will tell any driver what is standing in the road waiting for you to hit it at night would be a very good idea.
- Processing hardware: competition among 3rd party manufacturers. Best if not tied to a certain model car, though BMW or Mercedes can certainly add more expensive sensors, etc.
- Processing software framework: Open platform
- Processing algorithms and engine: Similar competition, though if Google can't win this they better send their guys back to Carnegie Mellon
I am willing to bet the insurance companies will love you to death and then get that stupid law deleted, all you need to do is disable messaging and go into a drive mode as someone else mentioned when you are in motion. Though reading text aloud or letting you send voice messages via voice controlled functionality sounds like it would be not as bad as talking to someone in the car who is with you.
... and traffic tickets were meant to be a deterrent rather than a revenue source, I'd advocate giving LEOs a lot more flexibility on the traffic laws. Speed limits painted on fixed signs which are valid 24/7/365 are dumb. Doing 10+ over the limit at 2:00AM on Sunday is a lot different than doing it at 5:00PM Friday. Universal BAC limit is also sort of stupid. A dedicated drinker at 0.85 is going to be less impaired than a non-drinker at 0.75. Same with this "distracted driving" stuff. Putting on your cosmetics and fixing your hair could be just as distracting/dangerous as using Google Glass.
If only...
So, I'm not allowed to wear Glasses while driving. Yet, I'm *required* to wear glasses while driving (due to my prescription).
So, if my prescription glasses have Google Glass installed, am I supposed to or prohibited from wearing them?
Google is NSA. Let's get that little fact out of the way. There was nothing innocent about Google sending people to shoot every possible aspect of every possible country, as later events subsequently proved to even the stupidest sheeple. At the time, Google publicly bemoaned the fact that its cameras (and network sniffers) could NOT get inside buildings. Google Glass is a project to rectify this.
As a general product (NEVER the real intention), Google Glass is already a flop. As a means to make 'spy cameras' legal and semi-accepted by the public, Google Glass has real possibilities. Google will use the old trick of saying "don't like the content filmed by people wearing Google Glass? Tell us, and we might remove it from public internet access."
The private spaces Google Glass films will, of course, only be available on government servers. Footage shot in 'public' spaces will enhance services like StreetView. It is important that Google uses cameras 'openly' rather than 'covertly', although this distinction is a joke when it comes to Google invading your privacy.
It gets worse. Microsoft's new console is 'always on' (and will frequently enter full power up when unattended under the excuse of downloading games, patches, and TV content in the background). The console REQUIRES that the cameras and mike array is always connected to the system. Every room with an XBOX720 can be remotely made to spy on you UNLESS you always keep a cover on the cameras and mike array. The mike array allows for plausible interception of speech from adjoining rooms.
Face it. For the large majority of people, privacy is dead, and what's more they are jumping up and down on its corpse. Those that wish to keep privacy will first of all increasingly clash with the rest of the sheeple, and secondly be increasingly isolated and obvious by the gaps they create in the surveillance society. Imagine, in a street, you are the only one to use curtains or blinds. You are going to stand out, piss of the other idiots that give up their privacy, and come to the attention of the authorities.
Fools here will take joy in laws and prohibitions against Google Glass, never noticing that the real point of Google Glass is NOT inhibited by these actions.
And if he actually needs them for a medical reason, he no doubt has a special exemption / restriction on his license specifying the nature of his issue & the gear required to let him operate a vehicle safely.
As an example: NY state's page about driver's license restrictions - http://www.dmv.ny.gov/olderdriver/restriction.htm
Likewise, your friend's father probably also has a restriction on his license stating that he can only safely operate vehicles equipped with hand controls. Likewise you probably have a restriction on your license specifying that you need hearing aids or a full-view mirror for your hearing issue.
If you have an unusual condition that requires you to have an assistive device to operate a vehicle safely, then you will have a restriction stating that put on your license, and if you're pulled over, you simply point out that the glasses you're wearing are special medical devices that allow you to operate your vehicle safely, and the cop won't be able to do a damn thing about the fact that you're "wearing glasses."
Creating laws based on assumptions rather than in response to a demonstrable problem sets a dangerous precedent. I worry whenever elective representatives begin to create new laws to "protect" us and make us "safe". What qualifies these people to make such judgments without any evidence? Are they experts on drivings, technology or human behavior? Or are our politicians shooting from the hip trying to both for a power grab and to make us think they are busy?
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
For the same reason your anonymous coward IP isn't blocked.
Jack of all trades,master of none
How do I mod this "Tinfoil Hat" and does that mean -1 or +1 ?
Maybe because it goes against the belief in "freedom of speech" that most Slashdot folk hold?
a HUD is about contextual information.
If the information displayed by google glass is relevant to driving (by calculating distances, tracking the middle of the road, helping with navigation, tracking other vehicles and their future positions), this is ok.
If you use google glass for sending messages, playing videos, browsing the web, this is a distraction and is not ok.
In general I agree with the ban, as most people would not be using it as a HUD.
I can assure you that at least two people (me and someone else) posts these. I don't bother to use tor, but that's another way too.
Also, slashdot is clearly using a hosts file to block these posters.
Why would you assume they block for posting this stuff, anyway?
Until an idiot lawmaker in a rush to ban something writes a law that doesn't consider those cases and proceeds to obliterate those exemptions.
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
Explain how hand controls or corrective lenses required to operate vehicles fall under the category of "wearable computers with head-mounted displays," and then I'll concede that this is a very, very slippery slope, indeed.
Until then? Sorry, my friend, but GGP's concern about "outlawing wearing corrective lenses and hand controls" is simply not covered by this law.
In other words: if you are a driver, do not head to WV mountains with head-mounted display. Wonderful concept; wild, but wonderful.
It's Google. It's beta. Just ban ads (in cars).
--
Maybe dinosaurs arenâ(TM)t around HERE now because they DO have a space program (apologies to Larry Niven)
Hmmm.... no heads-up displays in vehicles?...
Weren't heads-up displays supposed to be safer than having to move your eyes away from the reality-display you need to be viewing at the same time?
Will this also cause air force pilots with such displays in the cockpit and helmets to no longer fly over or in such states??
Seems only prudent...
*hmmm*...
gosgog:
Sooner the world goes to driverless Cars, plus a good 25% reduction in private vehicles of every kind, off the roads in every country (except N. Korea heh! heh!), the fewer deaths we will see because there'll be less idiots behind the wheel or handle bars.
High school kids cannot be compared to fighter pilots in any meaningful way with regards to the ability to safely operate a large machine with multiple points of distraction, on public roads, surrounded by other drives of various skills and levels of distraction.
So it boils down to what is displayed in the Google Glass (and on the smartphone).
It could be useful stuff to make driving more secure:
- showing current speed
- showing local speed limit
- showing nav direction
- showing collision avoidance info
- showing radar/range detector info
- showing current instant mileage
If the glass is used to display actual useful information instead of distracting with e-mail it can increase safety instead of being a risk.
(And same with a smartphone: A smartphone in the hand of a driver who is busy texting is a huge danger. A smartphone in a holder showing a map and telling direction is a driving help).
So the law shouldn't forbid glasses per-se. It should forbid mailing/chatting/tweeting while driving. Or more generically "driving while distracted" as the top poster proposed.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Obviously they have too much time on their hands deciding what needs to be banned.