Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Lawmakers Seek To Ban Google Glass On the Road

Posted by samzenpus on from the leave-the-glasses-off dept.

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."

13 of 375 comments (clear)

  1. HUD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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!

    1. Re:HUD by mjr167 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Because that would require admitting that the problem is between the seat and steering wheel?

    2. Re:HUD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Cars heads up displays don't include emails and google+ messages. Don't be obtuse.

    3. Re:HUD by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I agree that specific-banning every incremental innovation is ugly lawmaking practice(it isn't wrong or unethical in any serious way; but a legal code full of a fuckton of pointless special cases that could have been generalized is no prettier than any other codebase so afflicted).

      However, I'm not with you on the 'All HUDs are created equal" thing. In-car HUDs, while dubiously valuable, have the advantage of being built into cars, with 100% certainty that their users will be driving cars while using them. There is an established body of work on building car controls that are minimally distracting to drivers(sometimes it is even adhered to!). A car HUD is much more likely to adhere to that than is a generic HUD doing god-knows-what.

      Now, nothing prevents a generic HUD from running a set of software displays that would actually be useful to a driver(so banning them in general seems pointless and possibly counterproductive); but it is fair to treat a device that evolved out of the hardware, and use cases, of a smartphone as being distracting until proven innocent...

    4. Re:HUD by bsDaemon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Fighter pilots aren't 16. They are college-educated military officers who have had several years of driving behind them to get used to operating a large death machine, followed by extensive classroom training and instructor-led seat time before they are allowed to operate the jet solo. Additionally, they have simulators with which to get used to monitoring all necessary instrumentation as well as keeping an eye out for enemy planes.

      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.

    5. Re:HUD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Google Glass will probably cause people

      Legislation should not be based on "probably" and "maybe" and other shit people are basically pulling out of their asses.

    6. Re:HUD by Shadowmist · · Score: 3, Insightful

      But technically I could run a app that is beneficial to my driving. This week end rented a car and got one with a HUD. It displayed three things, the speed limit, the current speed and the navigation instructions. It "floated" over the hood and I could read the information without taking my eyes off the street. This is VERY beneficial when you are currently doing a maneuver in heavy traffic. It also made the audio queues obsolete. (It had none.) Oh and this implementation of a speed limit indicator works, you see your speed and the speed limit all the time. You really have to willfully be speeding, you can't speed "by mistake".

      The only thing the Google glasses need are a driving mode.

      You MIGHT download an app that might be beneficial to your driving.... presuming it makes up for the loss of attention span on what you're supposed to be focusing on.... DRIVING. It is an uncontestable fact that texting, calling on the phone, and browsing your emal on your smartphone, does lead to an increased risk in auto accidents. How would putting this stuff in your face make it any safer? We give our legislatures a deservedly bad rap when they think in terms of technology that's already generations obsolete. We should be giving this guy credit for looking ahead.

  2. Couldn't a HUD actually help you drive safer? by FictionPimp · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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..

  3. Oh yeah, I'm sure it would be used as an aid... by oic0 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  4. Need for Emphasis on Public Transport by fygment · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.
  5. Why? by sqlrob · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Enforce the distracted driving laws, done. Covers all current and future technology.

  6. All laws should be based on data.... by neorush · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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
  7. I will say it again by willy+everlearn · · Score: 1, Insightful

    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