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!
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..
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.
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...
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.
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
We've ventured into the realm of unnecessary laws.
For a very long time
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
How would you enforce this law when the glasses could look like simple sunglasses? We've ventured into the realm of unnecessary laws.
How could you possibly ban drunk driving? You can't even smell alcohol through the windshield!
...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.
Enforce the distracted driving laws, done. Covers all current and future technology.
hosts files
Well accident and insurance records say yes. In general it is one of those categories where the extra motor skills, health etc... instead of being applied to driving are being applied to texting, hitting on the attractive person in the passenger seat, eating, applying makeup etc... It's like when a new piece of hardware comes out with faster and better processing power etc... but then the software manufacturers burn every ounce of extra processing power and then some on useless wigits, apps and animations, making it actually perform worse at the primary function. Think early vista in the days when many new computers were being sold with 1-2gb of ram.
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
In my experience as a driver, going a little slower, leaving a little more room between vehicles and using turn signals properly all contribute far more to my safety than I would gain from beter motor skills and a faster response time. Your extra tenth of a second in response time is worthless if you've already crashed into the car in front because you were too close.
My experience came the hard way but, alongside, there were some good lessons in not being overconfident.
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 suspect that the delta between passing a driver's test and being declared flight-ready for 30 million taxpayer dollars with added explosives has something to do with it...
The fact that military HUDs don't tend to have twitter clients or porn playback support might also be a difference.
Young people in good health, with good motor skills and high response time are the worst drivers, right?
The precise shape of the curve isn't 100% clear; but new drivers are shitty drivers. It takes time to accumulate the experience that weak hominids need to respond automatically to common situations that are at or beyond the edge of being slow enough to respond to by conscious thought.(inconveniently, since the problem is inexperience rather than merely youth raising the starting driver's age helps less than people would like.
Once they get some experience, young drivers are better than older drivers; because their vision, reflexes, and motor skills are superior, and the amount of additional improvement possible from additional experience tapers off.
From there, it's all downhill; but old people vote at substantial rates compared to the population at large, so they are less likely to be taken off the road.
yep
all the stupid kids i see speeding, running stop signs, texting, yapping on cell phones while driving because they think they are the best driver on the road
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
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.
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 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.
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
It goes both ways.
On one hand, the young always think "they know better" and thus think their reflexes and novice-skills are on-par with the team from "Too Fast / Too Furious" so they act carelessly. Add to that, they're pretty easily distracted... texting, talking on the phone, looking at the girl (or pal) in the next seat while talking, etc. I've had a LOT of near-misses due to some idiot kid. One gave me the finger and yelled at me because he ran a stop sign. Trying to tell them that they're doing something wrong, and they think YOU're the clueless one.
On the other hand, some older (octogenarian) drivers think all of their experience / practice at driving makes up for their lack of reflexes and such. The problem is, some of these people refuse to admit they have eye-sight problems and/or mental issues. Try to tell one they're doing something wrong and you get: listen, I've been doing this for 50 years, I know what I'm doing. OK fine, but back then you had the reflexes and the eyesight to deal with this issues during the night.
To be honest, some of the biggest "OMFG what the heck is he doing" moments were with some really old-folks: like watching some old woman drive through the parking lot diagonally, not stopping, almost hitting a moving car, and pedestrian having to RUN out of the way all in one shot. But the young are often just as bad.
At least parents will ground their kids and/or take away the keys or something for a while. I don't know many families willing to confront their grandparents and such to take away THEIR keys.
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.
You're an n off 1. The facts are quite obvious, young drivers make up a disproportionate number of casualties in auto-accidents. Sure the elderly may also be a high risk group. In-between, however, there's a group who have more experience and fewer accidents.
I didn't comment on Google Glass, I responded to a post above which was questioning whether or not young drivers are actually worse, despite their faster reaction times. I'm pretty sure any actuary will confirm that yes, as a group, young drivers are more dangerous.
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...
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.
We're not so worried about motorcycle riders. You're presumably well aware of the fact that whoever gets hurt in an accident, you'll probably be at the head of the list. If you abuse google glasses natural selection will deal with the problem, and relatively few innocent bystanders will be endangered.
But, if you've been riding anywhere around automobiles, you've surely noticed that even now not all automobile drivers are aware of their surroundings, even without HUDs. Those are the ones who'll be killing other people, like maybe you. And, if things work out the way they usually seem to, they won't personally have a scratch on them. Distracted driving laws don't do shit, of the distracted drivers you've personally encountered on the road, how many of them have gotten pulled over there and then? Do you really want to allow heavy-equipment operators (which is what drivers are) to be posting on facebook while they're operating their machines? How about that guy who's driving the semi with the oversized load that's overtaking you? How about grandpa at the wheel of the new Winnebago that's way wider than his Ford Escort admiring pictures of the grandkids?
The only solution I can think of that excludes you is to allow head-mounted displays, but only displays that are technically restricted from displaying anything other than a specified list of driving-related information (e.g. stuff that instruments now provide). Yeah, they'll get hacked some, but you make violations automatic revocation of license time. That would solve the problem, because no driver will even be interested in something with that kind of limited functionality.
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.
The young are rash but they will realize when something bad is going on.
The old are just completely clueless and just don't notice things.
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
YES, they are. It has absolutely nothing to do with deficiencies in their motor skills. It has everything to do with their proclivity to take risks (willingly, or by under-estimation) and their lack of driving experience. These days, I would also argue that they have a greater propensity for being distracted by their gadgets.
Look at a curve showing risk of accident vs. age. Huge drop from 15 to 25. Continues downward, and sort of levels off in the mid '40's range before having a slight up-tick in the early '60's.
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.
Older people don't drive as much as young ones do and have safer cars.
Of course they'd run into lethal accidents less often.
Do you chant 'For the greater good' before bed every night?
Good-bye
Cadillac was offering as an option a HUD (FLIR) foward looking infra-red system activated with the headlights/wipers 20 years ago.
As a Commercial driver at the time, I wanted the system due to safety concerns as an enhancement on my truck. Much easier to spot the vehicle in front of you in bad weather or the damn dear on the shoulder that's just waiting to jump in front of you during the night but vibration was a big issue. I said, put em on semis for testing and you'll soon figure out how to make them survive the damn vibration at the lowest cost. Would certainly have made the tech available on just about every vehicle by now.
You're talking about a very specfic system designed as a primary purpose of enhancing road safety. That's not in the same field as a general information and entertainment providing device whose main purpose will be designed to provide Google with ad revenue.
... 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?
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."
Stats please.
Show me the accident rate per distance driven by age breakdown and then eliminate drugs, alcohol and other non-age-related factors.
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
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
It makes no sense to eliminate drugs and alcohol in your statistical analysis. Use of mild-altering substances is part and parcel of being young and experimenting. It's like saying, show me the statistics, but take out those times when young people make bad judgments. Making bad judgments is part of being young. You can't take it out, because the subject group won't until they get older and more experienced.
You can take them out statistically, but it would be irrelevant to the real world.
"No, no, no. Don't tug on that. You never know what it might be attached to."
Wrong. "Older" drivers drive as much or more than young drivers do, on average. The young drivers also are driving cars that had to pass safety inspections to be on the road legally, so I'm also fairly skeptical that there's a massive disparity in average car safety betwen older and younger drivers.
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
You can make statistics say what you want by choosing the right definition of "young" and "old".
More expensive cars are quite safer than cheaper cars. Both cars meeting the same basic criteria doesn't mean that one isn't safer than the other.
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.
>"Once they get some experience, young drivers are better than older drivers; because their vision, reflexes, and motor skills are superior, and the amount of additional improvement possible from additional experience tapers off."
And yet studies don't actually show that. Young drivers are still more "fearless" and "reckless" and more "distracted" than older drivers and have far more accidents. Now *"OLD"* drivers are a different story, because at that point reaction time starts to dwindle, memory fails, overall processing is slower, vision is more impaired, etc.
I am not going to try to set a point of "OLD" verses "older". But most 20-something drivers are still much worse, overall, than older 30, 40, or even 50 something drivers. If you don't believe me, ask any insurance agent.
Tell you what - you provide a) a definition of "younger" and "older"; and b) credible sources that back up your claims that "younger drivers drive way more than older drivers," and then we'll talk.
Until then, the US Federal Highway Administration and the Dept of Transportation would seem to me to be quite legitimate sources, and their numbers show that "younger drivers" do not drive more than "older drivers" for any non-ludicrous definition of "younger" and "older."
Okay, I know a lot of 18 year olds driving brand new toyotas and hondas on their parents' dime. And I also know a lot of 35 year olds driving beat up, 20 year old Chevys. There's very little correlation between "age" and "cost of car." It's also not that hard to get an affordable, inexpensive car. The fact that some cheap cars are less safe than some expensive cars means nothing, unless you can show that younger drivers are overwhelmingly the drivers of these unsafe vehicles.
Plenty of statistics show that younger drivers are involved in fatal crashes at a disproportionate rate. Provide some statistics to back up your assertions that this is incorrect, or kindly stop asking us to take your baseless assertions as remotely valid.
Both 18 and 35 are young. Also you're stereotyping based on minorities.
1) When anybody with any knowledge of these things talks about "younger drivers" this typically means the 16-25-ish demographic. One more time, please present your statistics and definitions to support your wild-ass assertions.
2) Stereotyping what, based on what minorities?
If you're going to bother to respond to the questions I've posed or assertions I've made, you should probably provide some facts that contradict what I've said, or admit that you have no clue what you're talking about.
1) as I already said, the demographic boundaries are precisely chosen so as to maximize the accident "score". Also I didn't mean usian statistics in particular. In most other countries, driving is not permitted before 18.
2) I cannot help you if pointing it out is not enough for you to reflect on what you said.
1) You can talk about "demographic boundaries" all you want, but that's meaningless misdirection on your part. If 18 year olds are in more crashes, you can call that "young," "old," or nothing at all, and it won't change the fact that 18, 19, and 20 year olds are absolutely involved in more fatal crashes than drivers who are OLDER than 18, 19, 20. Draw the lines wherever you like, the conclusion will be the same: drivers on the "left hand" side of the chart (lower ages) will tend to be involved in more crashes and have more fatalities from driving. And yet they will drive less (and in some cases, significantly less) than the drivers on the right hand (older ages) side of the chart.
I'm sorry to disrupt your sense of the exceptionalism of drivers outside of the US, but these proportions hold true across industrialized nations around the world.
2) Great, not only are you incapable of providing any statistics or facts to support your claims, you also act like the most annoying ex-girlfriend in the world when challenged: "If you don't know what's wrong, I'm certainly not going to tell you."
I'm sorry you're unable to provide any arguments to back up your wild assertions, but don't blame me for your inability to discuss the matter in a rational manner. You can't provide a definition of what you would consider "younger" and "older," and you haven't provided any statistics that could even remotely be interpreted to support your claim. I wish I could say it's been enjoyable debating the issue with you, but it hasn't been, because it's clear you're incapable of substantiating an opinion. Good day.
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*...
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 ]
You still didn't cite any stats that show young people being the problem.
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)