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."

34 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 fiziko · · Score: 3, Interesting

      And if I want to use the GPS feature only while driving? I think the best solution would be for Google to add a "lockout" feature, where GPS is the only feature accessible when the speed of the glasses is in excess of some reasonable number. Users could enable or disable this mode, as I can with my normal GPS unit, for the cases where the device is being used by the passenger instead of the driver. Then it falls under a blanket "distracted driving" laws when used inappropriately but is still allowable when used appropriately.

      --
      - W. Blaine Dowler
      http://www.bureau42.com
    6. Re:HUD by rioki · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

    7. Re:HUD by suso · · Score: 3, Interesting

      HUDs on cars currently are also less intrusive and only take up 5-10% of your viewing area. Google Glass will probably cause people to focus on the road differently just like when you hold your phone to your head it causes you to lose mental focus.

    8. Re:HUD by kidgenius · · Score: 2

      You do realize that many states have such "distracted driving" laws, correct? And yes, it is a subjective manner, just like a lot of the enforcement of the law. If you are swerving around the road and the cop notices, it's pretty easy to see that you are driving distracted/recklessly. Who cares what the reason is? It could be because you are eating a cheeseburger, putting on make-up, talking on a phone, or getting road head from your passenger. If you can't drive without being a danger to those around you, then you need to be ticketed for it.

    9. Re:HUD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Or we could, you know, worry about actual behavior and actual problems instead of perceived imagined nonsense crap like this. I put texting and driving bans in the same category. Unless you also ban other things which are demonstrably as distracting as texting and driving, you're just a reactionary anti technology twerp who doesn't like something because it's popular with people you don't care for.

      Nobody was worried about cell phones when they were so expensive as to only be business tools for certain well paid professions. It's only when young and less well off people adopted them that the Chicken Little screaming began. Meanwhile, we don't ban putting on makeup, shaving, reading printed material, and, worst of all, undisciplined children from cars. The latter, btw, being the direct cause of an accident which caused damage to my car while I was sitting still once. I didn't decide to make it my life's mission to do something about distractions caused by kids in cars, as some of these anti tech crusaders with too much time and too small brains seem to.

      Driving like an idiot while looking at a paper map? That's ok. Do the same thing using a piece of tech to find your way? You need to be arrested or fined because you're a hazard. Please note the hazard is the same either way, it's just what some fools feel about the cause that's different. Yes, I meant "feel" and not "think" because clearly there's no thinking going on.

      BTW, not a young person with an axe to grind. Just somebody who's spent too long watching useless overreactions to things time and again. Although it was before just about anybody's time here, I'm told this same stupid debate came up when they first started putting radios in cars. Ponder that for a while. Then ponder the notion that we do absolutely nothing about training and teaching people how to deal with the stuff in their cars. We don't make it illegal for bosses to fire people who aren't available every second of every day. We don't study the extra hazard caused by exiting and reentering the road because some law says you have to in order to make a call. We do nothing that might actually help, and we just pass more dumb laws.

    10. Re:HUD by Joce640k · · Score: 5, Funny

      Don't worry, Google's driverless car is almost ready...

      --
      No sig today...
    11. Re:HUD by bws111 · · Score: 2

      Yes, states have distracted driving laws. And the only time they are used is AFTER an incident has occurred. If you are swerving, you are already breaking a law (failure to maintain lane). However, if you are swerving, the only thing that prevented you from having an accident was luck - there was no-one else there at the same time.

      The purpose of these types of laws is to prevent behavior that is likely to lead to a problem BEFORE you are to the point of swerving or having an accident.

    12. Re:HUD by DrXym · · Score: 2

      The difference is that cars are typically showing you information related to your driving whereas your google glasses could be showing you a hilarious cat video.

    13. Re:HUD by Chrisq · · Score: 3, Funny

      but fighter pilot HUD's don;t have what you best friend is eating or funny pictures of kittens.

      But when the Chinese manufacturers turn on the "remote enable" they will

    14. Re:HUD by phoebus1553 · · Score: 3, Informative

      While I'm not the OP...

      GM has had an on-again-off-again affair with these things in various levels of interesting. My 98 Bonneville had a basic mode as did a lot of Pontiacs of the era, Grand Prix, Bonneville, Firebird. Various Caddilacs, Corvettes, Camaros, Colorados, Acadias... the list goes on and on in GM. Some did just speed, turn signals and warnings. You could go up into getting radio stations and more information. A lot of the new ones do nav if you've got it.

      Creative google searching will give you BMW and probably more if you can read the steering wheel emblems. Apparently you can get it add on now days too, but that's probably just for things you'd find in the radio... i.e. station info and Nav.

      --
      ----- - The beatings will continue until morale improves
    15. Re:HUD by Joce640k · · Score: 3, Informative

      At 10,000 feet you get a minute or so to solve any problems.

      In a car you only get about a second.

      --
      No sig today...
    16. 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.

    17. Re:HUD by CanHasDIY · · Score: 2

      Nobody was worried about cell phones when they were so expensive as to only be business tools for certain well paid professions. It's only when young and less well off people adopted them that the Chicken Little screaming began.

      Yea, obviously it's because the young and "poor people" use them now, and has nothing to do with the effects of mass adoption.... kriminy...

      Meanwhile, we don't ban putting on makeup, shaving, reading printed material, and, worst of all, undisciplined children from cars. The latter, btw, being the direct cause of an accident which caused damage to my car while I was sitting still once. I didn't decide to make it my life's mission to do something about distractions caused by kids in cars, as some of these anti tech crusaders with too much time and too small brains seem to.

      Driving like an idiot while looking at a paper map? That's ok. Do the same thing using a piece of tech to find your way? You need to be arrested or fined because you're a hazard. Please note the hazard is the same either way, it's just what some fools feel about the cause that's different. Yes, I meant "feel" and not "think" because clearly there's no thinking going on.

      Uh, those things are illegal, you know. It's called either Careless and Imprudent or Reckless Driving, depending on where you live. Thing is, all forms of distracted driving are covered by one or both of the aforementioned laws - including distractions based on technology.

      BTW, not a young person with an axe to grind.

      Yes, your insistence that young people using cell phones is why we have laws that pertain to them, and your blatant ignorance of existing traffic laws prove that quite succinctly. /sarcasm

      Although it was before just about anybody's time here, I'm told this same stupid debate came up when they first started putting radios in cars.

      I think any Slashdotter over the age of about 50 would argue that point with you (also, kinda belies the whole, "not a youth" angle, you know?)

      Then ponder the notion that we do absolutely nothing about training and teaching people how to deal with the stuff in their cars.

      Well gee, Wally, I didn't realize it was society's responsibility to teach selfish idiots like you how to not be a selfish idiot.

      However, I do agree somewhat- we should not be letting selfish idiots (noticing a theme?) pilot 1-2 tons of steel Death at high rates of speed without more thorough training (or, in many places, any training whatsoever). Perhaps you'd be happy if we went the German route, meaning that you have to pay a few grand for 6 months of government-mandated driving classes before you can even take your license test, and if you fail, you have to start (and pay) all over. Would that make you happy? Probably not, although it would make the roads much safer for the rest of us by removing the licenses of many of the selfish idiots.

      We don't make it illegal for bosses to fire people who aren't available every second of every day.

      Which has fuck-all to do with driving.

      Grind, grind, grind.

      We don't study the extra hazard caused by exiting and reentering the road because some law says you have to in order to make a call.

      What. The. Fuck.

      We don't study the "extra hazard" of entering/exiting roadways because, if you do it in a safe and legal manner, THERE IS NO FUCKING HAZARD. If answering your goddamn cell phone is important enough to you, that you would risk the lives of others to answer it, you need to re-examine your fucked-up priorities, mate. And probably surrender your drivers license, for the good of society.

      I agree that we don't need specific laws to address particular technological distractions. What I don't agree with is your premise, which is based wholly on your own ignorance and selfishness.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    18. Re:HUD by Lehk228 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Expect HUDs to be banned as well, they are a direct assault on ticket revenue and that will not be tolerated

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    19. 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.

    20. Re:HUD by Score+Whore · · Score: 2

      After reading your description of Joe Quarterpounder's troubles, I'm wondering why it is that we look down on Joe.

    21. Re:HUD by Alex+Belits · · Score: 2

      Actually in some states it is actually illegal to record an image of law enforcement.

      Link now, or apology for talking out of your ass.

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
    22. Re:HUD by Hunter+Shoptaw · · Score: 2
      First, a link: http://www.photographyisnotacrime.com/

      This is a good site for documentation of the trampling of said First Amendment Rights. While it doesn't show illegal, it does show "getting arrested for."

      As for illegal. In Illinois, Massachusetts, and Maryland wiretapping and eavesdropping laws have been leveraged to prosecute people for video tapping. While these were over turned by the Supreme courts many time these laws are still used for the arrest or punishment of a citizen and only 38 states have laws that officially declare that it IS legal to record a police officer in the course of duty. I'd link to it, but you obviously don't understand how to use Google to do any research anyhow.

      My point here being that, while some states are taking action to allow for technologies to be used in our every day lives, people still need to be aware of the laws of their states and the possible consequences.

      Lastly, I'm pretty sure I didn't see any need in my previous comment for your tone. I don't know if being a subscriber entitles you to also being a dick, or if you're just having one of those days. If you've ever read my comments, you'd have realized I don't talk out of my ass.

  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..

    1. Re:Couldn't a HUD actually help you drive safer? by alien9 · · Score: 2

      and pics of cats for sure.

    2. Re:Couldn't a HUD actually help you drive safer? by Annirak · · Score: 2

      There go my plans for a LiDAR, RADAR overlay HUD to provide better visibility in snow, fog, low-light, etc. Baby, bathwater both defenestrated.

    3. Re:Couldn't a HUD actually help you drive safer? by squiggleslash · · Score: 2

      Probably not. If people looked in 2D, then yeah, I could see it, but in reality your eyes have a limited ability to keep multiple things in focus at once. We don't care about that for the most part because we're able to change focus very quickly.

      If a message comes up saying "Slow down, ice ahead", the reality is that you will take your eyes off the road to read the message, even though your eyes will still be pointing in the same direction.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    4. Re:Couldn't a HUD actually help you drive safer? by DerekLyons · · Score: 2

      Probably not. If people looked in 2D, then yeah, I could see it, but in reality your eyes have a limited ability to keep multiple things in focus at once. We don't care about that for the most part because we're able to change focus very quickly.

      That's a long solved problem [for HUD's], just make the display focus at infinity - that way you don't have to refocus. (Seriously folks, stop and think a minute... while Google Glass is new, HUD's aren't. These are old, long solved problems.)

  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. Re:Makes No Sense! by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2

    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.

  8. Re:Young most vulnerable and underskilled drivers by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.