In UK, Google Glass To Be Banned While Driving

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

In UK, Google Glass To Be Banned While Driving

Posted by timothy on Thursday August 1, 2013 @04:43AM from the should-be-mandatory-for-motorcycles dept.

RockDoctor writes "Stuff magazine, a gadget oriented mag, is reporting that the UK's Department for Transport is planning to ban drivers from using Google Glass, using the same law (1988 Road Traffic Act) that is used to ban drivers from using hand-held mobile phones. While there are obvious parallels between the distraction potential of the mobile phone and of Glass, there are arguments in the other direction that the speech-control aspects of Glass could make it less distracting than, say, a touch-screen SatNav. So, to ban Glass while driving or not? Typical fines for using a mobile phone while driving are £60 cash plus three penalty points on the driving license; the points expire three years after the offence and if you accumulate 12 points then you've lost your license. Repeat offenders may experience higher fines and/ or more points. Around a million people have received the penalty since the mobile phone ban was introduced in 2003."

214 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Glassholes by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-01 04:45 · Score: 2, Funny

Good. We don't need people driving around being glassholes.
1. Re:Glassholes by Pino+Grigio · 2013-08-01 04:56 · Score: 1
  
  I first heard the term glasshole today. Whoever thought it up is a genius.
2. Re:Glassholes by noh8rz10 · 2013-08-01 05:06 · Score: 0
  
  if only they would ban the glass at all times, everywhere. glassholes.
3. Re:Glassholes by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-01 06:08 · Score: 0
  
  Staaka? This is the United Kingdom. We do not (imitates Randall Meeks' head jerks to turn the page), nooo.
Missing the point. by AndyAndyAndyAndy · 2013-08-01 04:46 · Score: 5, Interesting

UI advances like GG are supposed to make driving with technology safer, not more dangerous. Let's be real: we're only a few short years from on-windshield HUDs for navigation, driving metrics, etc.

--
It's always confirmation bias!
1. Re:Missing the point. by CanHasDIY · 2013-08-01 04:51 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  UI advances like GG are supposed to make driving with technology safer, not more dangerous.
  That's the theory, anyway; however, the reality is quite different.
  
  --
  An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
2. Re:Missing the point. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-01 04:52 · Score: 1
  
  Eyes that are focused on the windscreen (remember, it's a UK story) will see the road clearer than ones focused on Google Glass a centimetre or so from the eye.
3. Re:Missing the point. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-01 04:52 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  how will the 12 minutes of adverts that american providers like between each ppiece of information help road safety?
4. Re:Missing the point. by bill_mcgonigle · 2013-08-01 04:52 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Yeah, Google Glass isn't there yet, but I think I'd be safer not looking over to the Tom Tom (when I can see it ... can I install the Tom Tom software on Garmin hardware yet?), the radio, or down at the cell phone to see who's calling.
  I'm really interested in some of the advanced technologies like road outlines in fog or infrared imaging of wildlife in the road (moose!) that have been demonstrated, and retinal projection of that data just makes so much more sense than building a $4000 windshield that maintains a xenon mist.
  I do wonder if we'll get those before autopilots in cars make more sense, though.
  
  --
  My God, it's Full of Source!
  OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
5. Re:Missing the point. by OzPeter · 2013-08-01 05:02 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  UI advances like GG are supposed to make driving with technology safer, not more dangerous. Let's be real: we're only a few short years from on-windshield HUDs for navigation, driving metrics, etc.
  A few short years away?? This is an article from 12 months ago Top 5 HUDs in modern cars today
  
  --
  I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
6. Re: Missing the point. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-01 05:04 · Score: 0
  
  This is the real way in which technology can make roads safer. If people want to be entretained while driving, then they shouldn't drive. The focus it requires is the reason why i hate driving, but there's no way around it. If you want to drive safe, keep your eyes and mind on the road.
7. Re:Missing the point. by PolygamousRanchKid+ · 2013-08-01 05:04 · Score: 1
  
  Let's be real: we're only a few short years from on-windshield HUDs for navigation, driving metrics, etc.
  . . . and flying cars.
  There's just so much stuff that we're only a few short years from! I can hardly wait a few short years, to see what stuff that we'll be only be a few short years from, in a few short years.
  
  --
  Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
8. Re:Missing the point. by Lunix+Nutcase · 2013-08-01 05:05 · Score: 1
  
  Except windshields HUDs already exist and have for at least a year or more.
9. Re:Missing the point. by gl4ss · 2013-08-01 05:06 · Score: 2
  
  GG isn't a driving accessory though
  vettes had huds in the '90s, you want a hud you can have one today. that has little to do with gg though.
  and about gps devices... you're not supposed to be typing into them while driving either.
  
  --
  world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
10. Re:Missing the point. by noh8rz10 · 2013-08-01 05:07 · Score: 1
  
  Let's be real: we're only a few short years from on-windshield HUDs for navigation, driving metrics, etc.
  I said that in 1988. and 1992. and 1997. and 2003.
11. Re:Missing the point. by bws111 · 2013-08-01 05:08 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  The most important thing in driving is to be alert. Anything that focuses your attention prevents you from being alert. It doesn't matter if the thing you are staring at is the road, the car in front of you, your phone, your gauges, or anything else. It all reduces alertness.
  GG is not some piece of magic. It WILL focus your attention.
12. Re:Missing the point. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-01 05:09 · Score: 0
  
  I want AAA to know... that only really stupid people use them in the first place and their studies should not be applied to the general driving population... oh wait... ratio of stupid people on the road... nvm carry on.
13. Re:Missing the point. by noh8rz10 · 2013-08-01 05:09 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Eyes that are focused on the windscreen (remember, it's a UK story) will see the road clearer than ones focused on Google Glass a centimetre or so from the eye.
  it's even more drastic than you say. eyes are focused on the car 100 feet away, then GG 1 cm away. attention nightmare.
14. Re:Missing the point. by Lunix+Nutcase · 2013-08-01 05:09 · Score: 2
  
  Then say it no more.
15. Re:Missing the point. by ackthpt · 2013-08-01 05:12 · Score: 1
  
  UI advances like GG are supposed to make driving with technology safer, not more dangerous. Let's be real: we're only a few short years from on-windshield HUDs for navigation, driving metrics, etc.
  On a race track this may be true, but when dealing with all the morons on the road, particularly those who aren't even distracted by a mobile, but are busy with makeup, shaving, brushing teeth, yelling at the driver ahead of them (through the windscreen, yet), picking nose, changing radio channels, having a twist of the neck to have a look at the crack-up in the next lane over, racing or simply not paying attention at all, you really do need your wits about you, not focusing on that 1 degree drop in oil temperature.
  
  --
  
  A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
16. Re:Missing the point. by ackthpt · 2013-08-01 05:13 · Score: 2
  
  UI advances like GG are supposed to make driving with technology safer, not more dangerous.
  That's the theory, anyway; however, the reality is quite different.
  Probably better to just ban driving by humans and let the car drive itself.
  
  --
  
  A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
17. Re:Missing the point. by Russ1642 · 2013-08-01 05:16 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Anyone looking at their windscreen is blind to what's ahead of them anyways. You need to be focused roughly ten seconds down the road to be able to react properly.
18. Re:Missing the point. by AndyAndyAndyAndy · 2013-08-01 05:17 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  That article (and many other half-baked clips that were popular earlier this year) was based on a very weak report by AAA. Weak because it relied upon self-reporting, rather than accident report statistics.
  
  The more I read into it, it's just a mess. Graphs correlating phone use with internet use (no bearing on safety?), alcohol use during the last year with phone use during the last month, and importantly, correlates the frequency of car crashes over two years with cell phone use over one month. In that point, which should have been their most relevant, it even showed no statistical difference between the self-reported phone use of "once/rarely" and "often/regularly."
  
  Here is a link to the primary source.
  
  --
  It's always confirmation bias!
19. Re:Missing the point. by Opportunist · 2013-08-01 05:20 · Score: 2
  
  And only a few more short years from ads being added to those HUDs.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
20. Re:Missing the point. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-01 05:30 · Score: 0
  
  I'm pretty sure that the HUD displays put in place by auto manufacturers won't clutter your windscreen with ads, porn, instant messages, emails, a web browser, streaming video, and skype.
21. Re:Missing the point. by spire3661 · 2013-08-01 05:31 · Score: 2
  
  The point is, Google Glass could be an incredibly useful driving tool. It is only short-sightedness and unfounded FEAR that drive laws like this.
  
  --
  Good-bye
22. Re:Missing the point. by tgd · 2013-08-01 05:36 · Score: 1
  
  UI advances like GG are supposed to make driving with technology safer, not more dangerous. Let's be real: we're only a few short years from on-windshield HUDs for navigation, driving metrics, etc.
  Windscreen HUDs were pretty common on the "luxury" brands back into the mid 80's.
  They're not there anymore because they:
  a) suck because it makes you refocus your eyes without moving them
  b) are dangerous and distracting
23. Re:Missing the point. by pixelpusher220 · 2013-08-01 05:36 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  The real point being that if you want to introduce 'new' technology to a functional environment, it should be mandatory to be TRAINED on the new technology.
  
  Cops in the US have radios, cell phones and laptop computers going at basically all times. Yet they don't seem to have they same issues as the general population. It's the training that GPS, phones and Glass users aren't getting and so are using things in stupid ways.
  
  It's human nature to use things. We need to adapt our behaviors to counteract that nature when it threatens safety; and that is regulation.
  
  --
  People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
24. Re:Missing the point. by pixelpusher220 · 2013-08-01 05:38 · Score: 1
  
  You know, maybe Google Glass is just a plot to get Google Car jump started!
  
  --
  People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
25. Re:Missing the point. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-01 05:44 · Score: 0
  
  Luckily Google is working on that too.
26. Re:Missing the point. by gl4ss · 2013-08-01 05:49 · Score: 1
  
  sure, it could. then it would be allowed and wouldn't be "using google glass" anymore.
  seriously though I really doubt the current iteration could be useful in any way except for recording your driving procedures and for suing your ass once you hit something while fiddling around with your cellphone. you can't overlay augmented lines of the road in your vision with it or shit like that, you pretty much can only take your eye _off_ the road by using it.
  
  --
  world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
27. Re:Missing the point. by hypergreatthing · 2013-08-01 05:53 · Score: 1
  
  What if google glass had a driving app.
  It could show you the speed limit and warn you when you're going over. So you don't have to keep on looking for speed signs when you're driving in areas your unaccustomed to.
  It could detect erratic driving and warn you to stay away from drunk drivers.
  It could show you your nav directions so you won't have to look down or near the radio for directions.
  It could detect adverse conditions and warn you before something happens. Like the car in front of you suddenly stopping and your distracted with your kids or fiddling with the climate control.
  It could tie into your car's sensors, when you try and change lanes with someone in your blind spot it could warn you about a possible collision.
  Tie it to a infrared camera so when your driving in rural areas in the night it could warn you of dangerous deer on the road.
  There are multiple possibilities where it could help you be a better driver. Yes, you could use it for playing farmville or searching something, but an actual hud driving app would make your driving safer.
28. Re:Missing the point. by DigiShaman · 2013-08-01 05:54 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Driving is mainly visual at the primal level. Metrics, graphics, alerts, and other electronic doodads distract from the instantaneous on-goings of your surrounding environment as processing such instrumentation takes time. Time that leaves you and others vulnerable. Unlike flight where you can be IFR rated, driving requires reactions to be made in split seconds! Which BTW while you will never have an IFR rated drivers licenses. And if it was possible, then you wouldn't be driving the car. The computer would. Leaving you the ability to sit back and read a book or two.
  You might think the dashboard is more dangerous vs an overlaying HUD, but keep mind mind that we choose to look at the dashboard when we deem it safe whereas a HUD is always in-your-face slinging the brain into information overload. I don't blame technology. I blame the limitations of the human brain that wishes to use said technology during inappropriate conditions.
  
  --
  Life is not for the lazy.
29. Re:Missing the point. by Fuzzums · 2013-08-01 06:13 · Score: 1
  
  How will a better YouTube UI aid safer driving?
  Didn't think so.
  
  --
  Privacy is terrorism.
30. Re:Missing the point. by spire3661 · 2013-08-01 06:13 · Score: 1
  
  You dont need to overlay or any of that. Simply moving your SPEEDOMETER to a line of sight view is an improvement. It doenst even have to be numbers or gauges. You could make a colored box slowly change the color as you change velocity. No need to focus on anything but the road if you give them nothing to focus on. Simple, intuitive, functional, safe. You are using fear instead of addressing the issue at hand. This is knee-jerk reaction lawmaking.
  
  --
  Good-bye
31. Re:Missing the point. by CanHasDIY · 2013-08-01 06:18 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  UI advances like GG are supposed to make driving with technology safer, not more dangerous.
  That's the theory, anyway; however, the reality is quite different.
  Probably better to just ban driving by humans and let the car drive itself.
  Again, seems a good idea in theory, but in practice might not be the magic bullet you think it is:
  Consider, for a moment, the recent crash of an Asiana airline flight. Among the issues brought up as a result, there has been question as to whether or not commercial pilots rely too much on automation technology, as there is speculation (backed by flight-recorder evidence) that such a practice was partially to blame for the crash.
  Keeping that in mind, consider this:
  To become a commercial pilot, one has to go through countless hours of training, flights, exams, certifications, etc.
  [yes, this is an oversimplification, for brevity's sake; if you want specifics, look them up]
  To become an automobile operator, the only requirements (in most of the US) are a short, written exam, a quick spin around the block, and a moderately successful parallel parking attempt.
  Considering the question of pilot reliance on automation, and the vast canyon of difference between the training they receive and that of a typical automobile operator, I fear this particular solution (self-driving cars) will only compound an existing problem.
  
  --
  An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
32. Re:Missing the point. by LBt1st · 2013-08-01 06:18 · Score: 1
  
  And cops never screw up!
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SzDfMPe40n8
  That said, I agree with you. The problem isn't the devices. It's that stupid people use them irresponsibly. We should ban stupid people from driving.
33. Re:Missing the point. by CanHasDIY · 2013-08-01 06:21 · Score: 2
  
  If you want to argue the veracity of a particular report, you're more than welcome. Keep those fuckers honest.
  If you're arguing that there's no correlation between distracted driving and an increased probability of incident, you're lying to yourself.
  
  --
  An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
34. Re:Missing the point. by bws111 · 2013-08-01 06:25 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  That's a whole lot of 'what ifs'.
  
  It could show you the speed limit and warn you when you're going over. So you don't have to keep on looking for speed signs when you're driving in areas your unaccustomed to.
  Seeing speed limit signs are difficult for you? Also, the signs are what set the limit, not some app. If GG can see the sign, so can you. If you are trusting some unofficial source to tell you the speed limit you are an idiot. And if you are like the vast majority of people you are almost always over the speed limit, making this indication useless. On the other hand, I am sure the cops would just love to know that you had already been warned about exceeding the speed limit.
  
  It could detect erratic driving and warn you to stay away from drunk drivers.
  That is your job as the driver. If you don't know how to do it, take a defensive driving course. Your job is to be alert for ANYTHING that can affect you, not just something previously identified as 'erratic'.
  
  It could show you your nav directions so you won't have to look down or near the radio for directions.
  Why are you looking at a nav for directions? You should be using voice directions. As I said above, the problem is what you are focused on (ie getting directions), not where you are looking.
  
  It could detect adverse conditions and warn you before something happens. Like the car in front of you suddenly stopping and your distracted with your kids or fiddling with the climate control.
  Adding additional distractions is not the answer to being distracted. What could be worse than being distracted, having the car stop in front of you, and having your attention drawn to your freaking app? If such alerts are desirable they would be FAR better delivered as an audible signal than something that takes your focus.
  
  It could tie into your car's sensors, when you try and change lanes with someone in your blind spot it could warn you about a possible collision.
  Again, that is your responsibilty. Relying on some app to do it is just stupid. And again, it will take your attention at exactly the wrong moment.
  
  Tie it to a infrared camera so when your driving in rural areas in the night it could warn you of dangerous deer on the road.
  If you are outdriving your headlights you are a dangerous driver. An app is not going to fix that.
  NONE of those things would make you 'a better driver'.
35. Re:Missing the point. by BasilBrush · 2013-08-01 06:26 · Score: 2
  
  Let's be real: we're only a few short years from on-windshield HUDs for navigation, driving metrics, etc.
  Nothing wrong with that. But it doesn't mean it's OK to have a mobile phone interface hovering in your eyes. Driving UI good. General phone UI, which may include some driving apps, bad.
  The build in HUDs are designed, hardware and software to be aids whilst driving. Google Glass is not. And it's users would be likely to use distracting apps on it, such as messaging.
36. Re:Missing the point. by BasilBrush · 2013-08-01 06:28 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe the Darwin effect will see Android users genes removed from the gene pool.
37. Re:Missing the point. by CanHasDIY · 2013-08-01 06:31 · Score: 1
  
  The real point being that if you want to introduce 'new' technology to a functional environment, it should be mandatory to be TRAINED on the new technology.
  I do not disagree, but I don't see it happening - somebody's going to bitch about having to pay for it, either individually or through taxes; probably someone with more money and influence than every person on Slashdot combined.
  
  Cops in the US have radios, cell phones and laptop computers going at basically all times. Yet they don't seem to have they same issues as the general population.
  
  A large part of that is due to the lack of accountability in law enforcement. For example: several years ago, I was sitting at a red light. I watched as a cop with a cell phone attached to his ear entered the left turn lane in front of me; he then proceeded to pull out in front of oncoming traffic, causing a woman (who had the right of way) to collide with his patrol car.
  3 months later I read in the local fishwrapper that the woman was blamed for the accident, but for some strange reason all charges were dropped. So, the distracted cop caused a crash, cost the taxpayers a few bucks in patrol car/street repairs, and the whole incident just kind of fell off the radar.
  Granted, anecdotes are not evidence, and the training definitely helps, but the reality (that none of us can honestly deny) is that stupid/criminal shit that LEOs engage in is rarely reported, and even more rarely prosecuted, thus skewing the statistics.
  
  It's human nature to use things. We need to adapt our behaviors to counteract that nature when it threatens safety...
  Well, I would say that makes no sense, but
  OOH SHINY!!!
  Sorry, what was I saying? :)
  
  --
  An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
38. Re:Missing the point. by BasilBrush · 2013-08-01 06:47 · Score: 1
  
  a) Google glass already has ads. Another reason to ban it whilst driving.
  b) Just as the UK has banned Google Glass whilst driving, I'd expect them to ban adverts on HUDs. Other jurisdictions may vary...
39. Re:Missing the point. by pixelpusher220 · 2013-08-01 06:53 · Score: 1
  
  We should ban stupid people from driving
  We already do. It's called a driver's test. Sadly in the US it's a complete joke. But the process is in place.
  
  --
  People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
40. Re:Missing the point. by pixelpusher220 · 2013-08-01 06:55 · Score: 1
  
  don't tease BlackBerry like that...
  
  --
  People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
41. Re:Missing the point. by BasilBrush · 2013-08-01 07:00 · Score: 1
  
  a) suck because it makes you refocus your eyes without moving them
  I don't know about the 1980s ones, but the modern ones put the focal point of the HUD out in front of the car, not in the plane of the windscreen.
42. Re:Missing the point. by bws111 · 2013-08-01 07:07 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Most of these suggestions for 'improving' driving seem to come from quite crappy drivers. I include you in that category because you use the phrase '... focus on anything but the road'. WRONG! You are not supposed to be 'focused' on ANYTHING, including 'the road'. You are supposed to be ALERT. Your eyes are supposed to be constantly moving, look at the road, look at the car in front of you, look in front of that car, look in your mirrors, look at your gauges, look to at the sides, look off in the distance. ANYTHING that encourages (or allows) you to focus on ANYTHING, including the road, is a detriment to good driving, not an aid.
  Focusing on the road is called (or used to be) highway hypnosis. You are nicely focused, convinced that everything is OK (after all, if it wasn't OK my wonderful gadgets would tell me), and you are as dangerous as if you were just about asleep.
  The FEAR is not 'fear of the new', it is both the combined experience of the past (ie texting and cell phones), and the fear that these gadgets would cause crappy drivers to somehow think they are now better. Neither one of those is good.
43. Re:Missing the point. by BasilBrush · 2013-08-01 07:10 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  And yet the UK has some of the safest roads in the world. With those few with better stats mostly being other countries with strong road safety laws, but lower population.
  The US for example is 4 times less safe. Now I don't know what particular evidence they used in the Google Glass, or whether they just went on the very obvious distraction dangers, but the UKs track record for doing the right thing for road safety is very good. And far better then the more anarchic states you will prefer.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate
44. Re:Missing the point. by 0123456 · 2013-08-01 07:10 · Score: 1
  
  it's even more drastic than you say. eyes are focused on the car 100 feet away, then GG 1 cm away. attention nightmare.
  I don't know the details of Google Telescreen, but presumably the image is focussed at infinity, like previous wearable displays?
45. Re:Missing the point. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-01 07:12 · Score: 1
  
  The point is, Google Glass could be an incredibly useful driving tool. It is only short-sightedness and unfounded FEAR that drive laws like this.
  The main problem with glass is that while it could be used to aid in driving (placing maps and direction in your field of view), it is more likely to be used by the average person to watch movies while driving.
46. Re:Missing the point. by lgw · 2013-08-01 07:15 · Score: 2
  
  An HUD windshield for your car won't show YouTube videos or instant messages. Google Glass will. That's pretty much all the argument needed.
  
  --
  Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
47. Re:Missing the point. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-01 07:15 · Score: 0
  
  Seeing speed limit signs are difficult for you?
  If they're concentrating on other traffic, yes. There are usually far more important things to be looking at on the road than speed limit signs.
  
  Also, the signs are what set the limit, not some app.
  Uh, no, they don't. The local laws set the speed limit, not the signs.
  When I lived in the UK, one night the local scallywags turned the speed limit signs around so the side that should have said 30 said 40 and vice-versa. That didn't mean the speed limit changed.
  When I lived there, I also had a GPS which would warn me when there was a speed camera ahead and I was over the speed limit. That meant I could actually concentrate on driving, rather than looking for irrelevant signs and cameras hidden behind trees.
48. Re:Missing the point. by SuperTechnoNerd · 2013-08-01 07:22 · Score: 0
  
  We should ban stupid people from breathing.
49. Re:Missing the point. by bws111 · 2013-08-01 07:32 · Score: 1
  
  Eh, no. If you are driving in such a manner that there are far more important things to look at than speed limit (or any other) signs, then you are a dangerous driver, and an app is not going to fix it. If you are in a situation where traffic is so dense that it requires your attention (bad thing to begin with), what difference does the speed limit make? What, if your little app says you are far under the speed limit you are magically going to remove the dense traffic that is causing the problem? If your app says you are too fast (in this dense traffic) you are going to slow down? If traffic is that dense, slow down anyway.
  Yes, obviously the laws set the limit. The signs are the official notice of the limit. If someone changes the sign, and you are under what the new sign says, you have a very good chance of getting any charge thrown out. You have zero chance of getting the charge thrown out when your excuse is 'Google said it was OK'.
50. Re:Missing the point. by i+kan+reed · 2013-08-01 07:33 · Score: 0
  
  You first.
51. Re:Missing the point. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-01 07:38 · Score: 0
  
  Based on personal experience, I'd say all those features would make people worse drivers. Unless I'm the exception, I'm not alone in simply being less alert when driving nowadays because I count on the navigator to tell me when my exit comes. If a google glass app gave correct warnings most of the time, the effect would be even stronger and I think it would subconsciously make me think "nah, I don't need to pay _that_ much attention since I'll get a warning anyway". I would much prefer letting the car drive itself.
52. Re:Missing the point. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-01 08:01 · Score: 0
  
  Eh, no. If you are driving in such a manner that there are far more important things to look at than speed limit (or any other) signs, then you are a dangerous driver, and an app is not going to fix it. If you are in a situation where traffic is so dense that it requires your attention (bad thing to begin with), what difference does the speed limit make?
  Bingo. You contradict yourself in two sentences.
  There are plenty of times when traffic is so dense that speed limits are irrelevant. And then the traffic thins out and you think 'what the hell is the speed limit here?' because you didn't see the sign, and then the speed camera hidden behind the tree flashes and you've got three points on your license.
53. Re:Missing the point. by bill_mcgonigle · 2013-08-01 08:17 · Score: 1
  
  Google Glass will
  Google Glass could.
  There are car navigation systems that already integrate text messaging. There are people who have been pulled over for watching porn on their vehicle's entertainment system while they drive. Unless you're going to take their phones away, at least if they're doing those stupid things while driving with Glass, their head will be pointed in the right direction. Stupid people are dangerous, but stupid people looking down at their laps while driving are even more dangerous.
  
  --
  My God, it's Full of Source!
  OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
54. Re:Missing the point. by noh8rz10 · 2013-08-01 08:20 · Score: 1
  
  that would only be true if there were screens on both eyes. here there is just a screen on one eye.
55. Re:Missing the point. by jdunn14 · 2013-08-01 08:24 · Score: 2
  
  Considering the question of pilot reliance on automation, and the vast canyon of difference between the training they receive and that of a typical automobile operator, I fear this particular solution (self-driving cars) will only compound an existing problem.
  I can see this being a problem if automation is introduced piecemeal, but if you go from what we have now to something where the human driver is not required your example tends to make the opposite point for me. Before you say that cutting the human out is insane keep in mind that when something goes wrong in a car the stakes are not nearly as high as in a plane, both for the number of people involved, and for the fact that if the car engine cuts out and it coasts to a stop the result is generally not a pile of flaming wreckage in a hillside.
  Keep in mind that a safer self-driving car only has to be better than the current batch of drivers and that is not a terribly high bar. Given how little training the average driver is required to have and thereby how badly many (most?) people drive doesn't that make the problem of creating a self-driving car that improves safety on the roads even simpler? I think you're trying to say that humans will be even worse drivers when they usually rely on automated technology, but there's not a ton of room at the bottom now. Based on most of the drivers I've seen, once you clear the initial figuring-it-out phase of your teenage years there doesn't seem to be a huge correlation between how long a person has been driving and how safe a driver they are. Other factors including fatigue, anger, and distraction appear to play a *much* larger role in their abilities. Keep in mind that the computer suffers from none of those problems AND can't get drunk. Shoot, just removing human competitive and aggressive instincts from the road would make driving much safer even if other mistakes remained constant.
  Insurance companies may be terrible at everything else, but they can run statistics and if there is a self-driving car that gets in only 10% of the accidents that a human driver does there will be price incentives to push people toward that. Of course the incentives will only reduce your insurance by 20%, thereby making the customer happy and giving the insurance company a tidy profit since they don't pay out nearly as much.
56. Re:Missing the point. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-01 08:26 · Score: 0
  
  They've had those.. older Maximas would use are reflective area of the windshield to display your speed (reflecting the image from a digital display on stop of the dash). Other cars has systems like this as well. While the intent was to make it easier to read your speed while keeping your eyes on the road, it was also a distraction
57. Re:Missing the point. by nitehawk214 · 2013-08-01 08:27 · Score: 1
  
  Comparing how well Google Maps works as a navigation system; a lot of people are going to die while using Google Glass while behind the wheel.
  
  --
  I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
58. Re:Missing the point. by SuperTechnoNerd · 2013-08-01 08:35 · Score: 1
  
  I'm turning blue!
59. Re:Missing the point. by thetoadwarrior · 2013-08-01 08:57 · Score: 2
  
  While the UK test is a bit harder than the US the problem is most people can barely handle driving as it is without distractions and especially one right in your face that allows you to your social media updates. I only just saw an SUV driving run into a stationary car the other day. Apparently the non-moving car with its break lights or the 4 red lights didn't weren't visible.
  
  If people want to be treated like fully capable and professional drives they should act like it.
60. Re:Missing the point. by leenks · 2013-08-01 09:01 · Score: 1
  
  You mean like this ? http://www.bmw.com/com/en/insights/technology/technology_guide/articles/head_up_display.html
61. Re:Missing the point. by bws111 · 2013-08-01 09:06 · Score: 1
  
  While I agree that the UK has more safe roads than the US, it is nowhere near 4 times safer. Using the metric of 'deaths per population' doesn't really say anything about the safety of the roads, only about your chances of being killed in an accident. Staying off the road decreases your chances of dying in an accident, but says nothing at all about the safety of the roads. A more useful metric is deaths/distance driven. The UK is 5.7, and the US is 8.5. Both are great compared to the UAE (310!!), Brazil (55.9)
62. Re:Missing the point. by mark-t · 2013-08-01 09:08 · Score: 1
  
  So what you do is create a more general law governing activities while driving, prohibiting the driver from operating absolutely *ANY* device, whether hands-free or not, or the manipulation of absolutely *ANY* object, and which is not ordinarily part of the normal operating of the vehicle, which in duty of such operation either 1) requires one to disengage either hand from firmly holding the steering wheel for periods of longer than, say, 2 seconds (typical minimum safe car following distance); or 2) requires one to not have their visual focus on their surroundings outside of the vehicle, unless the usage of the device or object is for purposes of clear and present emergency.
  Google Glass might pass on the first point, but fails on the second point, since although one's line of sight is not changed, one's focal distance is still largely affected, and because driving is such a visually-oriented task, this would invariably still be a major consideration.
  Manual controls that are mounted on the steering wheel such as controlling the stereo or other electronics would be okay, as would any controls that are required to be manipulated to normally operate the car (stick shift, hand brake, turning signal, etc), but the above generalization would cover pretty much everything that I can think of. It would also allow for such things as manual hand signals when the vehicle's turning signals are broken, since such signals would be considered part of operating the vehicle safely.
  It would then also implicitly ban Google Glass unless it were directly being used as part of the car's operation.
  Of course, such a law could also effectively ban eating while driving, or drinking anything at all, and depending on interpretation, possibly even smoking.
  
  --
  File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
63. Re:Missing the point. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-01 09:47 · Score: 0
  
  Driving is safe as long as that is the only thing you are doing.
64. Re:Missing the point. by presspass · 2013-08-01 10:06 · Score: 1
  
  Keep in mind that a safer self-driving car only has to be better than the current batch of drivers and that is not a terribly high bar.
  I disagree, any provider of a "human-free" system will have to be near-perfect else "I'll sue your ass".
65. Re:Missing the point. by swillden · 2013-08-01 10:10 · Score: 1
  
  a) Google glass already has ads.
  Cite? Last I heard, Google was not only no putting ads on Glass, but had banned third party developers from incorporating ads into their apps.
  
  --
  Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
66. Re:Missing the point. by wonkey_monkey · 2013-08-01 10:29 · Score: 1
  
  it's even more drastic than you say. eyes are focused on the car 100 feet away, then GG 1 cm away. attention nightmare.
  Have you ever tried to focus on something 1cm away? Don't. It hurts.
  
  High resolution display is the equivalent of a 25 inch high definition screen from eight feet away.
  I take this to mean that the display actually appears to be eight feet away, so that's where you'd focus.
  
  --
  systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
67. Re:Missing the point. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-01 10:34 · Score: 0
  
  Again, seems a good idea in theory, but in practice might not be the magic bullet you think it is:
  When automated cars kill people, it will make national headlines. When human drivers kill people, it only makes the local obituaries.
  In the US, 30,000 people die from traffic accidents each year. Humans drivers get tired, bored, distracted, intoxicated, and emotional. Our reaction times are slow, we have a narrow field of vision, and we make shitty snap-judgments. If self-driving cars can cut the death toll to "only" 3,000/year, it absolutely is a magic bullet.
68. Re:Missing the point. by wonkey_monkey · 2013-08-01 10:36 · Score: 1
  
  It could show you the speed limit and warn you when you're going over. So you don't have to keep on looking for speed signs when you're driving in areas your unaccustomed to.
  A phone could do that with an audio-only alert which wouldn't immediately distract your visual attention from the view ahead.
  
  It could show you your nav directions so you won't have to look down or near the radio for directions.
  I thought that's why satnavs speak directions. Sometimes as Yoda!
  
  It could detect adverse conditions and warn you before something happens. Like the car in front of you suddenly stopping and your distracted with your kids or fiddling with the climate control.
  Or how about don't get distracted by the kids and stop fiddling with the controls while you're supposed to be driving the car?
  
  but an actual hud driving app would make your driving safer.
  It's not exactly like a true HUD. It's right there in your view whether you like or not. You can't look away. It can't attract your attention with a subtle blink at the edge of your vision and then let you look at it when you're ready.
  
  --
  systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
69. Re:Missing the point. by wonkey_monkey · 2013-08-01 10:38 · Score: 1
  
  You might think the dashboard is more dangerous vs an overlaying HUD, but keep mind mind that we choose to look at the dashboard when we deem it safe whereas a HUD is always in-your-face slinging the brain into information overload.
  And Google Glass differs from a windscreen HUD - a windscreen HUD could at least put its information in the corner of your vision and let you choose when to look at it. A Glass would stick it right there in front of you.
  Wouldn't the binocular disparity also be a significant drawback compared to a real HUD?
  
  --
  systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
70. Re:Missing the point. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-01 10:40 · Score: 1
  
  Cops in the US have radios, cell phones and laptop computers going at basically all times. Yet they don't seem to have they same issues as the general population.
  Vehicle accidents are the leading cause of occupational death for police officers in the US. They are in (and at fault in) more fatal accidents per road mile than taxi drivers and truck drivers.
  Yes, all those gizmos are still distracting, even for cops.
  http://www.npr.org/2010/12/29/132441719/Traffic-Accidents-Leading-Cause-Of-Police-Deaths
71. Re:Missing the point. by noh8rz10 · 2013-08-01 10:51 · Score: 1
  
  High resolution display is the equivalent of a 25 inch high definition screen from eight feet away.
  I take this to mean that the display actually appears to be eight feet away, so that's where you'd focus.
  nobody said "high resolution display..." are you responding to your own phantom comment? btw you're wrong. the only way to "trick" your eyes into thinking the focal depth is different than actual is to have two screens and offset them from optimum. think the magic eye stuff. i fyou only have one screen like GG, it's always going to be 1 cm from your eye.
72. Re:Missing the point. by Mashiki · 2013-08-01 11:03 · Score: 1
  
  UI advances like GG are supposed to make driving with technology safer, not more dangerous. Let's be real: we're only a few short years from on-windshield HUDs for navigation, driving metrics, etc.
  On-windshield HUDS have been around since the 80's, hell my grandfather's old Cadillac Alante('87) had a HUD that would give you everything but navigation(since the tech didn't exist at the consumer level). My new car on the otherhand? It has all that built in. I agree that it's supposed to make driving safer, but I expect some idiot, somewhere will manage to smear themselves across the pavement and they'll try to ban the tech outright anyway.
  
  --
  Om, nomnomnom...
73. Re:Missing the point. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-01 13:15 · Score: 0
  
  Unless the UK stats are available in "accidents per x number of miles driven" then they're useless. Most US drivers drive much farther per year than your average UK citizen. It's just statistics. Drivers are about equal. This is the danger of raw statistics like you're trying to point out.
74. Re:Missing the point. by mjwx · 2013-08-01 13:33 · Score: 1
  
  UI advances like GG are supposed to make driving with technology safer, not more dangerous. Let's be real: we're only a few short years from on-windshield HUDs for navigation, driving metrics, etc.
  The problem is, the human can be easily distracted by something not relating to driving and in the case of GG the human is in control of the UI.
  
  I wouldn't mind a HUD system that had a transparent projection on my windscreen, things like speed, RPM, current time and maybe even nav information (the only piece of in-car navigation I have is a paper based map book, when you live in a city for over a decade and cant navigate around it unassisted you have problems).
  
  This would be all I'd want out of it although I could also use it to display Distance to Empty, intake pressure, boost pressure, MAF information and a bunch of other things but lets face it, the average idiot on the road would use a HUD to display their facebook.
  
  So I can easily see people using GG for facebook or to watch a movie making it more dangerous than helpful.
  
  --
  Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
75. Re:Missing the point. by mjwx · 2013-08-01 13:43 · Score: 1
  
  Cops in the US have radios, cell phones and laptop computers going at basically all times. Yet they don't seem to have they same issues as the general population. It's the training that GPS, phones and Glass users aren't getting and so are using things in stupid ways.
  
  Cops do the same in Australia.
  
  If the average driver got half as much driver training as the average cop, I wouldn't mind about phones as much. But the fact is they dont, most drivers cant even drive a manual let alone stop without ABS or even manage their car without electronic traction control. Hell, most drivers cant even keep a consistent speed on a flat, straight road without the aid of cruise control. The average driver is simply too incompetent to use this technology.
  
  When the cop needs to concentrate on the road, the cop throws the phone into the passenger side footwell. You're average driver would never consider doing this, they'll clutch the phone for dear life right up until impact. Above this, the punishment for a cop who causes an accident is a lot more than for a civilian. If an (Aussie) cop causes a road accident because he's on the phone, he'd be very, very lucky to keep his job beyond the charges (negligence).
  
  The fact is, the average driver wont take the training to become a better driver. Worse yet, bad drivers believe they are good drivers because of driver assist technology.
  
  --
  Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
76. Re:Missing the point. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-01 14:53 · Score: 0
  
  What sort of driving conditions do you drive in that you get constantly pinged for over speeding on roads that are unfamiliar to you? Are you some sort of novice professional interstate driver who's always driving long distances on constantly changing routes? The speed limits for my work commute do not change very much (if they change at all). It is always the driver's responsibility to know the maximum speed limit of the stretch of road one is using.
77. Re:Missing the point. by pixelpusher220 · 2013-08-01 15:45 · Score: 1
  
  to be fair though, the cops are much more likely to be performing high risk driving than the average person or (perhaps! haha) taxi's so it isn't exactly an even comparison. definitely interesting though.
  
  I suspect the training issue dovetails in that given the significantly more dangerous driving per road mile there aren't even more crashes.
  
  --
  People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
78. Re:Missing the point. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-01 15:57 · Score: 0
  
  Wow, only 5.7 deaths per distance driven. Those poms sure know how to go the distance.
79. Re:Missing the point. by mjwx · 2013-08-01 17:13 · Score: 1
  
  NONE of those things would make you 'a better driver'.
  +10,000
  
  Drivers aids dont make bad drivers better.
  
  They dont even make mediocre drivers better.
  
  They dont because if a driver cant notice road signs, other vehicles, obstructions on the road or the road itself the driver will ignore any beeps, bloops or klaxons that a warning system will produce. In fact it will have the opposite effect and make a bad driver worse because they think they are magically protected by these driver aids. We live in a world where "death by GPS" is a term used by coroners because people were too busy watching the GPS and not the road that came to an abrupt end.
  
  Tie it to a infrared camera so when your driving in rural areas in the night it could warn you of dangerous deer on the road.
  If you are outdriving your headlights you are a dangerous driver.
  This
  
  I live in Australia where we have animals a lot deadlier than deer (Kangaroos not only weight more, they're faster and can jump over bull bars). So if you're driving at night were there's a chance of encountering an animal on the road, you put the high beams on and slow the hell down.
  
  It's not that dangerous to drive at night with animals about, it's just dangerous to do it at speed. Slow down so you can have more time to react and need less road to stop.
  
  Same with fog, heavy rain, smoke, haze and anything else that limits your visibility. Drive to the conditions.
  
  --
  Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
80. Re:Missing the point. by wonkey_monkey · 2013-08-01 19:27 · Score: 1
  
  nobody said "high resolution display..."
  Nor did my quote - it said high definition ;)
  
  are you responding to your own phantom comment?
  No, I was quoting Google's specs.
  
  the only way to "trick" your eyes into thinking the focal depth is different than actual is to have two screens and offset them from optimum.
  How do corrective lenses work, then?
  
  i fyou only have one screen like GG, it's always going to be 1 cm from your eye.
  That doesn't mean you have to focus to 1cm to view it clearly. Hold something 1cm from your eye and try to focus on it (my previous advice not to try notwithstanding).
  
  --
  systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
81. Re:Missing the point. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-01 21:10 · Score: 0
  
  It won't be very safe when your HUD BSODs on you and you're unable to see through your windshield. HUDs are a fad.
82. Re:Missing the point. by Cederic · 2013-08-01 22:25 · Score: 1
  
  There's a very big difference between providing a HUD (near the eye, on the windscreen or wherever) that provides driving aids of various forms, and letting the population at large use a general purpose computing device that can obscure their entire vision in one eye while drawing all of their attention when they're controlling a large heavy fast moving vehicle.
  That isn't fear, that's raw common fucking sense.
83. Re:Missing the point. by AmiMoJo · 2013-08-01 22:29 · Score: 1
  
  Android has a "driving mode" which devices can switch when they are connected to a car dock. Naturally any app can make use of this mode, but typically manufacturers provide a simplified display that doesn't let you do much other than play music or navigate. Sometimes even that is limited to when the car isn't moving, like how many sat nav units disable the touch screen when the car is in motion.
  Glass will simply need something like that. When the user is moving at more than say 10KPH just disable YouTube and SMS, only display maps and voice control.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
84. Re:Missing the point. by Cederic · 2013-08-01 22:31 · Score: 1
  
  So what you do is create a more general law governing activities while driving,
  It already exists. It's possible to be charged with 'driving without due care and attention' and 'dangerous driving'.
  The additional law on mobile phone use appeared to have three main goals: publicise the stupidity of driving while using your handheld phone, make it possible to issue on-the-spot penalties, and to legally declare mobile phone use a distraction that prevents due care and attention.
  Extending the law to include Google Glass is in some ways logical, but will be pretty hard to enforce - but that latter point adds the value.
85. Re:Missing the point. by AmiMoJo · 2013-08-01 22:32 · Score: 1
  
  The UK is only safe because traffic jams and constant badly-planned roadworks make sure cars rarely get above 5 MPH.
  I see signs saying "works until Autumn 2014" to add a small slip-road to an existing one and marvel at how badly we get ripped off in this country.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
86. Re:Missing the point. by RaceProUK · 2013-08-01 23:31 · Score: 1
  
  Oh, they've been around far, far, far longer than that. Late 80's in fact (Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme and Nissan 240SX were among the first).
  
  --
  No colour or religion ever stopped the bullet from a gun
87. Re:Missing the point. by mark-t · 2013-08-02 02:00 · Score: 1
  
  True... but the primary problem with "undue care' is that it is so extremely subjective that a more rigidly defined law which can be expressed in physical terms, rather than psychological ones, may be useful.
  
  --
  File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
88. Re:Missing the point. by noh8rz10 · 2013-08-02 02:06 · Score: 1
  
  the only way to "trick" your eyes into thinking the focal depth is different than actual is to have two screens and offset them from optimum.
  How do corrective lenses work, then?
  fair enough! but GG isn't a lens, now is it? this might actually be a cool (yet scary) solution.
  
  i fyou only have one screen like GG, it's always going to be 1 cm from your eye.
  That doesn't mean you have to focus to 1cm to view it clearly. Hold something 1cm from your eye and try to focus on it (my previous advice not to try notwithstanding).
  I tried it and I can't focus on it at all. how can I view a screen crisply enough to read it when i can't even focus on it?
89. Re:Missing the point. by wonkey_monkey · 2013-08-02 02:29 · Score: 1
  
  I tried it and I can't focus on it at all. how can I view a screen crisply enough to read it when i can't even focus on it?
  Because you're actually looking at an image of the screen reflected in a prism, and the prism is presumably also doing the refocusing so that - as far as your eye's focus is concerned - it's about eight feet away.
  Still not great for driving concentration though, and perhaps I was being a little too pedantic over the meaning of the word "focus."
  
  --
  systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
90. Re:Missing the point. by Skrapion · 2013-08-02 03:43 · Score: 2
  
  The biggest problem I see with using Google Glass as a driving aid is that, if you drive a left-hand-drive car, Google Glass would obscure your view of the rearview mirror.
  
  --
  The details are trivial and useless; The reasons, as always, purely human ones.
91. Re:Missing the point. by tlhIngan · 2013-08-02 03:54 · Score: 1
  
  We already do. It's called a driver's test. Sadly in the US it's a complete joke. But the process is in place.
  Not really, because all you have to do is your best driving once in your life and you're good for the next 50 years.
  Now, change the law so everyone has to recertify every time they get their driver's license and then you might have a point. Or more often. And part of recertification includes recurrent training that should include a multitasking test where people have to use a cellphone/eat a sandwich/put on lipstick/shave/etc and drive into simulated traffic.
92. Re:Missing the point. by tgd · 2013-08-02 05:44 · Score: 1
  
  a) suck because it makes you refocus your eyes without moving them
  I don't know about the 1980s ones, but the modern ones put the focal point of the HUD out in front of the car, not in the plane of the windscreen.
  They did, too... but generally you can only put the focal point out as far as you can get the projector from the windscreen. (You can't magically focus it 200 feet ahead), so generally speaking it might be 6"-1' beyond the windscreen.
93. Re:Missing the point. by noh8rz10 · 2013-08-02 06:55 · Score: 1
  
  Because you're actually looking at an image of the screen reflected in a prism, and the prism is presumably also doing the refocusing so that - as far as your eye's focus is concerned - it's about eight feet away.
  [citation needed]. i've never seen any lens / visibility effects here.
94. Re:Missing the point. by wonkey_monkey · 2013-08-02 07:44 · Score: 1
  
  i've never seen any lens / visibility effects here.
  Here where? Something has to alter the Glass display's focal distance, otherwise it would be physically impossible to focus on it. As Google themselves say, it is "the equivalent of a 25-inch high definition screen from eight feet away," and it seems perfectly reasonable to assume that it does in fact appear to be focused at that distance. Maybe it's the prism, maybe it's a lens in conjunction with the prism (though it would presumably be cheaper to do it in one).
  
  --
  systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
95. Re:Missing the point. by noh8rz10 · 2013-08-02 08:01 · Score: 1
  
  why do you keep replying? STOP REPLYING TO ME
96. Re:Missing the point. by BasilBrush · 2013-08-02 08:08 · Score: 1
  
  Huh?
  The projection unit in a typical HUD is an optical collimator setup: a convex lens or concave mirror with a Cathode Ray Tube, light emitting diode, or liquid crystal display at its focus. This setup (a design that has been around since the invention of the reflector sight in 1900) produces an image where the light is parallel i.e. perceived to be at infinity.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head-up_display
  It's not magic, just a lens.
97. Re:Missing the point. by BasilBrush · 2013-08-02 08:13 · Score: 1
  
  Of course they've banned third parties. Google's own advertising is the sole reason for the device.
98. Re:Missing the point. by swillden · 2013-08-02 08:17 · Score: 1
  
  Of course they've banned third parties. Google's own advertising is the sole reason for the device.
  Google is also not putting any ads on Glass.
  
  --
  Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
99. Re:Missing the point. by BasilBrush · 2013-08-02 08:19 · Score: 1
  
  The UK is only safe because traffic jams and constant badly-planned roadworks make sure cars rarely get above 5 MPH.
  This isn't Top Gear you know. You don't actually get away with dumb driving rant claims here without being corrected.
  o 52% of vehicles on motorways exceed 70mph.
  o The average traffic speed over the whole network rose from 55.3 mph in 2006 to 55.9 mph in 2008, an increase of 0.6 per cent.
  o The average speed of vehicles travelling on key urban roads in England at the height of the school day morning peak is 13 mph;
  http://www.acttravelwise.org/news/1542
100. Re:Missing the point. by BasilBrush · 2013-08-02 08:25 · Score: 1
  
  Don't speak too soon. It's not due for release until next year.
  Google's business model is advertising. Sometimes they release BETA products that don't have advertising. But if they don't work out a way to bring in the advertising revenue on them, they get dropped.
  So either there will be Google ads on Glass, or Glass won't actually last as a product very long.
  Actually, I don't expect it to last very long. So maybe you're right and it'll be dropped before the ads arrive.
101. Re:Missing the point. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-02 08:55 · Score: 0
  
  You're average driver would never consider doing this
  "Your".
102. Re:Missing the point. by wonkey_monkey · 2013-08-02 09:07 · Score: 1
  
  why do you keep replying? STOP REPLYING TO ME
  Because it is (or was) a discussion. If you don't want to take any further part in it, you stop replying.
  
  --
  systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
103. Re:Missing the point. by AmiMoJo · 2013-08-02 09:51 · Score: 1
  
  You fell for the DfT stats that don't show what they claim to show. Take for example the stuff about the free flow of traffic. The average speed might be 13 MPH in urban areas, but how much stop/start is there? Strangely that stat is missing from their data, a genuine oversight I'm sure.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
104. Re:Missing the point. by noh8rz10 · 2013-08-02 10:10 · Score: 1
  
  I will REPORT YOU to editors FOR HARASSMENT
105. Re:Missing the point. by wonkey_monkey · 2013-08-02 10:46 · Score: 1
  
  Oh, in that case I definitely won't reply.
  Oops.
  
  --
  systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
106. Re:Missing the point. by noh8rz10 · 2013-08-02 11:31 · Score: 1
  
  I just saw a guy with GG on the street, so apropos of this conversation, I asked him, "do you know you look like a retard?" he looked at me but his eyes were so cross-eyed from the damn screen!
107. Re:Missing the point. by wonkey_monkey · 2013-08-02 21:12 · Score: 1
  
  I asked him, "do you know you look like a retard?"
  Do you know you sound like a sanctimonious dick?
  
  --
  systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
108. Re:Missing the point. by swillden · 2013-08-03 01:43 · Score: 1
  
  Google has specifically stated on the Google Glass blog that it will not put ads on Glass, in the same post where it was announced that third party apps will not be allowed to show ads on Glass. Google it.
  
  Google's business model is advertising.
  Google's primary business model is advertising, in the sense that it brings in 90% of revenues, but Google is fundamentally a technology company, not an advertising company, and has no objection whatsoever to pursuing other business models. It has been pursuing other approaches, and advertising's share of the revenues has declined from basically 100% to about 90% (enterprise apps licensing being the biggest single other source). In fact, the Google founders and most of the employees aren't particularly enamored of advertising. It brings in large revenues, and it enables end-user services to be free, and therefore low-friction, and done right it can even offer some value to end users as well as advertisers, but it will always be somewhat distasteful to engineers -- and Google is an engineer-driven company, bottom to top.
  Google has stated that the Glass experience needs to be ad-free to be of value. Whether that means it'll be monetized strictly through hardware sales, or whether it's just another link binding people into the Google ecosystem (like Google+) which will facilitate ad targeting accuracy or something else, I don't know. But Google has said that it won't allow ads on the platform, theirs or others'.
  
  --
  Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
109. Re:Missing the point. by Opportunist · 2013-08-03 01:53 · Score: 1
  
  Seeing is believing. In this case, quite literally so.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
110. Re:Missing the point. by swillden · 2013-08-03 02:35 · Score: 1
  
  Seeing is believing. In this case, quite literally so.
  Actually, I think in this case the announcement is a stronger indicator than the lack of ads on current devices.
  
  --
  Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
111. Re:Missing the point. by noh8rz10 · 2013-08-03 06:01 · Score: 1
  
  Do you know you sound like a sanctimonious dick?
  i think you odnt know what that word means. perhaps you should look it up in your GG before next time?
112. Re:Missing the point. by BasilBrush · 2013-08-03 08:37 · Score: 1
  
  Google has specifically stated on the Google Glass blog that it will not put ads on Glass, in the same post where it was announced that third party apps will not be allowed to show ads on Glass. Google it.
  LOL! Google it? You must be joking. Duck Duck Go.
  What you don't know is this:
  Update: Google confirms that Glass developers will not be able to charge or advertise for their early creations, but that might change in the future. "The API is still in a limited preview," a representative tells The Verge. "Developers are crucial to the future of Glass. The focus during the Explorer Program is on innovation and experimentation, but it's too early to speculate how this will evolve."
  http://www.theverge.com/2013/4/15/4228962/google-glass-mirror-api-documentation
  Google isn't even promising that third parties won't be allowed to advertise in future, let alone themselves.
  http://www.theverge.com/2013/4/15/4228962/google-glass-mirror-api-documentation
  Do you believe that the Google search engine will be accessible with Glass. Do you really believe that the ads that are on the service on every other platform will be removed from it on Glass? You're deluding yourself. And they'll find plenty of other opportunities to advertise to you. Just as they have done elsewhere - gmail, etc.
  Google IS an advertising company, everything follows from that. Just as Apple is a design company, and everything they do follows from that.
113. Re:Missing the point. by wonkey_monkey · 2013-08-03 08:52 · Score: 1
  
  Enlighten me. In what way were the words you claim to have spoken to a Google Glass wearer not sanctimonious?
  
  --
  systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
114. Re:Missing the point. by BasilBrush · 2013-08-03 08:55 · Score: 1
  
  You fell for the DfT stats that don't show what they claim to show.
  LOL! What? Rather than believing the 5mph figure you pulled out of your arse?
  
  The average speed might be 13 MPH in urban areas, but how much stop/start is there? Strangely that stat is missing from their data, a genuine oversight I'm sure.
  There is a lot of data there. What units are you suggesting for "stop/start"? Can you even define it?
  Not that it matters. The 13mph average includes all the stopping and starting, on the urban roads, at the worst time of the day. Given that your "rarely over 5mph" claim is impossible.
  I suggest that DfT stats are a million times better than listening to the opinions of Jeremy Clarkson, taxi drivers and you.
115. Re:Missing the point. by swillden · 2013-08-03 09:13 · Score: 1
  
  Care to make a wager on it?
  
  --
  Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
116. Re:Missing the point. by BasilBrush · 2013-08-03 09:29 · Score: 1
  
  I'd love to.
117. Re:Missing the point. by noh8rz10 · 2013-08-03 10:09 · Score: 1
  
  please spend some time thinking about your comment and the others on this thead. ask yourself, have i contributed to the universe being a better place through my contributions here? or have i not done so? what about my larger participation in the slashdot community? once you have pondered these things, please let me know what conclusions you come to (although I already know what you'll find).
118. Re:Missing the point. by wonkey_monkey · 2013-08-03 10:33 · Score: 1
  
  please spend some time thinking about your comment and the others on this thead.
  What, comments like "why do you keep replying? STOP REPLYING TO ME" and "I will REPORT YOU to editors FOR HARASSMENT"? Oh, wait, that was you.
  
  ask yourself, have i contributed to the universe being a better place through my contributions here?
  More than you have, I'm pretty sure. I'm enjoying myself, at least.
  
  what about my larger participation in the slashdot community?
  Again, more positive than yours, I'd think. We've only got one remotely objective measurement, which is karma, and mine's been Excellent for a while.
  
  once you have pondered these things, please let me know what conclusions you come to (although I already know what you'll find).
  My conclusion is: you've avoided my question about being a sanctimonious dick for publicly berating a passer-by by being an even more sanctimonious dick. Kudos!
  
  --
  systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
119. Re:Missing the point. by swillden · 2013-08-03 11:03 · Score: 1
  
  Okay... how about $1500? We need to have an endpoint, how about end of 2015? Terms: If Google is displaying ads on Glass on or before December 31st, 2015, I'll pay you. If not, you'll pay me. In the meantime, we'll have to find some escrow service to hold the money. Any suggestions?
  
  --
  Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
120. Re:Missing the point. by noh8rz10 · 2013-08-03 12:51 · Score: 1
  
  what's your rl name?
121. Re:Missing the point. by cgriffiths · 2013-08-03 16:53 · Score: 1
  
  It's very true that it is the driver's responsibility to know the maximum speed limit of any road that they are using. However it is plausible that sometimes we do forget the speed limit of a road or fail to see a change in speed, in the UK for example road speed limits vary from 20 - 70 mph with usually clear indication but sometimes they are in hard to notice places or can mistakenly be forgotten.
  
  I'm quite lucky to get to drive across the British mainland quite often, most of the time on small roads next to no trunk roads or motorways. By driving on new, unfamiliar roads often I have at times mistakenly thought that one section of the road was a 60mph zone instead of 50mph or that a zone was designated 30mph instead of 40mph. It is incredibly useful when SatNav devices such as TomTom or Garmin products are able to show the speed limit on their devices when you are driving on a road.
122. Re:Missing the point. by BasilBrush · 2013-08-04 03:07 · Score: 1
  
  Only $1500? What about $1,000,000?
123. Re:Missing the point. by swillden · 2013-08-04 08:46 · Score: 1
  
  Only $1500? What about $1,000,000?
  Okay. I can't escrow the full amount, though.
  
  --
  Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
124. Re:Missing the point. by RockDoctor · 2013-08-04 10:10 · Score: 1
  
  The real point being that if you want to introduce 'new' technology to a functional environment, it should be mandatory to be TRAINED
  
  and then assessed
  
  on the new technology.
  
  And if you fail the assessment, and are subsequently found to be driving and using the new technology, then you lose you license to drive.
  
  --
  Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
125. Re:Missing the point. by RockDoctor · 2013-08-04 10:21 · Score: 1
  
  Not really, because all you have to do is your best driving once in your life and you're good for the next 50 years.
  Now, change the law so everyone has to recertify every time they get their driver's license and then you might have a point.
  [OP here]
  I've actually been arguing this point for the last 20 years, since about 5 years after I got my driving license (at age 24 or 25 ; I'd have to check my diary).
  Get a driving license tomorrow, and read it's expiry date of (say) 2023-08-04, on which date you no longer have a driving license. Put a different date in there for "earliest possible driving test re-sit" of (say) 2022-08-04, so that you can manage the transition reasonably.
  It sounds eminently sensible to me, and without too much stress on the training-examination system, I think that we could get there in 15 years from the current (UK) situation. But I'm used to people ignoring my suggestions ; it only gets annoying if they've asked me for advice and then try to avoid the bill when they don't like what they get.
  Watching a client burn $40 million this year ; very sad, but I did tell them "don't do that" ; and they did. I got my consultants fee though.
  
  --
  Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
126. Re:Missing the point. by BasilBrush · 2013-08-05 02:25 · Score: 1
  
  You don't say.
127. Re:Missing the point. by swillden · 2013-08-06 00:13 · Score: 1
  
  Not going to give me a chance to take your money?
  
  --
  Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
128. Re:Missing the point. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-06 01:43 · Score: 0
  
  Thank's for explaining it clearly to readers. This is exactly the problem. Driving being an almost purely visual activity means that you are already loading the most complex subsystem of your brain to peak capacity. Audible alerts could be added but as my experience with a new car showed me you need to know what they mean before they are less of a distraction than an aid.
129. Re:Missing the point. by BasilBrush · 2013-08-06 08:04 · Score: 1
  
  I'm too busy taking the piss out of the argument "wanna bet?
130. Re:Missing the point. by RivenAleem · 2013-08-06 19:45 · Score: 1
  
  I've always thought the point was not to have a person driving with the aid of lots of technology, but to have the technology do everything, driver nothing.
131. Re:Missing the point. by swillden · 2013-08-07 03:12 · Score: 1
  
  I'm too busy taking the piss out of the argument "wanna bet?
  Unsuccessfully. What you've so far demonstrated is that you don't actually have enough faith in your argument to put money on it. Which is what I thought, and what I wanted to establish. Well, that and I was hoping to take enough of your money to buy a second- or third- generation Glass in 2016.
  
  --
  Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
132. Re:Missing the point. by CanHasDIY · 2013-08-07 04:18 · Score: 1
  
  That might be the ultimate point, but there's a road in between here and there. Just like how there are many, many steps between a Model A Ford and a Tesla Roadster, automated driving systems won't suddenly start appearing in most vehicles - they'll be phased in gradually as technology improves.
  Of course, automated automobiles open up a few cans of worms themselves, the first that comes to mind being insurance issues - if and when (because it will happen) one of these auto-cars malfunctions, who pays for the damages to life and property? Since there wouldn't be any drivers anymore, would we still be required to purchase liability insurance? What prevents a malicious soul from compromising the navigation systems and instructing the vehicles to drive themselves and their occupants into dangerous situations (like over a cliff)?
  Personally, I can't imagine that we'll be sharing the road with very many automated cars any time soon. More likely, the technology will be used to finally create a "flying car" that actually functions, eliminating the need for all this piecemeal crap on existing vehicles and infrastructure.
  At least that's where my money'd go, were I a betting man.
  
  --
  An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
133. Re:Missing the point. by BasilBrush · 2013-08-07 08:26 · Score: 1
  
  What you've so far demonstrated is that you don't actually have enough faith in your argument to put money on it.
  Really? You're doubling down on the worst argument technique there is?
  Here's a hint. Go to a casino, racetrack or betting shop. You'll find masses of people willing to put money on their opinions. All different. And the vast majority of the opinions are wrong.
  
  Well, that and I was hoping to take enough of your money to buy a second- or third- generation Glass in 2016.
  And that's your second problem. Thinking that your opinion of what will happen in the future is a certainty. Another reason why you belong with the idiots described above.
  You brought an end to rational argument when you said "wanna bet". Because you have no more argument.
  Have you had any real (rather than fantasy) bets with people you don't know on the internet?
134. Re:Missing the point. by BasilBrush · 2013-08-09 04:57 · Score: 1
  
  Google maps mobile apps just added adverts based on your location.
  http://adwords.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/attract-new-customers-with-local-ads-on.html
  See, you might get beta products for free for years. But for Google the end goal is always advertising. Death or adware. That's the two possibilities.
  You imagine that Google's location aware HUD device won't also be advertising the businesses and products around you? Dream on. It's the entire point.
10 points = "free" Oyster card?? by RobertLTux · 2013-08-01 04:53 · Score: 0

as long as they don't have a way of preventing someone driving on the Right* Side of the road due to the "GPS IS GOD" problem then yes i would ban these things from the british roads.
*note where this is before making any "funny" comments

--
Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
Prescription integration by kylegordon · 2013-08-01 04:57 · Score: 1

When Glass devices become available as prescription glasses, I don't see how they can implement a ban. Are they going to start controlling what type of spectacles people wear when they drive?
1. Re:Prescription integration by Lunix+Nutcase · 2013-08-01 04:59 · Score: 1
  
  You can't see how they can do it? It's as simple as passing a law.
2. Re:Prescription integration by ledow · 2013-08-01 05:30 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Er... yes.
  Try driving in spectacles that aren't supplementing your vision to the legally required standard. British driving tests have an eye test component but AT ANY POINT if you were driving while having vision unable to pass that same test, you are deemed unfit to drive. You have to tell the DVLA if you wear glasses to drive, or have eye issues (lots of people with laser treatment have fallen foul of this in accidents where they failed to notify the DVLA that they don't need glasses any more - it all resolves itself in court, or before that point, but it's one of the things that insurers check in big accidents and police check if they are called to an accident).
  Try driving in sunglasses that are too dark at night (or windows too tinted - hell I've seen UK police with devices to test how tinted your windows are and they pulled people off the road, tested it, and removed the car if it was too much). You can get pulled and, same thing. Driving without due care and attention. It's without due care and attention to have something electronic ON and SHOWING in the car that is visible to the driver (e.g. sat-nav, TV, DVD, etc.) Yes, this includes your sat-nav if it is in the driver's eyeline. It's illegal. Read the warnings and booklets that come with any satnav sold in the EU / UK. You can click "I accept" all you like, it's still illegal.
  The difference is: What are the chances of getting caught? But that's already a loaded question. It means: I'm doing wrong, but how much of a risk can I take to do wrong and get away with it?
  When driving a fucking car, drive the fucking car. Don't have things switched on that do other things that stop you driving the fucking car. OF COURSE you're the best driver in the world and can do it all day long and not have an accident. So does EVERYONE else think that. Until you run over their little sister.
3. Re:Prescription integration by coastwalker · 2013-08-01 07:33 · Score: 1
  
  And especially dont eat an apple
  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-335291/Pipped-Woman-driver-fined-eating-apple.html
  
  --
  Facts are history now plebs have politics for religion on social media.
4. Re:Prescription integration by wonkey_monkey · 2013-08-01 10:40 · Score: 1
  
  Are they going to start controlling what type of spectacles people wear when they drive?
  Why not? I'm pretty sure they wouldn't have any trouble booking you if they caught you driving down the road with duct tape over your face without having to implement a specific ban.
  I want a report on my desk first thing on Monday morning, or when you get out of intensive care.
  
  --
  systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
Seriously?? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-01 04:57 · Score: 0

They have to tell people not to be stupid?
1. Re:Seriously?? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-01 05:56 · Score: 0
  
  Hi... You must be new to this planet!
  And those are just a few of the idiots on 2 wheels. There are millions where those came from. We have millions that do it on 4 even more readily. You think they're capable of realizing the dangers of Glass on their own?
  Somebody mod this guy funny! Quick!
First-world problems by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-01 04:58 · Score: 0

Oh no! My expensive hipster toy is banned from being played with while I drive!!! :slitwrists:
Damn, first-world problems are getting brutal these days.
Stupid but...okay whatever. by The+Living+Fractal · 2013-08-01 04:58 · Score: 3, Insightful

The truth is pretty simple: People who want to be distracted while driving will find a way to be distracted while driving. Doesn't matter if it's a cell phone, spacing out thinking about other things, eating a Royale with Cheese or any number of other possibilities. You can write laws until you're blue in the face but you aren't addressing the behavior with any of them. What we need is smart automobiles that can tell when the driver is getting a blo---errr, is distracted, and can compensate accordingly. Maybe even by driving the car autonomously for a few moments. Obviously it's not a coincidence that Google is working on just that kind of tech right now.

--
I do not respond to cowards. Especially anonymous ones.
1. Re:Stupid but...okay whatever. by jeremyp · 2013-08-01 21:35 · Score: 1
  
  You can write laws until you're blue in the face but you aren't addressing the behavior with any of them.
  Yes you are. The existence of the law indicates to them that their behaviour is unacceptable. If they get caught still doing it, the punishment reinforces the indication. If none of this works to change their behaviour, the law allows their driving privileges to be removed after a number of repeat offences.
  
  --
  All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
Stupid Loaded Questions by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-01 05:03 · Score: 1

It doesn't matter how much more or less distracting Google Glass is from mobile phones, but how distracting it is to not having it.
In addition, a display and it's frame sitting in your periphery vision will block out that car about to run through a red light. I've owned and used HMDs. People using HMDs with one display tend to keep turning their head towards the display (trying to bring it into view of both eyes as our brain expects). This is funny when the person walks into a post and extremely dangerous when driving. Try it right now. Pretend there's some text only on the top corner of your glasses. Try glancing at it without turning your head. Now also read that text while staying focused on the road. You can't do it. Your center of vision is in focus and what you use to read. The further from center the more out of focus things become.
Oh, the UK by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-01 05:06 · Score: 0

This is from the same country that had a city council that chose to ban fire extinguisher as a fire hazard.
http://metro.co.uk/2008/03/10/extinguishers-banned-as-a-fire-safety-hazard-32065/
1. Re:Oh, the UK by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-01 05:21 · Score: 0
  
  http://youtu.be/1EBfxjSFAxQ
2. Re:Oh, the UK by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-01 05:23 · Score: 0
  
  Some types of fire extinguisher ARE a fire hazard. Why else do you think that you have different types of extinguisher for different types of fires?
  The wrong extinguisher in the wrong place and USED can hasten the spread of a fire.
  Oh, and the Metro is published by the same people as the Daily Mail (Fail,Wail etc) which is one of the worst tabloids we have. No one outside of a Facist should read it.
Allow them... by Dan+East · 2013-08-01 05:07 · Score: 3, Interesting

They should allow them, if and only if the video from the glasses can be used by authorities in the event of an accident.

--
Better known as 318230.
How about if... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-01 05:08 · Score: 0

How about if someone is driving dangerously they get pulled over, regardless of what is on their face or in their hands.
OH WAIT that would require police to actually monitor traffic rather than leaving it to passive cameras that do nothing for public safety.
1. Re:How about if... by bws111 · 2013-08-01 05:18 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  The difference between 'driving dangerously' and 'deadly crash' is nothing but luck. The point is to stop the problem BEFORE it becomes 'dangerous driving'. You did know that, right?
2. Re:How about if... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-01 05:53 · Score: 0
  
  Given the current track record of accident prevention (drunk driving?) I wouldn't put a lot of merit in your point.
3. Re:How about if... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-01 08:21 · Score: 0
  
  No, because it isn't true.
  Not all accidents are caused by dangerous driving, and the accident rate would be zero even if everyone always drove sensibly and carefully.
4. Re:How about if... by bws111 · 2013-08-01 08:52 · Score: 2
  
  Where did I say all accidents are caused by dangerous driving, and where did I say the accident rate would be zero if everyone drove carefully? Nowhere.
  Let's take a simple example. You (assuming you are the OP), want people to be pulled over if they are driving dangerously. No argument, and I don't know where you are put around here they are. Now let's say that the 'dangerous driving' involves drifting into the oncoming lane. If, BY LUCK, there is no-one in that lane, you have a simple case of dangerous driving. But, if perchance some poor bastard is in the oncoming lane, you now have a deadly accident. Therefore, it would be better if the action that caused the drifting into the other lane was not done at all. No, it would not prevent EVERY accident (and nobody said it would), but to claim it would prevent NO accidents is even stupider.
  What part of my statement was 'not true'?
5. Re:How about if... by Cederic · 2013-08-01 23:31 · Score: 1
  
  Given the incidence of drunk driving has fallen dramatically over the past couple of decades, with a corresponding reduction in the number of deaths, I'd say there's a lot of merit in his point.
Hands-free doesn't mean "safe" by hyades1 · 2013-08-01 05:08 · Score: 2

There's already research indicating that the voice aspect of Google Glass won't make it safe. The problem with hands-free cell phones in cars is that the person (or app, for that matter) engaging the driver's attention isn't the same as a passenger. Passengers can usually tell when a driver is getting into a stressful or potentially dangerous situation, and they instinctively stop talking. Somebody at the other end of a cell call doesn't have that situational awareness, and will keep distracting the driver with their chatter even while they need every bit of concentration and ability to get through a potentially nasty situation.

--
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
Off-Topic: Poll? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-01 05:10 · Score: 0

Why does the poll have comments disabled? Has that ever been done before or is Dice changing things?
"Using" vs. "wearing"? by RevWaldo · 2013-08-01 05:13 · Score: 2

What if you're wearing your Google Glass but don't have it switched on? Still illegal?

.

--
Prisencolinensinainciusol. Ol Rait!
1. Re:"Using" vs. "wearing"? by Sponge+Bath · 2013-08-01 05:23 · Score: 1
  
  What about wearing Google Glass while in a Google self driving car, eating a Google burrito and listening to Sergey and the Googlettes play on Google radio?
2. Re:"Using" vs. "wearing"? by tgd · 2013-08-01 05:38 · Score: 1
  
  What if you're wearing your Google Glass but don't have it switched on? Still illegal? .
  In the US its illegal to hang something from your rear-view-mirror because it is in the line of sight of the driver. So, that wouldn't be an unreasonable assumption.
  Of course, you see morons with their highschool graduation tassels hanging from them all the time.
3. Re:"Using" vs. "wearing"? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-01 05:49 · Score: 0
  
  What if you're wearing your Google Glass but don't have it switched on? Still illegal? .
  In the US its illegal to hang something from your rear-view-mirror because it is in the line of sight of the driver. So, that wouldn't be an unreasonable assumption.
  Of course, you see morons with their highschool graduation tassels hanging from them all the time.
  Wrong, in certain places it may be illegal, but certainly not "In the US".
4. Re:"Using" vs. "wearing"? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-01 12:04 · Score: 0
  
  I'm greek. Here you see lucky charms, icons (Orthodox icons. Really.) christian crosses, beads, various novelty items, pictures of their kids, deodorants/perfumes, plushy toys... I think i need not go on.
  I have this rule (and it goes one way only): if i see anything hanging from the mirror, it's a shitty driver. Served me well so far.
hands-free is not less distracting by SuperBanana · 2013-08-01 05:16 · Score: 4, Insightful

Hands free technologies are not less distracting; in some cases, they're the worst. The cell phone lobby is desperately trying to focus on "hands free" stuff to sidetrack the issue.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/29/AR2010012900053.html
http://money.cnn.com/2013/06/12/autos/aaa-voice-to-text/index.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/even-hands-free-you-shouldnt-talk-or-text-while-driving/2013/07/29/4d7214ec-f3d0-11e2-aa2e-4088616498b4_story.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/24/opinion/hands-free-distractions.html?_r=0 ...and on and on, if you just google things like "hands free driving distracting"
Having your hands on the wheel simply increases your control of the car. It does not do ANYTHING about your brain being more preoccupied with the conversation or task.
Your job in your car is to DRIVE. Not to eat, not to put on makeup or comb your hair, not to text, not to read, not to talk to someone who isn't in the car. You're piloting 2-3 tons of metal that can and do injure, maim, and kill. People driving cars kill 30,000+ a year in the US alone. Take the responsibility seriously and stop faffing about trying to carry on your life in your car. If you need to get things done while traveling, RIDE THE BUS.

--
Please help metamoderate.
1. Re:hands-free is not less distracting by Xicor · 2013-08-01 06:39 · Score: 1
  
  lol, but again you are assuming that everyone is going to misuse GG in a car. as i posted down below, it is entirely possible for you to JUST be using GG in the car for things that make your driving easier and safer.
2. Re:hands-free is not less distracting by Xicor · 2013-08-01 06:46 · Score: 1
  
  thats like banning ladders because 1% of the population sets them up backwards and gets themselves killed.
3. Re:hands-free is not less distracting by Xicor · 2013-08-01 06:51 · Score: 1
  
  just let ppl take a few days of training for a permit that allows you to have it on you while driving.
4. Re:hands-free is not less distracting by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-01 07:57 · Score: 0
  
  It has nothing to do with Google Glass or any other technology. It has to do with driving while distracted, no matter what the cause.
  The most dangerous person on the road is the guy who's in the middle of a heated argument with his girlfriend (or girl with her boyfriend). This has been shown in many studies to be worse than drunk driving.
  Do we need a special law for google glasses? In my opinion no, but when you get in a wreck with those fucking things embedded into your head (or bluetooth earpiece, or your iPhone in your lap, or gameboy, or vibrator up your asshole), you should (and probably will be) deemed at fault, barring any evidence proving otherwise.
  People will be watching youtube videos and reading twitters with google glass, not doing anything else.
5. Re:hands-free is not less distracting by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-01 09:11 · Score: 0
  
  Sort of like how everyone who owns an iphone uses it to play Angry Birds while driving and no one has ever used there phone as a navigation tool? Why don't we just ban laptops because people will put them in the passenger seat and use them to look at cat videos? In fact, since the existance of other people is so horribly distracting, why don't we just ban all vehicles that can seat more than one person? After all if you're talking to someone else in the car, then you're not focusing on the road and so you might as well be drunk, right?
Re:Just a warm up. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-01 05:17 · Score: 0

Good. Fuck robot cars.
Re:Just a warm up. by spire3661 · 2013-08-01 05:32 · Score: 1

NO, fuck humans driving cars. We lose WAY too many people in car accidents, robot cars WILL happen.

--
Good-bye
Um by ThatsNotPudding · 2013-08-01 05:34 · Score: 1

Let's be real: we're only a few short years from on-windshield HUDs for navigation, driving metrics, etc.
Really short:

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupes/1301_2014_chevrolet_corvette_stingray_first_look/photo_55.html
Would love to see cameras in cars by Beeftopia · 2013-08-01 05:37 · Score: 1

I've been in two accidents, solely the fault of the other driver, where both denied responsibility. Cameras would have been fantastic in each case to capture what was going on.
1. Re:Would love to see cameras in cars by Lunix+Nutcase · 2013-08-01 05:46 · Score: 2
  
  Then mount one on your dash.
2. Re:Would love to see cameras in cars by Beeftopia · 2013-08-01 06:13 · Score: 1
  
  I would love to have a hidden 360 degree camera, or even a hidden dash cam. However, in the DC-Baltimore metro area, leaving any electronic device in the car is an open invitation to a smash and grab theft. As a result, I keep almost nothing in my car.
3. Re:Would love to see cameras in cars by Lunix+Nutcase · 2013-08-01 06:27 · Score: 1
  
  So then take the camera out of the mount when you aren't in the car? Was that really so hard?
4. Re:Would love to see cameras in cars by Beeftopia · 2013-08-01 07:12 · Score: 1
  
  I'd much prefer a "Set and Forget" solution. It's much more reliable:
  1) Lugging a device, mounting and unmounting it whenever I get in and out of the car is tedious. And I won't do it all the time as a result.
  2) Thieves see mounts and will be more inclined to investigate the vehicle.
  I'm certainly not advocating for more distractions in the car. All I'm saying is, I'd prefer a hidden system, theft-resistant, integrated with the car. Which requires minimal attention. THAT I'd buy.
5. Re:Would love to see cameras in cars by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-01 10:50 · Score: 0
  
  I've been in two accidents, solely the fault of the other driver
  Good drivers aren't at fault in accidents.
  Great drivers aren't in accidents.
6. Re:Would love to see cameras in cars by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-01 15:34 · Score: 0
  
  set and forget like strapping a computer to your face 24/7
  your life is not that fucking interesting
7. Re:Would love to see cameras in cars by mjwx · 2013-08-01 17:18 · Score: 1
  
  I would love to have a hidden 360 degree camera, or even a hidden dash cam. However, in the DC-Baltimore metro area, leaving any electronic device in the car is an open invitation to a smash and grab theft. As a result, I keep almost nothing in my car.
  I have a DOD GSE 550. This camera is smaller than a Canon Ixus and will easily fit in your pocket. It's not that hard to remove from the windscreen mount. The only thing you leave in your car is the mount power cable.
  
  --
  Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
8. Re:Would love to see cameras in cars by Cederic · 2013-08-01 23:35 · Score: 1
  
  Nonsense.
  That's the whole point of accidents.
  How is a great driver going to avoid someone crashing into him while stationary at an intersection? How is a great driver going to avoid a lorry swerving across three lanes on a motorway with no notice? How's a great driver going to avoid all the accidents that are caused by other people and can't be predicted, or all of the accidents that are.. well, accidents.
  Y'know, shit happens.
Stupid laws by stupid people by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-01 05:56 · Score: 0

Google Glass is only recognizable as such in its present preview release form. And though Google is the most publicized they are not the only one producing the technology. Revo, Oakley, Perry Ellis and others are surely going to get a piece of the always connected eye-wear action. Good luck pulling over everyone wearing glasses to check whether or not the internal computer is disabled.
lol good luck by Rik+Sweeney · 2013-08-01 05:58 · Score: 1

Seriously, how many people do you see on a daily basis driving while talking on their phone, or staring down at their laps, occasionally looking up to see where they're going while typing out that text?
I once told a girl to get off her phone as she pulled up to a junction while staring down at her phone and she went mental.
If they can't stop people talking/texting while driving, then what chance do they have with a device that unless you're up close looks like a pair of glasses?
Ban glasses.

--
Summation 2
1. Re:lol good luck by wonkey_monkey · 2013-08-01 10:45 · Score: 0
  
  I once told a girl to get off her phone as she pulled up to a junction while staring down at her phone and she went mental.
  That pisses me off too. I once cycled up to some kid texting while stopped at a junction - after waiting for him to pull out - and told him to put it down while he's behind the wheel, and then asked him how he'd like it if his sister got knocked down by someone who was too impatient to pull over before checking their messages.
  That never actually happened to my sister, but it does make it a lot harder for people to play the outrage card.
  
  --
  systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
Ticketed. by westlake · 2013-08-01 06:07 · Score: 1

Are they going to start controlling what type of spectacles people wear when they drive?
Start?
I got a ticket for driving with designer Sunglasses
In this California case, the driver's designer glasses were obstructing his peripheral vision and he was hit with a $500 fine. The law has been on the books since 1959.
V C Section 23120 Temple Width of Glasses
Surveilance by GigaBurglar · 2013-08-01 06:08 · Score: 1

Google Glass = voluntary surveillance.
Step 1. Record every facet of your life and take pictures.
Step 2. Backup precious videos of your cat, and snaps of your neighbour taking our her garbage, to the cloud.
Step 3. Meta data is extracted, date/time, GPS.
Step 4. Facial recognition is added to make it easier to tag your photos.
Step 5. Implicitly give access to your data to the NSA / GCHQ and allow them to unconstitutionally build a massive profile on you - including meta data / GPS / names of tagged faces.
Step 6. ???
Step 7. Profit!
Step 6.
Re:Just a warm up. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-01 06:12 · Score: 1

No, don't fuck humans driving cars, let them concentrate on driving, fucking the driver can be very distracting for the driver.
not really a good idea by Xicor · 2013-08-01 06:38 · Score: 1

google glass, being what it is, is capable of doing two things. one, with apps, it can make driving a much safer activity (calculating velocity, distance from the car in front of you, whether or not the car in front of you is stopping, the difference between the speed of the car in front of you and your car, etc.) and two, it can be used to play games and whatnot while you are in a car. obviously the latter would be bad, but theres no reason to ban google glass simply because a few retards are going to misuse it. i dont see a law banning you from playing gameboy in the car, or putting a laptop on your dashboard.
1. Re:not really a good idea by Cederic · 2013-08-01 23:38 · Score: 1
  
  Oddly enough, the law doesn't need to explicitly mention such distractions.
  http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7888653.stm
2. Re:not really a good idea by Xicor · 2013-08-02 02:30 · Score: 1
  
  but see, in this case, they are punishing the guy who got 6ppl killed, and not everyone who uses a gps. thats the difference, they should be going after assholes and dumbasses instead of everyone. just because a product has been known to cause stupid ppl to injure others doesnt mean that product itself should be banned. the only thing that should be illegal is the misuse of it. it would be incredibly stupid for the government to ban ladders because a few guys set them up upside down and fall. better yet, we should ban keys because they can be used to scratch other ppls cars. it isnt the intended purpose, but who cares? something needs to be done to stop those assholes.
3. Re:not really a good idea by Cederic · 2013-08-02 02:35 · Score: 1
  
  the only thing that should be illegal is the misuse of it
  I think the UK authorities agree with you. It's why they're banning its use while driving, not banning the device itself.
  Using it while driving is fucking stupid, dangerous and a good thing to tell people not to do.
4. Re:not really a good idea by Xicor · 2013-08-02 03:27 · Score: 1
  
  no, i mean it is stupid to ban while driving simply because there are some assholes out there who will use it like retards. using one of those while driving is no more of a distraction than having your buddies in the car. the fact of the matter is that ANYTHING that causes your brain to not be working fully on analyzing the road is dangerous. this includes music, people, bugs, kids, games, movies, signs on the side of the road, hunger, thirst, needing to go to the restroom, etc. the fact of the matter is that it is absurrd to ban one of these things while driving without banning the others. the problem is that the government realizes they cant ban the rest of them, so they just ban the ones they can.... and this is selective prosecution, which is against the law in the US. and as i pointed out earlier, it COULD be used to make driving easier, with tools that make it safer as well.
5. Re:not really a good idea by Cederic · 2013-08-02 03:48 · Score: 1
  
  using one of those while driving is no more of a distraction than having your buddies in the car
  I disagree. So do academic studies looking at mobile phone use. So do the UK authorities.
  
  the fact of the matter is that ANYTHING that causes your brain to not be working fully on analyzing the road is dangerous. this includes music, people, bugs, kids, games, movies, signs on the side of the road, hunger, thirst, needing to go to the restroom, etc. the fact of the matter is that it is absurrd to ban one of these things while driving without banning the others.
  Welcome to an analogue world. The issue isn't whether it toggles a binary switched labelled, "Distraction", the issue is that on a sliding scale from "Buddhist monk using decades of training to focus on driving" to "Steering with your arse so you can feed the kid in the backseat while watching TV", Google Glass is somewhere in-between "Reading a book" and "Watching the cricket match you're driving past" and that makes it fucking dangerous.
  
  the fact of the matter is that it is absurrd to ban one of these things while driving without banning the others.
  Again, it's not a binary world. It's absurd to treat all risks as identical.
  
  the problem is that the government realizes they cant ban the rest of them, so they just ban the ones they can.... and this is selective prosecution, which is against the law in the US. and as i pointed out earlier, it COULD be used to make driving easier, with tools that make it safer as well
  It COULD but it's far far more likely to cause death and mayhem. Personally I'm fine with people stupid enough to drive while using Google Glass exiting the gene pool but the UK authorities have clearly decided that stupid people need protecting from themselves, and that the level of risk in this specific instance justifies more than gentle encouragement to be sensible.
  Your reaction merely confirms their assessment.
kinda makes sense tho by Frontier+Owner · 2013-08-01 08:30 · Score: 1

since the Brits drive on the wrong side of the road, and the lens is by the right eye, it might cause a block to peripheral.
what that really means by beefoot · 2013-08-01 08:34 · Score: 1

What the government really wants to avoid is having people watching porn while driving. Wait a minute, porn is an opt in. I feel bad for my friends in UK.
more regulation on spying devices by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-01 10:43 · Score: 0

Anything that slows the advance of this product is necessary in my opinion.
I've already prohibited it from my business, posted a sign, and added a "surveillance devices" section to the company handbook. Anyone who brings one to work will be terminated, and trespassed from the property. Vendors or visitors will also be trespassed.
My only hope is that women react to this thing negatively, burying it before it reaches the general public.
Google car to the rescue by aNonnyMouseCowered · 2013-08-01 13:25 · Score: 1

That's probably why Google is also developing hands-free driving technology. So everybody can use Google Glass even when they're driving, er, being driven to work. Google Car = the most expensive taxi ride you'll ever get. Makes me wonder whether in the future we'll evolve into big-headed space worms.
Evidence? by zuperduperman · 2013-08-01 17:33 · Score: 1

The annoying thing about this is the lack of evidence.
Do we really allow the government to ban anything it wants, even when there is no evidence it is harmful? Not an argument that it could be harmful, but actual evidence that it is? Just about anything can be argued to be harmful. If you want this precedent that things can just be banned with no evidence then you essentially accept the tenets of dictatorship. If they cited any kind of reasonable testing or evidence I would be fine with this, but they pretty much just say "Yeah, we suspect it might be harmful, so we banned it".
I strongly suspect Google Glass will be helpful to drivers and reduce accidents. It will probably cause a few accidents but on balance it will prevent more, because people will be getting directions without looking away from their windscreen as they now must do to look at a map or GPS. And never mind the hundreds of blinking neon signs crowding out our streets with the express intention of distracting us from the road to look at them - how about a ban on those?
1. Re:Evidence? by jeremyp · 2013-08-01 22:01 · Score: 1
  
  The annoying thing about this is the lack of evidence.
  Do we really allow the government to ban anything it wants, even when there is no evidence it is harmful?
  I love my country, but I have to admit that, here in the UK, the answer to that question is apparently yes. All that's needed, it seems, is a badly researched and ill informed article in the Daily Mail that panders to the prejudices of its rabid right wing readership.
  
  I strongly suspect Google Glass will be helpful to drivers and reduce accidents. It will probably cause a few accidents but on balance it will prevent more, because people will be getting directions without looking away from their windscreen as they now must do to look at a map or GPS. And never mind the hundreds of blinking neon signs crowding out our streets with the express intention of distracting us from the road to look at them - how about a ban on those?
  You don't need to look at your satnav, it reads the instructions out to you precisely so you don't have to look away from the road.
  
  --
  All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
Fined for using mobile phone by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-01 18:33 · Score: 0

Get real. Probably 1% of people who use a mobile while driving are caught and fined. Same will happen with googleglass. "I wasn't using it, just left it on my head."
Stupid pointless law, make something illegal then don't give police powers to catch majority of offenders. Same with speeding.
1. Re:Fined for using mobile phone by Cederic · 2013-08-01 23:41 · Score: 1
  
  It does mean that in the event of an accident it's easier to demonstrate whether a driver was breaking the law.
  "I wasn't distracted by the mobile phone I was using as I killed her" is no longer a valid defense.
2. Re:Fined for using mobile phone by wonkey_monkey · 2013-08-02 09:12 · Score: 1
  
  Get real. Probably 1% of people who use a mobile while driving are caught and fined.
  Where'd you get that, the Office Of Statistics Pulled Out Of My Butt?
  And so what if the catch rate is (arbitrarily) low?
  
  --
  systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
3. Re:Fined for using mobile phone by wonkey_monkey · 2013-08-02 09:15 · Score: 1
  
  "I wasn't using it, just left it on my head."
  Oh, and by the way, it's not only illegal to use a mobile phone. It's illegal to be holding one while driving (so in fact "using" one with a hands-free kit is fine). Any new law will make it illegal to wear Google Glasses or similar.
  
  --
  systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
Good decision.. by SuperDre · 2013-08-01 19:41 · Score: 1

Even with the ban you see too many people using their cellphones while driving, hell I even see people watch complete movies while driving.. IMHO, there should even be a law for any device with a screen in the front seat..
Why the glass is worse than a satnav... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-02 12:27 · Score: 0

With Google Glass, the images appear in front of your eyes. This blocks your view of the road. However, a GPS does not, you have to make the conscious decision to take your eyes off the road to look at it.