In UK, Google Glass To Be Banned While Driving

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."

Comments

Missing the point.

[AndyAndyAndyAndy]

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.

Re:Missing the point.

[bill_mcgonigle]

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.

Re:Missing the point.

[pixelpusher220]

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.

Re:Missing the point.

[DigiShaman]

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.

Re:Missing the point.

[CanHasDIY]

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.

Allow them...

[Dan East]

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