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.

[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.

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.

[OzPeter]

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

Re:Missing the point.

[bws111]

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.

Re:Missing the point.

[noh8rz10]

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.

Re:Missing the point.

[Russ1642]

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.

Re:Missing the point.

[AndyAndyAndyAndy]

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.

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.

Re:Missing the point.

[bws111]

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'.

Re:Missing the point.

[bws111]

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.

Re:Missing the point.

[BasilBrush]

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

Stupid but...okay whatever.

[The Living Fractal]

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.

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.

hands-free is not less distracting

[SuperBanana]

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.

Re:How about if...

[bws111]

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?

Re:Prescription integration

[ledow]

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.