Drive With Google Glass: Get a Ticket

mrspoonsi writes "Engadget reports 'California is technology's spiritual home in the US, where Teslas roam free, and Google Glass is already a social norm. Well, unless you're a member of the San Diego law enforcement that is — as one unlucky driver just found out. That commuter was Cecilia Abadie, and she's (rather fittingly) taken to Google+ after being given a ticket for driving while wearing her Explorer Edition.'"

Comments

Good

[lxs]

No texting while driving and no checking Wikipedia.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

Just wearing Google Glass does not mean you are texting or checking wikipedia. Should you get a ticket just for having your cellphone in the car because it has the capability to text and check the internet?

Re:Good

[wonkey_monkey]

No, but you'll quite rightly get one over here (UK) if you're holding it in your hand while driving.

Re:Good

[sumdumass]

You prolly would if you had it in your hands or to your ear- even if you weren't talking or texting on it.

Distracted driving is the big thing now

Re:Good

[FilmedInNoir]

I'm issuing you a ticket and court summons for the Production and Distribution of a Bad Analogy.
Unless that cellphone is strapped to your face that is.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

First world problems strike again.

Re:Good

[somersault]

You're right that holding the phone doesn't technically present a danger - but how do you know whether that person is holding their phone to text, check Facebook, on speakerphone, etc. What other reason is there even to have a phone in your hand while driving, other than actually using it? Better to just make it illegal to have the phone in your hand while driving, otherwise it will lead to people being sneaky.

I sometimes use my phone while sat in traffic, but if I get caught then it's my own fault..

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

You get a ticket for having earbuds in regardless of whether you are using them or not. I think this is the same. If the phone isn't in your hand, if the earbuds are in your pocket, and if the google glass is sitting on the dash, its pretty clear you aren't using it. If you're holding your phone in a texting position, wearing your earbuds and google glass--well, then YOU might not be using it, but there is no way to tell when other people are. Texting while driving (and various other technology/screen use) is a huge safety problem, and no one has any business doing it. A few laws that slightly restrict your freedom to wear technology which you aren't using while driving is a fine tradeoff for having fewer people doing this crap. Remember that driving is not a right, it is a privilege, and we the people get to decide what you can and cannot do while exercising that privilege. I for one am for very tough anti-screen laws.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

Holding a phone while operating a motor vehicle is not a basic human right. Driving is a privilege not a right. Since we cannot differentiate between someone holding a phone while driving at 75 mph down the interstate and someone texting with a phone while driving at 75 mph down the interstate, both should be disallowed. There is absolutely no reason you can't set your phone down for the drive, and it does not infringe on your rights one bit to tell you not to pick it up. When you operate a vehicle you are saying to society: yes, I will play by the rules of the road. If those rules include not holding a phone, then it is not "rights infringement". You tacitly agreed to it by getting behind the wheel. You can choose to take the bus or walk if you want to use your phone. This is the same reason that breathalyzers are compulsory. You have a right not to self incriminate and you have a right not to take a breathalyzer if you are in your home or walking down the street, but by getting behind the wheel and exercising the privilege of driving (that's why you need a license, after all) you tacitly agree to abide by a more restrictive set of regulations. In other words, by driving YOU consent to give up rights while you are behind the wheel.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

Then just get a pair of glasses that are designed to give a driver assistance and head-up display, not Google glass designed for you to text and check Wikipedia. BTW you get a ticket if you hold any item in your hands like a phone or a sandwich, because your hands should be busy with only one thing--controlling the car.

Re:Good

[Rhipf]

So instead of doing the sensible thing and leaving your phone activity for a more appropriate place than behind the wheel of a vehicle I should tie up the court system and waste tax dollars.
Are we really at the point where people just can't help being connected 24/7 to their phones?

Re:Good

[bickerdyke]

"Quite rightly"? Seriously, WTF damage do you Brits have when it comes to pissing away your basic human rights without a second thought?

I guess holding a cellphone while driving can only be considered a "basic human right" in a country that signed away all other human rights, like free speech, protection from warrantless search and wiretapping...

Re:Good

[dunkelfalke]

What in FSM's name are you talking about? There is no basic human right to hold a cellphone in the hand while driving. In fact there is no basic human right driving a motor vehicle on a public road, it is a privelege. Otherwise you would not need a driving license.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, I thought the ticket was for exhibiting such bad taste.

Re:Good

[quadelirus]

You have no "basic human right" to drive a car and therefore have no basic human right to drive a car and hold a phone or even, for that matter, to drive a car and talk to the passenger next to you. You are licensed to drive a car, and that entails tacit approval of whatever road & safety regulations currently stand at the time you get behind the wheel. Currently that license does allow you to talk to the passenger next to you, but even if it didn't it wouldn't be rights infringement, because you HAVE NO RIGHT TO DRIVE A CAR. I am all for regulating cell phone use to the point that people cannot hold a phone while driving since a police officer on a parked motorcycle on the side of the road cannot tell the difference between such and texting, and it is far more important to keep people from texting while driving than it is to allow them to idly handle their phones while driving. I think this reasonably extends to Google Glass as well.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

How the fark is a use of a cell phone a basic human right?

Re:Good

[IndustrialComplex]

I'm the type of person to get outraged at the slightest infringement on rights, but I do have to say that this is not one of them with a few caveats.

1. When you are driving a vehicle, you have a responsibility to drive that vehicle. Anything that isn't assisting you in improving your ability to drive that vehicle is something which you should not be doing while driving a vehicle. I'd include adjusting the temperature as something which is important to do while driving because it's important that the driver not be distracted or fatigued by environmental conditions. Texting? Not something that is going to improve your driving.

2. We need uniform enforcement. That means that the police need to be restricted in their use of laptops, cellphones, and texting while driving. If there is training that can be given to police officers that makes them 'safe drivers' while using devices, that same training should be offered to non-police drivers as well.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

Please show me the law that says I have no basic right to drive. You do realize that The Constitution (assuming USA), does NOT define the totality of our rights, right?

Re:Good

[pla]

but how do you know whether that person is holding their phone to text, check Facebook, on speakerphone, etc.

How do you know they don't plan to use that fork to murder someone? That cup of coffee doesn't contain illegal drugs? Their wallet doesn't contain leaked NSA secret documents?

Under conventional Western-style rule-of-Law, we have a presumption of innocence until proven guilty. I realize the UK has a slightly different take on that than the US, but I believe you still have the same general principle.

Make no mistake, you know when someone has their attention on their phone rather than the road. The little telltale signs give it away - Looking at their lap instead of forward, swerving all over the place, complete failure to pick a speed and stay there.

Defining a million and one "proxy" crimes only leads to less and less respect for the law as a whole.

Re:Good

[occasional_dabbler]

(there are some houses near me that are only accessible by Interstate - I guess those people could always just choose to starve or hire delivery people, maybe find a job that operates by mail, so their rights aren't infringed, right?)

Or instigate a property development / transportation policy that's not quite so crazy!

Re:Good

[somersault]

Do you seriously believe that "right to travel" means "right to drive", or "right to fly a helicopter" and that kind of thing?

Freedom of movement, mobility rights or the right to travel is a human right concept that the constitutions of numerous states respect. It asserts that a citizen of a state in which that citizen is present has the liberty to travel, reside in, and/or work in any part of the state where one pleases within the limits of respect for the liberty and rights of others,[1] and to leave that state and return at any time.

there are some houses near me that are only accessible by Interstate

It seems rather unlikely that you couldn't get to those places by foot. But why would someone who can't drive even buy their house there? Are taxis unavailable in your area? Usually people with such low user IDs make a bit more sense, but your post comes across more as trolling and/or lack of coffee.

Re:Good

[jitterman]

Nice troll, though I think you slipped in your second to last sentence, as it makes sense (though I'd strike out "kids" and replace with "people").

Re:Good

[Sockatume]

The Right to Travel is not meant to be read as arbitrarily broad. It would not allow you to fly a nuclear ramjet over a populated area; on a less hyperbolic scale, the government is permitted to restrict you to driving safely.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

"Quite rightly"? Seriously, WTF damage do you Brits have when it comes to pissing away your basic human rights without a second thought?

For a moment there I could have sworn you confused "holding a mobile phone" for a "basic human right".

Oh wait. You did.

Either that, or the concept of "basic human rights" has changed drastically recently without me noticing. I thought it was to do with having access to clean water supplies, not being tortured, and stuff like that.

How about holding other dangerous objects, like a fork, a cup of coffee, or a wallet?

Regardless what you're holding, if you're causing a danger to other road users then yes you could be pulled over. There are blanket "dangerous driving" rules that would come into play. This was the main argument against having a specific law regarding mobile phones, that it was already covered by law anyway. The law was passed regardless though, mainly for deterrent effect, because driving while distracted by a mobile phone was becoming a specific safety issue. Having it as a specific law brought it to the public attention and removed any doubt over whether it was a legal grey area or not.

Don't put up with this shit, people. Demand your day in court for every single one of these abuses of power. Tie the courts up for years with minutiae, until they have no choice but to automatically dismiss 99% of these meritless cases.

Yeah, because I've got nothing better to do with my time either. Seriously, you expect me to spend years of my time attending court and dealing with the associated costs and paperwork, all just to stick it to the system?

I absolutely oppose texting while driving, and it pisses me off when I see kids doing it.

"Holding a phone" does not present even the slightest danger to anyone.

Apparently you've never driven a manual transmission vehicle? It generally does require two hands to operate safely. Virtually all cars in the UK are manual transmission.

In any case, what possible reason could you have for just "holding" your phone while driving? "Oh, I'm sorry officer, I forgot to put it in my pocket before I started driving, and now I can't put it down."

Re:Good

[dunkelfalke]

You have a right to travel. By walking. And while walking you can use your cellphone as much as the battery charge allows you.

Re:Good

[buck-yar]

Too much incorrect to tackle all of it, but the last thing you said is the most incorrect. You cannot consent to give away any right.

Re:Good

[Lumpy]

The fact you have to be licensed to drive is proof enough.

You have no rights except for those which your master gives you. Your government is your master, you had better do what they say.

Re:Good

[animaal]

First world problems strike again.

Guess what - people who live in the "First World" often discuss "First World Problems".

There are plenty of sites that only discuss third world problems. You're free to join one, and take your smugness with you.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh my God, my democratically elected officials have taken my basic human right (you know, like having food, shelter and security) of being able to drive dangerously (oh - I guess not like them at all then).

"abuses of power" Who's abusing what power?

"Tie the courts up" Yay, let's pointlessly piss tax money down the drain.

Please bare in mind that, regardless of the fact that you should have two hands on the wheel of your half tonne killing machine, in the UK we tend not to drive automatics - as such, both hands are needed for driving all the time.

Re:Good

[operagost]

Even if what you said was accurate, at least we have the ability to use arms to take those rights back.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

That's socialism.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

Other people's human rights not to be maimed or killed by a couple of tons of out-of-control metal are not trumped by your "human right" to fondle your phone at all times.

If you're not using the phone, why do you need to hold it? Is it a comfort thing?

In the UK, we're taught to keep both hands on the steering wheel as much as possible - it's part of "exercising proper control of your vehicle at all times" which is written in law. The police can pretty much penalise you for holding anything else while driving; food, drink, phones etc. They just have to make a specific point about phones because too many ignoramuses flout the rule.

Re:Good

[quadelirus]

To name one: "or when his or her privilege to drive is suspended" from RCW 46.20.342 in Washington state. The assumption in the law is that it is a privilege and not a right. You of course have the right to drive and text on your own property, just not on the roads which are built, owned and operated by the people.

Besides, an iota of reflection will get you to the fact without looking at any laws. There is a real distinction between basic human rights and rights of a citizen. Basic human rights are those which you have by virtue of the fact that you are human. Things like access to food/water/shelter. Freedom to move around. Freedom to own property. Citizen rights are those rights which you have by virtue of being a citizen of some particular country, like the right to vote in a particular election--so a person living in Washington state has no basic human right to vote in a gubernatorial election in Florida. Obviously driving a car is not a right you get simply by virtue of being human. People need to stop overusing the term "basic human right" to mean "whatever I think I should be allowed to do." There are plenty of things that you have the right to do which are not basic human rights.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

2 hands on the wheel

Re:Good

[bickerdyke]

While I indeed wrote that with a 10% Troll in mind, come on.... holding a cellphone as human right? Most humans can't even afford cellphones!

Re:Good

[somersault]

How do you know they don't plan to use that fork to murder someone? That cup of coffee doesn't contain illegal drugs? Their wallet doesn't contain leaked NSA secret documents?

Strawman much? Those are all pretty irrelevant for driving safety. Holding your phone in your hand in a visible manner while driving is an obvious sign of your attention being diverted from the 1.5 tonnes of steel currently hurtling around under your supposed control.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

Not too much in your message to tackle all of it.

1) Yeah, you can consent to give up rights.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

That's just a technicality. Kind of like saying "You have a right to life, but we'll hold you in jail without food or water for a few days until you die. We're not stopping you from eating, only stopping you from getting access to food."

Re:Good

[quadelirus]

Found a supreme court ruling from 1916: "Frank J. Kane v. The State of New Jersey" which upheld the state's right to charge licensing fees for driver's licenses which in turn implies that driving is a privilege, not a right. Of course, IANAL.

Re:Good

[quadelirus]

1999, 9th circuit court of appeals rules there is no "fundamental right to drive" in Donald S. Miller v. the California Department of Motor Vehicles. Is that enough, or do you need more proof?

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless that cellphone is strapped to your face that is.

That's my new hands-free adapter, I can do multi-touch gestures with my nose and tongue.

Re:Good

[stenvar]

Really? That means also that you can't drive Fords with Sync, or use the GPS on your phone, or drive a car with any kind of general purpose LCD display, because they all meet the definition of "monitor in view" and they call can do what Google Glass does.

Re:Good

[sabri]

Since we cannot differentiate between someone holding a phone while driving at 75 mph down the interstate and someone texting with a phone while driving at 75 mph down the interstate

You miss one very important aspect of Criminal Law here: the presumption of innocence. You are arguing that a driver must proof their innocence by being prohibited to enjoy his property in a legal manner, such as using a Smartphone as a GPS navigation device. That is the world upside-down. Innocent until proven guilty of texting or talking on the phone, not guilty by default for just holding it.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

No, but you'll quite rightly get one over here (UK) if you're holding it in your hand while driving. "Quite rightly"? Seriously, WTF damage do you Brits have when it comes to pissing away your basic human rights without a second thought?

Doing anything other than driving while behind the steering wheel of a vehicle should be a ticketable offense. Every single day on my relatively short commute to and from work, I see people not paying attention and holding up traffic, not driving straight, drifting into other lanes, and generally being bad drivers. Every single time, the fuckhead driver in question is doing something on their cell phone. Doing this shit is NOT a "basic human right" as you seem to think it is!

How about holding other dangerous objects, like a fork, a cup of coffee, or a wallet? Don't put up with this shit, people. Demand your day in court for every single one of these abuses of power. Tie the courts up for years with minutiae, until they have no choice but to automatically dismiss 99% of these meritless cases.

Yes, by all means, encourage the government to waste a ton more money by getting sent to court for stupid shit like this. Or you could just be responsible and NOT FUCKING DO IT IN THE FIRST PLACE.

I absolutely oppose texting while driving, and it pisses me off when I see kids doing it. "Holding a phone" does not present even the slightest danger to anyone.

It pisses ME off whenever I see ANYONE doing it, not just kids. The kids likely learn it's ok from their idiot parents. There is nothing that is so important that you should need to use a cell phone while driving. If it really is terribly important, find a parking lot and handle your business. Then go back to driving. I don't understand why something that simple is apparently so hard to understand. Inconsiderate fuckers like you, pla, really make this world a worse place to be.

Re:Good

[Dcnjoe60]

Just wearing Google Glass does not mean you are texting or checking wikipedia. Should you get a ticket just for having your cellphone in the car because it has the capability to text and check the internet?

Was the Google Glass powered on or off? If on, by it's very nature, it's hard to argue that you weren't viewing it.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes you can. You can give up rights, you can give up privileges. You *shouldn't* give them up, but you totally can. And the poster that you are responding to probably knows that - you're just being a pedantic fuckwad. Nothing the parent said is incorrect, it just doesn't match your silly idealistic view of the world.

Re:Good

[Joce640k]

How about holding other dangerous objects, like a fork, a cup of coffee, or a wallet?

Don't put up with this shit, people. Demand your day in court for every single one of these abuses of power. Tie the courts up for years with minutiae, until they have no choice but to automatically dismiss 99% of these meritless cases.

Holding *any* object in your hand means you don't have both hands available for controlling the vehicle.

Hardly "meritless". Your plan of action make you sound like a self-entitled asshole.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

Ever heard the phrase "Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose"? Your right to use a distracting device ends as soon as you step into that ICE-propelled kinetic weapon.

Re:Good

[dunkelfalke]

No that is not a technicality. Walking can get you everywhere a car can and in many places a car cannot.

Re:Good

[Dcnjoe60]

Too much incorrect to tackle all of it, but the last thing you said is the most incorrect. You cannot consent to give away any right.

Actually, that is the only way to lawfully lose a right, is by consent. Anything else is an invasion - doesn't mean it's illegal. But, if an individual has a right to something or to do something. They have to willingiy give up that right, or consent, to lose it.

For instance, you have the right to drink alcohol in the US. However, you agree to not drink alcohol if you want to operate a vehicle, boat or plane. You have the right to alcohol, but you consent to giving up that right. If you are caught drinking and driving, then you lose the privelidge of driving. You do, however, still have the right to drink.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

To dock it?

Re:Good

[Wintermute__]

You miss one very important aspect of Criminal Law here: the presumption of innocence.

This is most likely a civil, not a criminal matter. At least up to a certain point of severity (which varies by jurisdiction).

Re:Good

[sabri]

Your right to use a distracting device ends as soon as you step into that ICE-propelled kinetic weapon.

You don't get the point.

I'm not saying that I should be using the device. I'm saying that I should be able to hold it, or move it within my car.

The only reason why it is illegal to hold it, is because lawmakers are too lazy to come up with a better way to outlaw the use without infringing on my liberties. If I can hold a bottle of water while driving, I can hold a phone while driving (again, I'm not saying that I should be able to *talk* on the phone).

Right now they're outlawing holding a phone because someone could potentially be able to use it. That means they are reversing the burden of evidence: I would have to prove I'm not using it, rather than a prosecutor proving that I was.

And you're definitely not looking smarter by saying "ICE-propelled kinetic weapon". It will only make you look like a smartass.

Re:Good

[Ravaldy]

There is no presumption here. The rule is simple, you CANNOT use the device. Holding the device to your ear or staring at it is considered usage. You want to do something with the device, park and do it.

If people were just a little smarter they would spend $20 on a decent bluetooth headset and use their phone hand's free. I have a Windows phone (and before that an iPhone) and I can do this very easily. I'm sure IOS and Android do it just as well if not better. I can call, text and much more just by talking. That $20 can save lives and lots of headaches.

Re:Good

[bill_mcgonigle]

It seems rather unlikely that you couldn't get to those places by foot.

Pedestrians aren't allowed on the Interstates, so you're back to bushwhacking.

But why would someone who can't drive even buy their house there?

The local road was seized for the Interstate project - the owners of the homes had no choice in the matter.

Are taxis unavailable in your area?

It's a fairly rural stretch of road. A taxi into town would probably cost $30 round-trip.

Usually people with such low user IDs make a bit more sense, but your post comes across more as trolling and/or lack of coffee.

Or perhaps you just aren't aware of the history and regulations regarding the Interstate system?

Re:Good

[Wintermute__]

Even if what you said was accurate, at least we have the ability to use arms to take those rights back.

Good Luck with that. Let me know how that works out for you.

Re:Good

[bill_mcgonigle]

You have a right to travel. By walking.

So, in the example I cite, you're actually supporting the idea that these people may only bushwhack through the forest (in 10' snowpack, some days), across private property, and their rights are not being violated.

This is how the State perpetuates its power.

Re:Good

[pla]

Holding your phone in your hand in a visible manner while driving is an obvious sign of your attention being diverted from the 1.5 tonnes of steel currently hurtling around under your supposed control.

No one said anything about making a call. No one said anything about texting. In the case in TFA, she had the Google Glass off.

We very much have the idea here of mere proximity to a possibly distracting object as the primary offense. Yeah, I have a problem with that. That lead me to complain about a human rights abuse - I don't give the least damn about some cheerleader who can't hang up for 30 seconds; I care about having a government that presumes guilt in situations where pesky things like "proof" would take too much work.

So no, holding a fork doesn't count as a strawman - It has exactly as much distracting power as an inactive cell phone.

Re:Good

[RaceProUK]

The only reason why it is illegal to hold it

Except it isn't. The (UK) law states that it is illegal to *use* a phone while driving, unless it is connected to a suitable hands-free kit.

wonkey_monkey mistakenly assumed the law was against holding it, as usually people are pulled over if the police see the phone held up to the ear, or in another manner that strongly implies usage. It's perfectly OK to hold it by, say, moving it from a seat to a cubby hole. In fact, that example holding wouldn't be visible outside the car anyway.

Re:Good

[bill_mcgonigle]

Walking can get you everywhere a car can and in many places a car cannot.

Not if the only road to a place forbids pedestrian traffic.

Re:Good

[bill_mcgonigle]

It would not allow you to fly a nuclear ramjet over a populated area; on a less hyperbolic scale

Which has nothing to do with the common means of conveyance in a population.

the government is permitted to restrict you to driving safely.

It is, and like other restrictions on rights, it may be taken only after a trial and due process, as specified by the Fifth Amendment.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh please do. I really want to see how well it turns out for you. Personally I think a normal demonstration would be as affective but please go prove me wrong and fight to the death for your right to hold a mobile while driving (fully accepting that USING the mobile while driving should be illegal).

Re:Good

[TheCarp]

What about the responsibility of society to have rational basis in the creation of the rules? What about the responsibility of society to only have rules that there is actually a valid interest in making?

Quite simply the evidence for "phones use as driving problem on the road" I find...dubious. Far more relevant the evidence that drivers who get in accidents while using phones, do not get in less accidents without them....and as a group.... drive worst and take more risks while using their phones than other drivers who don't get in accidents while using them.

Clearly the problem is poorly skilled drivers with terrible risk assessment ability, which is completely independent of phones and likely existed and were getting in accidents before phones came around to distinguish them.

Re:Good

[TheCarp]

So you are shortening it to "Your right to swing your fist ends"

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

Holding *any* object in your hand means you don't have both hands available for controlling the vehicle.

So fucking what? Do you wish to imply that people who are handicapped in one arm are unqualified to operate a motor vehicle?

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

The most effective way to determine if someone is not actually paying attention while driving? It goes something like this:

1) Are they in the driver's seat?

Yes? Then they are not actually paying attention.

Re:Good

[pla]

Holding a phone while operating a motor vehicle is not a basic human right.

Quite right. How about "innocent until proven guilty"? That one do it for ya?

I have no interest whatsoever in defending some bink who can't bear to miss out of a whole five minutes of gossip while driving to the store. I do very much care when governments start skipping over all that pesky "proof" they normally need, just because obtaining that proof might require them to actually do a teensy bit of work every now and then.

Also, keep in mind this doesn't involve her making a phone call, or texting while driving, or anything of the sort - In fact, TFA says she had the damned thing turned off. But merely holding a phone (or wearing a silly-looking pair of overpriced glasses) doesn't prove a goddamned thing, simple as that. Maybe my hands got cold, cell phones tend to stay slightly on the warm side. Maybe It fell out of my pocket and I thought it would do everyone around me more good to put it in my lap than let it slide under the brake pedal. Maybe I do just want to cuddle with it. Doesn't matter.

Now, when Officer Friendly has a reasonable suspicion that Teen Queen needs a ticket for texting while driving - He can get a warrant for the cell tower log just like in any other investigation. Sorry if that actually takes someone doing their job.

Re:Good

[mcgrew]

"Quite rightly"? Seriously, WTF damage do you Brits have when it comes to pissing away your basic human rights without a second thought?

You don't have a "basic human right" to put my life in danger, jackass. I don't care if you're holding a phone, a book, a lipstick or a hamburger, you do NOT have a right to do that because it's dangerous to ME. You want to text or phone or read your map, pull the god damned car over, moron.

Your right to swing your fist stops at my nose. If you want to use makeup, phone, text, or read a fucking map while driving, do it on your own private property where the only one you put in danger is you, I'm fine with that. I'm not fine with you doing it on a public highway, sociopath.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

No one said anything about making a call. No one said anything about texting. In the case in TFA, she had the Google Glass off.

Prove it. I say it was ON. Who is correct? You don't know.

The laws states the monitor cannot be visible while driving, regardless of the on/off condition of the display. Change the law if you dislike it.

As for the article, I don't care if getting ass-fucked by a 600 pound gorilla is the social norm, don't do it while you're driving.

Re:Good

[quadelirus]

Frank J. Kane v. The State of New Jersey, 1916, The right to travel is not the same as driving a car. There is no right to drive a car.
Donald S. Miller v. the California Department of Motor Vehicles, 1999, There is no "fundamental right to drive".

Re:Good

[blueturffan]

Listening to music while operating a motor vehicle is not a basic human right. Driving is a privilege not a right. Since we cannot differentiate between someone listening to music while driving at 75 mph down the interstate and someone watching a video on their in-dash DVD player while driving at 75 mph down the interstate, both should be disallowed. There is absolutely no reason you can't turn off your tunes for the drive, and it does not infringe on your rights one bit to tell you to keep it turned off. When you operate a vehicle you are saying to society: yes, I will play by the rules of the road. If those rules include not listening to music, then it is not "rights infringement". You tacitly agreed to it by getting behind the wheel. You can choose to take the bus or walk if you want to listen to music. This is the same reason that breathalyzers are compulsory. You have a right not to self incriminate and you have a right not to take a breathalyzer if you are in your home or walking down the street, but by getting behind the wheel and exercising the privilege of driving (that's why you need a license, after all) you tacitly agree to abide by a more restrictive set of regulations. In other words, by driving YOU consent to give up rights while you are behind the wheel.

Re:Good

[Jason Levine]

Recently, I was driving an some college kids pulled up next to me. At every stop light we encountered, the driver would pull out his phone and start scrolling through it. His focus was 100% on his phone and not the road. When the light changed, he would put his phone away and drive on. (His passenger did the same thing, but I'm not sure if he put his phone away when the vehicle started.)

Now, I know a lot of people think it's ok to text/browse the web/etc at a stop light, but it really isn't. If your car is on and in drive (or reverse), your focus should be on the road. Any Facebook updates, text messages, or the like can wait. If something's coming through that you think is actually vitally important, here's a simple solution: Find a spot to pull over and do so. Either at a rest stop, a parking lot, or a residential side street. The main point is to find a spot where you can safely stop your car, put it into Park (to avoid any potential car movement before you are ready) and THEN read the updates and/or reply. If doing this would take you too long, then obviously the message isn't that important and it can wait.

Trust me, I know the lure a smartphone can have when you're sitting at a red light, but are we such an ADD society that we can't stand being "unoccupied" for a minute or two until the light turns green?

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

They can check your cellphone record to see if you were texting. Also, it should almost be a basic human right in most US cities because it is the only way to get around and do anything like work or buy milk.

Re:Good

[hypergreatthing]

Just for clarifications sake, please tell me what is a basic human right? Is freedom of movement a basic human right? In some places of this country (the US) there is no public transit, there are no local airports in walking distance. The nearest store can be miles away. In many places such as rural areas there is a necessity of mobility to survive and cars are the only choice that makes sense in that matter.

Before you say biking, lets use the case of a wheelchair bound paraplegic who relies on their automobile to get from point a to point b as a necessity to live. Does it not then become a right? At what point exactly does a privilege, which by definition is not necessary to live, become a basic human right? And if you agree that in certain circumstances what most people consider a privilege would become a right when it starts infringing on a person's ability to live, then what about your notions about taking away that privilege? Do you deny a person's right to life freely?

The second part of my argument is in the false notion that somehow having a phone in the car, whether near or being held or strapped to someone's head somehow, according to you, and in-arguably affects a person's ability to drive. I personally believe that being distracted is the main cause of issues, cellphone or not. This list of distractions includes the radio, climate control, children in the car, being late, obtuse traffic signs, unfamiliarity with the surroundings, being sleepy, driving for too long, reading, applying makeup, accidents on the side of the road, flashing lights, advertisements, good looking women, etc. How many laws have been passed for those things? Before cellphones penetrated the general public, you're saying accidents didn't exist or were way down statistically? I find nothing of the sort. The same people who are easily distracted and bad drivers are the ones using their cellphones and making bad decisions. Yet all this talk about licenses for drivers and regulating it does not take into account how bad of a driver a person is. Everyone is treated the same whether or not someone has a perfectly clean driving record or has totaled 18 cars in their lifetime.

Given this unwritten social contract of driving (considering when i started to drive there weren't anything of the sort such as breathalyzers, but apparently in my lifetime failing to take one is the same as being guilty), i find it highly unlikely that anyone has silently agreed to give up their rights when driving.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

Every possible action any man, woman, or child can take is a basic human right.

End of Story.

If you want to take any of mine away, prove how my exercise of that right limits your own. If you cannot do that, kindly fuck off.

Killing, stealing, etc...easy. They amount to taking another's rights to life/property.

Holding a cell phone? Takes away none of your rights. Want to stop me from being able to do so?

Try me. Come and take it from me.

Re:Good

[pla]

Prove it. I say it was ON. Who is correct? You don't know.

Of course we do - Google Glass logs everything. If she had it on, the state could subpoena its log and prove their case. And note the order to what I just said - The state could prove their case. In any sane legal system, she doesn't need to prove her innocence. If we really don't know - she fucking wins, get it?

Honestly, though, I've found some of the responses in this thread far more disturbing than the mere issuance of this ticket. Often, I consider government only barely better than useful, and about as sane as a hatter. Threads like this remind me that we have exactly the government we want and deserve. You people seriously disgust me. Grow a pair. Our forefathers revolted against the world's largest government largely over sales tax. And today, we honor them by letting the government issue capricious fines when they can't bother with that whole pesky ol' burden-of-proof thing. Sick, sick, sick.


The laws states the monitor cannot be visible while driving, regardless of the on/off condition of the display.

Again, how exactly does that work when almost every car today has a monitor visible, dead-center of the dash? This has absolutely nothing to do with distracted driving, so all you nannies can put away your swaddling clothes. When I described it as a matter of basic human rights, I meant it. And yet, somehow, the majority of you took that to mean I consider a cell phone a basic human right? You people have damage. This amounts to nothing more than an "offense whenever we need another $150 from you" tax, and that should disgust us all.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

My gun says otherwise. Come and get my car and my phone at your own peril.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

Laws can neither give nor take away rights. I have the right to do anything that I want. Laws are merely rules and suggestions in order for us to get along. We follow laws only because it is an arbitrarily set convenience.

I DARE YOU to walk up to my car and tell me it isn't a right to drive it and talk my cel. I dare you.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

Holding a phone while operating a motor vehicle is not a basic human right. Driving is a privilege not a right. Since we cannot differentiate between someone holding a phone while driving at 75 mph down the interstate and someone texting with a phone while driving at 75 mph down the interstate, both should be disallowed. There is absolutely no reason you can't set your phone down for the drive, and it does not infringe on your rights one bit to tell you not to pick it up. When you operate a vehicle you are saying to society: yes, I will play by the rules of the road. If those rules include not holding a phone, then it is not "rights infringement". You tacitly agreed to it by getting behind the wheel. You can choose to take the bus or walk if you want to use your phone. This is the same reason that breathalyzers are compulsory. You have a right not to self incriminate and you have a right not to take a breathalyzer if you are in your home or walking down the street, but by getting behind the wheel and exercising the privilege of driving (that's why you need a license, after all) you tacitly agree to abide by a more restrictive set of regulations. In other words, by driving YOU consent to give up rights while you are behind the wheel.

You are mistaken, driving is NOT a privilege, it is a right, you have the right to travel by any means you want. This has been upheld by the US Supreme court.

Re:Good

[lgw]

If I have a DVD player in my car with the screen visible to the driver, that's against CA law. Doesn't matter if it's off. Many states have similar laws, which is why the screen built into my dash can play DVDs, but only when the car is parked - that's the accepted legal work-around.

Re:Good

[MobyDisk]

Please stop the "X is a privilege not a right" because that is not how the US works. According to the US Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, all things are rights unless otherwise stated. So yes, driving is a right.

The confusion is that people think "right" means "the government must provide this" which is not the case. It means "the government cannot forbid you from doing this."

Re:Good

[dgatwood]

I care about having a government that presumes guilt in situations where pesky things like "proof" would take too much work.

Unfortunately, in California, traffic infractions have been handled as though people were guilty until proven innocent for a very long time. The entire system is rigged to be purely a means of revenue generation, grossly violating both the letter and the spirit of California law, and nobody seems to care, mostly because the cost to fight a ticket is usually greater than the cost of the ticket. Traffic enforcement is a racket, parking enforcement doubly so.

Re:Good

[Tokolosh]

Driving is a privilege not a right.

Bullshit! I am sick and tired of this trope.

Driving is not a privilege, it is a right, and you do not consent to give up your rights behind the wheel. The only requirement is that you demonstrate your competence by means of passing a driving test. This is a reasonable expectation for the safety of fellow road users, together with the requirement not to drive while impaired. Your right to drive, like your freedom, can only be taken away in a court of law.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

Too much incorrect to tackle all of it

Nope. The only thing incorrect is he forgot to make specific note that traffic laws only apply while operating on public roads. Do what you want while driving on your own land.

If you don't want a ticket, take off your "Hey Look at Me I'm a Rich Fucking Hipster Glasses" while you're driving. Simple, easy. Guess what- you're not allowed to wear a Darth Vader helmet or strap a TV monitor to your windshield either. OH, the human rights abuse horror of it all!

The only reason to wear you google glasses while driving is either to a) use them while driving or b) show off. Take you penis-waving contest somewhere off the public roads.

Re:Good

[dgatwood]

Actually, no, California law explicitly allows you to hold a cell phone to place a call, but only in conjunction with a hands-free device, and only when dialing. The cell phone law merely says that it must be configured to support hands-free listening and talking, not dialing. Similarly, the highly problematic anti-texting law that has been used to prosecute people for such things as changing to the next song also has an explicit exception for using the phone to actually call someone, including the use of the phone's address book.

Thus, the law (at least in California) makes it very, very clear that it is acceptable to hold the device in your hand for the purposes of placing a phone call. Helpful tip: if you ever get pulled over and you have your phone in your hand, you should make certain that you are on the phone using your hands-free device when the officer walks up to your car. When the officer asks why you had the phone in your hand, the answer is always, "I was dialing someone on my phone." This has three effects:

1. The officer should say, "Have a nice day," and the traffic stop should end right then. At most, the officer should ask for your license and registration and ensure that they are valid and the vehicle isn't stolen.

2. If it goes to court, you have a legally admissible record of having placed a phone call at the time the officer pulled you over.

3. If the officer issues you a citation anyway, you can potentially sue the prosecutor and the officer for malicious prosecution (or even vexatious litigation if you can show a history of similar prosecutions).

Re:Good

[dunkelfalke]

Well, you don't exactly have to use roads when you walk. That is what I meant by "in many places a car cannot".

Re:Good

[dunkelfalke]

Bushwhack through the forest? Awesome, either hiking or with a mountainbike. Snowpack? Even more awesome, I wish it would snow so much over here, my three sets of backcountry ski are sitting in the closed most of the winter.

Re:Good

[Cederic]

Without disagreeing with you on the dangers of mobile phone use, could I point out that murdering someone with a fork while driving is at a minimum going to distract you and on the whole doesn't sound terribly safe.

Re:Good

[bill_mcgonigle]

Well, you don't exactly have to use roads when you walk. That is what I meant by "in many places a car cannot".

yes, that's what I meant by if the only human right is to bushwhack through the forest across private property through 10' of snowpack.

I have my doubts the the authors had this in mind.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

Please stop the "X is a privilege not a right" because that is not how the US works. According to the US Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, all things are rights unless otherwise stated. So yes, driving is a right.

The Declaration of Independence is not law. It has no bearing on what is a right vs. not a right.

The confusion is that people think "right" means "the government must provide this" which is not the case. It means "the government cannot forbid you from doing this."

The government can forbid you from operating a motor vehicle. So by your own definition driving on public roads is not a right.

Re:Good

[Cederic]

Most humans can afford one. More to the point, it's important to them too: http://www.ipsnews.net/2012/05/qa-skipping-lunch-to-afford-a-mobile-phone-in-africa/

Half the people in Africa had a mobile phone a year ago. Not many places out there poorer than that.

Re:Good

[Richy_T]

If you could cite a *credible* authority, that might go a bit further.

Re:Good

[simonx314]

"by it's very nature, it's hard to argue that you weren't viewing it" As a Glass Explorer who wears Glass everyday especially when driving, let me tell you about Glass's nature. 99% of the time the display is off. One of the main principles of Glass is to distract the user as little as possible. The display only illuminates when it's time for a GPS direction "turn left" and then turns off a few seconds later. This makes it easy to argue that they weren't viewing it. Also the Explorer Edition does not have the battery life to illuminate the display very long, if you were to override the displays timeout.

Re:Good

[GbrDead]

Do I have to tacitly agree to any kind of regulations in order to be able to move quickly on my own terms (i.e. drive my car on roads I have paid for)? For example, a rule for a mandatory tracking device may be introduced soon...

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

How do you know they don't plan to use that fork to murder someone? That cup of coffee doesn't contain illegal drugs? Their wallet doesn't contain leaked NSA secret documents?

Occams razor?

...but how do you know whether that person is holding their phone to text, check Facebook, on speakerphone, etc.

Occams razor?

(Obviously we don't "know" what they are going to do, but we can amk reasonable guesses).

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullshit! I am sick and tired of this trope.

Driving is not a privilege, it is a right, and you do not consent to give up your rights behind the wheel. The only requirement is that you demonstrate your competence by means of passing a driving test.

In other words driving is not a right. I don't have to pass tests to use my freedom of speech because that is right. I need to pass a written test, eye test and drivers test in order to drive because driving on public roads is NOT a right.

Re:Good

[SuperDre]

It's not like having your cellphone in your car, it's more like having you cellphone in front of you..
The problem is, there is no way an officer (or anybody else) can check if the person is not using the googleglasses for anything other than navigation... Knowing humans and their toys, you just know people will use the googleglass for checking mail and other crap during driving.. the barrier to do that is soo low, even people who claim who wouldn't do that, will do it..
Google glasses (or any wearable mediaglasses) don't have a place during driving, you have to keep your eyes on the road, not your mediadevice.. I've seen people watching complete movies while speeding at the highway, it's just scary..

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

Since we cannot differentiate ...both should be disallowed

Try saying that out loud a few times. Do you hear what you are saying? Really!?

Re:Good

[MobyDisk]

The government can forbid you from operating a motor vehicle. So by your own definition driving on public roads is not a right.

ehh...no. Two problems here:
1) I should have said "federal" government. The states can regulate these things. And driving laws are written by the states.
2) Just because the government passed such a law doesn't mean they had the power to do so. They can't suddenly make something not be a right.

Re: Good

[Anonymous Coward]

Americans are crazy.

Google glass is an entertainment device. It's predominant use is forentertainment, and she was wearing it while driving.

If this woman gets off without being punished, God help you all.

And to the idiot above, cruising down a road while watching videos on his gps device, I can only hope that you don't kill someone when you cause an accident, and other idiots like yourself don't kill people for the same reason. It's a matter of when, not if.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

Holding a toy gun is virtually indistinguishable from holding a real one. Holding a toy gun is not a basic human right.

Since you can't tell the difference. Both should be illegal. There is no reason why you can't give up your toy gun.

Re:Good

[Tuidjy]

Which planet do you live on? There are hundreds of examples when one consents to give rights away. In the US, joining the military is one of the most glaring examples - you give away hundreds of rights.

Re:Good

[poobahtim]

Then THAT'S your problem, and you should work with/sue the local government to get it resolved. This argument still doesn't bestow an inalienable right to drive a car.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

Driving is a privilege not a right.

As far as I'm concerned, anything you must be able to do to survive in society by the means of survival society requires (i.e. working and paying those taxes for politicians to make rules like "driving is a privilege") is a right.

My understanding is that it became legally considered a "privilege" directly for the benefit of insurance companies via their lobbyists, because then you could justify enforced purchasing of car insurance without a constitutional issue.

That is unsuitable as a basis for denying me the means to exist. I philosophically reject it, even if I legally accede to it. Yes, I know, I could in worst case hopefully sell my house, get a new job among the few options where one could bike, move there, etc. Well, no, actually, I couldn't. So, though not debating the overall content of your post, I must object to that pat phrase of rationale. Moving on...

Re:Good

[nurb432]

Or watching movies, reading emails, or whatever else it might be capable of doing.

Re:Good

[suutar]

How about clipped to the AC vent, or otherwise attached to the dash?

Re:Good

[Dcnjoe60]

"by it's very nature, it's hard to argue that you weren't viewing it"

As a Glass Explorer who wears Glass everyday especially when driving, let me tell you about Glass's nature. 99% of the time the display is off. One of the main principles of Glass is to distract the user as little as possible. The display only illuminates when it's time for a GPS direction "turn left" and then turns off a few seconds later. This makes it easy to argue that they weren't viewing it. Also the Explorer Edition does not have the battery life to illuminate the display very long, if you were to override the displays timeout.

This is the description from wikipedia for Google Glass Explorer Edition:

The Explorer Edition receives data through Wi-Fi, or it can tether via Bluetooth to an Android device or iPhone, and use its 3G or 4G data; the Glass also has a GPS chip.[40] Users issue voice commands by first saying "ok glass", followed by the command, or they can scroll through the options using a finger along the side of the device. The Explorer Edition also features an interchangeable sunglasses accessory that twists on or off. Monthly updates to the Glass are planned after the program starts.[41]

I don't see anywhere in it where the functionality is limited to just a couple of seconds of gps display then it shuts off. Here is what I can surmise after wading through all of the opinions and rants. In California (and most states) it is illegal to drive a vehicle with a computer screen in front of a driver. Google Glass is a computer that uses a special eyepiece to project the screen in front of the wearer's eyeball. Ergo, the driver, while wearing Google Glass was found guilty of driving with a computer screen in front of them.

The law specifically mentions computer screens, not gps screens or cell phone screens or in dash console screens and Google says Glass is a computer in the real sense of the word. So, regardless of whether or not the gps function only blips on for two seconds or not, doesn't really matter. Under the law, was she driving? Yes. Under the law, did she have a computer screen in front of her? Yes. If you don't like the results, change the law.

Re:Good

[thunderclap]

So is talking to the passenger, swatting randomly in the back seat area, looking at the gps, adjusting the radio. I just love it when people want to live in a police state were everything is regulated. Forcing poeple to do what is right is impossible.

Re:Good

[multimediavt]

How do you know they don't plan to use that fork to murder someone? That cup of coffee doesn't contain illegal drugs? Their wallet doesn't contain leaked NSA secret documents?

Strawman much? Those are all pretty irrelevant for driving safety. Holding your phone in your hand in a visible manner while driving is an obvious sign of your attention being diverted from the 1.5 tonnes of steel currently hurtling around under your supposed control.

Not to mention that a cop isn't going to follow you for a time to figure out what you're doing with the phone. For the same reason they don't follow you for a time when you're speeding. They just hear the radar gun go off, look at the number and pull you over, then let the judge decide. Cops aren't judges, they're enforcers.

Re:Good

[multimediavt]

So your driveway enters directly onto an Interstate?!?! Where is that exactly (Lat and Long please)? I think you're trolling pretty hard. I've been in all but five states in the U.S. (while driving, no less) and have never seen a driveway dump onto an Interstate directly, nor a road with no other roads connecting to it but an Interstate that had houses on it. I've been through some ridiculously rural areas, too, so some photographic proof would be nice, preferably from a satellite vantage.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

No texting while driving and no checking Wikipedia.

Normally I hate what law enforcement has become, but in this case I'll side with the cop. We don't need more idiots on the road checking facebook instead of watching where they are going. If we get this slapped down now, maybe we'll save pedestrian lives later.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

The only good public transportation in America is the sidewalk.

Re: Good

[Anonymous Coward]

Because the predominant use of a fork is not to murder people with it, amongst other things. The predominant use of a cellphone is to call, text or do smartphone stuff with. Therefore someone with a phone is more likely to be using it to text, surf etc. than someone who is holding a fork is to be trying to murder with it.

Re: Good

[Anonymous Coward]

I was born with my rights.
I bought a car.
I agreed to limit my rights in exchange for a license to take my car on public roads.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a "basic human right" to do as I please unless it can be proved to have a high prediction of harm to others.
Until this is proved to be the case, it should be legal, all laws should have to pass this test.
Regardless of the other rights that have been removed, we should not just give up on everything else of less consequence.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

In some locations people even entering a car and sitting in the driver's seat, maybe even no putting the keys in the ignition, have been arrested for "driving under the influence". (Drunk driving). A friend alerted me about 6-8 years ago that police were ticketing for not wearing a seat belt if you put the key in the ignition, but had not started the car, and then your seat belt on.

Effing coppers.

On the other hand, in 2000 I was walking across the street and almost run over by a yahoo talking on his cell phone. In broad daylight.

Re:Good

[Actually, I do RTFA]

Wait, this has something to do with driving?

Where can I move that gives out tickets for walking around with a device that constantly uploads GPS-tagged photos of everyone around you without their consent?

Re: Good

[Anonymous Coward]

Technically, cell phone records only indicate when the message was sent ... not when the user was typing it.

Re: Good

[Anonymous Coward]

I completely agree.

If you don't like the way I drive, stay of the sidewalk.

Re: Good

[Anonymous Coward]

No, you don't.

Laws were made so that self righteous 4$$#0135 like yourself, don't impinge on other people's rights.

You have an obligation to obey the laws, or you will be punished/isolated appropriately until such time that you recognize the importance of yourself obeying said laws.

Re:Good

[somersault]

Forcing poeple to do what is right is impossible.

That's correct, but it doesn't mean that there shouldn't be regulations to at least try to improve safety. Hey let's just forget about driving licenses all together, why don't we? Who gives a shit if someone can't tell where there attention should be, and why, when they're driving?

Re:Good

[somersault]

their*

sigh

Re: Good

[hankito6950]

You can't hold your cell in California even if it's for GPS. It can sit there but you can't touch it. The temptation is too great with google glass on your face. Laws aren't made for well meaning people they're made for the idiots that aren't.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

Please stop the "X is a privilege not a right" because that is not how the US works. According to the US Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, all things are rights unless otherwise stated. So yes, driving is a right.

The Declaration of Independence is not law. It has no bearing on what is a right vs. not a right.

Incorrect. James Madison gave the USA an open-ended Bill of Rights, allowing the people to assert rights "retained by the people" as needed whenever government at any level, or with any jurisdiction, gets out of line. Unlike the 1st Amendment, which is explicitly limited to Congress, there are no limits regarding what type of government these rights may be asserted against.

The Declaration of Independence gives us a starting point for thinking about rights we might want to assert, by giving us insight into the kinds of things at least some of the Founding Fathers were concerned with. As such, while the Declaration is not a law, it nevertheless DOES have bearing on what constitutes a right (without being limiting, i.e. rights retained by the people are not simply those that can be inferred from the Declaration).

In this particular case, it's likely the hazard posed by the use of Google Glass in a city is sufficient to justify creating a limit on driving with it. Just as an individual's right to wave their fist around can be limited when it enters another's personal space, so to can an individual's access to information be limited when operating a vehicle in a crowded area where said use is reasonably likely to cause the vehicle to enter another's personal space. Driving on an empty interstate at night might be a different matter.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you seriously believe that "right to travel" means "right to drive", or "right to fly a helicopter" and that kind of thing?

That's exactly what it means, provided one is competent to operate those vehicles safely and is doing so. All rights have limits. The right to wave one's fist around is limited when it enters another's personal space, at which point a form of personal expression is likely to change to assault and/or battery. The right to freedom of speech is limited when one shouts loud enough and close enough to another to cause hearing damage, at which point it to becomes assault and/or battery. The right to freedom of press is limited when one makes false statements regarding a product or a sale, at which point it is likely to become false advertising and/or fraud. And so forth...

The key question is, when can government limit a right?

Ultimately, in the USA, government can only place limits on an individual right when the people decide it is reasonable for that limit to exist. This is because the Bill of Rights was deliberately written to be open-ended by James Madison, in order to deal with the objection of the Anti-Federalists that any Bill of Rights would be incomplete. This is why we have unspecified rights "retained by the people" (9th Amendment) and "reserved to the people" (10th Amendment). It's such an important concept that it actually appears twice!

Further, these rights, unlike the 1st Amendment rights, do not just exist in the form of limitations on Congress but apply to ALL levels of government (even the 1st Amendment was not originally limited to Congress: the Senate modified the text of this Amendment from Madison's original document so the slave states could suppress anti-Slavery speech).

As a consequence, Congress and other levels of government can write laws, but those laws are only valid to the extent that they do not violate any rights reasonably asserted as arising under the 9th or 10th Amendments (a high standard that, in practice, very few laws meet). Any laws, orders, or precedents to the contrary are in violation of the Bill of Rights. By definition, rights retained by the people are in fact retained by the people, which does not mean the same thing as stealable by the government, and hence they can not be taken away by ANY government entity.

In practice, of course, many people in the government, and most legal professionals, ignore the obligations that the 9th and 10th Amendments place upon them. This is the major reason the US legal system is such a disaster today.

Re:Good

[Meski]

So, no more distracting than me changing from glasses to optical prescription sunglasses whilst driving? (which I'd avoid)

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

using technology to travel is a right, fuck you and your legalese shackles. stupid slave.

bet you think money is a good thing/.

capatcha - ghetto

Re:Good

[thunderclap]

Today is not yesteryear. Do you have a good reason why they should remain? Outside of tracking people? There is no good reason to block mounting a GPS other than someone is afraid they might look at it too much and run of the road. The car will violently accordion into a truck, killing the poor migrants who were riding in the back, escaping their cruel life in costa rica. Fear is never a good reason for a regulation. To answer your questions, I don't give one. Its called personal responsibility. If you can't have that then the rest is meaningless. Every regulation that exists slows down and makes it harder to do things. Some things we do we shouldn't and at one time we all agreed. Today we can't even agree that murder is unacceptable. (capital punishment and abortion before you all freak out). So I am against useless legislation. California is overloaded with it so I have absolutely no sympathy for it.

Re:Good

[somersault]

I don't have a problem with mounted displays personally, but I do have a problem with letting people blatantly use their phones in their hand while driving. Hands free kits exist were made precisely because holding your phone is a pain in the ass, and reduces your capacity to do things. I don't actually have a problem with people using phones while stopped in traffic either, but while in motion it is just a blatantly bad idea.

As I've said elsewhere "personal responsibility" is fine for an individual. That's why it's personal. There are a lot of assholes out there that won't take any responsibility for the safety of others though. People that purposely let themselves get distracted while driving are included in that group.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

SMH grammar Nazi.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

sure, but that does not change the fact that that is bullsht. Why do I pay taxes to maintain said road, do I have a choice whether or not to pay that tax? If it's a public place anyone is allowed to be there. "driving is a privilege" is an infringement on our freedom; granted one that everyone dosn't seem to notice giving away.

Re:Good

[Shadowmist]

You're right that holding the phone doesn't technically present a danger - but how do you know whether that person is holding their phone to text, check Facebook, on speakerphone, etc. What other reason is there even to have a phone in your hand while driving, other than actually using it? Better to just make it illegal to have the phone in your hand while driving, otherwise it will lead to people being sneaky.

I sometimes use my phone while sat in traffic, but if I get caught then it's my own fault..

It doesn't matter why you're holding it. Need directions? Mount the damm thing and use audio response and hands free mode. If you have to take your eyes off the road for one single instant, then you're doing something wrong. Having been rammed by more than one idiot on his iphone, I've come to the conclusion that there is nothing that you're doing with your phone that can't wait until you're parked.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

You have to get a license to drive on the roads *that belong to the government*. Inside your private property you are you own master and if your underage kid wants to drive, it's perfectly fine (you might go to court if he hurts someone else though).

Re:Good

[AK Marc]

Well, I've thrown a tablet (off) in the seat next to me when driving somewhere (with the screen up). That's illegal. I didn't know. And I've driven with a calculator watch on, and even checked the time on occasion.Yes, it was the '80s.

But no, those things aren't prosecuted. Some cop decides that "discretion" means "find someone with Google Glass and ticket them."

Heck, the charge "Driving with Monitor visible to Driver" would mean that anyone tailgating me while my DVD player is on is breaking the law. They are supposed to stop driving if they can see a monitor. That's great for getting rid of tailgaters. Strap a monitor to the top of your car. Heck, the cop saw the monitor while driving, thus broke the law enforcing it. The law (or at least this application of it) is stupid.

apparently...

[brunokummel]

....she didn't see it coming.... ba dum tss!

Re:apparently...

[Mr D from 63]

Good one. She also didn't think ahead before making this a public statement. She may have been able to get out of this ticket or have it reduced with a little help from a lawyer or just showing up at court (I have done this too many times). I think the odds of that happening now are significantly reduced.

Re:apparently...

[Anonymous Coward]

....she didn't see it coming.... ba dum tss!

Where is your Google Now?

Isn't wearing them already punishment enough?

[TWiTfan]

What punishment could the court possibly inflict that would compare to the shame of wearing them in the first place?

Re:Isn't wearing them already punishment enough?

[Anonymous Coward]

Having two pairs on at the same time?

Impaired Driving Abilities?

[mrspoonsi]

Given that helmet mounted HUDs are good enough for military pilots, how does having a GPS in your field of vision whilst driving a car, impair you? It sure beats looking down at a fixed display to view the GPS map (often not in the best location).

I think the issue is they (police) do not know what else you are doing, such as playing tetris at a stop light.

Re:Impaired Driving Abilities?

[Anonymous Coward]

Pilots in the virtually empty air != drivers in SIlicon Valley

Re:Impaired Driving Abilities?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because there's very little chance of a collision in air. On the roads, however, a BSOD on a HUD would be quite literal to not only the driver but everybody in her proximity.

Re:Impaired Driving Abilities?

[Anonymous Coward]

Given that helmet mounted HUDs are good enough for military pilots...

... who receive years of specialized training. Wearing GGlass should require a license, or endorsement, as when you need to modify the car for medical reasons.

Re:Impaired Driving Abilities?

[Richard_at_work]

Two issues with that line of thought -

1. Military pilots (and pilots in general) get a HECK of a lot more training than any person driving on the public road does, including a massive amount of training to handle that helmet mounted display without distraction. When Google Glass comes with a 6 month intensive training course to allow you to drive with it, then you can make that comparison.

2. There's a lot less to run into in the air, even when flying in tight formation.

Re:Impaired Driving Abilities?

[Sockatume]

Glass's display provides an image like 25-inch screen at 8 feet of distance somewhere above and to the right of your eyeline. It's not a heads-up display. It's more like having an iPhone glued to the corner of the sun visor.

Re:Impaired Driving Abilities?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah most people really need GPS on their daily commute, otherwise they would get completely lost. I can guarantee that most people wearing google glass while driving are not using it as a navigation aid. HUD displays for military aircraft are purpose built for the function of flying the aircraft only. They don't have games or a twitter app on military HUD displays.

Re:Impaired Driving Abilities?

[N1AK]

Why are 3 ACs the only ones making the exact same redundant counter-argument here?

I know a pilot who started on the fast jet stream before being bumped for not being good enough. He did plenty of flying with a vastly more obstructive HUD than glass (a tiny box above the line you normally look through) often in circumstances with far smaller margins of error than a typical driver. I can think of no end of things a HUD could include that would make a typical driver safer so a blanket anti-HUD position makes very little sense.

Now obviously whether what this person was using glass for made her a less safe driver could be entirely different.

Re:Impaired Driving Abilities?

[Talderas]

A pilot's HUD only displays information relevant to the operation of the aircraft. Google Glass can display information irrelevant to the operation of a motor vehicle.

Re:Impaired Driving Abilities?

[smash]

Military HUDs only display information to improve situational awareness. Not facebook, twitter or wikipedia.

Re:Impaired Driving Abilities?

[ElectricTurtle]

People act like training is some magical thing. Training is nothing more than guided experience on a schedule. Intelligent people, it may surprise you, have experiences all the time, and being intelligent they can process those experiences into a useful understanding, gasp, without formal training!

I have lots of technical certs which I know a lot of people train for with classes and whatever, but I never took classes or read any books. I had enough unscheduled, unguided real world experience to just get the certs. Training isn't magical, it doesn't represent an exclusive path to knowledge and ability, so stop patronizing people.

Re:Impaired Driving Abilities?

[Anonymous Coward]

Given that helmet mounted HUDs are good enough for military pilots, how does having a GPS in your field of vision whilst driving a car, impair you? It sure beats looking down at a fixed display to view the GPS map (often not in the best location).

If google glass could be restricted to only give the driver information relevant to driving (gps maps, speed, lane proximity warnings, etc), that might be a valid argument. The military pilot isn't getting texts from his girlfriend and Facebook updates on his HUD.

I think the issue is they (police) do not know what else you are doing, such as playing tetris at a stop light.

Or reading an eBook while driving 70mph down the freeway.

view the GPS map (often not in the best location)

If that's the problem, the government can require a HUD for GPS. Given that carmakers often charge $1000 or more for a $100 GPS, they could afford to make a HUD.

Re:Impaired Driving Abilities?

[idontgno]

I think the issue is they (police) do not know what else you are doing, such as playing tetris at a stop light

More to the point, the police can make a safe bet that whatever's being displayed in Google Glass is completely unrelated to the safe operation of a motor vehicle. Whereas the contents of a HUD in a warplane is 100% concerned with the operation of the aircraft. No "Words With Friends" plugin there, and aircrews already have perfectly usable hands-off voice comm to eliminate texting.

The comparison fails at the most fundamental level: a HUD is constrained to the mission, but a Google Glass is open-ended within its capabilities (comparable to a smartphone). Which means that Glassing while driving is almost certainly a distraction, not an enhancement, because of all the things it can do, only a couple might be legitimate at the wheel (like GPS, for instance).

Re:Impaired Driving Abilities?

[Sockatume]

Military pilots also have a lot more experience using HUDs than anyone on the planet has using Google Glass.

Re:Impaired Driving Abilities?

[Anonymous Coward]

often in circumstances with far smaller margins of error than a typical driver.

This is a false statement. Most flying, especially while in training, involves huge margins of error because there is a huge distance between an aircraft and other obstructions such as other aircraft, the ground, etc. The small margin of error in military aircraft come from engagement and that has less to do with collision than with being shot. BTW, I worked in support of Training Wing 6 while in the Navy, so I kind of know what I am talking about.

I can think of no end of things a HUD could include that would make a typical driver safer

None of which are apart of Google Glass.

a blanket anti-HUD position makes very little sense

Someone doesn't know the law. This is an anti-cellphone/anti-texting/anti-distracted driver law, not an ant-HUD law. And, see point 2 above.

Re:Impaired Driving Abilities?

[Anonymous Coward]

Probably because helmet mounted HUDSs are generally providing information related to the plane/the mission the pilot was on, as opposed to facebook or wikipedia.

Re:Impaired Driving Abilities?

[CanHasDIY]

Highly trained and disciplined Pilots in the virtually empty air != drivers in SIlicon Valley

FTFY.

Nevermind the fact the sky is damn near empty; remember what your driving test entailed? Zero comparison between that and the training military pilots go through.

Re:Impaired Driving Abilities?

[Anonymous Coward]

So, you would let a random intelligent person perform surgery on you. Oh, and why even bother with driver training? We can just give people licenses to drive without testing their ability to do so. Because, you know, training is over-rated.
 
Training for specialized tasks improves the execution of those tasks. Tell us, how many times did you learn something the hard way? Then, remember that learning something the hard way in an SUV might mean killing someone else, possibly you or someone you love. Knowing that someone's life could be ended or permanently changed for the worse, do you still think training is unnecessary?

Re:Impaired Driving Abilities?

[nukenerd]

mrspoonsi wrote :-

Given that helmet mounted HUDs are good enough for military pilots, how does having a GPS in your field of vision whilst driving a car, impair you? It sure beats looking down at a fixed display to view the GPS map (often not in the best location).

1) I don't look down at my GPS when driving. I go by its voice instructions and it surprises me that not everyone does this.

2) Pilots are looking at HUDs to get info relevant to the flying of the plane. Someone with Google Glass could be reading the New York Times.

Re:Impaired Driving Abilities?

[Misagon]

There is study and then there is practical training. What you are describing is study.
I don't think that military pilots spend six months reading books on how to use the helmet-mounted HUD. The use it practically, under supervision from instructors who have experience in how it should and should not be used.

Re:Impaired Driving Abilities?

[SJHillman]

There's a big difference between what a HUD *could* do to help a driver and what most drivers *would* do with one that could also access the Internet.

Re:Impaired Driving Abilities?

[Manfre]

When a pilot loses their gauges, the worry is that the aircraft will hit the ground, not something in the air.

Re:Impaired Driving Abilities?

[SJHillman]

One difference between training and experience is that training usually follows best-practice whereas experience follows hasn't-killed-me-yet. There's plenty of 'experienced' drunk drivers out there who will be dead within the year.

Re:Impaired Driving Abilities?

[X0563511]

Oh, really?

Re:Impaired Driving Abilities?

[jklovanc]

A big difference is that an aircraft HUD does not pop up texts from your boss. HUDs display information directly related to the task at hand. While Google glass can do that too it can not be guaranteed to do only that. Other information can cause distraction which can cause accidents. If the driver's mind is reading that text that just popped into view it is no longer concentrating on driving. You may be looking in the same direction but you are no longer looking at the road.

Re:Impaired Driving Abilities?

[zwei2stein]

You are comparing:

A) Toying with some IT stuff where worst that can happen is loosing couple of hours of work and where you have all the time in the world to google you answer or retake certs (like they matter).

to

B) Being in potentially fatal situation where windows of opportunity to handle that situation at all are secconds and less and where safety net for figuring that out is about size and durability of paper tissue.

My natural, experience driven intellect tells me that patronizing you is correct course of action.

Re:Impaired Driving Abilities?

[X0563511]

I don't need my GPS, but I use it all the time. Why? Because it gives me a relatively accurate ETA, and if I have to deviate off course, it immediately adapts to this - where I might otherwise get completely lost. Sure, I'm smart enough to be able to figure out which relative direction I'm moving in, but that won't tell me that the neighborhood I'm driving through doesn't connect to the road I expect to be on the other side.

Re:Impaired Driving Abilities?

[mrspoonsi]

Modern cars have a center mounted screen where people music libraries can be scrolled through, or phone book entry selected if car has a built in phone, is that not distracting? Even

Re:Impaired Driving Abilities?

[faffod]

I'll add
3. The integrated HUD displays information relevant to the operation and survival of the craft and nothing else. It does not provide distracting text messages from mom and ex-girlfriends(*) when missiles are locked on to you/a child is about to leap from behind a car.

(*) Note, the ex-girlfriends applies to military pilots, they are studs and have real ex-girlfriends.

Re:Impaired Driving Abilities?

[Anonymous Coward]

Arrogant 20-something detected.

Re:Impaired Driving Abilities?

[X0563511]

I can't stand the voice prompting, and it always gets turned off immediatly. I don't need to be told a dozen times to keep right, I surmised that by the fact that I'm turning right in 2 miles and all the road signs indicate the exit for this is on the right. I don't stare at the GPS either, a quick glance is all that is needed - and my field of vision is wide enough that I can still see the road ahead of me when I do so (albeit not with the same detail of course)

Just because it CAN be displaying something completely irrelevant doesn't mean it is. I feel the same way about phones - prove it before you write the ticket. Pulling them over for a warning/check is entirely fine, but don't write that damn ticket unless you know.

Re:Impaired Driving Abilities?

[hawguy]

Oh, and why even bother with driver training? We can just give people licenses to drive without testing their ability to do so. Because, you know, training is over-rated.

Isn't that what we do already? When I got my drivers license, I had to drive around a closed driving course, demonstrate that I could stay in my lane at 15mph, stop at a stop sign, use my turn signals, and park. That was it.

Re:Impaired Driving Abilities?

[jklovanc]

The point you seem to miss is that the original poster posited that since pilots use a HUD a vehicle driver should be able to use Google Glass. The big difference is training. I also thing that you may be putting too much emphasis on the term training. Training is the method of gaining knowledge. There are two type of training. Formal training which usually includes classes and books and informal training which is mainly experience based. What you described is informal training. The point is that someone who has not spent hours getting the experience driving around in a safe simulated environment with Google glass on their head is not safe to do that on the public roads.

Re:Impaired Driving Abilities?

[mrspoonsi]

When city driving and the GPS says "take the next left", when in reality there are 3 next lefts very close together, the GPS map can show the car position in relation to the left you want to take.

I am sure it not out of googles ability to detect when a glass is being used in a car (by a driver) and to limit its abilities to navigation, etc.

Re:Impaired Driving Abilities?

[Richard_at_work]

Great. Are you advocating an intelligence test before your Google Glass is shipped to you? Should Google Glass issue an intelligence test before it allows you to drive with it on?

Or are you saying that only "intelligent" people of the right type would dare drive with Google Glass?

What is your real point?

Re:Impaired Driving Abilities?

[Idarubicin]

I had enough unscheduled, unguided real world experience to just get the certs. Training isn't magical, it doesn't represent an exclusive path to knowledge and ability, so stop patronizing people.

I would prefer it if you didn't get your knowledge and ability through "unscheduled, unguided real world experience" on the streets where I walk, cycle, or drive.

Re:Impaired Driving Abilities?

[mrspoonsi]

And GPS can inform of traffic queues, and route around.

Re:Impaired Driving Abilities?

[pla]

Someone doesn't know the law. This is an anti-cellphone/anti-texting/anti-distracted driver law, not an ant-HUD law. And, see point 2 above.

And someone didn't RTFA. She got a ticket for "Driving with Monitor visible to Driver", not for distracted driving or texting.

Which makes me wonder how California handles every new car having a nav console in the dash.

Re:Impaired Driving Abilities?

[neonKow]

We don't pull people over and ticket them only for what "could be." Your perfectly legal phone-in-a-hands-free-mount can display the same information irrelevant to the operation of the vehicle, and would be harder to use than Google Glass.

Re:Impaired Driving Abilities?

[TrekkieGod]

Glass's display provides an image like 25-inch screen at 8 feet of distance somewhere above and to the right of your eyeline. It's not a heads-up display. It's more like having an iPhone glued to the corner of the sun visor.

So what you're saying is that it's perfectly fine?

Taking your eyes off the road in front of you is not only ok, it's required for safe driving. You have to check mirrors, you have to turn your head to check your blind spot when changing lanes. All while moving forward. Listening to GPS instructions and glancing above and to the right to confirm a map at periodic interviews isn't dangerous at all. If you're watching youtube videos on it, that's a different story.

Re:Impaired Driving Abilities?

[TrekkieGod]

ugh...intervals

Re:Impaired Driving Abilities?

[Anonymous Coward]

Pilots in the virtually empty air != drivers in SIlicon Valley

San Diego is not SIlicon Valley, even pilots are about an hour away from it.

Re:Impaired Driving Abilities?

[Krneki]

They are not only trained, but picked if they have the required skills.

Re:Impaired Driving Abilities?

[freeze128]

They don't have games or a twitter app on military HUD displays.

Can you imagine if they did?

@Maverick: I just buzzd the tower. Admiral spilled his coffee. LOL!

Re:Impaired Driving Abilities?

[Talderas]

The individual in this story was pulled over for speeding and received the citation regarding google glass as a secondary offense.

Re:Impaired Driving Abilities?

[IndustrialComplex]

I actually believe that GPS is something that greatly improves a drivers ability to focus on the road and operate their vehicle safely. When the driver isn't worried about constantly checking each exit sign, or making sudden or quick lane changes, safety is improved for everyone. I know that when I have my satnav operating, the whole driving experience seems improved. My anxiety is reduced when driving in unfamiliar cities, I focus on the road, I have extra warning time to initiate lane changes, and with fewer missed exits I spend less time on the road reducing exposure to accident opportunties.

Satnav systems should be considered a safe driving device. (thankfully most state laws agree with me and have exceptions for GPS devices)

Re:Impaired Driving Abilities?

[Anonymous Coward]

How can there be "3 next lefts"? There is 1 next left, and 2 more lefts after that.

If the GPS device says "take the next left" and it is actually the second of three, the GPS device sucks. (So... most GPS devices.)

Re:Impaired Driving Abilities?

[IndustrialComplex]

How much training to drivers receive regarding their Heads Down Displays? You know, those things which display information necessary to safely operate the vehicle but are located in a position which requires the driver to take their eyes off the road to check the information? A HUD which displays Speed, Direction, and navigation information should be LESS distracting and require less training/expertise than the current HDDs which are required equipment on all vehicles.

No, drivers today aren't really given any training on how to use their HDDs, so why would a HUD require fighter-pilot levels of training to use?

Re:Impaired Driving Abilities?

[Anonymous Coward]

there's no such thing as a quick glance you know. I seem to recall the minimum it takes to look at something is 2 seconds. That's to look down, focus, look back up, refocus, no time to actually comprehend what you're looking at which would probably add at least another 2 seconds. At 70 MPH, that's long enough to go over 200 ft. More than 2/3rds of the distance down a football field, and enough time to plow through 3 houses in my neighborhood. Long enough to run through 6,000,000,000 instructions on a modern mid-tier CPU, 8,000,000,000 on a high end CPU.

Maybe it's worth starting to use GPS with voice?

Re:Impaired Driving Abilities?

[DerekLyons]

People act like training is some magical thing.

Sure. But it's equally stupid to try and pretend it's valueless.
 

Training is nothing more than guided experience on a schedule. Intelligent people, it may surprise you, have experiences all the time, and being intelligent they can process those experiences into a useful understanding, gasp, without formal training!

True, but misleading. You mistakenly undervalue the 'guided' part. By the time I was allowed to sit the MCC supervisors chair and be responsible for sixteen nuclear missiles I'd been through months of schools, a couple of hundred hours in the simulator, and months of supervised on-the-job training and qualification. That guided process ensured that not only did I have the theory, I had experience in day-to-day operations, and I had exposure to off-nominal operations. By the time I was handed the keys to the system, I'd already proven I could handle the job.
 
But you're right - any person of average intelligence could soak up most of what I knew just by experience - most. (We supervisors even used to joke - "a trained monkey could do 99% of our jobs - we earned our pay doing the other 1%".) It's that part that's not in the most that's the problem though. That's the part that leaves systems down for hours or days while the person without formal training flounders - or in the case of a driver wearing Google Glass gets them or the people around them injured or killed.
 

I have lots of technical certs which I know a lot of people train for with classes and whatever, but I never took classes or read any books. I had enough unscheduled, unguided real world experience to just get the certs. Training isn't magical, it doesn't represent an exclusive path to knowledge and ability, so stop patronizing people.

Good for you, welcome to the right hand side of the bell curve. Careful though, the view from here can dazzle the impressionable, confuse the inexperienced, and lead the untrained into error because they've never been exposed to the situation.
 
Seriously, you're badly confused. You're mixing up studying (book learning/technical certs) with the goal of passing a standardized test with training for real world physical activities - the two are not even remotely close even if they are often described with the same word. (Damn slippery English language!) Training, in the sense used by the grandparent, isn't just about book learning. It's also about building reflexes, instilling thought processes, etc... etc... All the stuff that can't be effectively done just wandering about and hoping you don't kill someone.

Re:Impaired Driving Abilities?

[IndustrialComplex]

The point is that someone who has not spent hours getting the experience driving around in a safe simulated environment with Google glass on their head is not safe to do that on the public roads.

You do realize that such training isn't even required to get a license to drive the vehicle in the first place? Do you know what I had to do to get a permit? I went to the DMV, paid them $10, answered 16 questions, and walked out the door. I'm over 18, so I could have hopped right in a vehicle and been on the highway in less than 15 minutes.

Google glass doesn't require any specialized training to get accustomed to that a driver wouldn't learn how to do with any other bit of equipment.

You know a good way to ensure that people get used to using HUDs? Give them training on how to be good drivers. I just finished the Motorcycle Safety Program rider's skills course and something like that, which had nothing to do with checking gauges/maps/etc focused on the behaviors which lead to good driving, and not on the details of focusing on every piece of equipment you would use.

ie: People who learn how to be safe drivers, learn how to practice with new equipment in a safe manner.

further ie: Focus on training safe drivers, and you won't have to worry as much about them using equipment in an unsafe manner. Then all the fear about 'new technology x' won't be necessary.

Re:Impaired Driving Abilities?

[Sockatume]

It's fine within certain constraints. It has a finite but nonzero impact upon your attention that must be evaluated.

Re:Impaired Driving Abilities?

[IndustrialComplex]

I would prefer it if you didn't get your knowledge and ability through "unscheduled, unguided real world experience" on the streets where I walk, cycle, or drive.

Umm... that's kind of how learner's permits work. You demonstrate that you know the basic rules of the road, you are given a permit with a few restrictions, and you go out and practice on real roads. If you are really concerned about that, you are going to have to overhaul the entire US approach to learning how to drive.

Re:Impaired Driving Abilities?

[IndustrialComplex]

Kind of like how I have a mount for my phone on my dashboard. I connect my phone, turn on the SATNAV app, and its no different than what you just described.

Re:Impaired Driving Abilities?

[Anonymous Coward]

most people are borderline idiots who can't do anything without being shown how to first, the idea you could figure something out on your own is threatening

Re:Impaired Driving Abilities?

[IndustrialComplex]

I commute on the DC beltway. My GPS warns me about accidents and traffic conditions and routes me around it. I also don't have to drive distracted when it routes me through an area I'm not familiar with. No fumbling with maps, doing that 'lean forward so I can read the side street names to make sure that this is the one I w... Oh crap that was the turn I needed' thing.

I'd wager $20 that SATNAV systems have a positve impact on safe driving due to their ability to reduce operator workload and distractions.

Re:Impaired Driving Abilities?

[IndustrialComplex]

My phone only displays information to improve situational awareness. Satnav/GPS or traffic alerts. I also don't try to pour milk and eat cereal in my car, or shave, or put on makeup.

  But that's because I received education on how to be a safe driver. Not because everything unsafe was banned.

Re:Impaired Driving Abilities?

[IndustrialComplex]

The same logic can be applied to making it so that every vehicle is equipped with a governor on the engine to keep speeds below 65mph.

There are countless things which drivers could do on the road, and the only thing that keeps them from doing them is educating them on safe driving practices. The fear of getting pulled over for texting only made drivers text from their hips (ironically increasing the number of texting related accidents when texting bans were enacted).

Re:Impaired Driving Abilities?

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone else didn't RTFA, as it discusses said law and its exemptions for monitors that display navigation/radio info.

Re:Impaired Driving Abilities?

[Sockatume]

Probably not okay in California, though.

Re:Impaired Driving Abilities?

[jklovanc]

so I could have hopped right in a vehicle and been on the highway in less than 15 minutes.

A learners permit holder you are required to have a person with a valid license in the vehicle. Therefore you are in training. The theory is that the license holder would not give you control of a vehicle without training you in a safe area first as they probably don't want to get killed or damage the vehicle.

you won't have to worry as much about them using equipment in an unsafe manner.

Equipment that displays distracting information such as text messages can not be used in a safe manner hence the law against using such equipment. There is no way to safely drive down a road while reading unrelated complex text.

Re:Impaired Driving Abilities?

[Anonymous Coward]

And rally/track/truck/cab drivers have a lot more experience in driving that anyone else in the planet. We should maybe deny everyone else from driving?

Captcha: realism

Re:Impaired Driving Abilities?

[stenvar]

It's more like having an iPhone glued to the corner of the sun visor.

Which, of course, is completely legal.

Re:Impaired Driving Abilities?

[Bucc5062]

1 - Like a CP on this thread, I turn the voice way down for I find that more a distraction. Field of vision is enough to both take in the map and the road ahead. When I look at or glance at the moving map it is only when I am not in a high volume or needing quick reaction situation. Application differs across individuals so that you can use it without the map is okay, but don't dump on those that do. When we shift lanes we should always be checking our blind spots with a quick glance to the side, it that any different then a quick glance to the map?

2 - Don't we get back to the old argument of what people do behind the steering wheel. Glass does nothing more then provide a different way to do what people still do, something else but pay attention to the path of the car and its surroundings. People eat, drink, put on makeup, put on ties (I saw that once), read mail, written directions, turn and yell at kids....the list is long. Some I do myself, but with the understanding that driving is my first priority and if/when something happens in front of me it is time to focus. Anyone who has driven for many years is not driving with 100% focus all the time for much of what we do is subconscious, muscle memory which allows for the ability to perform limited multi-tasking.
 

Re:Impaired Driving Abilities?

[jittles]

People act like training is some magical thing. Training is nothing more than guided experience on a schedule. Intelligent people, it may surprise you, have experiences all the time, and being intelligent they can process those experiences into a useful understanding, gasp, without formal training! I have lots of technical certs which I know a lot of people train for with classes and whatever, but I never took classes or read any books. I had enough unscheduled, unguided real world experience to just get the certs. Training isn't magical, it doesn't represent an exclusive path to knowledge and ability, so stop patronizing people.

You obviously do not understand the purpose of training, especially in the context of a pilot. When you're dealing with whatever issues covered by your technical certs, you are probably not under hostile fire, worried about crashing, while moving through a three dimensional space with potential obstacles, or anything like that. Pilots train so that they do things automatically. When you're 50 feet AGL in a helicopter and you get an Engine 1 fire you do not have time to flip through the procedure book to figure out how to cut the fuel, fire the extinguishers, and determine whether you can continue on with your mission, must abort and return to base, or whether you need to look for a clear spot to perform an emergency landing.

I used to work on helicopter simulators for the military. I can fly a simulator all day long and never have an incident. But I do not have the training I need to handle any sort of emergency situation, especially when my life is actually on the line. There is no comparison. The training is to simulate real world experience that you hope you never have to use. If these people just waited until they got ran into the "unscheduled, unguided real world experience" that you advocate most of them would likely be dead.

Re:Impaired Driving Abilities?

[parkinglot777]

People act like training is some magical thing. Training is nothing more than guided experience on a schedule. Intelligent people, it may surprise you, have experiences all the time, and being intelligent they can process those experiences into a useful understanding, gasp, without formal training!

I am sorry but I feel that I should jump into this. It is all depended on what the "training" is. Please do not compare this type of training with any kind of computer cert training. The traning the GP is talking about involved more physical & mental than computer cert trainings. You are operating something which directly involves life safety. If you make a mistake, you could harm yourself (and may be others), and the worst case scenario is death (to you and others). And by the way, most of the "computer certifications" are junk because you could simply read them yourself if you have a capability in the subjects.

I have lots of technical certs which I know a lot of people train for with classes and whatever, but I never took classes or read any books. I had enough unscheduled, unguided real world experience to just get the certs. Training isn't magical, it doesn't represent an exclusive path to knowledge and ability, so stop patronizing people.

You are correct that training is "not magical" that "represent an exclusive path to knowledge," but you also made an assumption that all training are the same, which is incorrect. To me training is a summary and short cut of whatever subject is being trained. It could give new ideas, tips, and/or tricks to those who are new to the subject. For those who are already familiar to the subject, training may or may not be helpful (but one could still learn something new if the one is seeking). An extensive training is to give as much info and/or practice to trainees under a certain length of time whether or not trainees are capable to work on the trained subject. That's my two cents.

Re:Impaired Driving Abilities?

[jklovanc]

I call BS. Your phone never rings? It never gets text messages? It does not have a browser? You have never forgotten to turn of those other apps when getting into the vehicle?You may only choose to use the app that displays the safe information but that does not mean the it can not display. The problem with Google Glass is that it can not tell when you are driving and when you are not.

But that's because I received education on how to be a safe driver. Not because everything unsafe was banned.

Good for you but not all drivers are so conscientious about their responsibilities. By that logic we should not have speed limits because a properly trained driver would know what speed is safe.

Re:Impaired Driving Abilities?

[Anonymous Coward]

The face recognition could tell you who you just ran over though...

I kid i kid.
  though seriously.

Re:Impaired Driving Abilities?

[wisnoskij]

HUD designed to compliment your driving of a vehicle, given to trained professionals, are not that same thing as monitors that have internet access, and are designed to access Wikipedia and chat with your friends, strapped to a civilians head while driving.

Re:Impaired Driving Abilities?

[kimvette]

Maybe people should go back to fumbling with atlases and hood-sized street maps while driving at 65mph, trying to find their current location rather than using google glass or a smartphone which keeps the map centered and provides large turn directions and also voice guidance. Yep, let's ban modern electronics and go back to nice, safe unfolded maps blocking the drivers' view. That was always the safest way to navigate.

Re:Impaired Driving Abilities?

[X0563511]

2 seconds!? Do you have a disease or disability? I can sit with a stopwatch (yes, so I'm already multitasking with that) and I can get useful information while only having my eyes diverted for1/2 of a second typically - sometimes shorter if I only need to catch the shape of something (eg the turn direction indicator)

It's more dangerous to reach over and adjust the stereo volume!

Also, at 70mph, you better not be anywhere near houses. 50 feet (1/2 second) is peanuts compared to stopping or maneuvering distance. If something happens close enough that that matters, you're going to roll your car avoiding it or hit it anyway while (ineffectually) stopping.

Re:Impaired Driving Abilities?

[hypergreatthing]

So let me ask you this. In the state of california, is the garmin hud also illegal to have in your car? If so, why? It's safer than any other alternative to navigation displays.

Re:Impaired Driving Abilities?

[mcgrew]

It sure beats looking down at a fixed display to view the GPS map (often not in the best location).

And being punched in the mouth is preferable to being shot there. You don't try to fucking read while you're driving, you goddamned moron! Not a book, not a paper map, not a GPS. You pull off the road to look at your map, you irresponsible kid.

Re:Impaired Driving Abilities?

[fuzznutz]

And if you use Waze, keeps you up to date on road hazards, construction, and police traps.

Re:Impaired Driving Abilities?

[mlk]

I required more than that to take a 125cc moped out on the open road without an instructor.

I had to drive round a closed driving course, then go out with the instructor. The complete course to drive a 125cc moped (that only lasts two years before I'd have to either do it again or take the full test) took two days.

When and where did you take your driving test?

Re:Impaired Driving Abilities?

[neonKow]

Okay, then you don't cite people for what "could be."

Re:Impaired Driving Abilities?

[Anonymous Coward]

You do realize that aircraft HUD's display USEFUL information, such as aircraft speed, altitude, direction, and so forth. Whereas Google Glass displays... text messages and youtube videos?

Re:Impaired Driving Abilities?

[Anonymous Coward]

What, exactly, do you think a head-up display is if you think Google Glass doesn't qualify? Not that I think Wikipedia is the be-all end-all of sources, but they even mention Google Glass at the end of the article.

Re:Impaired Driving Abilities?

[hawguy]

I required more than that to take a 125cc moped out on the open road without an instructor.

I had to drive round a closed driving course, then go out with the instructor. The complete course to drive a 125cc moped (that only lasts two years before I'd have to either do it again or take the full test) took two days.

When and where did you take your driving test?

This isn't where I took my test, but for example:

http://www.state.nj.us/mvc/Licenses/RoadTest.htm

A safety specialist will accompany you while driving in an off-road testing area or on a public road course

...

What skills are tested?
Driving in reverse
Stopping at appropriate signs
Nearing corners or intersections
Stopping smoothly
Sitting properly
Turning around
Steering properly
Parallel parking
Yielding to right-of-way

Re:Impaired Driving Abilities?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or get an actually purpose built navigation device that doesn't have other distractions like email, text, and internet. Hmm... what would we call it? I think something like Global Positioning System would work really well.

If someone produces a GPS HUD that is only a GPS HUD then I wouldn't have much of an issue with people using it when driving. Paper maps are dangerous but it is stupid to say they are the alternative to your cellphone or glass. I mean holy fuck the person you are responding to even indicated that using GPS only with glass would be legitimate use for a driver.

Re:Impaired Driving Abilities?

[mrspoonsi]

Is it ok to look at the speedo whilst drive, or people that do are morons? on my car the rev counter is replaced by the GPS map, which is right next to the speedo (the speedo and rev counter are an lcd display and change depending on function).

Re:Impaired Driving Abilities?

[Anonymous Coward]

military pilots are trained professionals. drivers on the santa monica freeway? not quite.

most states have laws that ban monitors, computers and/or televisions from driver view... but why doesn't that also prevent gps, phone, tablet or in-dash touch screen use?

all electronic devices, handheld or not, factory installed or not, including in-dash "info centers" or touch screens should be BANNED from the front seat, from front seat view, or front seat accessibility unless the car is legally parked and turned off. in-dash touch screens are the absolute worst idea ever for driver controls in a car.

Re:Impaired Driving Abilities?

[Anonymous Coward]

Glass does not "pop up texts from your boss", that would be very distracting and goes against the principles of Google Glass, which is to not distract the user. Glass does not display your texts unless you activate the device with a gesture or tap the touch surface.

I always wear Glass when I drive. It is the least distracting device I have ever used and the best GPS navigation by far. It is much safer to look at a floating map image above your vision than to look down at an in-dash GPS. Your vision can remain focused on what's in front of you in the distance instead of changing your focus to an in-dash GPS very close by. Furthermore, since its GPS feature is only controllable by voice, there is no temptation to use a keyboard to type in the destination. Banning Google Glass while driving will make GPS usage LESS safe.

Re:Impaired Driving Abilities?

[IndustrialComplex]

I call BS. Your phone never rings? It never gets text messages? It does not have a browser? You have never forgotten to turn of those other apps when getting into the vehicle?You may only choose to use the app that displays the safe information but that does not mean the it can not display. The problem with Google Glass is that it can not tell when you are driving and when you are not.

I'm not sure what you are arguing about here... it seems like you don't want cell phones to operate in vehicles at all. I don't answer phone calls, I don't make texts, and I don't browse the internet. I could, but I don't. In addition, you can configure your phone to turn off when the vehicle is motion by measuring GPS and disablign itself if you are moving over a certain speed (15mph for example). I actually do this using the Tasker app in my phone. If my GPS position is changing faster than a rate I set, it mutes my phone and text notifications.

Good for you but not all drivers are so conscientious about their responsibilities. By that logic we should not have speed limits because a properly trained driver would know what speed is safe.

No, by my logic we should be focusing on training drivers to understand their responsibilties. By your logic, we not only should have bans on cell phones, but in-car bluetooth, radios, eating, drinking, speaking to passengers, and anything else which a person might do which increases the risk in a vehicle.

You can never eliminate risk, and some of the proposed laws actually block the implementation of other risk reducing features (like SATNAV applications). There already exists laws against distracted driving, or operating vehicles in a dangerous manner, and those are more than sufficient to pull over people who are actually behaving in a dangerous manner.

It's like advocating for a 0.0 maximum BAC for driving. Sure, it sounds good on the surface, but it really does nothing to address the root causes of drunk driving, and probably would make the whole situation worse. For example: If 0.0 was the max legal BAC, and I just had a single beer, I would be breaking the law if I offered to be the driver for someone who just had 6 beers in an hour.

The point being, these are devices which can be used in a responsible manner, and focusing your attention on device bans, without trying to address the root cause of the problem which is behavioral, just results in a ban on the device, loss of access to the beneficial features, and doesn't actually improve safety.

Re:Impaired Driving Abilities?

[mdielmann]

Highly trained and disciplined Pilots in the virtually empty air != drivers in SIlicon Valley

FTFY.

Nevermind the fact the sky is damn near empty; remember what your driving test entailed? Zero comparison between that and the training military pilots go through.

...or that plenty of cars come with built-in HUDs nowadays.

Re:Impaired Driving Abilities?

[IndustrialComplex]

A learners permit holder you are required to have a person with a valid license in the vehicle. Therefore you are in training. The theory is that the license holder would not give you control of a vehicle without training you in a safe area first as they probably don't want to get killed or damage the vehicle.

This is not universally true. Another example is for motorcycle licenses. In certain states, mine included, you do not need to have a licensed rider with you. In addition, you could, like I did, get your learners permit, and immediately take your drivers exam. Typically the only time there is a requirement for a minimum period of holding a learners permit is when the permit holder is under 18 years old.

Equipment that displays distracting information such as text messages can not be used in a safe manner hence the law against using such equipment. There is no way to safely drive down a road while reading unrelated complex text.

You know what else is unsafe? Looking to the side to check your mapquest printouts for your exit. Or reading one of those giant LED billboards.

You seem to think I operate some sort of device which pops up text messages. I don't. My texts go directly to email. In addition, I noticed you said 'unrelated' text. That implies that there is useful information which can be displayed.

Re:Impaired Driving Abilities?

[CanHasDIY]

Highly trained and disciplined Pilots in the virtually empty air != drivers in SIlicon Valley

FTFY.

Nevermind the fact the sky is damn near empty; remember what your driving test entailed? Zero comparison between that and the training military pilots go through.

...or that plenty of cars come with built-in HUDs nowadays.

If Google Glass was only capable of displaying information directly relevant to driving (i.e, land speed, RPM, oil temp, etc), or you could look up your facebook profile on the cars built-in HUD, that would be an equal comparison. Plus, military pilots go through many months of training and simulation before they so much as see the cockpit of an actual aircraft. Class F MVO holders, not so much.

Re:Impaired Driving Abilities?

[jklovanc]

In your original post you said;

My phone only displays information to improve situational awareness.

Which is only true because you configured your phone to must things if you are moving. Do you do that if you are a passenger in a car, bus, train, etc? Others are not so conscientious and will allow their phones to respond to texts.

By your logic, we not only should have bans on cell phones, but in-car bluetooth, radios, eating, drinking, speaking to passengers, and anything else which a person might do which increases the risk in a vehicle.

The difference is that radios, eating, drinking and talking to the passengers is a choice of the driver. The driver initiates these actions and can decide when it is safe to do so. A text message popping into view is initiated by someone else and the sender has no idea what the driver is doing.

There already exists laws against distracted driving, or operating vehicles in a dangerous manner, and those are more than sufficient to pull over people who are actually behaving in a dangerous manner.

Most of these tickets are written after an accident has occurred and then it is too late.

It's like advocating for a 0.0 maximum BAC for driving. Sure, it sounds good on the surface, but it really does nothing to address the root causes of drunk driving, and probably would make the whole situation worse. For example: If 0.0 was the max legal BAC, and I just had a single beer, I would be breaking the law if I offered to be the driver for someone who just had 6 beers in an hour.

This is a perfect example of a point you seem to have missed. There is a line between safe and unsafe. It has been shown that people with a BAC below 0.08 are safe enough to drive. The line between safe and unsafe has been drawn there. Should someone who had had 4 beer in an hour drive the person who has had 6 beer in an hour? One is less drunk than the other but both are drunk. Another issue is that it is verifiable that the BAC line has been crossed. There is no way to verify that the Google Glass was being used inappropriately. Try to prove in court that someone was distracted by their Google Glass. I doubt it is possible.

The point being, these are devices which can be used in a responsible manner, and focusing your attention on device bans,

Many people are not responsible which is why we have rules that ban certain things. There is no way to know if someone is using their Google Glass responsibly while driving so it's use is banned.

without trying to address the root cause of the problem which is behavioral,

We can try to train behavior but it is no guarantee that people will follow that training.

just results in a ban on the device, loss of access to the beneficial features, and doesn't actually improve safety.

It had been shown many times that reading complex sentences takes a lot of thought. If a text message can pop into view at any time it will distract some drivers and cause accidents. People have driven without Google glass for decades and the risk due to distraction is too large. In the end, the risk/reward ratio is just to heavily toward risk.

Re:Impaired Driving Abilities?

[jklovanc]

In certain states, mine included, you do not need to have a licensed rider with you.

What state is that? Another point is that motorcycles are a special case. To learn how to drive in traffic one has to drive in traffic and riding double on a motorcycle is difficult for a beginner. To allow the learning to take place the risk must be allowed or few people would ever get a license.

In addition, you could, like I did, get your learners permit, and immediately take your drivers exam.

The relevance of a waiting period is questionable at best. A rider could have driven for years off road or in a country where a license is not required but still have to get a learner's permit before a driver's license.

Looking to the side to check your mapquest printouts for your exit.

Which would fall under driving without due care.

Or reading one of those giant LED billboards.

Which is a choice and which are written to be short and less distracting.

You seem to think I operate some sort of device which pops up text messages. I don't

You may not but there is no way to verify that as Google Glass is a display for the phone and can pop up text messages. Laws are not written for individual situations but for the general public. For example, is it perfectly safe for a high performance sports car to drive at 100 mph on a deserted straight highway? Does that mean it is safe for every vehicle? If there was something hard wired into Google Glass that could accurately sense when someone is driving and disable the distracting function that would be ok. Manually disabling features is not good enough as many people will forget or just won't. Disabling while moving can not detect the difference between driver and passenger and therefore will not be acceptable by customers.

Re:Impaired Driving Abilities?

[Anonymous Coward]

You say that...but it's not really true for long.

I'd been holding off on signing up/trying to get into betas for want of prescription lenses...

Well...that's now coming out. How do you think this will work when I replace my routine eyewear with a pair of goggles?

Going to order me to take my corrective lenses off and drive without them?

I know you like to think of this as a case of safety, but things are not always so black and white.

The open ended of goggles, like any other fucking technology (my GPS actually /has/ tetris in it...I don't know why) ... is up to the user not to be a fucking idiot.

Personally-- I'm very much looking forward to HUD style speedometers and GPS over any other function save possibly the ability to snap a picture of code and pump it through a few network services I'd like to try out.

Re:Impaired Driving Abilities?

[dr_dank]

Pft, lets see a fighter jockey parallel park a F-16.

Re:Impaired Driving Abilities?

[Richy_T]

Yes, it is distracting and yes, people die and kill others whilst using them inappropriately. What's your point?

Re:Impaired Driving Abilities?

[suutar]

Well, that's a question, isn't it? According to the phrasing of the law, it may not be, since it's capable of displaying entertainment material (particularly video). The law has an exemption for GPS units, but the phrasing gives me the impression they meant purpose-built GPS units, not phones running GPS software. I don't know if that's ever been tested.

Re:Impaired Driving Abilities?

[suutar]

doubtful; the law in question specifically allows GPS units. (It would be interesting to see how an assertion that the HUD doesn't have a display screen would fly, but given the exemption it will probably not come up.)

Re:Impaired Driving Abilities?

[CanHasDIY]

Pft, lets see a fighter jockey parallel park a F-16.

I've known one or two of those guys, and considering their personality types, that's not something you actually want to say to them.

Because they will do it.

Re:Impaired Driving Abilities?

[mdielmann]

Highly trained and disciplined Pilots in the virtually empty air != drivers in SIlicon Valley

FTFY.

Nevermind the fact the sky is damn near empty; remember what your driving test entailed? Zero comparison between that and the training military pilots go through.

...or that plenty of cars come with built-in HUDs nowadays.

If Google Glass was only capable of displaying information directly relevant to driving (i.e, land speed, RPM, oil temp, etc), or you could look up your facebook profile on the cars built-in HUD, that would be an equal comparison. Plus, military pilots go through many months of training and simulation before they so much as see the cockpit of an actual aircraft. Class F MVO holders, not so much.

I don't see what most of the points you raised in response to my comment have to do with the points you raised in the comment I responded to. Also, I've never heard of any special training required for using the HUD systems already available in a variety of cars today. So, would you be okay with a version of Google Glass that had a verifiable car mode or not? And if there was such a thing, how would it be less distracting to have some information in a certain point of your field of view versus information that is specifically designed to be in same the field of view as the road you're driving on?

Re:Impaired Driving Abilities?

[Anonymous Coward]

Motorcycles have gps display helmets that are becoming rather common now.

Re:Impaired Driving Abilities?

[IndustrialComplex]

You are arguing from a position that any device which has the capability to display non-driving related information must be banned. You state that if a feature can be accessed, then the device is not suitable for use by a driver.

With that as your basis, you should also advocate banning:

AM/FM radios, CD players, Tape decks, and any other entertainment system which allows the driver to operate it instead of driving the vehicle.

Re:Impaired Driving Abilities?

[TrekkieGod]

It's fine within certain constraints. It has a finite but nonzero impact upon your attention that must be evaluated.

I will certainly agree with that, no arguments from me.

Re:Impaired Driving Abilities?

[jklovanc]

You are arguing from a position that any device which has the capability to display non-driving related information at undetermined times in drivers' field of vision no matter where they are looking must be banned.

FTFY

AM/FM radios, CD players, Tape decks, and any other entertainment system which allows the driver to operate it instead of driving the vehicle.

None of those items are in the field of vision of the driver at all times. The driver can chose to access those items when he feel safe to do so. That is not the case with Google Glass as it can pop up distracting information at any time. Those items are much less distracting than text popping up in your field of vision.

Re:Impaired Driving Abilities?

[mcgrew]

It takes no thought or reading to glance at the speedometer, it does with a GPS. The speedometer takes your eyes off the road for a split second, GPS takes both your eyes and mind off for several seconds. After all, if you know where you are you don't need GPS and if you don't, why are you moving?

Re:Impaired Driving Abilities?

[CanHasDIY]

Highly trained and disciplined Pilots in the virtually empty air != drivers in SIlicon Valley

FTFY.

Nevermind the fact the sky is damn near empty; remember what your driving test entailed? Zero comparison between that and the training military pilots go through.

...or that plenty of cars come with built-in HUDs nowadays.

If Google Glass was only capable of displaying information directly relevant to driving (i.e, land speed, RPM, oil temp, etc), or you could look up your facebook profile on the cars built-in HUD, that would be an equal comparison. Plus, military pilots go through many months of training and simulation before they so much as see the cockpit of an actual aircraft. Class F MVO holders, not so much.

I don't see what most of the points you raised in response to my comment have to do with the points you raised in the comment I responded to.

Why would I argue with myself?

Maybe it's because you quoted my entire post and your response doesn't fit the literary flow ("...or that plenty of cars come with built-in HUDs nowadays." makes absolutely no sense as a response to "Zero comparison between that and the training military pilots go through.")

I've never heard of any special training required for using the HUD systems already available in a variety of cars today.

Point? You're not actually trying to compare the highly advanced HUD system in a war-fighting aircraft with the simplistic speedometer display in a Cadillac, are you? Seriously, dude, you need to include context in your posts if you want to be understood.

So, would you be okay with a version of Google Glass that had a verifiable car mode or not?

Interesting idea; how would this 'car mode' be verifiable to a third party? It would also have to have some sort of timed lockout, so you couldn't just switch from facebook to car mode once the cop pulls you over.

Personally I don't think it's a great idea, because the view is somewhere in the top-left of your FOV, whereas driving requires your attention to be focused more direct center; hence the reason for in-dash HUD systems - they put the info close to where you need to be looking anyway.

And if there was such a thing, how would it be less distracting to have some information in a certain point of your field of view versus information that is specifically designed to be in same the field of view as the road you're driving on?

See, man, this is why you need context: because up to this point, I was pretty sure you were making the opposite argument... now I'm not really sure where ya stand.

Re:Impaired Driving Abilities?

[nukenerd]

I can't stand the voice prompting, .... don't need to be told a dozen times to keep right, I surmised that by the fact that I'm turning right in 2 miles and all the road signs indicate the exit for this is on the right.

Sounds like you drive only on major highways and/or with few junctions. In the UK there can be 20 other junctions within two miles and I'm not good at estimating 2 miles exactly. Also in the UK, road signs only fully cover the more significant junctions, and a smaller junction (either rural or in ctowns) will at best have a sign only at the spot or none at all. There are large areas of "back lanes" in the UK (including where I llve) with no signs at all.

It depends on your model of GPS, but mine gives three instructions at most - at 2 miles, 200 yds and at the spot; and the first one or two are (obviously) omitted if the previous junction was closer which it often is on UK roads.

Re:Impaired Driving Abilities?

[X0563511]

I learned to drive on the highways in/around Los Angeles, CA and I just finished a 3 year period in Atlanta, GA. Different, but just as horrible.

Re:Impaired Driving Abilities?

[Anonymous Coward]

Two issues with that line of thought -

1. Military pilots (and pilots in general) get a HECK of a lot more training than any person driving on the public road does, including a massive amount of training to handle that helmet mounted display without distraction. When Google Glass comes with a 6 month intensive training course to allow you to drive with it, then you can make that comparison.

2. There's a lot less to run into in the air, even when flying in tight formation.

Might I add:
0. The average driver appears to think that while they are reading a map/paper, read/send a text or email, shave, eat breakfast, phone their wives etc., they can drive a car

Check the ticket: she was doing 80

[Anonymous Coward]

Probably should have taken off the Google Glasses *before* the cop walked up.

Re:Check the ticket: she was doing 80

[MightyYar]

Not only was she doing 80, but he got her via the "PACE" method. This kind of implies that she wasn't paying much attention, or she probably would have seen the cop car tailing her.

Re:Check the ticket: she was doing 80

[armanox]

If the cops in CA are anything like the MD/DC cops, PACE method means they get to make up whatever they want about how fast you were going.

Re:Check the ticket: she was doing 80

[SJHillman]

Most police work means they can make up whatever they want if cases of your word vs theirs (which is very often). However, most traffic cops aren't going to bother with you if you don't do something to catch their attention in the first place, such as going much faster than traffic, changing lanes often, swerving within or between lanes, not signaling, tailgating, etc. Sure, there's a few assholes out there who do it just to be an asshole but even then they usually go after someone who caught their attention for some reason.

Re:Check the ticket: she was doing 80

[Desler]

How dare you bring facts into this! This article is supposed to be about us making fun of the "normies" for not understanding technology!!

Re:Check the ticket: she was doing 80

[hawguy]

If the cops in CA are anything like the MD/DC cops, PACE method means they get to make up whatever they want about how fast you were going.

Isn't that true of any speed measurement device? They aren't required to show you the speed indicated on whatever device they are using, and even if you look at the device and see a different speed indicated on it, they can say "Oh yeah, I must have hit the reset button when I was chasing you."

The judge will ask the cop how fast you were driving, he'll say 88mph, you'll say 65mph, and the judge will believe what the cop said.

Re:Check the ticket: she was doing 80

[Anonymous Coward]

If the cops in CA are anything like the MD/DC cops, PACE method means they get to make up whatever they want about how fast you were going.

If you read her post on G+ you'll see that she admitted to speeding because she "thought she was in a faster zone".

Re:Check the ticket: she was doing 80

[Desler]

While that may be true she admitted to speeding.

That's right +Matt Abdou! The speeding was justified as I was in a 65 mph zone and thought I was on a 75mph zone, I always feel like I need some software to alert me when zones change ... is that only me??

This person sounds like the typical self-entitled glasshole.

Re:Check the ticket: she was doing 80

[dcollins]

"I trust the police implicitly and require no evidence in support of their claims! Corruption in law enforcement is not rampant!"

Re:Check the ticket: she was doing 80

[neonKow]

Or in VA, where 80 also means reckless driving, and cops will ticket you for 5 over.

Re:Check the ticket: she was doing 80

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

> If the cops in CA are anything like the MD/DC cops, PACE method means they get to
> make up whatever they want about how fast you were going.

That'll teach her to not turn on recording to prove herself!

Re:Check the ticket: she was doing 80

[Desler]

Prove what? She admitted in a comment to her post that she was speeding. She even claimed she was "justified" because she thought it was a 75mph zone. It's funny how easy it is to sway the Slashtard crowd by posting misleading information about how she was ticketed simply for wearing Google Glass when in fact she wouldn't have been pulled over at all had she not been doing 15+ over the speed limit.

Re:Check the ticket: she was doing 80

[Anonymous Coward]

"I like to make up crazy statements and then pretend people said them! I love sucking dicks!"

Re:Check the ticket: she was doing 80

[IndustrialComplex]

So the Googleglass thing is kind of irrelevant.

She was driving in an unsafe manner and was pulled over. Seems that's enough to ensure that people don't drive in an unsafe manner, not freaking out about a new technology.

Re:Check the ticket: she was doing 80

[Anonymous Coward]

Shame Glass wasn't on. She could have documented her speed...

Re:Check the ticket: she was doing 80

[MMC Monster]

Most police work means they can make up whatever they want if cases of your word vs theirs (which is very often). However, most traffic cops aren't going to bother with you if you don't do something to catch their attention in the first place, such as going much faster than traffic, changing lanes often, swerving within or between lanes, not signaling, tailgating, etc.

Like most humans, cops are lazy. And this is California, not Texas. You're probably not going to get pulled over for Driving While Black. If the cop sees something that catches their attention, however, they'll find an excuse to pull you over.

And, no, I highly doubt that wearing Goggle Glass is going to do it. It probably looks like a hair band or fancy glasses to someone in the next car over.

Re:Check the ticket: she was doing 80

[Vicarius]

The judge will ask the cop how fast you were driving, he'll say 88mph, you'll say 65mph, and the judge will believe what the cop said.

Supposedly cops are trained to gauge your speed using nothing more than their experience, training, and a stopwatch. Cop's testimony is usually the main "evidence". Radar data is secondary supportive evidence. From my experience in traffic courts, cops always have printout from their radar. On top of that, judges often start out their initial question towards you with words that basically mean "why should I believe you instead of this respected police officer?"

Re:Check the ticket: she was doing 80

[kimvette]

And by now anyone who is tech-savvy has bought a GPS-equipped dashcam so they can prove rookies to be the lying sacks of shit they are in court when they misreport how fast you were driving.

Re:Check the ticket: she was doing 80

[Anonymous Coward]

This kind of implies that she wasn't paying much attention, or she probably would have seen the cop car tailing her.

I'm curious as to why you think she did not see the cop. And no, "she did not reduce her speed" is not proof she did not see the cop. I'll continue maintaining my above-the-speed-limit speed even when a cop is behind me.

Re:Check the ticket: she was doing 80

[MouseTheLuckyDog]

Around Chicago doing 80 means you9 are slowing down traffic , or at least it used to. I haven't driven in a while.

Re:Check the ticket: she was doing 80

[SleazyRidr]

So I assume you're not talking about a method of teaching how to play piano (most of the results for googling PACE method.) Does it refer to tailing someone and keeping a constant gap so you know they're doing the same speed as you?

Re:Check the ticket: she was doing 80

[MightyYar]

I'll continue maintaining my above-the-speed-limit speed even when a cop is behind me.

You like talking to cops?

Re:Check the ticket: she was doing 80

[MightyYar]

Yup. Lots of room for error and judgement, but the fact is a cop has to be pretty close to use this method. I don't know how prevalent unmarked cops are in CA, but if they are anything like PA the cop cars are still easy to identify. I've been in southern states where the cops seem to drive whatever they have on hand, and that would certainly change things - I certainly wouldn't slow down if a Camaro came racing up to my bumper.

Re:Check the ticket: she was doing 80

[Cederic]

"why should I believe you instead of this respected police officer?"

To which the answer in the UK could be "plebgate" or (for me), "Hillsborough".

Any judge that tells me the police are more credible than me gets the joy of doing me for contempt of court a few seconds later.

Re:Check the ticket: she was doing 80

[ihtoit]

Let the record show that the witness was crossing fingers behind his back as he said that.

Re:Check the ticket: she was doing 80

[SleazyRidr]

I'd be freak me out if I knew the cops could be in anything. Around here (Houston) they're either in older Impalas or new Chargers, so if I see a white one of them I make sure I'm doing everything right. I once spent 2 hours following a Crown Vic at 5 under the speed limit, until he stopped for gas and I realised it was just some old dude.

Re:Check the ticket: she was doing 80

[MightyYar]

LOL, well I live very close to the dodgy part of Philly, so many of the cars on the road are old cop cars (complete with spotlight) or old taxis. Most of the time they are too badly damaged to mistake for cop cars - or at the very least the windows are completely blacked out. But every once in a while I slow down and move over only to see that it has shiny rims and low profile tires when it goes by :) At night, they always get me, since the headlights look exactly the same.

Re:Check the ticket: she was doing 80

[Anonymous Coward]

California police are absolutely *nothing* like east-coast cops, and this woman was probably totally oblivious of her surroundings.

75-80mph is the prevailing speed on most freeways in Northern California. You have to be doing some really stupid stuff to get pulled over around here.

Re:Check the ticket: she was doing 80

[Anonymous Coward]

If the cops in CA are anything like the MD/DC cops, PACE method means they get to make up whatever they want about how fast you were going.

Meh, you can drive a solid 80+ all the way around the 55mph beltway without a care in the world, I thought it was well known they are out looking for aggressive driving behavior in those parts. That was what VA was like when I lived there a few years ago anyway. They'd just troll parking lots to get people for registration, county sticker, inspection etc., no need to pull you over for speeding a little just to check the little things, they raised fines for moving violations very high, and you know.. revenue isn't really a problem in that area I think.

Everyone speeds like a mofo there (without cursed traffic), but if you cut across three lanes of road.. speeding... that's how you get a speeding ticket.

Re: Check the ticket: she was doing 80

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds likea feature to add to the glasses, "you are being tailed".

Good.

[Joining Yet Again]

So wearing something which deliberately obstructs your field of vision, distracts your concentration and defeats your autofocus is considered dangerous?

Seems about right to me.

Re:Good.

[bluefoxlucid]

The problem here is the total impact is unknown. It's unknown if something in your field of vision is actually going to impact your driving. A HUD with e-mail on it might impair driving less than, say, checking your speedometer--I've almost caused a collision twice on the highway for taking one or two seconds to check my speed when it seemed fast (driver ahead of me took that time to brake, and I had to re-assess when I looked back up and didn't realize cruising at 65 was suddenly a bad thing).

People like to knee-jerk about how everything they don't understand must be like something frightening that they do understand, and so they must apply draconian rules. I've seen it go as far as people wanting to ban manual transmission because it takes your mind off the road and you need both hands on the wheel--while statistics show that manual transmission drivers are better drivers (a lot of confounding here, since people avoid driving stick because they think it's too much work etc. and most manual drivers are enthusiasts or in other countries).

Opposite arguments include that maybe Google Glass is less optimal than not doing other shit while driving; but that people will be distracted and do stupid shit in the real world, and allowing Google Glass will reduce traffic incidents by transferring their dangerous behavior to a less-dangerous form. That argument of course doesn't work well because people want perfection--like when the Polio live vaccine was found to cause 3 or 4 polio deaths per year, so the USA proposed switching to a dead virus vaccine... with projections of thousands or tens of thousands of deaths per year due to the reduced rate of vaccination. But it's better than a live vaccine causing deaths (presumably because it's your fault for not getting the vaccine, not our fault for providing vaccination; and because it only affects poor people).

Re:Good.

[Anonymous Coward]

I've heard all this before, but let me make the counter argument. If done right, glass could make driving safer. It could be used as a heads-up display with things like GPS, speed, etc displayed so you don't have to look down. It could turn off distractions while in a car - things your phone doesn't/can't really do now. I've often thought that the car is the only place I'd really like to use such a device (for GPS, speed indications)

I'm not saying it is or will be any of these things, but flippant prejudgment moderated as insightful is... indicative of the thought level of this community.

Re:Good.

[Joining Yet Again]

But since current understanding is that all the features of HUD glasses make driving more dangerous, it would require a goodly quantity of new, independent research to establish that we have an exception

It's not about being frightened by new things - that's the typical strawman response to rational caution. It's about examining the familiar features of new scenarios and taking them as a starting point, rather than resorting to child-like optimism (which may be beautiful but is entirely unscientific).

Re:Good.

[Joining Yet Again]

When confronted with a new scenario, we must start off by identifying familiar, well-researched features - re visibility, concentration, focus - and applying existing knowledge.

You are making an untested hypothesis that Google Glass is a unique combination which forms an exception. That's fine. But "optimism" isn't a basis for deployment, merely a prompt to ignite the research spirit.

Re:Good.

[Anonymous Coward]

That's right.

People can't text while driving, what makes people think they can use Google glass?

I am not convinced that this is like a HUD. A HUD in aircraft accentuates or adds other features that AID the pilot - like highlighting or even inserting runway markers when visibility sucks.

Not Youtube videos, email, or whatever other function GG is supposed to have.

Re:Good.

[smash]

It's not the vision impairment that is the problem, as demonstrated by comparisons of hands-free calls vs. people holding the phone and talking. They both registered similar impairment to BAC of 0.08.

The issue is what the person is focused on with their mind.

It's different to talking to someone sitting next to you as your brain has to work harder to judge response, etc. when the person is not there for you to see. Also, most passengers there in person have sense to STFU if traffic looks like it is going to be a problem.

TLDR: we don't need (more) asshats checking twitter while on the road. The fact that it is a HUD is likely to be little different to doing the same thing on a mobile phone. Unless the device locks out all non-driving relevant functionality while driving, its use should be prohibited just like any other mobile internet device.

Re:Good.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're taking 2 seconds to check your speedometer you're doing it wrong. On top of that you must be following the car in front of you too closely if 2 seconds is all it took for you to nearly close the gap unless the drive in front of you was breaking hard. You did say they were breaking but to what extent? Even the best drivers aren't going to avoid an accident if the car in front of them breaks to hard and there isn't a reasonable amount of space between the cars.
 
Aside from that the rest of your post is pretty much foolery. Checking your speedometer is a function of driving. No sane person is disputing that some functions of driving increase the risk of an accident but are a necessary evil. Checking your email is not a function of driving. You just don't need to do it. And you're acting like someone who is reading their email isn't checking their speedometer too. This only increases the risks of an already distracting (by your own admission) function of driving.
 
Basically when it comes down to it the public is going to be against just about anything that is non-essential while driving. Your attempt of twisting the concept into checking email may be less distracting than performing a function of driving is pretty shortsighted.

Re:Good.

[mrchaotica]

But since current understanding is that all the features of HUD glasses make driving more dangerous

Based on what evidence?

Re:Good.

[hawguy]

The problem here is the total impact is unknown. It's unknown if something in your field of vision is actually going to impact your driving. A HUD with e-mail on it might impair driving less than, say, checking your speedometer--I've almost caused a collision twice on the highway for taking one or two seconds to check my speed when it seemed fast (driver ahead of me took that time to brake, and I had to re-assess when I looked back up and didn't realize cruising at 65 was suddenly a bad thing).

If it takes you 2 seconds to check your speedometer (which should require no more than a quick glance), how can you possibly read an email in less time and with less distraction?

If maintaining a safe speed is getting in the way of driving safely, you really ought to take a driving course - the life you save may be your own.

Re:Good.

[bluefoxlucid]

This is more child-like pessimism: "It's like a cell phone! That means they'll cause more traffic collisions!"

Let's make up a scenario to explain how complex this is.

Let's say 100,000 drivers per day--mostly college sorority chicks--tend to whip their phone out and frantically take pictures of things they see WHILE DRIVING, multiple times per day. This is incredibly fucking dangerous and causes thousands of collisions per year. It's something we want to stop.

Now let's say those drivers all use Google Glass, where instead of taking several long seconds to fumble with a phone and aim and snap and then verify the picture they just glance and say, "Okay Glass! Take a picture!" Compared to cell phones, this reduces the amount of time they're distracted to smaller bursts, and keeps them more aware of the road even when they're distracted. This is still dangerous, but less so.

Now assuming we have tried to stop them using cell phones, our enforcement policies cannot provide adequate deterrence. Given that and the above, the use of Google Glass creates a significant total risk reduction in practice.

Navigation is another interesting consideration. I cannot use my phone to nav while driving and retain any safe control over my car; it's always a heavily calculated risk when I raise the phone to verify route, and a lot of the time I have to just wing it and drive around because the risk is too high.

It does require a quantity of new research to establish conclusions about how Google Glass or its ilk will impact road safety. The above considerations are not magical and new; we know that hands-free devices still produce driver distraction, but we allow the use of hands-free talk devices to use a cellphone because we KNOW people will talk on cellphones and we KNOW holding a cellphone to your head occupies one hand and is more distracting (need to manage the physical location of the phone--it really takes up cycles) than just talking to the air. Overall social impacts on risk are an important consideration.

Re:Good.

[X0563511]

Autofocus? I didn't realize we had bionic eyes yet. Maybe I'm special or you're defective, but I don't have any problems switching focus between near and far when something is masking/overlayed over my vision. Hell I can do it with either eye with equal ease!

Re:Good.

[faffod]

A HUD with email might be less of an impairment than reading a speedometer for 1-2 seconds? Really. We need to spend how much money doing studies to find out that reading text
a) takes longer
b) longer distraction times will be more distracting

No. A hud with email or text will be a distraction to driving far worse than looking at the speedometer - which you've already established a upper threshold of how much distraction to allow. Ban the crap out of this until a reliable study shows that this really isn't obvious and that taking your eyes off the road to read an email or text for 5+ seconds somehow makes drivers safe and skunks smell like unicorn farts.

Re:Good.

[hsmith]

Obstructs your field of vision? You clearly have never worn a pair, you'd realize that isn't the case, at all. I am glad having no experience with something allows you to pontificate freely about what it does.

Seems like you are an idiot to me.

Re:Good.

[faffod]

I agree a properly developed HUD would be an improvement, and there are cars that are beginning to use them. But they are not Google Glass, they are car HUDs. Google Glass hooked up to your phone is a distraction and saying that just because it might be completely reengineered into something good for driving does not make it good for driving.

Re:Good.

[faffod]

http://www.distraction.gov/content/get-the-facts/facts-and-statistics.html

distracted driving doesn't change just because you changed the delivery mechanism of the distraction.

Re:Good.

[Joining Yet Again]

Given that and the above, the use of Google Glass creates a significant total risk reduction

Assuming that these "sorority chicks" use a mobile phone as carelessly as you describe, what in God's name makes you think that they're going to use Google Glass responsibly?

And since AIUI it's *cognitive* overload which is most dangerous, not the visual disturbance, Google Glass is going to cause way more problems when given to a dickhead driver than a mobile 'phone.

Re:Good.

[Joining Yet Again]

Are you asking me for evidence that cognitive distractions and visual disturbances make driving more dangerous?

Re:Good.

[bluefoxlucid]

If you're taking 2 seconds to check your speedometer you're doing it wrong. On top of that you must be following the car in front of you too closely if 2 seconds is all it took for you to nearly close the gap unless the drive in front of you was breaking hard.

I don't have my speedometer's geometry memorized; I actually have to read and interpret the numbers, and that takes time. I have my tach's geometry memorized, oddly enough--that and the tach should be in a general area and it's usually the same area, whereas my speedo has to be in a very small area and it depends on where I'm driving. At the time I was coasting with traffic but worried about the rain, and wasn't sure if I was in the 60-ish range or 70-ish range and thus if I should slow down a bit and/or get more distance between me and the next car; I'll ride with traffic in the 80s in ideal conditions, but I'm not going to race down the road at 75mph in the rain in the right lane just because everyone else is that nuts.

When I look up from that and switch back to driving, I don't instantly go, "OH SHIT THE CAR AHEAD OF ME ISN'T MOVING!" I have to watch it, watch it get closer, assess the speed difference... the first thing I do is let off the gas. That didn't help, the car was coming FAST; so I hit the brakes, checked mirrors, and started to steer into the emergency lane.

Checking your speedometer is a function of driving. No sane person is disputing that some functions of driving increase the risk of an accident but are a necessary evil. Checking your email is not a function of driving. You just don't need to do it. And you're acting like someone who is reading their email isn't checking their speedometer too. This only increases the risks of an already distracting (by your own admission) function of driving.

The difference is scale. The risk associated with checking your speedometer may be necessary, or not. I used to almost never do it, but after 12 years of driving the cops started handing out fines. So assuming it's a necessary risk, it's... necessary. Now, if it weren't necessary, doing something 1/10 as risky might be major--like drinking soda while driving, that's fairly distracting and reduces your ability to quickly react to sudden hazards. But instead, that's considered normal and negligible--it doesn't appreciably increase risk when you consider all other normal driving activities.

Basically when it comes down to it the public is going to be against just about anything that is non-essential while driving. Your attempt of twisting the concept into checking email may be less distracting than performing a function of driving is pretty shortsighted.

The public is totally into texting while driving. Everywhere you look, people are texting and talking on cell phones while driving. We want cup holders, vanity mirrors (under the fucking driver's side visor), radios, DVD players (up front in the center console! You can watch movies while driving!), hands-free devices, and even cars with Android built-in so you can check your gmail while driving. We run major online and televised advertising campaigns to shove PSAs about how bad texting while driving is because the general public wants to text while driving.

I'm being rational about how humans behave and how different stimuli--regulations, technology, etc.--will affect human behavior. I'm being rational about risk and about the impact of these technologies on risk, and on how risk can be bounded. If you ban Google Glass while driving, you'll accomplish two things: You'll negatively impact the sales of Google Glass; and you'll encourage more texting while driving using the hold-the-phone-below-the-dash method. If you don't ban it, you'll probably get more texting while driving while looking through the display and out into the road and using voice recognition, while reducing texting by typing on the phone and staring down at the screen and away from the road.

If you want to eliminate texting while driving, you need legislation banning both teenagers and cell phones.

Re:Good.

[Joining Yet Again]

How, pray tell, is it able to put information in front of your eyes without blocking what's behind it?

Re:Good.

[Joining Yet Again]

Time taken to refocus on something very close vs a few metres away is not instant (obv - muscles are mechanical).

It also tires your eyes out to do it a lot.

To take an obvious example from geekdom, this is why many people prefer non-glossy LCDs.

Re:Good.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not the vision impairment that is the problem, as demonstrated by comparisons of hands-free calls vs. people holding the phone and talking. They both registered similar impairment to BAC of 0.08.

If talking to on the phone via hands-free calls is equivalent to being impaired with a BAC of 0.08, that doesn't mean hands-free calls are unacceptably dangerous, it means the illegal BAC is too low.

Some distractions are always going to happen while you're driving, and some impairement must be considered acceptable. Do you have other people in the car? Are you talking with them? You're impaired.

Re:Good.

[bluefoxlucid]

Divided attention versus diverted attention. When I check my speedo or a college kid looks down to poke at his cell phone, eyes are 100% off the road; if I'm gazing through a transparent display with only one eye, I have one and one half eyes on the road and can recognize and respond to visual stimuli in the roadway. That's an important distinction.

Re:Good.

[faffod]

Nope, distracted is distracted
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=95256794

Re:Good.

[David_Hart]

The problem here is the total impact is unknown. It's unknown if something in your field of vision is actually going to impact your driving. A HUD with e-mail on it might impair driving less than, say, checking your speedometer--I've almost caused a collision twice on the highway for taking one or two seconds to check my speed when it seemed fast (driver ahead of me took that time to brake, and I had to re-assess when I looked back up and didn't realize cruising at 65 was suddenly a bad thing).

If it takes that long to check your speed, you need to get a new car with Nav that will automatically warn you with voice prompts if you go over the speed limit. My new Jeep has this feature. It feels like I am being scolded by a nanny when it warns me, though...

Re:Good.

[smash]

Having been riding motorcycles on the road for 7 years and seeing the dumb shit oblivious people do in cars while on their phone, i'll go with option 1 - hands free calls are unacceptably dangerous. The fact that they are legal in some places is more to do with politics than actual merit. And see my comment above regarding other people in the car. You are less impaired as your brain isn't trying to reconstruct visual representations of the person based on audio only. Plus they will STFU if things look hairy. Most of the time.

Re:Good.

[smash]

And further to the above - you might think you're driving just fine while on the phone. In reality, I can spot people who are on their phone from 100+ feet away, without needing to look through windows, etc. purely based on the attitude of the car on the road, general road positioning and reaction to traffic. You may think you can drive on the phone. You can.... very poorly. And just like someone who is driving with a BAC of 0.08 or more - you don't realise just how poorly you are doing at it.

Re:Good.

[hsmith]

Your supposition in your first post was the device blocks your field of vision while wearing it. It simply doesn't. Yes, if you focus on the aperture you will lose focus from what you are looking at, but the device itself, as you claim, does not block your field of vision. It is no different than looking at your stereo - it simply is out of the way.

Re:Good.

[nbritton]

So wearing something which deliberately obstructs your field of vision, distracts your concentration and defeats your autofocus...

You've just described glasses.

Re:Good.

[Anonymous Coward]

> for taking *one or two seconds* to check my speed when it seemed fast
Get the fuck off the road. You're incompetent. It shouldn't take much more than a quick glance, maybe 1/4 of a second, to check your speed. And that shouldn't occupy so much attention that the car you're tailgating's brake lights don't catch your attention.
Christ. People like you are the problem here.

Re:Good.

[Anonymous Coward]

u wot m8

It doesn't defeat my autofocus - it improves it.

It doesn't distract my concentration - it enables me to see much more sharply.

You have a point that glasses create a slight blurriness at the peripheries where the lenses end - is there an evidence that this is dangerous? Nothing like shoving an obstructive display nearer the cetnre of your field of vision, though.

Re:Good.

[IndustrialComplex]

Imagine if Motorcycles were invented today. People would flip their lids.

Re:Good.

[mrchaotica]

You're right that the delivery mechanism doesn't matter [much], but the content does. That website is talking about text messages and entertainment, but that's not what a HUD is. Show me evidence that the sort of information that ought to be displayed in a HUD causes distraction, because that's what Google Glass is supposed to be showing (not text messages!).

Re:Good.

[IndustrialComplex]

Unless the device locks out all non-driving relevant functionality while driving, its use should be prohibited just like any other mobile internet device.

That's interesting, because my mobile internet device displays Waze, which provides me route guidance and warnings about upcoming hazardous conditions.

Of course, there is no enforcement on this, because it would require some significant DRM-like implementations on my device, something which I would NOT be happy about.

Re:Good.

[faffod]

This discussion is about HUD glasses not car HUD systems. A car HUD system could well decrease the fatality rate on our roads. An entertainment HUD system like the one discussed here is a distraction and will add to the carnage on our roads.

Re:Good.

[mrchaotica]

No, because you're begging the question. I'm asking for evidence that the types of information reasonably displayed in a HUD (e.g. gauge cluster info, night-vision to see beyond the range of the headlights, warnings about obstacles ahead, etc.) count as "cognitive distractions and visual disturbances" in the first place.

(Now, you might try to argue that that's not the kind of information that Google Glass currently displays, but I would counter with the idea that Google Glass is an immature/experimental product, and isn't necessarily programmed appropriately yet.)

Re:Good.

[Joining Yet Again]

but I would counter with the idea that Google Glass is an immature/experimental product, and isn't necessarily programmed appropriately yet

So it is dangerous as it stands, but something else which is like it (but isn't it) may be safer. OK, we're agreed.

Re:Good.

[bluefoxlucid]

The point is that using X irresponsibly is less problematic than using Y irresponsibly. For example: Driving while talking on a cell phone is slightly less problematic than driving while totally blasted on two pitchers of Michelob.

Do none of you people understand how to use logic and reason? It's like rational thought isn't a main evolutionary trait of human species.

Re:Good.

[bluefoxlucid]

Well, you're wrong.

If I have a magic shutter over my windshield that turns it completely black, that's a lot different than raising my arm to glance at my watch and still being able to see the giant wall that is the rear of the trailer in front of me suddenly expanding in my field of view. In one case, I'm blind; in another, my focus is on another object in a similar way that it is when I'm verifying the actions of the driver in the next lane (who appears to be readying to cut me off) rather than hyperfocusing on the truck in front of me.

Or are you going to argue now that not being able to physically see something is the same as looking at it but not really thinking about it? Like if I stick my penis in your face while you're trying to work out how much your wedding is going to cost, you won't notice?

Re:Good.

[bluefoxlucid]

They already do that. Fatality rate in motorcycle collisions at given speed is the same as fatality rate in cars at given speed, but people complain about how dangerous motorcycles are.

Re:Good.

[Anonymous Coward]

But since current understanding is that all the features of HUD glasses make driving more dangerous, it would require a goodly quantity of new, independent research ...

That is not how science works. Quantity is not a measure of quality.
In other words: Google cannot buy their way towards having this accepted by the scientific community as not more dangerous.

Re:Good.

[stenvar]

But since current understanding is that all the features of HUD glasses make driving more dangerous, it would require a goodly quantity of new, independent research to establish that we have an exception

Being 20 years old "makes driving more dangerous". Being 60 years old "makes driving more dangerous". Having a baby in the car "makes driving more dangerous". Having had a bad day at work "makes driving more dangerous". Why don't we keep all those people from driving then?

Re:Good.

[Anonymous Coward]

I hate Google glass and all the hipster crap it brings, but... Have they done a study to actually verify Google Glass is a distraction? if not then it is not a valid argument to say it is a bad thing or a good thing. end of argument.

Re:Good.

[mrchaotica]

1. Point 1: In your previous post you argued that the delivery mechanism doesn't matter, but now you're arguing that it does (HUD on glasses vs. HUD on car windshield).
2. Point 2: The entire reason I'm talking to you is that I'm explicitly rejecting the idea that Google Glass is supposed to be an "entertainment system." If that's what it seems to be now, then that means it's not fulfilling its augmented reality/contextual computing purpose and the software needs to be improved.
3. Point 3: When you start using sensationalistic language (e.g. "carnage on our roads") you lose all rhetorical credibility.

Re:Good.

[jxander]

Yes. Especially as compared to :

Reading Printed directions
Checking Paper maps
In-dash GPS
In-dash entertainment (the legal stuff, radio, CDs, etc)
After market dash mounted GPS (Tom Tom, Garmin, Cell phone)
Any method for tracking traffic ("Accident up ahead, rerouting")
etc.

All of those things are deemed safe, or at least safe enough to be legal. So, how does Google Glass rate against them? Of course, it would be safest if we always knew exactly where we were going, and never got lost, and never ran into traffic, and never had to change CDs and .... but this isn't a perfect world, so we need to accept risk, and minimize it. I'm confident that Google Glass is, at very least, less dangerous and distracting than other already-legal options.

Re:Good.

[Anonymous Coward]

people are texting and talking on cell phones while driving.
 
Texting is illegal in most situations and in some situations so is holding your cellphone to the side of your head
 
  vanity mirrors (under the fucking driver's side visor)
 
Which you don't have to use and most people don't use while driving.
 
  radios
 
Which you don't need to have to take your eyes from the road to listen to.
 
  We want cup holders
 
Cup holders don't mean you're drinking as you can place items in them and drive at the same time (What a concept!) and you don't need to take your eyes from traffic even if you were using them while driving.
 
  DVD players (up front in the center console! You can watch movies while driving!)... even cars with Android built-in so you can check your gmail while driving.
 
That are also disabled with an interlock by law. But don't let the facts stand in your way or anything.
 
You're obviously a Slashtard and considering your description of how you drive you probably shouldn't have a license either.

Re:Good.

[faffod]

Wow, I provide a link to a study that shows people can't multitask, and you wave your dick around as if that would distract from you having no facts. I'll ignore the small phallus seeking attention, and bring you back to the subject at hand (hint, it is not what is in your hand).

You are comparing short duration tasks to a long duration task. You do not read emails in one second bursts. And while you are focused on the email you are not multitasking (see my link for proof - note that was the first one that google listed, there are many more). During that time the situation around you is evolving and you are not aware of it. Sure a big red semi drifting over might catch your attention, but you drifting out of your lane won't. A kid running up to the street won't. Will you be able to avoid some incidents, of course. Will you be as safe as someone driving without the distraction of reading slashdot on the road, not even close.

Re:Good.

[mrchaotica]

Yes, but that's only the first part of the issue. The second part of the issue is that, as a consequence, the politicians might jump the gun and make it illegal to use in a car (or otherwise establish further prejudice against doing so) before it has a chance to be fixed appropriately.

Re:Good.

[ApplePy]

I've seen it go as far as people wanting to ban manual transmission because it takes your mind off the road and you need both hands on the wheel--while statistics show that manual transmission drivers are better drivers

I would love to see those statistics -- just to back me up. The idea just seems logical. If you can manage to use both hands and both feet to accomplish something, it would seem to indicate good motor skills. Consider the safest class of drivers on the road -- pros who drive tractor-trailer rigs, which almost universally have manual transmissions.

Most of the worst driving I see on the highways are vehicles that don't come with a manual option, like large SUVs. It would seem more likely that driving a vehicle with an automatic requires less focus on the task of driving, thus increasing the ease of distraction.

I'll go so far as to say that a person (barring some physical handicap) who cannot manage the coordination to drive stick probably shouldn't be driving at all.

And that's not even touching the subject of the superior fuel economy with manual transmissions... automatics are bad for the environment!

Re:Good.

[bluefoxlucid]

No, you provided me a link to news media reports about "a study". I can provide you with "a study" showing that orange juice and vitamin C prevent heart disease; it's not actually true, and many studies have concluded that vitamin C doesn't prevent colds or flu. There is scientific evidence that global warming is a farce, too.

My primary argument is this: human beings have the ability to react to external stimuli. Human beings, when focused on one thing, will see movement in their peripheral vision and switch their focus. This is why you can't walk up in front of someone who is eating, reach over, and slap him in the side of the head; you have to sneak up behind him--and hope he doesn't hear you, while he's focused on his spaghetti or his cell phone or whatever.

Turning your field of vision away from the road removes the external stimuli of the road 100% from your field of vision. Shifting your mental focus elsewhere does not move the road from your field of vision. That's a big difference: it means you're still subject to external stimuli occurring on the road. If that didn't make a difference, you wouldn't be able to drive in any functional way. You'd never react to pedestrians until you hit them, for example, because you're busy watching other cars on the road. You'd never react to doors opening in front of you. You wouldn't be able to react to break lights or street signs.

By the way: when I drive, I hold conversations in my head. Multiple, multi-sided. I also design machines, simulate engines, listen to my car and examine it for deviations while trying to pin down what would make that sound and what might need maintenance. I sing with the radio. Just because I'm looking forward you think more than 3% of my attention is out the window, or even outside my head? My coworkers think I'm holding conversations with them; I'm replaying conversations I had with them in the car days ago on my way to lunch, with minor adjustments.

Re:Good.

[faffod]

1. This thread is about a HUD with email on display. Email is entertainment when it comes to driving. It has nothing to do with information that needs to be processed while driving. I am willing to grant that someone developing a HUD for a car, and nothing else would be a great addition to my car.
2. I think I covered this in (1), but allow me to repeat that if someone built what you're talking about and made it so that it was only providing driving AR functions (i.e. no text message pop ups, youtube is all out) it would be awesome.
3. In the US alone there are over 30,000 car fatalities per year. I think that is a large enough number to justify using the word carnage: the killing of a large number of people. If you don't then I am sorry that you were offended. What word would you use to describe 30k+ deaths a year?

Re:Good.

[mrchaotica]

[I]f someone built what you're talking about and made it so that it was only providing driving AR functions (i.e. no text message pop ups, youtube is all out) it would be awesome.

Given who is in charge of the Google Glass project (Thad Starner), I fully expect exactly that. I'm surprised it isn't already like that, in fact.

Re:Good.

[Anonymous Coward]

Couple of things...

Glass deliberately DOES NOT obstruct your vision. It is above your normal vision, and if you were to look up at it you would see nothing but clear Glass, much as looking through reading glasses does not obstruct your vision because the glass is transparent. The Glass display does not illuminate unless the user performs a head gesture or taps the touch surface, it does however light up when it is time to show a GPS instruction, but then it automatically turns off a few seconds later. By remaining off most of the time, it is much less distracting than any other type of display.

Glass is the least distracting mobile device I have ever used. I always use it while driving because it is an excellent GPS and completely hands-free. It allows me to remain focused on driving, and not have to worry about configuring a GPS or looking down at an in-dash GPS.

Defeats auto-focus? Not sure what you mean here, I find it improves my focus on the road, because the GPS displays focal length is not nearby, it is six or seven feet in front of you, closer to the focal range of the road than an in-dash GPS. I don't have to constantly switch focus from near to far when looking between a nearby in-dash GPS and the cars in the distance.

Re:Good.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you use it, it is a distraction. If you don't use it, you don't need to wear it. It really is that simple, you don't need a study to show reading a text/email on your google glass is a distraction.

Arguably, if you use it as a sat nav it may be less distracting than a dedicated sat nav because it already being in your field of view it is easier to check, however, most people aren't disciplined enough not to use it for other non-driving related functions, and it is impossible for police to know how you are using it without pulling you over (and even then it is difficult to check), so a blanket ban on it while driving isn't unreasonable.

Re:Good.

[Anonymous Coward]

Are "reading printed directions" and "checking paper maps" actually deemed safe, or is it just there is no specific law against them. I certainly don't consider them safe, I would assume they would fall under a more generic "dangerous driving" law.

Re:Good.

[Anonymous Coward]

Arguing the X is less problematic than Y, is not a good justification for X. It just means that if Y is a big problem (i.e. there are a lot of people engaging in it) then more work needs to be done to stop Y, and not just hope they'll switch to X if you permit X.

It's like rational thought isn't a main evolutionary trait of human species.

That does seem to be the case from my observations.

Re:Good.

[Ixpath]

Every study I have seen says holding a conversation with a passenger is similarly impairing. Similarly one would think that using an old school "map" or eating/drinking is also quite impairing. It seems to me that if you are to avoid hypocrisy you would have to advocate banning passenger-side seats and holding ANYTHING in your hand. But that's not the real problem with cellphone GPS and Glass GPS is it? The real problem is that if you could use your phone, why would anyone pay money for an overpriced standalone GPS system at the dealer or Garmin? They are less accurate than google maps AND they cost money.

Re:Good.

[Anonymous Coward]

While you might be able to notice significant changes of what is in front of you, it is quite easy to miss still quite significant, but less visually obvious changes when your attention is focused on reading your email. The "Invisible Gorilla" experiment* demonstrated what lots of people can completely fail to notice when their attention is focused on something else.

* As an aside, the book The Invisible Gorilla: And Other Ways Our Intuition Deceives Us is well worth a read.

Re:Good.

[Joining Yet Again]

Because all of these things are unavoidable, numbnuts.

Checking your e-mail isn't.

Re:Good.

[Joining Yet Again]

bluefoxlucid, I would kinda like to take all your posts and use them as an illustration of the Wobegon effect. No matter how furiously you handwave, study after study confirms that the average person cannot so quickly react when distracted. So I conclude that you think you're wildly above average. But I believe you are not. It is also possible that you are grinding some ideological axe about government interference, truth be damned.

You're not alone. Tens of thousands of people on the roads think like you every year, and end up dead.

Please review your posts in this thread in light of the eloquent and detailed responses which have been given to you by many people. Driving is the thing most likely to kill you before you get old. And even though you seem to be playing the arrogant buffoon, I still don't want you to be hurt.

Re:Good.

[Joining Yet Again]

I'm going to take a wild guess as to where you've slipped up.

In 2006 in the UK, 6,484 motorcyclists were killed or seriously injured, compared to 14,254 car users. Sounds pretty good for motorcycles, huh?

But there are over 20 times as many cars on the road as motorcycles.

Indeed, per mile travelled, motorcyclists in the UK were 51 times more likely to be killed than car travelled.

DoT figures, if you want to check 'em.

Re:Good.

[Joining Yet Again]

Glass deliberately DOES NOT obstruct your vision. It is above your normal vision, and if you were to look up at it you would see nothing but clear Glass,

Could you explain exactly what you mean here by "above" vs "looking up"? It sounds like you're saying I can't look directly at it. And, sitting in a car, where is low enough for me to read but high enough that it doesn't obstruct my view out of the windscreen/windshield? It would change anyway depending on which way my head is looking, wouldn't it? So if I had to look down for something, I'd end up with the Glass display over the center of the windshield, wouldn't I?

The Glass display does not illuminate unless

I'm not sure I would find things appearing and disappearing in a place relative to the position of my head less distracting than things always being in a specific place. A regular HUD can be effective, but that's relative to the car.

Defeats auto-focus? Not sure what you mean here, I find it improves my focus on the road, because the GPS displays focal length is not nearby, it is six or seven feet in front of you, closer to the focal range of the road than an in-dash GPS.

You have to overcome "there's a little speck of dirt really close to my eye". Maybe some people do this better than others.

Re:Good.

[bluefoxlucid]

No matter how furiously you handwave, study after study confirms that the average person cannot so quickly react when distracted.

Study after study does not confirm, however, that the average person cannot react AT ALL. Human evolution and survival have demanded this reaction to external stimuli.

Let me repeat this to make it clear:

A person texting on their cell phone, looking down into their lap or over at the center console or at their steering wheel or wherever they're holding it, is functionally equivalent to A BLIND PERSON DRIVING. Their eyes are NOT RECEIVING LIGHT FROM THE ROAD and DO NOT PASS IMAGES TO THE BRAIN.

A person looking through Google Glass while engaging in similar activities IS RECEIVING INPUT FROM THE ROAD, but THEIR BRAIN MAY BE IGNORING IT.

In one of these situations, a reaction is physically possible; in the other, a reaction is physically impossible. One of these situations is similar to driving while blindfolded; the other is similar to driving while watching the car in front of you when a retarded pedestrian suddenly steps off the curb and struts directly toward the roadway. One of these situations is similar to a driver painting his windows opaque black; the other is similar to the driver holding a conversation with a passenger while driving.

You continue to harp on this idea that people become blind the moment their mind isn't 100% devoted to the road; physically, biologically, and psychologically, this is not true. Your "study" that "shows multitasking is impossible" is the same as many studies that show that humans engage in PREEMPTIVE MULTITASKING: that they "multitask" by switching between multiple activities, in some cases by internal time slicing and yielding and in others by interrupt (external stimulus). It does not preclude that a person may suddenly switch their attention; science only suggests--and has not formed a very strong conclusion--that humans cannot actively execute more than one conscious task at a time.

Your arguments are logical fallacies, you are providing incorrect equivocation, and you are making an ass of yourself in public.

Re:Good.

[bluefoxlucid]

No, wrong.

Fatality rate in motorcycle collisions at given speed is the same as fatality rate in cars at given speed

Take every motorcycle collision or dismount at 20-30mph. Compare injuries to every car collision at 20-30mph.

Take every motorcycle collision or dismount at 30-40mph. Compare to car collisions at 20-30mph.

And so on.

People say, "But dude, at 80mph on the highway, if you hit something on a motorcycle you will probably die!" Yes that's true. At 80mph on the highway, if you hit something in your fucking Mazda 3, you will probably die too.

People come off motorcycles at 40mph and slam into trees and survive. I've had friends do this. They require serious medical attention for a while, but they come out 100% fine. They also do this and die. Fatality rate at 40mph is quite a lot higher than fatality rate at 25mph--which is ridiculously low. So low you can slam your SUV into a 10 year old child at 25mph and, unless you roll over them, they'll probably (like 85%) survive with bruises and maybe--possibly not--broken bones. Much less being in a motorcycle and being able to steer away or brake to reduce the impact, or coming off and rolling. Or being in a car (people do sustain injury at 25mph).

At a given speed, in a collision, you're roughly as likely to sustain the same level of injury on a motorcycle as you are in a car. I don't care that motorcyclists like to drive like dbags; that's somebody else's problem and doesn't affect my risk level if I get on a motorcycle. What affects my risk level is absolute survivability of a collision at speed, and how much controllable risk I effect on myself. The absolute survivability is roughly equivalent.

Re:Good.

[stenvar]

They are perfectly avoidable, "numbnuts", namely by banning them.

Re:Good.

[Joining Yet Again]

Oh, that's a shame, I was thinking you had accidentally misinterpreted a statistic (I couldn't confirm/deny it as you haven't quoted any source), but it seems you're deliberately quoting an irrelevant one.

I don't care that motorcyclists like to drive like dbags; that's somebody else's problem and doesn't affect my risk level if I get on a motorcycle. What affects my risk level is absolute survivability of a collision at speed, and how much controllable risk I effect on myself.

OK, it's the Wobegon effect again. "All that matters is that the likelihood of surviving a collision at some speed is no higher for motorcycles, and that I'm a much better driver than everyone else."

Re:Good.

[Joining Yet Again]

A person texting on their cell phone, looking down into their lap or over at the center console or at their steering wheel or wherever they're holding it, is functionally equivalent to A BLIND PERSON DRIVING.

Are you trolling, please?

Re:Good.

[swillden]

How, pray tell, is it able to put information in front of your eyes without blocking what's behind it?

It's above and to the right of your normal gaze. The comparison in another thread above with having a smartphone clipped to the visor is pretty accurate. You do have to shift your eyes and your focus away from the road to see it, but it's less of a transition than looking at your dashboard or your dash-mounted GPS receiver.

Re:Good.

[bluefoxlucid]

No, trolls have eyes in weird places. They might have eyes on the top of their head so they can see out their windshield when the two usual eyes are pointed elsewhere and don't continue that in their field of view. It might help if it weren't for the fact that

Since it has become illegal to use the phone while driving, people put their phone down in between their legs, below their steering wheel and have to take their eyes off the road. As opposed to before, or in states where it is perfectly legal, they keep the phone in front of them, so the road is still in their line of sight.

Re:Good.

[bluefoxlucid]

I'm as bad a driver in one vehicle as in another. Also it's plain to see that plenty of motorcyclists weave between cars, race down the highway at 150mph, pass too close, and generally drive like shit while wearing t-shirts and jeans (jeans shred against the road; you need leather) and no helmet (I saw a guy with a bicycle helmet once, just once; I've seen plenty of no-helmet guys and quite a few with half-helmets that weren't strapped).

If you're actually following proper lane etiquette, keeping with traffic instead of trying to go Road Rash all over the highway, and making proper use of appropriate safety gear, your risk is reduced. Your "I'm a much better driver than everyone else" concept seems to apply when all the other drivers have their foot to the floor and aren't wearing seat belts and have taken the doors off their cars. I may not be Mario Andretti, but I'm better than these suicidal retards.

(Also amusing: I've actually seen no-door wranglers with people riding around with no top, no doors, no seatbelt, going off-roading...)

Re:Good.

[Joining Yet Again]

Study please.

(No points for citing the HLDI bulletin, since that's not what it says.)

Re:Good.

[Joining Yet Again]

I am glad that you are taking steps to observe bad behaviour and to try not to copy it.

Re:Good.

[bluefoxlucid]

First off, you're wrapping yourself into a cherry-picking bubble where data of type X is the only valid data, regardless of quality or impact.

Second, how are billboards different? You're looking at the billboard, you're not looking at the road. Should we illegal billboards? (The answer is yes, but perhaps not for that reason)

Re:Good.

[bluefoxlucid]

It's commonly called "wisdom", although that's not an exact definition. It is an amusing observation, however: humans have the ability to learn from the mistakes of others, but also the strong lack of interest to do so.

In my case, I'm just unnaturally good at risk. Most people evaluate what's scary or produces funny feelings in their tummy; I do a complex comparison involving a basic risk analysis (how likely versus how severe), crossed with return on risk investment. If the risk is low but the reward is ... nothing ... then it's not worth the risk; if the risk is high but the reward is good but not significantly better than not taking the risk, it's not worth it; if the risk is low and the reward is extremely high--i.e. using public roads in general versus not using public roads on foot, car, bicycle, or motorcycle--then it's totally worth it.

Certain behaviors just aren't worth the risk. Motorcycles are more enjoyable in light clothing with no safety gear at high speeds... but not in any way I care about. Proper safety gear is slightly less comfortable and slightly inconvenient, but again not in any way that I'll really notice. This is not a difficult decision. Similarly if I want to drive my car hard and fast and at the edge of its abilities and mine, there's the autocross track where screw-ups land me sliding sideways through road cones; otherwise the risk of property damage, insurance increases, citations, arrest, injury, and death to have some fun on the road or save 10 minutes of time just isn't worth driving like a maniac.

Again, this is separate from skill. Which I've also developed to an extent. When I started driving, I couldn't even read business signs: if I didn't know where I was and where I was going, I was lost. Glancing away from the road caused me to immediately and dramatically slide into the next lane. With experience, I have learned to look around me and to look for landmarks or businesses I'm trying to find without losing track of other vehicles or losing control of mine. I've also learned collision avoidance skills: better vehicle handling (collision avoidance techniques like lane tossing, skid recovery, and advanced braking) as well as awareness skills (i.e. evaluating risks and shifting focus to compensate). These skills can always be improved on; developing them is a risk reduction strategy, supplying both mitigation (awareness and avoidance skills) and contingency (avoidance and recovery skills).

It costs $300 for an advanced driving course where they teach you all about vehicle dynamics, the impact of tire choice, and basic vehicle maintenance; as well as giving hands-on experience with collision avoidance, braking, steering, and skid recovery techniques on a closed course designed to simulate high-risk public road driving situations such as vehicles and pedestrians suddenly blocking the lane of traffic you're driving in, losing control of your car in rain or snow, or intersection conflicts (i.e. some moron runs a stop sign or red light directly in front of you and you have no space to stop, you must brake and avoid with and without ABS). This isn't standard; if only I could get thousands of petitioners to appear at our state capitol with signs and loud voices, maybe we could force these skills to be standard requirements for a driver's license.

Re:Guilty

[Anonymous Coward]

Link please :-)

Glasshole extraordinaire?

[Anonymous Coward]

Click on the "one unlucky driver...." link and laugh at all the extreme glassHOLE commentary. The silly self-entitled so-and-so was stopped for SPEEDING, and the Google Glass thing was secondary... given the comments, me thinks perhaps some C.O.P.-- contempt of police- attitude may have played a part here as to the reason for the cop deciding to throw on the Glass obstruction of view thing. What purpose is served by wearing this thing while driving, if it is off? Cause it's too much trouble to take off and put back on when you stop the car?

Re:Glasshole extraordinaire?

[gatzke]

Maybe google should have selected users based on pretentiousness? This glasshole thing may limit their adoption long-term more than any technology issue.

Not sure what to blame the g+ failure on. I went to check that wasteland again today. After the reader debacle I have lost a lot of faith.

Maybe I start the bing? Does it work with the tubes?

Re:Glasshole extraordinaire?

[Sockatume]

As problematic as Google Glass is, the term "glasshole" is one of the stupidest pejorative memes I've heard. I mean, John Gruber uses it. Do you want to be like John Gruber?

Re:Glasshole extraordinaire?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe google should have selected users based on pretentiousness?

maybe they already did

Re:Glasshole extraordinaire?

[Anonymous Coward]

Christ. Are all of her posts about Google Glass? Her "commitment" towards her health is just another way to post about Google Glass. GlassHOLE indeed.

I'm totally feeling you with the contempt of police angle too. I'm imagining it started with the officer suggesting it was against the law to drive with them, and she pushed the issue into getting a ticket.

Captcha: Closets (Are Glassholes really closeted hipsters? I bet when Google Glass goes retail, all of these glassHOLEs will be complaining about how impure the new glass users are.)

Re:Glasshole extraordinaire?

[Megane]

So if someone wearing Google Glass was from Massachusetts, would they be a "glassmasshole" or a "massglasshole"?

Re:Glasshole extraordinaire?

[X0563511]

I don't need my glasses for driving either, so you're saying I should take them off because they "obstruct" my view?

Re:Glasshole extraordinaire?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, he's not. Nor is it likely that your glasses come with a HUD on them. Way to be an idiot.

Re:Glasshole extraordinaire?

[kimvette]

> Glass obstruction of view thing

Are they also ticketing those who wear sunglasses, since they "obstruct the view" by design?

he though she was a borg

[Anonymous Coward]

...and it turns out he was not that far off

Google censored the SNL Google Glass skit!

[Anonymous Coward]

The classic SNL 'Randall Meeks' sketch has disappeared from Youtube.... actually there is one but the video has been replaced with static screenshot images.

So if you wondered whether Google has a sense of humor, there's your answer right there. They can enjoy a good laugh at other people's expense, maybe.

Wearing Glass was the third violation on ticket!

[GAATTC]

Note she was cited for speeding and a second violation. Wearing Glass was the third violation on the image of the ticket she posts. Speeding while distracted by a web enabled heads up display - how bad would she have felt if she'd killed someone.....

Looks like she was stopped for speeding

[PhilHibbs]

The first line in the violations section contains "65 mph" but I can't read the rest, so it looks like that was the main reason for stopping. The next line starts with 27602 which is the code for driving with a TV or monitor visible to the driver.

Re:Looks like she was stopped for speeding

[Joce640k]

I'm guessing the fact that the cop was tailing her and she didn't notice might have influenced his decision that something was distracting her.

Re:inb4

[Joce640k]

One of her own comments is: "Glass was not on and I honestly don't use it much while driving..."

But you do use it, right?

Re:inb4

[ElectricTurtle]

Cute, but unless you hold a phone at eye level with the road, which I've never seen anybody do, it is in fact completely different. There's a reason that modern military aircraft have HUDs with vital information on them, because the time it takes to move your eyes around, locate and focus on various things can be critical at high speeds. When the visual separation is trivial it can in fact increase concentration, and if you disagree, please inform the world's air forces at once on your genius discovery.

Might be legal

[crmanriq]

It looks like she might be able to claim an exception under 27602(2) or (3):

27602. (a) A person shall not drive a motor vehicle if a television receiver, a video monitor, or a television or video screen, or any other similar means of visually displaying a television broadcast or video signal that produces entertainment or business applications, is operating and is located in the motor vehicle at a point forward of the back of the driver's seat, or is operating and the monitor, screen, or display is visible to the driver while driving the motor vehicle.
(b) Subdivision (a) does not apply to the following equipment when installed in a vehicle:
(1) A vehicle information display.
(2) A global positioning display.
(3) A mapping display.
(4) A visual display used to enhance or supplement the driver's view forward, behind, or to the sides of a motor vehicle for the purpose of maneuvering the vehicle.
(5) A television receiver, video monitor, television or video screen, or any other similar means of visually displaying a television broadcast or video signal, if that equipment satisfies one of the following requirements:
(A) The equipment has an interlock device that, when the motor vehicle is driven, disables the equipment for all uses except as a visual display as described in paragraphs (1) to (4), inclusive.
(B) The equipment is designed, operated, and configured in a manner that prevents the driver of the motor vehicle from viewing the television broadcast or video signal while operating the vehicle in a safe and reasonable manner.
(6) A mobile digital terminal that is fitted with an opaque covering that does not allow the driver to view any part of the display while driving, even though the terminal may be operating, installed in a vehicle that is owned or operated by any of the following:
(A) An electrical corporation, as defined in Section 218 of the Public Utilities Code.
(B) A gas corporation, as defined in Section 222 of the Public Utilities Code.
(C) A sewer system corporation, as defined in Section 230.6 of the Public Utilities Code.
(D) A telephone corporation, as defined in Section 234 of the Public Utilities Code.
(E) A water corporation, as defined in Section 241 of the Public Utilities Code.
(F) A local publicly owned electric utility, as defined in Section 224.3 of the Public Utilities Code.
(G) A city, joint powers agency, or special district, if that local entity uses the vehicle solely in the provision of sewer service, gas service, water service, or wastewater service.
(c) Subdivision (a) does not apply to a mobile digital terminal installed in an authorized emergency vehicle or to a motor vehicle providing emergency road service or roadside assistance.
(d) Subdivision (a) does not apply to a mobile digital terminal installed in a vehicle when the vehicle is deployed in an emergency to respond to an interruption or impending interruption of electrical, natural gas, telephone, sewer, water, or wastewater service, and the vehicle is owned or operated by any of the
following:
(1) An electrical corporation, as defined in Section 218 of the Public Utilities Code.
(2) A gas corporation, as defined in Section 222 of the Public Utilities Code.
(3) A sewer system corporation, as defined in Section 230.6 of the Public Utilities Code.
(4) A telephone corporation, as defined in Section 234 of the Public Utilities Code.
(5) A water corporation, as defined in Section 241 of the Public Utilities Code.
(6) A local publi

Re:Might be legal

[js3]

And the reason why it won't is because

"(a) does not apply to the following equipment when installed in a vehicle:"

Google glass is not installed in the vehicle.

Re:Might be legal

[Anonymous Coward]

Sadly, those exceptions don't apply because the display is not *solely* a mapping display or a global positioning display. Only dedicated devices meet those definitions. Your smart phone, even with a mapping or GPG program active doesn't count either. It's already settled law.

Re:Might be legal

[smash]

(A) The equipment has an interlock device that, when the motor vehicle is driven, disables the equipment for all uses except as a visual display as described in paragraphs (1) to (4), inclusive.

(B) The equipment is designed, operated, and configured in a manner that prevents the driver of the motor vehicle from viewing the television broadcast or video signal while operating the vehicle in a safe and reasonable manner.

(6) A mobile digital terminal that is fitted with an opaque covering that does not allow the driver to view any part of the display while driving, even though the terminal may be operating, installed in a vehicle that is owned or operated by any of the following:

I believe that given the device does all of those functions and has NO lockout functionality, she'd be boned if she took it to court. The spirit of that legislation is clearly that the driver should not be distracted by any of those devices, and there must be lockout to prevent this occurring. Glass has none.

Re:Might be legal

[Sockatume]

You would have to define "global positioning display" carefully. I suspect that most courts would conclude that multifunction devices do not fall under the exemption, or that the device would have to be demonstrably in that mode at the time of the incident for the exemption to apply.

Re:Might be legal

[Anonymous Coward]

It was as installed as an aftermarket click-on GPS device.

Otherwise that tomtom you bought would be illegal.

Why isn't it?

Because section (a) does not apply to a device that performs the task of
            (1) A vehicle information display.
            (2) A global positioning display.
            (3) A mapping display.

and despite merely being located in a region ahead of the back seat of the driver but not installed into the car, it still falls under one of those three things.

Re:Might be legal

[Anonymous Coward]

The tickets being handed out for drivers operating cellphones for GPS and being able to see the screens thereof in California would seem to indicate that the Google Glass doesn't count as installed.

-Conan

Re:Might be legal

[hawguy]

Sadly, those exceptions don't apply because the display is not *solely* a mapping display or a global positioning display. Only dedicated devices meet those definitions. Your smart phone, even with a mapping or GPG program active doesn't count either. It's already settled law.

Correct -- police have issued tickets to people using their phone as a GPS:

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/technology/2013/04/calif-court-upholds-ticket-for-phone-gps-use-while-driving/

Re:Might be legal

[Skapare]

Was it actually "INSTALLED in a vehicle" ?

Re:Might be legal

[Anonymous Coward]

I was a commercial driver for many years. It was my job to know such things and no, she cannot claim an exemption. Those exemptions are only for single use devices. Have an android tablet with nothing but google maps installed? Fine! What if it is face down and turned off but still visible to the driver? Fine!

These codes are designed to stop an otherwise easily hidden safety violation. They are quite strict save for the complete exemptions for most municipal and government workers.( what is a 'digital terminal'? whatever they say it is )

Re:Might be legal

[mdmkolbe]

So would it be illegal for a passanger to use a laptop?

Re:Might be legal

[Toshito]

It looks like she might be able to claim an exception under 27602(2) or (3):

(2) A gas corporation, as defined in Section 222 of the Public Utilities Code.
(3) A sewer system corporation, as defined in Section 230.6 of the Public Utilities Code.

I see what you did here!

Re:Might be legal

[Anonymous Coward]

what do taxi and shipping companies like UPS do?

the face of Google Glass

[drinkmoreyuengling]

I went to that first link and had a look at some of the clowns commenting on the G+ thread. Even the typical /. crowd would shun these people as dorks. Google Glass could cure cancer and make you able to fly, and they are NEVER going to sell these things when that is the face of the product.

Re:the face of Google Glass

[robert.j.saulnier]

They're already selling Google Glass. It costs $1500. And people are paying for it.

Re:the face of Google Glass

[drinkmoreyuengling]

Some people, and this is the crowd using it day to day making themselves public. Normal people either will not buy it or a few will and not leave the house with them.

Re:the face of Google Glass

[Anonymous Coward]

Have any other predictions, Nostradumbass?

Re:the face of Google Glass

[drinkmoreyuengling]

I do. Your face appears on the G+ thread.

With all this talk about HUDs....

[mark-t]

... and the argument that if HUDs don't interfere with jet pilots, they shouldn't pose a problem for automobile drivers, where in the article does it mention that she was actually using it in that capacity?

I firmly suspect she was not....

But on that point.... if merely "driving with a monitor visible to the driver" is illegal, then wouldn't a completely integrated HUD system in an advanced vehicle also be illegal?

Re:With all this talk about HUDs....

[quacking duck]

But on that point.... if merely "driving with a monitor visible to the driver" is illegal, then wouldn't a completely integrated HUD system in an advanced vehicle also be illegal?

It's not "merely" driving with a monitor visible to driver. That was my first thought too, but after checking the full text of the Section, it includes a pretty comprehensive list of exceptions including vehicle info display and GPS, under which an integrated HUD system would definitely be covered.

Re:With all this talk about HUDs....

[Anonymous Coward]

This idea of comparing the average driver to a trained jet pilot is simply stupid. It's akin to saying a nurse can administer an anesthetic, a surgeon can administer an anesthetic... thus a nurse should be allowed to perform surgery.

Aside from that, it's illegal (at least in the state of Pennsylvania) for me to do most functions on my integrated GPS while the car is in gear. You'll have a valid point when Google Glasses are made to the kinds of specifications where the driver cannot be watching YouTube or Facebook while the car is in gear. Wearing these glasses is illegal until her equipment is also in compliance with the laws of the road. The law that this poster cites pretty much puts it out in black and white....
 
  (5) A television receiver, video monitor, television or video screen, or any other similar means of visually displaying a television broadcast or video signal, if that equipment satisfies one of the following requirements:
(A) The equipment has an interlock device that, when the motor vehicle is driven, disables the equipment for all uses except as a visual display as described in paragraphs (1) to (4), inclusive.
(B) The equipment is designed, operated, and configured in a manner that prevents the driver of the motor vehicle from viewing the television broadcast or video signal while operating the vehicle in a safe and reasonable manner.

Re:With all this talk about HUDs....

[jklovanc]

Not of it only displays vehicle information.

27602. (a) A person shall not drive a motor vehicle if a television receiver, a video monitor, or a television or video screen, or any other similar means of visually displaying a television broadcast or video signal that produces entertainment or business applications, is operating and is located in the motor vehicle at a point forward of the back of the driver's seat, or is operating and the monitor, screen, or display is visible to the driver while driving the motor vehicle.
(b) Subdivision (a) does not apply to the following equipment when installed in a vehicle:
(1) A vehicle information display.
(2) A global positioning display.
(3) A mapping display.
(4) A visual display used to enhance or supplement the driver's view forward, behind, or to the sides of a motor vehicle for the purpose of maneuvering the vehicle.
(5) A television receiver, video monitor, television or video screen, or any other similar means of visually displaying a television broadcast or video signal, if that equipment satisfies one of the following requirements:
(A) The equipment has an interlock device that, when the motor vehicle is driven, disables the equipment for all uses except as a visual display as described in paragraphs (1) to (4), inclusive.
(B) The equipment is designed, operated, and configured in a manner that prevents the driver of the motor vehicle from viewing the television broadcast or video signal while operating the vehicle in a safe and reasonable manner.

The problem is that Google Glass can display a video signal but can't tell that someone is driving and therefore is not exempt from the law.

Re:Wearing Glass was the third violation on ticket

[Anonymous Coward]

how bad would she have felt if she'd killed someone.....,

Not sure, but she could immediately post it on her facebook page...

Re:Wearing Glass was the third violation on ticket

[swampfriend]

She says in the comments, "The speeding was justified as I was in a 65 mph zone and thought I was on a 75mph zone, I always feel like I need some software to alert me when zones change ... is that only me??" Actually California does have an "app" to alert you when zones change, it involves physical displays of the current speed limit that come into eyesight as you physically approach them

I'm torn

[Anonymous Coward]

This is not straight forward at all. Distracted driving in any form is bad, but where do we draw the line. With a head mounted display you can't tell if someone is actively using it, or just wearing it in addition to their natural glasses. On the one hand you're potentially using it and being a threat to others, on the other you're being judged guilty until proven innocent.

But ultimately what it comes down to is driving is a privilege, not a right. Abuse the privilege, or in this case act like you might be abusing the privilege, and it can be taken away.

Re:inb4

[Sarten-X]

There are far fewer things to hit at an aircraft's usual altitude. A pilot's HUD can obscure small parts of the view without significant risk. There's also the small detail that pilots are far better-trained than most drivers.

Re:inb4

[Anonymous Coward]

Your missing a vital point in your wonderful argument......the data being displayed in your example (military aircraft) has everything to do with flying and maneuvering the plane and not chatting or looking up something that can easily be addressed once the vehicle has stopped moving.

Now if they were able to provide car telemetry or something like "45 MPH zone approaching" and show you the line where it starts, then I would agree with you completely. But that is simply not the case.

She deserves the ticket.

Not, however, if it's handsfree

[Anonymous Coward]

Or connected via handsfree kit.

So, again your parent poster's statement has not been refuted by your "refutation".

Please try again.

Re:Not, however, if it's handsfree

[noh8rz10]

simmer down, internet. I got this one. from AAA website:

California
It is unlawful to drive a motor vehicle equipped with a television receiver, a video monitor, or a television or video screen, or any other similar means of usually displaying a television broadcast if the receiver is located in the vehicle at any point forward of the back of the driver’s seat.

so it's not the san diego PD being google haters or anti-technology, they're just enforcing existing laws about monitors viewable to the driver. nothing to see here.

Re:Not, however, if it's handsfree

[C0R1D4N]

" or any other similar means of usually displaying a television broadcast" poor wording might get her out of it. googe glass is not a usual means ofdisplay, nor does it receive television broadcasts.

Re:Not, however, if it's handsfree

[buck-yar]

Agreed, it doesn't fit any of the description of the banned displays.

Back up cameras / displays do fit.

Seems california legislatures are for killing kids. http://autos.aol.com/article/back-up-cameras-law/

Re:Not, however, if it's handsfree

[Lumpy]

"so it's not the san diego PD being google haters or anti-technology, they're just enforcing existing laws about monitors viewable to the driver. nothing to see here."

So why are they not ticketing everyone with a GPS, or other screen in the dashboard? All Prius owners should be ticketed over this right now as they have screens facing them, Also everyone with a double DIN car stereo with touchscreen are also flagrant violators of this law.

Re:Not, however, if it's handsfree

[Krojack]

Exactly. This law will be enforced depending on what side of the bed the police wake up on that day.

Re:Not, however, if it's handsfree

[Anonymous Coward]

So why are they not ticketing everyone with a GPS, or other screen in the dashboard?

Because those devices are not against the law.

Re:Not, however, if it's handsfree

[Anonymous Coward]

Prove it.

Re:Not, however, if it's handsfree

[Anonymous Coward]

Then they are doing a shitty job because every day they break that law. Computer screens in the front facing the driver? Cops are not above the law... in fact they should be held to a higher standard due to the trust and responsibility that we the public give them.

Re:Not, however, if it's handsfree

[wonkey_monkey]

What makes you think I was trying to refute anything?

I refer you to the original question:

Should you get a ticket just for having your cellphone in the car because it has the capability to text and check the internet?

And the first word of my reply:

No

Re:Not, however, if it's handsfree

[stenvar]

Google Glass is no more a "TV receiver" or "video monitor" than the other bitmapped LCD screens that you find all around modern cars.

Re:Not, however, if it's handsfree

[slickepott]

Are glasses against the law?

Sucks to be me I suppose. :) Though here in sweden we don't have any direct law against using a phone while driving by itself either. We just go for "doing something hazardous".

Re:Not, however, if it's handsfree

[Dcnjoe60]

Agreed, it doesn't fit any of the description of the banned displays.

Back up cameras / displays do fit.

Seems california legislatures are for killing kids. http://autos.aol.com/article/back-up-cameras-law/

Can you watch Netflix on Google Glass? As for backup cameras, those in dash screens specifically do not broadcast video, other than the cameras precisely because of the law. California is not alone in this type of legislation.

Re:Not, however, if it's handsfree

[Dcnjoe60]

"so it's not the san diego PD being google haters or anti-technology, they're just enforcing existing laws about monitors viewable to the driver. nothing to see here."

So why are they not ticketing everyone with a GPS, or other screen in the dashboard? All Prius owners should be ticketed over this right now as they have screens facing them, Also everyone with a double DIN car stereo with touchscreen are also flagrant violators of this law.

If you can't see the difference between a Prius (and similar cars with on board displays) and Google Glass, you shouldn't be allowed to use either.

Re:Not, however, if it's handsfree

[Dcnjoe60]

Google Glass is no more a "TV receiver" or "video monitor" than the other bitmapped LCD screens that you find all around modern cars.

The official description of Google Glass is:

Google Glass is a wearable computer with an optical head-mounted display that is being developed by Google in the Project Glass research and development project, with a mission of producing a mass-market ubiquitous computer.

It would seem that is quite a bit differnt than the bitmapped lcd screen in modern cars.

Re:Not, however, if it's handsfree

[sabri]

Back up cameras / displays do fit.

When I load up my SUV to the point where I can't see anything in the rear-view mirror, I purposely turnon my backup camera and use it as a means to look behind my car, while driving.

I dare, I double-dare all law enforcement to ticket me, and I'll drag your ass in front of the Supreme Court.

Re:Not, however, if it's handsfree

[kimvette]

I hope they're pulling over everyone driving an infotainment-equipped car. According to the letter of the law, those vehicles are illegal there.

Re:Not, however, if it's handsfree

[CrimsonAvenger]

Can you watch Netflix on Google Glass?

Doesn't matter. The law includes the phrase:

or any other similar means of usually displaying a television broadcast

Netflix is many things, but it is NOT a "broadcast", television or otherwise.

Re:Not, however, if it's handsfree

[cayenne8]

Boy, I guess they'd go ape shit over my mount I have in my car on the dash just below eyesight of the windows/windshield to set up my oldie but goodie 10" Xoom tablet which I watch things on on longer trips, or even stream movies from netflix over the verizon wireless.

If a cop starts to look interesting, I just flip on maps to make it look like only a GPS aid...hehehe.

Sure makes for a nicer trip with some entertainment on.

Re:Not, however, if it's handsfree

[Anonymous Coward]

Lovely, well written law & well enforced law. How does that work with dash or window mounted GPSs? Or newer "infotainment" systems, which are certainly video screens. Do they not count since they're not "usually displaying a television broadcast"? If so then Google Glass gets off (and so does a DVD player, which is not displaying a television broadcast).

The intent is obviously to not be a distraction to the driver. Getting that intent into practice was done poorly here, possibly because its an archaic law, possibly because it was just poorly written in the first place. If they're going to cite people for driving with Google Glass for this, they should be citing others as well. Or the law should be fixed.

Re:Not, however, if it's handsfree

[Anonymous Coward]

Addendum:

Looks like the full law makes it clear, and in this case she is at fault (though so is anyone using their smartphone as a GPS). I'd say the law could still use an update since there's probably 100s or 1000s of people violating it every day in a way that's not unsafe. Someone below posted the actual full statute 27602(2) or (3), which states:

(b) Subdivision (a) does not apply to the following equipment when installed in a vehicle:
(1) A vehicle information display.
(2) A global positioning display.
(3) A mapping display.
(4) A visual display used to enhance or supplement the driver's view forward, behind, or to the sides of a motor vehicle for the purpose of maneuvering the vehicle.
(5) A television receiver, video monitor, television or video screen, or any other similar means of visually displaying a television broadcast or video signal, if that equipment satisfies one of the following requirements:
(A) The equipment has an interlock device that, when the motor vehicle is driven, disables the equipment for all uses except as a visual display as described in paragraphs (1) to (4), inclusive.
(B) The equipment is designed, operated, and configured in a manner that prevents the driver of the motor vehicle from viewing the television broadcast or video signal while operating the vehicle in a safe and reasonable manner. ...

Re:Not, however, if it's handsfree

[David_W]

When I load up my SUV to the point where I can't see anything in the rear-view mirror, I purposely turnon my backup camera and use it as a means to look behind my car, while driving.

Is yours a non-OEM one? I know the only way to turn on my camera is to actually be in reverse at the time.

Re:Not, however, if it's handsfree

[fuzznutz]

I guess you've never seen a heads up display in cars. But hey, you just keep on advocating more state power and interference in the daily lives of its citizens. We don't have enough laws, prisons, fines and penalties to keep the citizenry in its proper place. It's for their own good.

Re:Not, however, if it's handsfree

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL and the major manufacturers are working on in-car info-tainment systems? Does that mean it will be illegal to drive a new car in cali? Of course not, it just means that the laws will be selectively enforced (kind of like they are now).

Re:Not, however, if it's handsfree

[Stan92057]

And if you kill someone? how will that make you feel?

Re:Not, however, if it's handsfree

[bkr1_2k]

And that, my friends, is complete and utter bullshit legal-speak. Sure, it follows the letter of the law, but not the spirit of it. Way to go...

That kind of attitude is why our legal system wastes millions of dollars every year.

Re:Not, however, if it's handsfree

[hypergreatthing]

Fairly sure that glass doesn't come standard with tv reception. Sort of a stretch to apply it.

Re:Not, however, if it's handsfree

[Anonymous Coward]

But it is not a device they are talking about in that law, so it does not apply.

Re:Not, however, if it's handsfree

[mdmkolbe]

Note the key words "equipped" and "usually displaying a television broadcast". Wearing Google Glass does not "equip" the car with a video screen any more than the passanger holding a laptop does. Also Google Glass is not "usually" used for displaying a television broadcast.

Making Google Glass illegal while driving might be a good idea, but what you're citing doesn't apply to Google Glass.

Re:Not, however, if it's handsfree

[SQLGuru]

There are plenty that will accept flash media (USB or card, depending on the model) and play video from it......even if the primary video source is expected to be back-up cam video.

Alternately.....my backup cam (self-install) is just a really long RCA cable....I have a non-powered video switch that I could easily hide and use it to play video from another source (such as a tuner or DVD player).....and switch to back-up cam as needed.

Re:Not, however, if it's handsfree

[Archfeld]

That is the way the California Motor Vehicle code was written. It states that ANYTHING which might interfere with your ability to drive a motor vehicle safely, which includes texting, adjusting the radio, even chewing gum for a sadly large portion of the population, is prohibited. It allows for the officer to make a judgment call based on the skills and performance of the driver in question. The anti-cell phone/texting laws are a bunch of politicians grandstanding to get attention, imagine that. There are exceptions for law enforcement persons so they can use their monitors to check vehicle plates and registration numbers. Statistics show that traffic deaths are the greatest killer of on-duty cops.

http://www.nleomf.org/facts/officer-fatalities-data/

Re:Not, however, if it's handsfree

[Anonymous Coward]

You're right. Cars are a ubiquitous, driveable mass market computer with displays (bitmapped, analog, LCD, you name it) in every direction the eye can look.

We should really ban the effing things!

Re:Not, however, if it's handsfree

[orgelspieler]

You obviously didn't read the rest of the statute.

A person shall not drive a motor vehicle if a television receiver, a video monitor, or a television or video screen, or any other similar means of visually displaying a television broadcast or video signal that produces entertainment or business applications, is operating and is located in the motor vehicle at a point forward of the back of the driver’s seat, or is operating and the monitor, screen, or display is visible to the driver while driving the motor vehicle.

(emphasis mine)

Luckily, it also specifically permits "A mapping display." Google glass obviously fits into that category. So any able-minded lawyer should be able to get that part of her speeding ticket thrown out. But even she admits to the speeding part.

Re:Not, however, if it's handsfree

[Mr. Slippery]

Boy, I guess they'd go ape shit over my mount I have in my car on the dash just below eyesight of the windows/windshield to set up my oldie but goodie 10" Xoom tablet which I watch things on on longer trips, or even stream movies from netflix over the verizon wireless.

As well they should. If you are not bullshiting us, then you are an grade-A asshole, a threat to other people on the road, and should no only have your license revoked, you should do time for criminal negligence.

Re:Not, however, if it's handsfree

[Anonymous Coward]

Trouble with that law is, it's a slippery slope. Anything capable of displaying an image could be construed as a "video monitor" - GPS navigators, modern car stereo consoles, etc. could qualify as video monitors.

What it boils down to is, the cop had a bad day or maybe was low on tickets issued for the month, so he's gonna drag the girl into court and let a judge figure out if she was really breaking any laws.

Re: Not, however, if it's handsfree

[smaddox]

Think of all the children that would be saved every year!

Re:Not, however, if it's handsfree

[cayenne8]

It isn't like my eyes are glued to the screen...I mostly listen, only occasionally glancing down at it...no longer than I would to read the radio/ipod interface.

And in heavy traffic I don't look at all....it isn't rocket science driving, man.

Re:Not, however, if it's handsfree

[Just Some Guy]

Traffic court judges are not well known for their appreciation of clever interpretation of the rules.

Re:Not, however, if it's handsfree

[C0R1D4N]

No, but traffic court prosecutors are generally pretty lazy and would rather drop the charge in return for a guilty plea on the speeding rather than actually have to argue a case.

Re:Not, however, if it's handsfree

[Tuidjy]

> Back up cameras / displays do fit.

Which is why, on my car and probably on most cars, you cannot turn on the rearview camera while you are driving forward above a certain speed.

> Seems california legislatures are for killing kids.

Exaggerating much? You are talking about a law that would make a rather expensive piece of equipment mandatory on hundreds of thousands of vehicles... some of which are cheap enough for it to result in a non-trivial price increase.

Sure, many such laws are a good idea, but I certainly would not like politicians to be passing them without any discussion because otherwise they would be seen as "for killing kids". You know what else would save a hundred lives per year? Mandating that all vehicles are surrounded by a foam ring with a square meter cross-section. Sure, it would cost a bit, especially to double all roads' width, but being against it would mean that you want to kill people, right?

Re:Not, however, if it's handsfree

[noh8rz10]

From the same AAA website as above. Thanks for not bothering with the link:

GPS navigation systems that are mountable on the windshield or the dashboard are permitted, as are systems designed to prevent the driver from viewing them. There is also an exemption for video event recorders that have the capability of monitoring driver performance, if mounted in specific locations.

Re:Not, however, if it's handsfree

[Anonymous Coward]

Or connected via handsfree kit.

A "head-free" Google glass is legal as well.

Re:Not, however, if it's handsfree

[Dcnjoe60]

There are plenty that will accept flash media (USB or card, depending on the model) and play video from it......even if the primary video source is expected to be back-up cam video.

Alternately.....my backup cam (self-install) is just a really long RCA cable....I have a non-powered video switch that I could easily hide and use it to play video from another source (such as a tuner or DVD player).....and switch to back-up cam as needed.

That may be true, and if you are playing a video on your in-dash display, you can get a ticket for it, too.

Re:Not, however, if it's handsfree

[Dcnjoe60]

I guess you've never seen a heads up display in cars. But hey, you just keep on advocating more state power and interference in the daily lives of its citizens. We don't have enough laws, prisons, fines and penalties to keep the citizenry in its proper place. It's for their own good.

My series 7 has a heads up display. But I would not try and argue that it is a computer screen or monitor which is what the law is about. Why? Because, my BMW is not a computer. OTOH, Google Glass, according to Google itself, is a computer and the eyepiece is the screen. Leave emotion out and look at it from a point of law. Is the driver driving the car? Do they have a functioning computer screen in front of them? If the answer is yes to both questions, they are guilty of violating the law.

If people don't like the law, then they should lobby to get it changed, but this isn't about the state or the police putting people in their place. It's about an antiquated law not being updated for current technology. Nobody would be complaining if she were ticketed while having a 17" CRT sitting on the dash or even a 15" LCD monitor. That's what the law was meant to prevent. The fact that technology has advanced but the law hasn't isn't the fault of the officer who is left to enforce it.

So, instead of whining about state abuse of power, exercise your own power and lobby to change the law. The state only has whatever power the people give it.

Re:Not, however, if it's handsfree

[multimediavt]

Traffic court judges are not well known for their appreciation of clever interpretation of the rules.

That's right. They will often throw the book at you while it's still in the bookcase.

Re:Not, however, if it's handsfree

[multimediavt]

That is the way the California Motor Vehicle code was written. It states that ANYTHING which might interfere with your ability to drive a motor vehicle safely, which includes texting, adjusting the radio, even chewing gum for a sadly large portion of the population, is prohibited. It allows for the officer to make a judgment call based on the skills and performance of the driver in question. The anti-cell phone/texting laws are a bunch of politicians grandstanding to get attention, imagine that. There are exceptions for law enforcement persons so they can use their monitors to check vehicle plates and registration numbers. Statistics show that traffic deaths are the greatest killer of on-duty cops.

http://www.nleomf.org/facts/officer-fatalities-data/

Actually, most states have similar laws. Ignorance is not a defense, btw. See my comment above about book and bookcase.

Re: Not, however, if it's handsfree

[Anonymous Coward]

For driving a vehicle in an unsafe manner? At least put on the hazard lights and stay in the far right lane if you can't use your mirrors optimally. Site-by-wire be damned!

Re:Not, however, if it's handsfree

[Gibgezr]

So you are OK with people driving 2 ton vehicles at speed whilst wearing Google goggles? Because, I'm not.

Re:Not, however, if it's handsfree

[swillden]

If you can't see the difference between a Prius (and similar cars with on board displays) and Google Glass, you shouldn't be allowed to use either.

So, what you're saying is that you can't articulate the difference. Got it.

Re: Not, however, if it's handsfree

[Anonymous Coward]

Spirit of the law vs letter of the flaw.

Re:Not, however, if it's handsfree

[Dcnjoe60]

If you can't see the difference between a Prius (and similar cars with on board displays) and Google Glass, you shouldn't be allowed to use either.

So, what you're saying is that you can't articulate the difference. Got it.

I have no need to articulate the difference, you are the one that seems confused. Simply put, though the Toyota Prius is a car you drive to get from point A to point B. My spouse drives one every day, so I am quite familiar with it, its capabilities and systems. As for the Google Glass, it is a wearable computer. I don't own one, and have only read about it.

A more accurate description of Google Glass is Google Glass is a wearable computer with an optical head-mounted display (OHMD) that is being developed by Google in the Project Glass research and development project, with a mission of producing a mass-market ubiquitous computer. Google Glass displays information in a smartphone-like hands-free format, that can communicate with the Internet via natural language voice commands.

I'm not sure how somebody could confuse the two, but, maybe if you would articulate what is confusing you between them, somebody on slashdot could explain it for you.

Re:Not, however, if it's handsfree

[noh8rz10]

what state do you live in? just asking, so I never go there. asshole.

Re:Not, however, if it's handsfree

[noh8rz10]

yeah but GG does much more than mapping. who's to say she was using it for mapping? Maybe she was watching youtubez? that's why the garmin things are ok, because you know they don't play pron.

Re:Not, however, if it's handsfree

[noh8rz10]

Actually, most states have similar laws. Ignorance is not a defense, btw. See my comment above about book and bookcase.

yeah, i don't get that. is that lawyer humor?

Re:Not, however, if it's handsfree

[noh8rz10]

so if a person is driving with a laptop open in her lap, that shouldn't be illegal?

Re:Not, however, if it's handsfree

[swillden]

Wow, way to go off on a completely unrelated -- and ridiculous! -- tangent. Or did you just completely miss the point that the law violated by wearing Glass appears to be equally violated by the screen in a Prius?

Re:Not, however, if it's handsfree

[mdmkolbe]

If the legislators aren't creative enough to make a law that makes driving with an open laptop in the driver's lap illegal but not an open laptop in the passenger's lap, then they have no business being legislators. (Not that that has ever stopped them.)

(Side note, someone else in this thread posted the actual California law. I was misled by the AAA summary. Unless I missed something, there is no "equipped" requirement and it includes "business applications" in addition to TV broadcasts.)

Re:Not, however, if it's handsfree

[Dcnjoe60]

Wow, way to go off on a completely unrelated -- and ridiculous! -- tangent. Or did you just completely miss the point that the law violated by wearing Glass appears to be equally violated by the screen in a Prius?

The law is specifically about computer displays in front of the driver. , the inboard display on the Prius isn't a computer, so, no, it doesn't violate the law in CA or the other state. The fact that it could be used as one in a different context doesn't matter. As it is in the car, it is not because the Prius is not a computer. That's the point. Likewise, a GPS isn't a computer under the LAW either. However, Google Glass is a computer and therefore, the display sitting right in front of your eye, violates the law. CA isn't the only state that has and enforces this type of law and others are actually passing legislation specifically aimed at Google Glass to remove any confusion.

Re:Not, however, if it's handsfree

[swillden]

Actually, the law is about television screens.

Re:Not, however, if it's handsfree

[hobarrera]

The motor vehicle was not equipped with any of the above actualy. It's equipped onto the driver's head.

Re:Not, however, if it's handsfree

[Dcnjoe60]

Actually, the law is about television screens.

More specifically it is about prohibiting drivers from operating a vehicle with a television broadcast or video signal in view in front of them. With regards to the television broadcast, Google Glass would not be considered a violation. However, the video signal is being displayed literally right in front of the driver's eye, so that is the part that the law that is being violated. California is not alone with this statute and other states have amended theirs specifically to include devices like Google Glass to remove any ambiguity. Specifically exempted by the CA law are displays related to the operation of the vehicle and gps devices. Here is the actual law: http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d12/vc27602.htm

Re: Not, however, if it's handsfree

[Anonymous Coward]

No, the law is about monitors or screens with the capability of displaying television, or whatever vision, at the driver. This, by that definition, includes Glass. It's a very simple concept.

Re:Not, however, if it's handsfree

[fuzznutz]

So, instead of whining about state abuse of power, exercise your own power and lobby to change the law. The state only has whatever power the people give it.

I do. And part of that is to educate those misguided souls that support our government's ever increasing reach into every facet of our lives. As long as a law has popular support, lobbying lawmakers has no effect. By pointing out how ridiculous so many of these laws are to clueless lemmings whose knee jerk reaction to anything they disapprove is to jump up and down screaming, "There ought to be a law!", I can hopefully reduce popular support. The clueless unwashed masses are the reason these laws get passed in the first place.

You cannot legislate happiness or perfect safety.

Re:Not, however, if it's handsfree

[swillden]

A software tweak to Glass could easily allow it to satisfy the requirements of that law. Basically, just disable anything other than navigation when in a vehicle (perhaps detected by proximity to the vehicle bluetooth) and when the vehicle is moving.

Re:Not, however, if it's handsfree

[Dcnjoe60]

A software tweak to Glass could easily allow it to satisfy the requirements of that law. Basically, just disable anything other than navigation when in a vehicle (perhaps detected by proximity to the vehicle bluetooth) and when the vehicle is moving.

That would be a solution, assuming bluetooth is on, or it could use the gps in the headset to monitor the location and speed and calculate that you are in a moving vehicle. There was a similar discussion a few weeks ago about something like this for cell phones to keep drivers from using them. Of course either of those solutions would mean that your passengers would lose the ability to use theirs, too.

A much more basic and simpler and safer solution would be to just not wear the headset while driving.

Re:Not, however, if it's handsfree

[swillden]

A much more basic and simpler and safer solution would be to just not wear the headset while driving.

Except that then you couldn't use it for navigation.

Re:Not, however, if it's handsfree

[LaoziSailor]

simmer down, internet. I got this one. from AAA website:

California It is unlawful to drive a motor vehicle equipped with a television receiver, a video monitor, or a television or video screen, or any other similar means of usually displaying a television broadcast if the receiver is located in the vehicle at any point forward of the back of the driver’s seat.

so it's not the san diego PD being google haters or anti-technology, they're just enforcing existing laws about monitors viewable to the driver. nothing to see here.

There are plenty references in other threads and I have to ask here, is it illegal to have a GPS with a display that tells you where you are going?

Re:Not, however, if it's handsfree

[noh8rz10]

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4395161&cid=45285219

Re:Not, however, if it's handsfree

[Dcnjoe60]

A much more basic and simpler and safer solution would be to just not wear the headset while driving.

Except that then you couldn't use it for navigation.

That is true, you would have to rely on the built in navigation system of the vehicle or a regular gps, if you were wanting not to break the law in those states that prohibit something like Google Glass.

Re:Not, however, if it's handsfree

[swillden]

A much more basic and simpler and safer solution would be to just not wear the headset while driving.

Except that then you couldn't use it for navigation.

That is true, you would have to rely on the built in navigation system of the vehicle or a regular gps, if you were wanting not to break the law in those states that prohibit something like Google Glass.

Both of which increase the danger of distracted driving, by requiring you to move your eyes and shift your focus farther in order to see the display.

Re:Not, however, if it's handsfree

[Dcnjoe60]

A much more basic and simpler and safer solution would be to just not wear the headset while driving.

Except that then you couldn't use it for navigation.

That is true, you would have to rely on the built in navigation system of the vehicle or a regular gps, if you were wanting not to break the law in those states that prohibit something like Google Glass.

Both of which increase the danger of distracted driving, by requiring you to move your eyes and shift your focus farther in order to see the display.

There are no studies that show that using the in-dash navigation system or a stand alone GPS system increase the danger of distracted driving compared to using Google Glass. And while it is true, that you have to move your eyes and change your focus to see the gps device, it is also true you have to move your eyes and change your focus, even for Google Glass. The same is true for these HUDs that are appearing on high end cars. But to date, there is only conjecture that one method is safer than the others, not real, verifiable data.

Re:Not, however, if it's handsfree

[swillden]

There are no studies that show that using the in-dash navigation system or a stand alone GPS system increase the danger of distracted driving compared to using Google Glass.

Duh. Given that Glass has only been available to a select few people, for a few months.

But to date, there is only conjecture that one method is safer than the others, not real, verifiable data.

And yet, it's a very reasonable expectation. I fully expect that the data will be forthcoming. Assuming silly laws don't prevent the research from being done.

Re:Not, however, if it's handsfree

[wonkey_monkey]

Like that'll ever happen. He's clearly an awesome driver and knows it.

Re:Not, however, if it's handsfree

[Anonymous Coward]

simmer down, internet. I got this one. from AAA website:

so it's not the san diego PD being google haters or anti-technology, they're just enforcing existing laws about monitors viewable to the driver. nothing to see here.

Pah! You must be new here.

Re:Wearing Glass was the third violation on ticket

[inicom]

Came to say this - she was trying to make this about google glass, when it was about her speeding. She and/or the officer were being dickish and thus the google glass part of the ticket, but she was stopped and ticketed for speeding. The infraction for the glass would undoubtably get thrown out if she goes before a judge.

perfect

[slashmydots]

This is exactly what cops have always wanted. If only there was a way to identify self-important, stuck up assholes who think they're better than everyone else and are thus speeding. Oh wait! See if they're wearing Google glass.

Re:inb4

[mrchaotica]

Google Glass is the kind of thing that -- if the software is designed appropriately -- ought to be both safe and useful in any situation, including driving. Pretty much the whole point of it is that it knows what you're doing, and helps you do it. So when you're driving, for example, it ought to be actively suppressing other distractions (setting your phone to "do not disturb") and giving you information to help you drive (like "watch out, the guy on the left is encroaching into your lane").

Not surprised

[Anonymous Coward]

One of her own comments is: "Glass was not on and I honestly don't use it much while driving..."

A recent court ruling here in Canada is that even touching an unpowered cell phone is enough to get a ticket. I am not surprised that wearing an unpowered Glasses is not OK as well.

Re:inb4

[faffod]

Just because the information is in your line of sight does not mean that it is in your focus. You have to shift focus to see information in the near plane. And there is a reason HUDs use graphic icons, they are faster for the brain to process. And the plane HUD displays information directly relevant to the successful operation/survival of the aircraft. Reading text takes several orders of magnitude longer to process. If you are traveling at 30mph (slow residential speed) and you read a text for 5 seconds, you have traveled 77 yards, nearly a football field, and you then have to refocus on the outside and scan for any new threats, which will take additional time.

If I was to tell you that I would drive down your street at 30 mph once a day with my eyes closed for a 100 yard section, and I was to do it when you little brother/ daughter/insert loved one was out playing would you be as cavalier about the costs of distracted driving?

or, to answer you question, no I would not inform the world's air forces that you don't understand the difference between a military HUD and a recreational distraction.

Planes fly very fast.

[Anonymous Coward]

So what's the "minimum safe stopping distance" for an aircraft at mach 1.2?

Re:Planes fly very fast.

[SJHillman]

Even if you account for the increase in speed, planes are still surrounded by mostly nothing when not taking off or landing. Cars, however, are essentially *always* taking off or landing.

Furthermore, there's only one night out of the year that pilots need to watch out for deer while cruising, and that's not until late December.

Re:Planes fly very fast.

[beelsebob]

Not really to defend her, but remember, these guys are combat pilots. The idea is in fact that when it really matters they are not surrounded by emptiness, they're surrounded by missiles, shells, enemy aircraft, friendly aircraft, etc. Their HUDs are explicitly designed to help them not collide with things, and to cause other people to collide with other things.

That said, the "I was using my HUD" argument, is 90% bullshit –it's just a thin cover for "I wanted to check Facebook on the move".

Re:Planes fly very fast.

[SJHillman]

It's been decades since it was common for aerial combatants to be in visual range of each other, much less close enough to risk collision. Not to say it doesn't happen now and then, but it's pretty unusual.

Re:Planes fly very fast.

[Minwee]

So what's the "minimum safe stopping distance" for an aircraft at mach 1.2?

Texas.

Re:Planes fly very fast.

[Anonymous Coward]

So what's the "minimum safe stopping distance" for an aircraft at mach 1.2?

Texas.

Let me guess, is the "minimum time required" for that safe stopping distance measured in light-seconds? ;P

And just to ruin the joke, I'm making fun of the fact that you gave a location as a response to a "how much distance" question, by equating a distance measurement with a unit of time.

Let's Fix the Title

[Riddler Sensei]

Get a Ticket With Google Glass: Get a Slightly Larger Ticket (maybe)

Re:Let's Fix the Title

[Mr D from 63]

Get a Ticket With Google Glass: Get a Slightly Larger Ticket (maybe)

This was my thought as well, but I would say make it a lot larger ticker, like 5 times, and have it count a lot of insurance points. If you are so confident you can drive perfectly wearing them, then that should not be a problem.

But in the end, it is more likely to be a distraction than a benefit for a certain percentage of drivers, so I'd prefer they be proven safe first.

Re:Let's Fix the Title

[Riddler Sensei]

What I think is tragic is that something like Google Glass has some awesome potential for driving. Perhaps a "Car Mode" that locks out internet and displays maps, road conditions, maybe even work out some sexy little indicator for cars in your blind spot. However, you can't enforce "Car Mode" in any non-big-brother way so people are just going to drive in "Facebook Mode".

That is, it appears to be a tool with the potential for great good as well as great disaster. However, history shows that people tend towards the great disaster choice (because what if that cute girl from class "likes" one of your posts? YOU NEED TO KNOW NOW!).

Re:Guilty

[faffod]

Somebody named "Big Hairy Ian" mentioned a video of dubious taste and you ask for a link?!! I survived slashdot in the 90's without being scared by goatse, I don't need to make up for it now.

Social Norm ?!

[nukenerd]

FTFA "-

California ...... where .... Google Glass is already a social norm.

Citation?

Re:Social Norm ?!

[Idarubicin]

Citation?

The citation is why we're having this thread in the first place.

Re:Social Norm ?!

[Darinbob]

Agreed, as a resident of Silicon Valley and with friends who work at Google, I have never seen Google Glass, much less seen anyone actually wear it. If you wore it here you would stand out as an oddball (an oddball amongst other oddballs, but still).

This ranks up there with other clueless articles that imply we go to cocktail parties where we discuss the next big ideas.

Re:Social Norm ?!

[Just Some Guy]

I saw Glass wearers every day when I worked downstairs from Google. I've seen a grand total of one since switching to a job not near a Google office, and zero in the rest of San Francisco. Maybe everyone in LA wears them now, but they're not common around their birthplace.

Re:inb4

[gtbritishskull]

Can you not do GPS navigation with google glass? Are GPS units (with screens) illegal in California?

Re:Guilty

[Anonymous Coward]

The jury finds you... NOT GIRLCUP!

Stop right there.

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem here is the total impact is unknown.

I have an easy way of determining the impact. Google Glass either helps the driver or it doesn't. There are more arguments against it (lack of training, obstruction of vision, distractions, etc) than in favor. You do the math if she should get the ticket.

Visible to driver

[sl4shd0rk]

The cop was obviously giving her a ticket for looking like a dork to other drivers.

She was speeding, folks!

[Anonymous Coward]

She wouldn't have been stopped in the first place if she hadn't been speeding! 83 in a 60 it looks like from the blurry ticket... That is the primary offense on the ticket, which many seem to be overlooking. Maybe the glasses were blocking here speedo...

Do you know what glasses are?

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's a hint: they do not have to be held up to the eyes to be used. They are not opera glasses.

Re:Do you know what glasses are?

[sumdumass]

Here is a hint, neither do cell phones which i was talking about.

I guess since you missed the point, i will have to spell it out. It doesn't matter if you are using the devices or not at the time of citation. If you look like you are using them, or that you are distracted by them, the cop can issue a citation and you go to court and explain his mistake. A cop can go by what he understands the situaton to be and of course everyone is innocent which it why there is court (if it isn't corupted)

Its California

[Anonymous Coward]

While the guiding legal principal in the US has been it is legal unless expressly forbidden, you are talking about the Peoples Republic of California. Unless you are given permission to do something, it is illegal. Nanny state extraordinaire. The result should not be a surprise

Just a thought

[Anonymous Coward]

I will not comment on this instance. But...
Sooner or later google will offer a version of Google Glass for prescription glasses. Then what?

Really?

[Lithdren]

Drive with random stuff strapped to your head, get a ticket.

News at 11.

I dont care if its Google Glass or random pieces of garbage, try paying attention to what you're doing instead of twittering 24/7 about what you're eating.

Re:Really?

[Desler]

No, it's get a ticket for doing 80 in a 65 mph zone and then get a secondary violation for being a glasshole.

Oh my my.

[MouseTheLuckyDog]

What's next? Getting a ticket for putting on makeup while driving?

Re:Wearing Glass was the third violation on ticket

[Megane]

Not sure, but she could immediately post it on her Google+ page...

FTFY. The Google Re-education Squad will visit you shortly.

Sigh.

[MouseTheLuckyDog]

One thing that does bother me though.

If I understood correctly, google now has a version which clamp on to your glasses. Are you supposed to unclamp them everytime you drive?

Re:inb4

[Anonymous Coward]

So you've now got two things fighting for your attention: the guy encroaching into your lane and the back-seat driver trying to tell you about it.

Or you can forget about the real world and just give your attention to the device, like the woman I saw with a satnav screen stuck to the windshield in the centre of her field of view.

Self-driving cars would be good, but cars driven by humans directed by computers is the worst of both worlds.

Re:Wearing Glass was the third violation on ticket

[X0563511]

This has always bugged me. There are some stretches of highway/roads where you don't see another sign for miles, and if you just turned onto it you've no hope at all. To make matters worse, some counties around here set different "default" limits so you can't even make a safe guess on context!

Speed limit signs should be posted at every entrance to the road and major intersection. They don't need to be prominent - perhaps even only visible to those entering/turning onto said road.

Re:Guilty

[Big Hairy Ian]

video of dubious taste

Hey I was just being sarchastic whilst pointing out you can watch Youtube and drive at the same time sadly some fucktard will do it which is why half the ridiculous laws in existence were invented.

apropo...

[Anonymous Coward]

One morning the husband returns after several hours of fishing and decides to take a nap. Although not familiar with the lake, the wife decides to take the boat out. She motors out a short distance, anchors, and reads her book.

Along comes a game warden in his boat. He pulls up alongside the woman and says, "Good morning Ma'am. What are you doing?"

"Reading a book," she replies, (thinking, "Isn't that obvious?")

"You're in a restricted fishing area," he informs her.

"I'm sorry officer, but I'm not fishing, I'm reading."

"Yes, but you have all the equipment. For all I know you could start at any moment. I'll have to take you in and write you up."

"If you do that, I'll have to charge you with sexual assault," says the woman.

"But I haven't even touched you," says the game warden.

"That's true, but you have all the equipment. For all I know you could start at any moment."

"Have a nice day ma'am," and he left.

Re:Guilty

[ArcadeMan]

I couldn't believe it myself, but you can still find that on YouTube.

Re:Wearing Glass was the third violation on ticket

[faffod]

I have mod points, but I have posted on this thread... Instead I will thank you for the dry humor, well played.

Re:Wearing Glass was the third violation on ticket

[hawguy]

She says in the comments, "The speeding was justified as I was in a 65 mph zone and thought I was on a 75mph zone, I always feel like I need some software to alert me when zones change ... is that only me??" Actually California does have an "app" to alert you when zones change, it involves physical displays of the current speed limit that come into eyesight as you physically approach them

Actually, I can understand what she's talking about - the signs are not always there and/or are can be obscured by other traffic. I specifically purchashed a GPS with a speed limit display so even if I miss a sign I know what the speed limit is. And I've found that on highways, the speed limit display is surprisingly accurate -- usually it changes at the exact point where I'm passing a new speed limit sign.

Also, many municipalities assume that you know what their blanket speed limit is and don't post any signs. I commuted on a wide suburban street for nearly a year thinking that the speed limit was 35mph, then one day the local police set up one of those "Your speed is XX mph" radar signs, and i found that the speed limit was only 25mph. There is not a single single speed limit sign anywhere on that road.

Re:inb4

[Anonymous Coward]

One of her own comments is: "Glass was not on and I honestly don't use it much while driving..."

But you do use it, right?

Maybe she uses it for GPS? How do you know she uses it for something that takes her attention away from driving?

Re:Guilty

[faffod]

Sorry - the confluence of your name and the video subject matter was just too easy, I would like to clearly state that my comment was purely meant to be ironic and in no way a reflection of BHI.

And yes, the idea of some fucktard catching up on Breaking Bad as a way to occupy time while commuting fills me with fear too.

Re:inb4

[Joce640k]

Maybe she uses it for GPS? How do you know she uses it for something that takes her attention away from driving?

How about the fact that a cop was tailing her for a while and she didn't even notice him?

Was it turned on???

[brunes69]

I think people are reacting to this too quickly without thinking through the ramifications.

If Glass was off while driving, then it is no different than driving any other piece of clothing or technology. What is the difference between driving with Glass on your head and turned off, than driving with your cell phone in your pocket.

For anyone who would say "Should you get a ticket for wearing a why would you be wearing it if it's off", my response would be, why not.

Re:Was it turned on???

[MouseTheLuckyDog]

Check my prescription glasses post.

Re:Was it turned on???

[Sockatume]

For the same reason that you wouldn't drive with an opened bottle of whiskey on the passenger seat.

Re:Was it turned on???

[brunes69]

Putting aside the fact that said laws are illogical - the reason you don't do that is because there is a law explicitly forbidding it. Last I checked there is no law explicitly forbidding wearing Google Glass.

Re:Was it turned on???

[CanHasDIY]

Putting aside the fact that said laws are illogical - the reason you don't do that is because there is a law explicitly forbidding it. Last I checked there is no law explicitly forbidding wearing Google Glass.

http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d12/vc27602.htm

27602. (a) A person shall not drive a motor vehicle if a television receiver, a video monitor, or a television or video screen, or any other similar means of visually displaying a television broadcast or video signal that produces entertainment or business applications, is operating and is located in the motor vehicle at a point forward of the back of the driver’s seat, or is operating and the monitor, screen, or display is visible to the driver while driving the motor vehicle.

Re:Was it turned on???

[bkr1_2k]

You haven't been reading the posts carefully then. There IS a law explicitly forbidding "entertainment" and non-informational displays (information for driving, not other crap) being displayed in front of the rear of the driver's seat. The law also explicitly lists exceptions, to include GPS and video (such as rear view cameras) that enhance the driver's ability to operate safely. Google glass may fall into that category but it very clearly also falls outside of that category.

Re:inb4

[Joce640k]

There's also the small detail that pilots are far better-trained than most drivers.

And they deliberately select people who are good at that sort of thing.

You know how many people want to be pilots? And how many actually make the grade...?

The last thing we need is a bunch of wanna-be pilots driving around with eyepieces thinking they're driving gods.

Re:Wearing Glass was the third violation on ticket

[gravis777]

I can't pull up the Google Plus link at work (it's blocked) but it does say San Diego law enforcement. So, there are roads with 75mph speed limits inside of the San Diego city limits? I find that hard to believe - California may be different, but most of the country limits you to speeds of 60 or 65 inside of the city (some toll roads may go up to 70), but you really only see speeds higher than that on straight roads outside of the city.

The California Department of Motor Vehicle website says this:

The maximum speed limit on most California highways is 65 mph. You may drive 70 mph where posted. Unless otherwise posted, the maximum speed limit is 55 mph on two-lane undivided highways and for vehicles towing trailers.

http://apps.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/hdbk/speed_limits.htm

75mph zone my foot! And inside of city limits? She was speeding - that is why she was pulled over.

Re:Every plane has to land

[ahabswhale]

Pilots have ATCs to tell them when it's safe to come in for a landing and the tell them exactly where to land. Last I checked (this morning), this doesn't happen while driving.

At one time the radio was a distraction

[DaTrueDave]

Not many here will remember this, but there was a time when car radios were thought to be a horrible idea. Experts just knew that nobody would be able to drive while subject to the distraction of music. Car radios were what rebellious teenagers had, not responsible drivers.

Turns out that while radios do offer opportunities to be distracted, the vast majority of drivers are able to safely operate an automobile while listening to music. While there are limits, we ARE able to multitask safely. Let's not give in to an uninformed opinion without exploring the idea of making it work.

Re:At one time the radio was a distraction

[bluefoxlucid]

Let's not give in to an uninformed opinion without exploring the idea of making it work.

Not so much making it work as understanding the complex impact it has on a huge and dynamic system.

Re:inb4

[bickerdyke]

It's not illegal if it is "installed", which, I guess, includes that suction thingy, but not "strapped to your head"

Re: utter nonsense

[stevez67]

If you're holding a phone in one hand while driving you certainly don't have both hands on the steering wheel and can't respond as well to an emergency as if you did. If you're holding it in your hand what ARE you doing with it? Cuddling it? You say holding the phone doesn't present even the slightest danger, and you're wrong. You just had your day in court and lost. How do you arrive at the conclusion that holding a cell phone or any other electronic gadget while operating a 4000 lb (1850 Kg) vehicle on a public thoroughfare was a 'human right".

That quick glance isn't as quick as you think.

[Anonymous Coward]

That quick glance isn't as quick as you think. Two seconds is a long time, but then again, I don't think he used a stopwatch to measure the time he took.

Even a quick glance will be barely under a second. If you're already distracted a bit, the reorganisation of thought required to generate the idea of where the 60 is without actually having to read the number isn't there and you can easily get to "maybe two seconds" and STILL feel like a quick glance.

Re:Wearing Glass was the third violation on ticket

[Anonymous Coward]

This has always bugged me. There are some stretches of highway/roads where you don't see another sign for miles, and if you just turned onto it you've no hope at all.

Here's a little driving tip. If you're going faster than everyone else on the road, you're probably speeding.

Umm

[Anonymous Coward]

California is technology's spiritual home in the US, where Teslas roam free, and Google Glass is already a social norm.

I live in California, and I have seen exactly one Tesla, and exactly zero Google Glasses.

Re:Umm

[CanHasDIY]

California is technology's spiritual home in the US, where Teslas roam free, and Google Glass is already a social norm.

I live in California, and I have seen exactly one Tesla, and exactly zero Google Glasses.

Well, obviously you live in the wrong California.

Re:inb4

[advocate_one]

"Glass was not on and I honestly don't use it much while driving..."

Well why even be wearing it then??? put it in the case.

Re:Wearing Glass was the third violation on ticket

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, the second violation is the google glass, the officer started the comment on the second line and went to the third as they needed more room.

Re:inb4

[Anonymous Coward]

"While driving" does not necessarily mean "while going 90 down the freeway". It could simply be "while at a red light".

Which is technically still equally illegal, so from that point, she's still screwed. But realistically the two are quite different.

Re:inb4

[gtbritishskull]

But, it seems that a low of people are arguing that Glass should be illegal to wear while driving. Is it better to have to look down at your dash to view your navigation than to have it displayed in the corner of your vision? Or, is the argument that it CAN be used improperly (watching youtube, facebook, etc.) so it should be illegal? If that is the argument, then we should ban all guns because they can be used improperly (to kill innocent people).

The false analogy.

[westlake]

Given that helmet mounted HUDs are good enough for military pilots.

The military HUD displays information of immediate operational and tactical significance only.

It is not mass market consumer grade tech.

Military pilots tend to be young men and women in their mental and physical prime. Chosen only after surviving a rigorous selection process and intensive training. But death is not unknown:

The following pages will list only those individuals who have lost their lives while operating or performing duties as crewmembers aboard Army Aviation aircraft and their passengers.

Army Air Crews

[This site has a remarkably clean, handsome, design and is rich in detail.]

Re:inb4

[Nerdfest]

Yet you're still allowed to have a GPS in the car? Glass is the best implementation possible I think, even better than a HUD, as it's less intrusive.

Re:Guilty

[Big Hairy Ian]

:D

Re:inb4

[bill_mcgonigle]

unless you hold a phone at eye level with the road

That's why the texting-while-driving laws are so dangerous. People used to text with the phone on top of the steering wheel. Since the laws, they now text on their lap. Fatal crashes have increased and real scientific studies have shown the increased danger.

Lawmakers think "we can stop this behavior" despite all evidence to the contrary and just wind up making things worse.

Since it's obvious that these people would rather not be driving, I sure hope they're the first to buy cars with autopilots.

Re:inb4

[Anonymous Coward]

How about the fact that a cop was tailing her for a while and she didn't even notice him?

The only "proof" I can find of that in TFA is a post by one person claiming that the cop had to trail her for a while before issuing the speeding ticket. And that really doesn't prove she did not see the cop. There have been plenty of times where I've been followed by a cop, and I did not bother to reduce my speed to the posted limit. Because the way I see it, if they're gonna get me, they're gonna get me, and my reducing speed at that point isn't gonna change that.

Re:inb4

[bickerdyke]

Well, that's why lots of people point out that guns should be regulated stricter....

I could try out Glass for a few minutes and I focusing on the display took me longer that a quick glance at the dashboard. That may or may not change when you're used to it, but keep in mind that the Glass display was designed to be out of your sight if not needed. It is NOT an HUD or AR device.

Probably Not Good (but hard to know)

[Cajun Hell]

Obviously you shouldn't do those things while driving. The article isn't about a situation where we think a person might have been doing that. It was about having a personal computer screen which may, or may not, be illegal to have in a car.

It'll come down to technicalities in the wording in the law in question, bizarre precedents made up by previous judges, etc.

What the driver was doing on their computer, isn't said and probably can't be proven either way. So if the law turns out to involve how the device was being used at the moment driver was pulled over, then they might actually be acquitted. Even if they were texting or reading wikipedia.

Re:Probably Not Good (but hard to know)

[Lion XL]

I dont think the issue is with having it in your car, I think the issue is with having on your face, reading the WSJ when you should be concentrating on driving.

I am American, and for the life of me I don't where we got the notion that anything I fell like doing is an inalienable right. Guess what I have a right to die of old age, and the nut case driving the eighteen wheeler at 75 mph mere inched from tail while flipping through a face page page is taking away that right. Lets stop acting like children and realize certain things are no brainers and shouldn't require a discussion. Like giving a two year a bowie knife for christmas (unless he lives in the outback).

I would rather deal with getting/paying a ticket than deal with doctor bills/funeral costs.

Re:Probably Not Good (but hard to know)

[Fnord666]

I am American, and for the life of me I don't where we got the notion that anything I fell like doing is an inalienable right.

My guess? You're over 30.

Re:inb4

[Joce640k]

The only "proof" I can find of that in TFA is a post by one person claiming that the cop had to trail her for a while before issuing the speeding ticket. And that really doesn't prove she did not see the cop.

My proof is the way it says "65mph/PACE" on the ticket. You know what "PACE" is, right? It means the cop drives along behind you long enough to get a good, documented speed reading.

With that out of that way ... what's your "proof" that she saw the cop and made a decision to keep on speeding?

PS: Most cops don't stop a moderately speeding car unless something else about it called their attention in the first place, eg. swerving / bad driving / possible DUI.

Re:inb4

[Joce640k]

Glass is a lifestyle, not a fashion statement. Taking them off is for losers.

Should you get a ticket for having your cell

[SmallFurryCreature]

Should you get a ticket for having your cellphone in your hand while driving?

YES

Stop being a 6 year old with your "I am not touching you" logic.

Re:Wearing Glass was the third violation on ticket

[MMC Monster]

Actually, I'm pretty sure everywhere I've driven on a highway (in the U.S. at least) there's a Speed Limit sign just after every entry point to the highway.

If I don't see a speed limit sign and I'm on a highway, I just assume it's the limit for the State (usually 55mph, but higher in quite a few).

Re:inb4

[c0d3g33k]

Maybe she uses it for GPS? How do you know she uses it for something that takes her attention away from driving?

How about the fact that a cop was tailing her for a while and she didn't even notice him?

She was paying attention to the road ahead as she should and not giving undue attention to what was behind?

Re:inb4

[Joce640k]

I'm just hoping the cop presents that comment as character evidence if it ever goes to court.

Lady ain't as smart as she thinks she is....

Re:inb4

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. She admitted guilt by saying that. I hope she's not contesting the ticket, because now she has no chance of it succeeding. This is why you don't talk about ongoing cases (and similar to the reason why you don't talk to cops). Anything you say about it can and will be used against you should you contest it.

This always amazes me about race drivers

[SmallFurryCreature]

People who drove a cart on a company outing think they are just a bit of luck away from a Michael Schumacher because he also drove carts. You are not even fucking close! These people are so concentrated on their job when driving and you note that NONE of them have a starbucks cup wedged between their knees and a cellphone in their ear and a crying baby on the next seat. Not even in nascar.

And race car drivers spend endless days studying a route that doesn't chance, is empty of obstacles and the only traffic goes in the same direction and is other highly skilled and focused drivers. And they do all this in cars that can stop in an instant and are completely rebuild before each drive.

Nothing about this compares to normal driving. Do you change your tires because it is raining? Do you put heating pads on your tires to make sure they have grip before you start out on a journey? Is your journey to work dotted with guys with huge flags to warn of you the slightest danger? No? THEN YOU ARE NOT A FUCKING RACE DRIVER. If you were you would be making more money and be to busy having sex with super models to post on a site for nerds.

Your a really bad driver, in a bad car on lousy roads surrounded by people who are just as bad AND distracted by thousand things. Or do you think Schumacher goes "oh I got a message, got to reply right now".

Re:This always amazes me about race drivers

[ihtoit]

mod up.

Guys, you really don't need a(nother) distraction inside the cabin to make you any more dangerous. Turn off the fucking phone, set your GPS BEFORE you turn the key and set it to audio prompting, belt the kids in, gag them if necessary, tell the FSP to STFU, drive safe.

Re:inb4

[sociocapitalist]

Maybe she uses it for GPS? How do you know she uses it for something that takes her attention away from driving?

How about the fact that a cop was tailing her for a while and she didn't even notice him?

Yeah but was the cop car marked or unmarked?

Re:Good morning from the Olden Girls!

[Anonymous Coward]

It's actually "Drew THE doggie"

FTFY

Re:inb4

[sociocapitalist]

There are far fewer things to hit at an aircraft's usual altitude. A pilot's HUD can obscure small parts of the view without significant risk. There's also the small detail that pilots are far better-trained than most drivers.

Maybe the question isn't whether or not to use glass (or similar) but what information should be displayed.

Arguably things that you would otherwise have to look elsewhere for (ie radio, gps, whatever) would be just as well or better on the glass.

Re:inb4

[Anonymous Coward]

You need to know what's going all around you while driving.

Re:inb4

[Sockatume]

I think you'll find that a lot of people are arguing that Glass should be no more or less illegal than any other smartphone display; that its pseudo-HUD status does not give it an exemption.

The good old days

[Anonymous Coward]

I remember the good old days when you got charged after you committed a crime. There even used to be a law in every jurstiction that was something like "driving without due care and attention". People used to get charged with that after causing some kind of harm on the road because they were fiddling with their CB, AM Radio, Make-up Mirror, travel coffee mug or I suppose their fiddle.

Re:inb4

[Crispy Critters]

> Is it better to have to look down at your dash to view your navigation than to have it
> displayed in the corner of your vision?

Yes, because it doesn't distract me. I only see it when I consciously look at it. Things in my range of sight that flash and change are very distracting.

But that's just my opinion. Some real tests of what is safer would be nice to have.

No video monitors for the driver

[Aidtopia]

Here in California, we've got a law that says you can't have a video display operating anywhere the driver might see it, with exceptions for dedicated GPS/Nav/vehicle status displays.

A friend of mine used to have an online store for GPS navigation devices. Many of the manufacturer's had "California" versions of the ROMs that he was required to ship to customers in California. The difference is that all the non-nav-related features (like games, calendar apps, etc.) were disabled when the device was in motion. This was to comply with the aforementioned law. While this was a long time ago, and the law has been amended substantially since then, I believe it still applies to this situation, but, of course, I am not a lawyer.

Re:No video monitors for the driver

[Anonymous Coward]

Does that mean you cannot use a cellphone as a GPS, i.e. with one of these http://amzn.com/B007FHX9OK? (honest question)

Re:No video monitors for the driver

[Anonymous Coward]

Basically, you ANAL?

Re:inb4

[Zebedeu]

What's the point of wearable technology if you put it away whenever you're not using it?

That'd be like saying "if you're not telling the time, why would you wear a watch on your wrist?"

Re:inb4

[Joce640k]

[silence]

Yep, that's what I thought. Just another A/C mouthing off on slashdot.

IMBA

[Anonymous Coward]

Autonomous cars

Re:Wearing Glass was the third violation on ticket

[Anonymous Coward]

The Max speed limit on freeways in California is 70 MPH, this woman deserves her tickets.

Re:Wearing Glass was the third violation on ticket

[CanHasDIY]

She says in the comments, "The speeding was justified as I was in a 65 mph zone and thought I was on a 75mph zone, I always feel like I need some software to alert me when zones change ... is that only me??"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_limits_in_the_United_States

Has anyone alerted her to the fact that the highest speed limit in the state of California is 70 MPH?

Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is "placed on a suction cup on the dash" installed but "clipped to your head" not installed?

If there were a way to superglue the GPS to the windscreen, it wouldn't be suction cupped.

Re:Wearing Glass was the third violation on ticket

[Frankie70]

A comment up says she was doing 80. So even if she thought that she was in a 75 zone, she was still speeding.

Re:Wearing Glass was the third violation on ticket

[Minwee]

Here's a little driving tip. If you're going anywhere near as fast as everyone else on the road, you're probably speeding.

Fixed that for you. The only time that you can expect other drivers to be doing the speed limit is when the tiny lights on their dashboards start flashing and they all slow down at the same time.

Re:inb4

[slickepott]

Reminds me of my parents with me in the backseat. Mother going "Speed bump - bump - bump!". Of course we ran into the speed bump full speed instead of slowing down. Quite sure my father would have noticed if he didn't get distracted trying to process what was being said. :)

Re: utter nonsense

[Belial6]

both hands on the steering wheel and can't respond as well to an emergency as if you did.

This is a poor argument. If you are arguing against cell phone use, you should never use it. Virtually no one drives with both hands consistently on the wheel, and a huge number of cars are physically impossible to drive keeping both hands on the wheel.

By using that argument, you make it clear that you are not being honest in your position, and thus reduce the value of any other points you might make.

Key words: "IS OPERATING"

[DodgeRules]

First, IANAL.

27602. (a) A person shall not drive a motor vehicle if a television receiver, a video monitor, or a television or video screen, or any other similar means of visually displaying a television broadcast or video signal that produces entertainment or business applications, is operating and is located in the motor vehicle at a point forward of the back of the driver's seat, or is operating and the monitor, screen, or display is visible to the driver while driving the motor vehicle.

Key words are "IS OPERATING". If the Google Glasses were off or he did not see them ON then the ticket should be thrown out. According to what I read the monitor must be turned ON and visible to the driver to be a violation.

Re:Key words: "IS OPERATING"

[ihtoit]

if you want to get technical, unless the device has a hard switch across the positive rail then as long as there is potential in the battery the device IS OPERATING, even if it appears to be "switched off" - there is still power running through it.

You are the criminal.

[mosb1000]

Driving is a privilege not a right.

That is ridiculous. There are plenty of parts to the world where you need to drive in order to get by. Since you have the right to live, you have the right to drive if you live in those locations.

There is absolutely no reason you can't set your phone down for the drive

There are plenty of reasons one may want to check their phone while they're driving. Maybe I'm using a GPS navigator to drive and I want to look at the map to better understand its driving directions? Maybe I'm making a delivery and now that I've gotten close to my destination I want to call them and let them know so someone will be there to let me in. Maybe I'm bored because there are no other cars on the road and I've been driving for an hour and a half and I want to check my Facebook. Who the hell are you to say? You don't know everyone's unique driving situation, so why do you think you're so smart you can make broad generalizations about what kinds of distractions pose an unnecessary risk?

You can choose to take the bus or walk if you want to use your phone.

I live 25 miles from the nearest bus-stop. Maybe I should move if I want to use my phone? Yeah because that doesn't infringe on my rights at all. . .

The fact of the matter is, you could write a bullshit excuse like this to explain writing a law to prevent almost anything we are normally free to do. You could easily write something like this to justify a ban people eating fast food. This is literally THE justification given for prohibitions of drugs. It is the reason that was given for making alcohol illegal. It's the reason trotted out time and again for promoting greater levels of gun control.

And all of these prohibitions have one thing in common, they do little to achieve their core objective of "saving lives." Have traffic fatalities decreased since they banned texting and talking on your phone while you're driving? No?! So now you think maybe we should just double down! Maybe we could use your phones capacitance sensor to see if you touched your phone while you were driving so we can issue you a ticket.

So basically, the problem is that you, and people like you, think you are the smartest people on the whole planet, and that you can make decisions better than the rest of us. That's the whole reason we have a bunch of bullshit laws doing nothing but giving people a lot of stupid tickets and putting a lot of innocent people in jail. You are the criminal, not them.

Re: utter nonsense

[RaceProUK]

Taking one hand off the wheel to operate a car's other controls (esp. lights, wipers, and gear lever) is considered normal usage, and is allowed implicitly. However, when not operating those controls (90%+ of driving time), both hands should be on the wheel. Therefore, the GP's point is perfectly valid.

the CA Vehicle Code allows Google Glass

[fightinfilipino]

Sections 23123 and 23123.5 of the California Vehicle Code prohibit use of a mobile phone while driving unless "the electronic wireless communications device is specifically designed and configured to allow voice-operated and hands-free operation" or "that telephone is specifically designed and configured to allow hands-free listening and talking, and is used in that manner while driving."

According to Google Glass' product page, ALL control is done via voice command: http://www.google.com/glass/start/what-it-does/

There's a specific provision disallowing drivers under 18 years of age from using mobile devices at all, but that's not the case here.

HOWEVER, the ticket in the article says in part that the charge was under Section 27602 of the Vehicle Code, which says that "A person shall not drive a motor vehicle if a television receiver, a video monitor, or a television or video screen, or any other similar means of visually displaying a television broadcast or video signal that produces entertainment or business applications, is operating and is located in the motor vehicle at a point forward of the back of the driver’s seat, or is operating and the monitor, screen, or display is visible to the driver while driving the motor vehicle."

the main problem is that the vehicle code does not even contemplate devices that have multiple uses, like smartphones, that can act as phones, texting devices, GPS devices, AND potential video streaming devices.

i'd say the person's best legal recourse is to argue that Google Glass is a mobile phone device and should be considered under Section 23123, rather than a "television" or "video monitor" under Section 27602. and while i'm angry at the police officer for issuing such a charge, the officer also is not in the position of determining what the law is. that's going to have to be a judge.

the ticket also charges the person with generic speeding, so, really, she kinda screwed up to begin with. my guess is that a traffic judge will dismiss the 27602 charge and fine her handily for speeding.

"Driving with Monitor visible to Driver"

[YoungManKlaus]

Outlaws all Navis and probably 90% of the cars (considering they have a all-purpose info display)

Re:"Driving with Monitor visible to Driver"

[Anonymous Coward]

Read further. It makes an exception devices that show information meaningful to the vehicle (IE, digital speedometers, GPS, vehicle status, etc.)

RDS on your stereo system

[Anonymous Coward]

Has none of these items.

They don't appear to be illegal.

Same with climate control systems.

Not illegal either, but are displays which do not fall under those listed exceptions.

Cars will have windshield HUDs soon enough

[Anonymous Coward]

I give it 5 years [and when the technology is entering the market, Slashdot will have some post about it being inspired by Star Trek as per usual].

She was not stopped for wearing google glass...

[itwasgreektome]

From the ticket, it is evident she was stopped for going faster than a posted speed limit (22348(a) CVC). Once she was pulled over, the cop must've also seen she was wearing the glasses and tacked on the additional non-vehicle purpose display in driver's view. So, she was ticketed for wearing the google glass, but it's an important distinction to know and be aware that she was not pulled over for wearing google glass. As long as you are not breaking other laws, you will not be pulled over for wearing them.

piloting a 3000+ lb projectile

[Anonymous Coward]

my take: when you are behind the wheel of a vehicle you are piloting a 3000+projectile, that means ALL of your attention should be focused on your awareness of the task at hand.

"but its just like a HUD", that is ridiculous. it has the capability to show other information other than the situation you are currently involved in, something that neither aircraft or automobile huds are capable of.

"but it doesn't let you send texts", it still is distracting to your driving skills as actually inputting information because your brain is working on processing the text from your glass and not the situation on the road

"but you still have to take your eyes off the road to check your speed" this is false, i have not driven a car that i cant check the velocity through my peripheral vision.

the point is that GG has the capability of being a distraction while driving while anything installed in the car by the manufacturer clearly has to meet regulatory requirements before they are allowed to sell it. while you are behind the wheel of your vehicle you should be focused on one thing and one thing alone, that is driving! want more proof, i encourage you to do the kinetic energy calculations on a car traveling at 75 miles per hour, and then the calculations for a bullet.

prius = 1325 kg
traveling at 75 mph (120 km/h or 432 m/s)

Ek = 1/2 m v^2
Ek = 123,638,400 Joules or 123.638 Mega Joules

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.22_Long_Rifle shows a kinetic energy for rifle shots between 141 and 277 joules..

oh and the car is maneuverable while a bullet is not.. So why should anyone be allowed ANY distractions while driving?

remember its a privilege not a right and for the safety of everyone else on the roads every one should be 100% attentive to the task at hand. piloting a projectile that has loads of kinetic energy

phone in the cup holder should be illegal, in fact i completely agree with he law that she was sited under. FTR my cell goes in the glove box when i get into my car and doesn't come out until the car is parked and off (i lock my glove box before starting the car out of a habit i was taught when i learnt to drive) no one that may contact me is so important that they should be able to jeopardize my life or even remotely possible cause me to jeopardize someone else's life, if the situation is that important, it should have been better planned for in the first place. any one that argues other wise should get over their own self importance or take public transit there is no reason any communications to you cant wait until you are stopped and parked (even on the side of the road, I've done it when my phone wont stop ringing from my glove box)

Re:Wearing Glass was the third violation on ticket

[Anonymous Coward]

You are wrong. There is a safe guess and that is 55.

Just a hunch...

[bkr1_2k]

I can't read the linked article but I'm going to assume that the driver in question wasn't stopped because she was wearing stupid looking glasses. She was probably stopped because she was driving badly and then the police realized (or she told them) she was wearing google glass and cited her appropriately. Really, nothing to see here. Unless she can somehow prove that she was using the glass display as a legitimate HUD for operating the vehicle, she was breaking the intent (if not the letter-which is arguable as well) of the law. Plain and simple.

   

Re:Wearing Glass was the third violation on ticket

[itwasgreektome]

Only two violations. The speeding one is listed under 22348(a) CVC. The "text" of the second charge, 27602(a)VC just carries on to the third line making it look like a 3rd charge.

Great Post

[Anonymous Coward]

It's funny when people get mad when they are punished for putting everyone around them in danger simply because they don't realize they're putting everyone around them in danger.

Re:Wearing Glass was the third violation on ticket

[X0563511]

Wrong. Around here, it's either 45, 50, 55, 60, 65, or 70 - depending on what county you happen to be in at the moment.

Oh not to mention those random spots where it drops from say 65 to 45 and back (or down to 35!!!) for no conceivable reason. Better not miss that (one) sign!

Re: utter nonsense

[Anonymous Coward]

Them make the law to have both hands on the wheel unless one hand is involved in ancillary operation of the vehicle.

Problem solved...no need for "mobile device" laws.

Problem is...no sane government or municipality would ever enact such malarkey. It's so much easier to ban the "bad device" instead of the "bad action" (that everyone does.)

Re:Wearing Glass was the third violation on ticket

[SecurityGuy]

There's one of those apps near me. There's a road that's 65 mph for most of it's length, with one 55mph stretch for a mile or so in the middle. For some strange reason, the sign that proclaims it to be 55 is often moderately obscured by bushes nobody ever bothers to trim. For some probably related strange reason, there's also a speed trap right there.

Re:Wearing Glass was the third violation on ticket

[sabt-pestnu]

Two things...

1) the law as written and applied would apply to smart phones, and possibly also to your GPS. You likely wouldn't be pulled over for it unless the cop got a good look at your dash as you go by, but even so. "... video monitor..."

Yeah, it's already a stretch to apply a law clearly aimed at "TVs for the driver" to google glass, let alone a GPS monitor. But the cop in question went there, so...

2) if your GPS is only changing speed indication as you pass the sign, you might well be too late changing speed, if you've a cop with a quota behind you. IE "the new speed limit starts at the sign." I've been pulled over for speeding after just passing a sign while slowing down for the new speed limit. It happens, some times.

Re:Wearing Glass was the third violation on ticket

[orgelspieler]

I can do you one better. In my old neighborhood, the speed limit was 20mph with several signs posted at strategic locations. But when they added a new portion of the neighborhood, at the new entrance they put a speed limit sign of 30. One day I saw a cop parked in the new part of the neighborhood, so I asked him what he thought the speed limit was. "20," says he. I didn't have the balls to tell him he was full of shit. I would always go 20 anyway, because of little kids playing and whatnot, but I was surprised by his answer.

Re:inb4

[c0d3g33k]

You need to know what's going all around you while driving.

You can do that without close examination of the cars behind you. "Car behind me moving normally, no unusual behavior, safe following distance" is good enough when scanning the mirrors. Noting every detail of the vehicle, including whether it's a police vehicle (let's assume unmarked and without lights/sirens) isn't necessary the vast majority of the time.

Re: utter nonsense

[RaceProUK]

It's already covered by dangerous/careless driving laws. The specific mobile phone ban is 5% law, 95% public education, as the use of phones while driving is far more prevalent than other similarly dangerous actions.

Illegal to drive in WA too

[WillAffleckUW]

It's also illegal to drive with a head mounted bluetooth headset or Google Glass in Washington State too, just as it's illegal to drive with a cell phone.

Recent UW research shows 45 percent of distracted drivers have cell phones. Using those while driving is also illegal.

If you have to ask if something that can distract you while driving is illegal, you already know the answer. Pay attention to the road.

Re:inb4

[DarkOx]

It would be cool if some sorto glass or HUD like system could actually monitor your eyes, guess at the focal depth and emit the image accordingly, so the the text /icons would appear to your right sized and in focus where your vision is focused.

Re:inb4

[DarkOx]

forget guns, we should ban all bricks; someone might break a window or bash in a skull.

The issue here is really not one of tools ( generally tools should never be banned be they guns or whatever )

The question here is of use, which society does have an interest in regulating. Bricks fine to use them for construction or weights, but not okay for breaking the neighbors window glass. The car ( a tool ) should or should not be used while using specific other tools. Some decision needs to be arrived at, can Google Glass be used safely while operating the car, if the answer is yes than maybe rules about Car + Google Glass + GPS = Fine, Car + Google Glass + Facebook = Illegal.

That gets to tricking questions about enforcement though, generally laws you can't or don't enforce are not good. They tend to be broken, which tends to reward being a scoff law, which lowers respect for the law. On the other hand being able to effectively enforce Car + Google Glass + GPS = Fine, Car + Google Glass + Facebook = Illegal, is probably more invasive than many of us would want to put up with. Societies best choice might be just Car + Google Glass = illegal.

Bring back the Locomotive Act

[Tokolosh]

The 1865 act required all road locomotives, which included automobiles, to travel at a maximum of 4 mph (6 km/h) in the country and 2 mph (3 km/h) in towns and have a crew of three travel, one of whom should carry a red flag walking 60 yards (55 m) ahead of each vehicle. (From Wikipedia)

Not

[Anonymous Coward]

video [vid-ee-oh]
noun

1. Television.
    a. the elements of television, as in a program or script, pertaining to the transmission or reception of the image (distinguished from audio ).
    b. the video part of a television broadcast.

2 Informal. videotape.

3. Informal. television: She is a star of stage and video.

4. a program, movie, or the like, that is available commercially on videocassette.

5. music video.

Re:Wearing Glass was the third violation on ticket

[hawguy]

Two things...

1) the law as written and applied would apply to smart phones, and possibly also to your GPS. You likely wouldn't be pulled over for it unless the cop got a good look at your dash as you go by, but even so. "... video monitor..."

Yeah, it's already a stretch to apply a law clearly aimed at "TVs for the driver" to google glass, let alone a GPS monitor. But the cop in question went there, so...

The CA Vehicle Code that governs video screens (27602), explicitly allows:

      (2) A global positioning display.
      (3) A mapping display.

The cell phone law bans only mobile phones. There are restrictions on where a device can be mounted on the windshield, so instead of mounting it directly on the windshield where it would only block my view of the hood, to stay legal, I use a "sandbag" style GPS suction cup mount that places the GPS higher and closer to me which blocks a bit of my view of the road.

And the courts have already rejected the argument that a phone in GPS mode is only a GPS - they consider it as a phone. Likewise, the Google Glass would apparently not be considered a GPS unless it was only a GPS.

2) if your GPS is only changing speed indication as you pass the sign, you might well be too late changing speed, if you've a cop with a quota behind you. IE "the new speed limit starts at the sign." I've been pulled over for speeding after just passing a sign while slowing down for the new speed limit. It happens, some times.

Yeah, the new speed limit starts at the sign, so I don't ignore the signs, but the GPS is a good backup so if I miss a sign I don't continue driving 65mph after entering a 55mph zone. The speed indicator on the GPS turns red if I exceed the speed limit, so I don't even have to look directly at it to see that I'm above the speed limit (though I wish it would let me set 5mph of leeway before it turns red). I think I could enable an audible alert too, but that seems too annoying.

Re:inb4

[Anonymous Coward]

I always wear Glass when driving. It is the best GPS I have ever used, and the least distracting mobile device I have ever used.

IMPORTANT LESSON PEOPLE

[ihtoit]

The question as to whether you are paying 100% attention to your primary task behind the wheel - that being, not causing a hazard on the road - is a binary. YOU ARE or YOU ARE NOT.

If you have a digital display flashing directly in front of your eye, you are distracted. Congratulations, you have just become a hazard to others, now take your ticket and FUCK OFF.

Re:IMPORTANT LESSON PEOPLE

[danknight48]

Thank god someone with half a brain understands the whole issue here.

If i could, i would +1.

hand held interface

[Anonymous Coward]

Google glass needs some sort of hand held interface you can put in your pocket that can communicate with the device via bluetooth or something. You can use it to direct a pointer with your thumb or something (the exact interface needs to be worked out).

This obvious idea is not subject to patent protection.

Re:inb4

[Anonymous Coward]

One of her own comments is: "Glass was not on and I honestly don't use it much while driving..."

But you do use it, right?

I didn't steal your horse, and anyway, you have a lousy horse.

Social Norm in CA?

[Anonymous Coward]

I live in and work in the bay area and have never even seen Google glass in person. Saying it's a social norm is ridiculous.

BMW Not In Sane Diego?!

[LifesABeach]

The BMW 5 Series has an Heads Up Display, which has the same effect of Google Glass. I think that might be worth looking into.

Re: utter nonsense

[Belial6]

Either the act of steering needs two hands or it does not. In fact, shifting gears is generally done at the time that two hands on the wheel would be the most beneficial. The fact that many cars are made in such a way that taking your hand of the wheel is necessary doesn't change level of danger in doing so. The fact that there is no need for a gear shift, light switch, or even a wiper switch means that you are advocating for a "The activity is really dangerous unless I do it." stance.

Nah dude

[Anonymous Coward]

The motor vehicle wasn't equipped with a TV. The driver was equipped with google glass.

Re:inb4

[suutar]

Except for the eyepieces, that's what we already have.

A social norm? Hardly

[Anonymous Coward]

I work in technology, 20 miles from Google HQ, and I know exactly one person who has Google Glass.

Re:inb4

[faffod]

Projecting an image out into space is not what a HUD does. That would be more in the realm of a holographic projector. But since that technology would have to be invented by geeks, the first thing they would project would be Princess Leah saying "Help me Obi-Wan Kenobi. You're my only hope." And then they would die in a fiery crash because they were transfixed by the vision of Leah. Leaving mankind with no idea how to replicate the tech. Thinking about it, who knows how many times this tech has already been invented only to be lost in a tragic car fatality.

Have you tried it?

[daern]

I had a go last week and I can tell you that from my experience, its hard to even hold a conversation when interacting with glass, yet alone drive a vehicle. It is /not/ like using the radio or satnav - it's at least ten times more distracting. Don't get me wrong - It's a cool, cool piece of tech, but it ain't for use behind the wheel!

It's a Start

[Flere Imsaho]

Not as good as a punch in the face just on principles because you're wearing them in public but it's a start.

The comments from the Glassholes in the first link are hilarious.

Re:inb4

[swillden]

Maybe she uses it for GPS? How do you know she uses it for something that takes her attention away from driving?

How about the fact that a cop was tailing her for a while and she didn't even notice him?

What makes you think she didn't notice him? She thought she was going 80 in a 75 mph zone. I don't know about you, but I don't bother adjusting my speed when I see police if I'm only going 5 over. That's pretty much normal speed. In fact, most of the time, I find that if I'm only going 5 over the cop will pass me.

Of course, the actual speed limit was 65, and 15 over is quite a bit different from 5 over. So you can ding her for not noticing the speed limit signs, but I don't think the fact that the cop tailed her means anything.

Re:inb4

[swillden]

Just because the information is in your line of sight does not mean that it is in your focus. You have to shift focus to see information in the near plane.

Which makes Glass much better as an information display than your dashboard or your in-car GPS display, because the Glass focal plane is about 8 feet from you. So you have to shift focus from the road to a point somewhat forward of the end of your hood. Given the way lenses and focal distances work, that's a much smaller adjustment than the shift from that point to two feet from you.

Re:inb4

[faffod]

I will give you credit for making me learn that the image is projected a certain distance out. However, it still requires a change in focus, albeit more mental than ocular. Which keeps to my point of reading a text while driving will make you lose focus on what is going on around your car.

Here's one example of many that came up in my search
http://blog.vectorform.com/2013/07/17/the-google-glass-experience/
[emphasis mine]

Focusing on the Glass display is actually quite easy, and doesn’t result in everything else becoming visually out of focus. This is because the focal point of the projected image is not on the surface of the Glass prism, but rather about 8 feet out from your current position. Even being nearsighted, without my contacts, the Glass display is unreadable as my eyesight at 8 feet is all but a blur. However, even though your eye focus may not change, the display doesn’t create an image that fits within 3D space. It’s still a 2D plane that is floating in 3D space, which results in you having to make a conscious decision of which plane to mentally focus on. Watching someone use Glass almost looks as if they’re daydreaming; their eyes are locked to the position of the Glass display and it is tough to break their concentration

Re:Wearing Glass was the third violation on ticket

[Anonymous Coward]

Except I am not aware any area in California that has speed limit over 65 MPH, apparently they exist up to 70 MPH but I have never seen it, I do not believe this magical 75 MPH zone she thought she was in exists, it would certainly not be within the city limits of San Diego.

Re:inb4

[swillden]

Yeah, clearly reading a text is a bad idea, whether it's on a screen in your car or hand, or one projected out in front of you. Using it as a navigation display, however, is clearly superior to a similar display on a screen in your car.

Re:inb4

[faffod]

I completely agree that a HUD nav system would be superior. That is not what Google glass is. Given the context of the conversation I have to speak out against Google Glass in a car. This evening a friend posted this on his FB page (*hangs head in shame* yes, I read FB to catch up on friends). The relevant part is the "I didn't see him" defense. It is prevalent in the US for drivers to be exonerated from wrong doing when it is obvious they were completely negligent. Google Glass in a car will only push that further.
http://blogs.bicycling.com/blogs/roadrights/2013/10/29/theres-another-way/

Lack of public availability == she had it coming.

[sethstorm]

Given the general non availability of Google Glass, she deserved the ticket. How would the officer understand something to be safe if only a relative few have the device?

(knowing Google, the regular edition will be crippled for dubious reasons)

Re:inb4

[swillden]

A HUD is better than Glass. Glass is better than a screen on or in your dashboard.

So, all displays of computers are banned?

[Anonymous Coward]

Would the cop ticket for using a dash-mounted GPS? How about a new HUD windshield display? What about those rear-view mirror displays which include things like temperature and odometers? This is basically ignorance on the cop's part about what Glass is and does.

Re:inb4

[alexo]

You know what "PACE" is, right? It means the cop drives along behind you long enough to get a good, documented speed reading.

Depending on the cop, it can also mean that the cop just made it up. After all, it's his word against the driver's.

HUD

[volmtech]

Would a GPS HUD app on your smart phone be considered a monitor? Or hack a Garmin HUD adapter to project any smart phone screen shot?

Re:inb4

[DarkOx]

Does not have to project out into space. It could project into your eye.

haha

[Anonymous Coward]

One of many reasons I am glad I don't live in California.

Hell dial 911

[Anonymous Coward]

Dial 911 "some black car is driving crazy at excessive speed changing lanes aggressively behind me.... .... scratch that... please verify that the flashing lights belong to law enforcement engaged in a lawfull
manner.

Dialing 911 is the one very clear opening in the law.
Elect to use your glasses because they can be operated
hands free.

Keep a dedicated GPS-nav device handy. Keep a pair
of half frame reading eyeglasses or amber eye savers handy...

Tech advances don't change laws

[Vrtigo1]

Around here the law is written something like "a screen cannot be visible by the driver while the vehicle is in motion" and execptions are made for GPS and the screens built-in to cars (which won't allow you to do certain things when the car is moving / not in park). The fact that Google Glass didn't exist when that law was written does not exempt it from being covered by that law. I think you would have a hard time convincing a group of reasonable people that it's a good idea to let a driver interact with a computer while they're supposed to be concentrating on piloting the vehicle.

Re:inb4

[Vrtigo1]

It's not fair to say that lawmakers are making things worse. The people who are trying to get away with breaking the law are causing the problems. I can see your point, but when there is a problem such as this, it's the government's function to pass laws that deal with it...that's one of the reasons why we have governments.

Re:inb4

[bill_mcgonigle]

I can see your point, but when there is a problem such as this, it's the government's function to pass laws that deal with it...that's one of the reasons why we have governments.

Can every problem be solved with enough laws?

Re:inb4

[Vrtigo1]

No, but what would you have them do instead? Do you think the passage of this law hasn't stopped at least a few folks from texting while driving? If so, then hasn't the law done at least some good?

Re:inb4

[bill_mcgonigle]

No, but what would you have them do instead?

How about streamlining the process to get autopilots out to mass production?

Do you think the passage of this law hasn't stopped at least a few folks from texting while driving? If so, then hasn't the law done at least some good?

But if it's done more harm than good, it should be done away with.

Shoot the driver. Problem Solved.

[Cammi]

The cop should have just shot the driver. Problem Solved.