Slashdot Mirror
Google Fighting Distracted Driver Laws
Rambo Tribble writes "Reuters reports Google has initiated lobbying efforts to stymie attempts by some states to enact distracted driver laws aimed at wearable technologies, such as Google Glass. 'Google's main point to legislators is that regulation would be premature because Google Glass is not yet widely available, the state elected officials say. Illinois state Senator Ira Silverstein, a Chicago Democrat who introduced a Google Glass restriction bill in December, responded that it was clear the merchandise was heading for the broader public.' Given the toll on our highways shown to arise from distracted drivers, is this responsible corporate behavior to protect their product, or an unethical endangering of lives?"
However general legislation against using digital devices can be done right. The issue we start to run into is things like do touch screens built into the dashboard count or windscreen HUDs like what BMW has in the works.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
There are plenty of questions about privacy and security raised by Google Glass but I think all products should be treated equally. I might be more distracted while driving by a Big Mac or a cigarette than by an image out of my field of view on Glass. This is too subjective a judgement to be made by politicians through the legislative process.
"He took a duck in the face at 250 knots." -- William Gibson, Pattern Recognition
Does google glasses or a HUD in a car causes accidents?
... then we need to do it rigorously.
Figure out the threshhold above which elevated risk becomes criminal (i.e. "it is illegal to drive in such a manner that you have more than X% chance of hitting someone else per mile/per minute"). This is a policy matter -- maybe it's okay to have up to double the normal risk of collision, but no more?
Then test the hell out of everything. Levels of drunkenness, of stonedness, of distraction (from "putting on makeup" to "in car with pretty girl/guy"). Being old. Being young. Being male/female/black/white/purple. Driving past flashy billboards. Driving through speed traps (speed traps cause wrecks, ban the things). Driving while tired ("nope, sorry, after your 14 hour day you can't drive; you're impaired, take a nap first").
That's really the only way to be fair with this sort of thing.
Or we could just treat people as responsible, and not worry with forms of impairment that people assume voluntarily and can do away with if they need to. Talking on the phone while driving is fine, so long as you're willing to say "In traffic now, have to go for safety."
Just as with new processed food products, or mining techniques, etc, this sort of thing has potentially huge and life-threatening consequences. Google (and similar) should have to do the legwork to PROVE the safety of a product rather than maimed or widow(er)ed individuals having to do the legwork to PROVE a product is NOT safe.
It's the next big thing. How dare you question the next big thing!
Google doesn't want any more negative spin on the Google Glass. Some in the general public already see it as a creepy invasive product and now they will associate it with premature death caused by distracted drivers. I think there is cause for concern, as the average driver on the road already gives zero forethought in the safety of others as they surf the web on their phone while going 50+ miles per hour.
It's ok, because the screen in my center console can pull up Facebook, so I'll just take my eyes off the road and read it there. Don't get me wrong, having a HUD in front of your eyeballs while driving is a terrible idea, but let's think about the big picture here.
Given the toll on our highways shown to arise from distracted drivers, is this responsible corporate behavior to protect their product, or an unethical endangering of lives?
I'm glad the this is a neutrally worded question. I've got a similar one. Given the massive breach of our childrens online privacy, do you think underages should be free to visit whatever smut they want on the internet, or is it better to have the ISP install filters for all our safety?
If we turn into a society that constantly needs electronic gratification, and most kids today look like Maggie Simpson with her pacifier, then it sets a stage for the driver-less cars that google is pioneering. So, how do they lose with DD laws?
Could Google glass be used in a HUD capacity to actually improve driving safety?
Google Glass could block distracting billboards.
DUI would seem to fit any actual incidents.
How about we punish people who do bad things and not everyone who might?
Radios, navigation, phones, accidents, passengers, scenery, events outside the car, etc are plenty of ways people can be distracted while driving. When are we going to ban all those things? More laws are not going to make people with no common sense get any. Deal with the drivers who choose not to pay attention while driving not the objects. At the rate ban laws are being used, you might as well ban driving and you won't get any distracted driving.
Legislatures should wait to see how things develop, and not ban a product before it causes problems, based on the presumption that it will. Consider the possibility that you could build in driver aids to the Google glass that could actually make driving easier/safer. You could augment human senses with car sensors to identify potential hazards sooner then the average person would see them, or even something as simple as making your navigation info easier to see without looking away from the road at all. Second, to the extent that using them is banned, it should require more then just having one attached to your glasses, it should require that you were actually using it. Its simple with a cell phone, there is no reason you would have it in your hand other then to use it, but with Google glass, you could turn it off while driving and just keep using the same glasses. Ultimately it all comes down to legislators seeing an opportunity to get some free press for passing a law that wont piss off too many constituents, regardless of whether a law about it is really necessary. The basis for a law shouldn't just be can it reduce harm, but can it reduce harm substantially enough to justify an intrusion on our freedom to do it. I don't think banning Google glass while driving justifies that intrusion at this point.
People get into accidents all the time because they were messing with their radio when they should have had their eyes on the road. So why don't we ban car radios?
And if that seems absurd, why are we talking about banning things like texting, cell phone use, or Google Glass while driving?
Liberty in your lifetime
There may be a toll from distracted driving.
However, regulations to outlaw distracted driving are not effective.
So, why add regulations?
Why settle for being merely evil when you can be downright dastardly in your money-grubbing?
Between Verizon, Exxon/Mobil, and Google, guess which one has a private jumbo jet for company execs...
Doesn't broad legislation like this hinder new technology advancements that could benefit drivers and improve safety? How about HUD displays wearable or projected on the windshield providing information at a glance instead of turning your head and looking for the idiot lights on the console. Some of these HUD systems can improve safety by improving early warning during poor visibility as well as traffic alerts such as warning about accidents ahead and warning you to reduce speed.
Where was the legislation when complex audio systems were introduced that require more attention from driving to operate? Handheld devices are just 'another' example along with Google Glass that are additional distractions 'when used in an unsafe manner'. Better get rid of the AC/heater controls as they are just a distraction from the driving task as well. There are already laws on the books to address negligence. Do we really need to add laws specific to each new device type that comes on the market?
Banning something like Google Glass may be premature and therefore does not make a lot of sense. The logic behind this is similar to that which will be used by those who will challenge local and state laws that are banning the use of electronic cigarettes in places where smoking is ordinarily banned. There is a great deal of scientific evidence that proves second-hand smoke is dangerous to those who inhale it. However, there is no such evidence regarding the vapor exhaled by those using e-smokes.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
Traffic laws are confusing educating the public to prevent accidents with preemptive nanny-state laws for improving driver safety. This, in turn, creates animosity with the systems's purpose due to authority now having an incentive to generate income.
For instance: If you're in an accident, regardless of whose at fault, causing medical injury by not wearing a seat belt that would have been prevented with a seat belt, that's an insurance company issue; not a traffic hazard. So now we have agendanistas with attitude more interested in trying to goad the victim into a verbal response so they can try out their backup buddy scripts they learned in cop camp while giving a citation for lack of seat belts because of what might have happened to you in the future when something might have gone wrong.
It's called distracted driving. No need to make another law for distracted by text messaging, distracted by xyz...
1952 called, wants its news back.
Cloudiot: A person who does not see offsite storage as a way to lose control over access to his or her own data.
Don't get me wrong, having a HUD in front of your eyeballs while driving is a terrible idea
That kind of claim is why we have to be really careful about banning technologies prematurely.
If using HUDs or other kinds of electronic instruments were inherently dangerous, they wouldn't routinely be used by aircraft pilots.
The interesting questions are about what kinds of information are useful to help people drive better, and what conditions (such as a certain level of training) are necessary to enjoy those benefits.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Google's main point to legislators is that regulation would be premature because Google Glass is not yet widely available
It seems like that's the perfect reason to nip the issue in the bud. If you wait to include Glass and such in distracted driving laws, you may increase cultural resistance to the law since people will have started to expect that driving with their wearable display device should be no problem.
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
From one of the previous conversations, I understand that Google Glass does not really have useful GPS navigation yet. However, I would think GPS built into Google Glass and superimposed on the actual road would be significantly safer than shifting your eyes to glance at the GPS regularly.
You just live by the victorious
Heard this before: Glass not on, hence not in use. try that with an RIAA hacker attorney, wear it to a movie theatre.
You can't use a phone while driving, but if the manufacturer embeds a similar device in the dashboard, it's perfectly okay. Many newer mobile "infotainment" systems are nightmarishly complex to use and are far worse than a cell phone in terms of driver distraction, but these are a-ok apparently.
It's amusing since Google is also developing a driverless car, and with all the Glassholes soon to wandering around it's a damn good thing.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
There are plenty of questions about privacy and security raised by Google Glass but I think all products should be treated equally.
RTFAS:
"aimed at wearable technologies, such as Google Glass."
Nobody's trying to specifically legislate Google Glass. They're trying to modify existing distracted-driving laws to include wearable devices.
Also, whether a Big Mac is more distracting is irrelevant to whether wearable devices are. If they are, they should not be allowed. That said, many people DO want an overhaul of motor vehicle collision responsibility. "Changing the radio" was a successful defense for a driver who orphaned a 10 year old girl when he slammed into her parents, who were cycling well outside the travel lane...and there are dozens of examples of this kind of crap. He should've been charged with manslaughter at the least.
You do not have a RIGHT to drive; this is very consistently held up in the courts that driving is a privileged form of transportation. You especially do not have a RIGHT to do whatever you want WHILE driving.
It's been repeatedly shown that holding the phone doesn't matter (thus wearable devices are not safer) and speech-to-text isn't better (ditto) though holding a phone does impair your control of the vehicle; the real danger is that secondary tasks that involve a lot of thinking, such as composing a text message or carrying on a conversation, are distracting enough to make you have worse reaction times than someone who is drunk.
Google is just following in line with the cell phone industry in placing profits ahead of people's lives.
It's really simple: when you're in a car, your primary responsibility is to OPERATE THAT VEHICLE. Not to check your fucking email, or reply to text messages, or see what your stock price is, or what the weather is going to be like next week. Drive.
Please help metamoderate.
One death due to devices such as Glass being used by a driver while driving is one
too many.
Brin and Page should be personally accountable for this. As in : when someone wearing
Glass kills someone else in a vehicle accident, they also must die. I like the sound of that,
I do.
Most crashes involve 1 or more distracted drivers. Actual accidents are incredibly rare.
This will be used as a distraction by the average driver.
Of course a bill targeting just Google glass is stupid and just catering to hype. Time/tax payer dollars would be better spent on a bill elevating the penalties for all distracted driving to those of drunk driving. If Google lobbied to have the bill changed to this I would respect them more.
Remember while we have spent a lot of time and emotion villainizing drunk drivers, distracted drivers kill a lot more people each year. The only problem is that most people drive distracted and it is hard to pass a law that targets the majority.
It is hard to believe but while it has been shown that hands free cell phone use is no safer than normal cell phone use, and yapping on the phone is more dangerous than driving drunk, car companies still make and advertise cars with built in hands free. This is like advertizing/selling cars with built in bars for the driver.
One of the problems here is that the government loves to fix non-existent problems, but the biggest problem may be all the hyperbole used in the "news media" to drum up attention, clicks, ratings, etc. This very article is a good example. From the summary:
That statement is total bullshit. Show me the toll, the deadly toll laying waste to millions across our country. I'm surprised that "think of the kids" wasn't tossed in there too.
' is this responsible corporate behavior to protect their product, or an unethical endangering of lives?'
How is someone driving a car while simultaneously using Glass and causes a wreck Google's problem?
You see this type of behavior in many incidents today.. Isnt it time to start punishing the lotards?
What will happen when a driver is bored enough? That may be even worse than chatting on the phone because a bored driver may fall asleep from boredom.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
It's presently illegal to wear headphones while driving, so I feel quite confident believing that wearing a head-mounted computer will also be distracting.
Or, let's go ahead and legalize wearing Google Glass while driving - and if anyone crashes or dies, send Google the bill.
The driver, almost all accidents have to do with the driver. Getting the human out of the loop would be a better step.
How many people were killed due to gun violence in each of those states? And why arent they doing something about that *NOW*!
I think people have lost the entire concept of a rich vocabulary. "restrict" does not equal "ban". I'm restricted from driving without corrective eye lenses -- glasses or contacts. I'm not banned from driving.
Whether or not a device (google glass, texting, voice calls, non-hands-free calls, et cetera) is "safe" is completely and totally irrelevant. Yet another arbitrary definition of safe, another arbitrary experiment to figure it out, and now an arbitrary time to make the decision. It's all typical law-makers not knowing how to make laws.
So here's my solution. It's very simple. It requires no new experiments, no new decisions, and works forever with all future devices for all time.
If you can pass the drivers' road-test to qualify for a drivers' licence, whilst using the device, then it's safe enough for driving.
That's how it works with corrective eye lenses, and always has. I can opt to take the eye test with or without them. And I can pass or fail as a result.
So, take the road test while on the phone. Take the road test while texting. Take the road test while using google glass. I don't care. Most intelligent human beings can be trained to do just about anything. I shouldn't be restricted from something just because others never took the time to learn. At the same time, most human beings aren't intelligent enough to learn anything. They are the ones who are welcome to try then fail.
So that's it. Take the road test with a ministry person on the other end of the phone through a basic conversation. You can drive well. You can crash into the dumster. You can hang up to avoid crashing into the dumpster.
Welcome to evolution, adapting, training, and learning.
Do you need to know how fast you're going? Yes.
Do you need to know how your car is performing? Yes.
Do you need to know where you are and where you're going? Yes.
We already have head-up displays that show car parameters, as well as navigation systems that help you get where you're going. This could be incorporated in to an HUD ("turn here ->").
Anything more would be information overload. I do not need ads to tell me how cool the store I'm driving by is (i.e. how much they paid for the ad), nor do I need neat pictures other people have taken in the vicinity.
Look at how they do it in airplanes: the pilots have the essential information in front of them, but can access other information as needed.
...laura
The title suggests that Google is fighting against distracted driving laws, but when you read TFA, it sounds like they are really fighting laws that ban Glass-like devices which, depending on your point of view, might not be the same thing.
When I'm using my phone to navigate in the car, I have to glance at the phone occasionally. If I had Glass active and it was showing some of the same things, I wouldn't need to look away from the road and (in theory) could be less distracted. IMHO, I would think a blanket ban on the device is premature at this point. If Glass is released to the public and the data shows that it causes problems, the it will be time to start the discussion.
My mind works like lightning. One brilliant flash and it is gone.
If you've driven around here, you'll get the joke.
Who will be the first to try and ban talking in vehicles?
Why can't we just do a blanket ban on *anything* that is causing you to drive distracted? I don't care if it's kids screaming in the back, your mom just died, thinking about that hot chick you just banged, whatever - if you're distracted you shouldn't be driving. Conversely, if I'm talking on my phone but driving perfectly, (safe distance, speed, staying in the lane, heeding traffic, etc...) that should be fine. Why must we ban every. single. damn. stupid. tiny. thing. that. ever. gets. invented?
...Had this been an actual emergency, we would have fled in terror, and you would not have been informed.
really? terrible idea? when it puts gps info, road conditions etc in front of your eyes while driving? pffft
sure, no porn videos or facebook while driving - I'm sure glass could detect that
A) you're in the driver's seat
B) your vehicle is moving
and disable distractive apps and allow beneficial apps only
duh
"Its simple with a cell phone, there is no reason you would have it in your hand other then to use it," is just not true.
Taking it out of my pocket to place in center container or because it is pinching me.
Putting it in my pocket getting ready to get out of car.
Using the bright screen to see something like a dark knob I'm trying to find or see if headlight button is on/off or something else.
To turn the phone off or on or plug it in or unplug it
To use the GPS navigation (not phone call)
Even to use it in hands free mode
Caught it as it slid off dash
Because I LIKE holding it
Because I want to remember to take it with me
Waiting for phone call; when it rings I'll pull over which is legal.
Using it as a drum stick to rock along to music
Use it as signaling device to another car or tracking device so another car can see me
Trying to warm my hands from case being hot!
Great idea! Especially considering they charge you double if you want to pay in cash. Illinois Toll Rates by Plaza.
May i suggest reading the following: The Orphaned Right: The Right to Travel By Automobile 1890-1950 by Ralph Roots.
Are computers "persons" for the purposes of "unauthorized practice of law" statutes? I see this coming: Google Law
A car is an portable electronic device. It may be powered by gas but that turns a generator which provides electricity. Many of the car components are electronic. Most cars are powered by a computer.
Also a speed limit sign is a bigger distraction than google glass ever could be and it requires you to take your eyes off the road to check to ensure that you are going the proper speed limit under penalty of law. Checking my speed got me in one accident when a driver in front came to a sudden stop far from a turn or intersection, and I was found at fault.
Distracted drivers will be distracted drivers even if you put blinders and ear muffs on them and lock their heads into position where they can only see the road.
"GET / HTTP/1.0" 200 51230 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; Setec Astronomy)"
OK. http://articles.latimes.com/20...
Smart phones should be disabled automatically when the car is put into drive.(FULL STOP!) I worked for a 911 emergency department as one of two looking after all the servers and IO hardware for a city of over 1 million. The rule was, they page you and you call them. If you are in a car, you pull over and stop and shut the car off and then call them. Unless your job is more important than saving lives (the stock market dropped 500 points is not even close, nor is 'because the boss said so"), then what people need to do is pull over if the call is urgent, put it into park and then talk. The 'drive-and-talk' bullshit has to end. Only 50% worse than 'drive-and-talk' is 'drive-and-text'. Not only is your head out of the game, but your hands and eyes too. I'm tired of people not dealing with the 2 tons of machinery so that they can get their word out. It should be mandatory: park means green bars, RND21 means no signal.
Well, they actually were in some states in the 1930s when originally introduced to cars. http://reason.com/archives/201...
Let's also get rid of GPSs, radios, smoking, DVD players, and passengers, because they too are a distraction. And while we're at it, let's get rid of speedometers and speed limits, cause every time someone has to look down to ensure they're doing the speed limit they obviously do not have their eyes on the road.
What toll? Shown by whom? Despite the increased use of so-called distractions (google glass, cellphones, gps, etc); motor vehicle fatalities have done nothing but drop for decades. The 32,367 traffic fatalities in 2011 in the US were the lowest in 62 years.
Support Right To Repair Legislation.
In it there was an article touting a radio receiver that you fixed to the running board of your car. The article stated that while it was not practial to use while the vehicle was in motion, it explained that it was expected that laws would be passed prohibiting 'radioing' (sic) while driving as it was a distraction and would promote unsafe driving.
If you look at the range of devices currently built into most cars and look back over time it's safe to say that many people have adapted to the increasing number of information sources available to the driver and can capably prioritise their actions.
The morons that insist on texting while driving are probably just the same ones who previously shaved or put on their makeup while behind the wheel. The real problem is not the technology, but the idiots using it.
These people will still do dumb things irrespective of the law - why punish those that are using the technology safely?
The elephant in the room is the saturation of guns. Far more people in the USA die or are injured due to guns than roads. Should probably focus on the more serious issues first...
SURELY NOT!!!!!
Distracted driving laws are useless. I live in Alberta and they passed a law that you can't be on your cell phone while driving maybe a year or two ago. Since then everyone has been "crotch watching" which is so much more dangerous that the government has had to run TV and radio advertisements in an attempt to guilt people into stopping.
So all they've done is waste money making driving more dangerous as everyone becomes even more distracted attempting to hide the fact that they're allowing themselves to be distracted. When will this nanny-state bullshit end?
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
But having massive highly lit billboards on busy roads and intersections (and by "highly lit", I mean "we're displaying a massive white background that's drowning out the street lights at night and ruining every driver's night vision" level bright) isn't distracting?
Yet will allow people to continue to muck with their car radios and CD collections while driving. One day someone will be able to explain to me why tapping "next" on my tethered ipod is dangerous, but fussing with the radio buttons (or better yet, those new multimedia displays on new cars) is somehow not.
While we're on a roll, we also could use a fat-fuck law.
Once a year, on your birthday, DMV assesses a hundred dollar penalty for every percent of fat over 25% over your body mass. 30%: that'll be 500 bucks, Sir. Then cops could stop a fat-fuck for being a potential traffic hazard and possibly prevent that person from having an accident caused by a fat induced heart attack.
The penalty money from those failing to quit being fat could be used to alleviate health care insurance costs.
The corporation is responsible to it's shareholders to maximise their profits. The corporation also has a responsibility to the people who could be affected by it's products use. So, you only have to worry about conflict if the two groups overlap. If, for example, you sell machine guns to children, you need to make sure that your shareholders are not people with children, and whose lives are lived in gated communities (with security guards who die at the boundaries without troubling you) and escorted limousines that aren't troubled by street people.
The same logic can perfectly well square this for Google. I predict that GoogleBuses have bullet-proof glass, and their drivers are banned from using Glass, while the Googlenauts on board are driving to work using their Glasses.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
It just might work; but you'll need to apply stickers to the plates and the operator's license as proof of payment for the fatty fee.