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?"
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
... 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."
No. Bill specifically about Google Glass is an "excellent" idea.
Make a bill general enough, and the Makers will join forces to fight it.
Make a bill to every single one, one by one, and you will have to handle just one each time: you will have more profit opportunities this way,
(you don'y think they're *really" concerned about safety, do you? They want the money)
Lisias@Earth.SolarSystem.OrionArm.MilkyWay.Local.Virgo.Universe.org
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?
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.
I'm not so sure I agree. I have not used Google Glass and I have not read a whole lot about it, but isn't it visually contextual, as in it can recognize certain things as it comes into the field of view? Automatically? Can Glass be modified to recognize when it's in a vehicle and somehow be designed to enhance the driving experience and safety?
To me, what BMW is doing and what Google is doing calls for safety standards, not safety regulations. A better bill in my opinion would be something that empowers the NHTSA to hire software people (I'm almost certain they do not have the right people to understand what BMW and Google are doing, it's too new) to help build out design standards for these kinds of things with an eye towards safety and perhaps in a way that can really do some good. Give them the funding to run some SBIRs or research grants that allow people to study this; maybe they can get the bull by the horns before it's out of the gate and provide opportunity as well as safety.
Of course, this is asking the government to be proactive which is about as likely as the Second Coming, but still, one can hope.
That is exactly the opposite of the "right question"! In a free country the government must always defend any limitation of personal freedom. You should never have to justify it's free exercise. Anything else is not a freedom it's a privilege. If Glass, HUD's and similar emerging tech are dangerous or dangerous in certain use profiles it is the duty of the Government to prove so with scientific fact and not emotional hyperbole before enacting laws limiting your freedom. Beyond that it very well may be that GPS usage in a Glass type device is safer than a dash or window mounted GPS. It may also be that speed, gas, rpm and other vital info can be more safely delivered in that format. These sort of reactionary knee jerk laws only server to stifle innovation and the adoption of tech that could solve real, practical problems.
The perversity of the Universe tends towards a maximum. - O'Toole's Corollary
If using HUDs or other kinds of electronic instruments were inherently dangerous, they wouldn't routinely be used by aircraft pilots.
When you have thousands of hours of driving theory classes, simulator time and coached road driving in a vehicle where the coach can take over the vehicle in a moments notice then you can start to talk about how your driving a car compares to a pilot in a jet.
Most pilots have more time in simulators than most drivers get in their first few years of driving. Comparing the two is a joke and you know it.
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
Entire text of a correctly done bill here: "The use of portable electronic devices while driving a motor vehicle is prohibited".
That would ban cell phones, texting devices, google glass, and similar - but not prohibit anything built in to the car.
Riiight. Because clearly everybody that drove before 10 or 15 years ago was reading a map while driving. Yes, there were a few people that did this - they were then known (as they are now) as 'morons', the same as people who have to be looking at a fucking GPS to get anywhere.
You don't get it, a heads up display is projected on to your field of vision, with Glass you have to look at the screen or at the road.
So not "heads up" at all, unless of course you meant "my heads upright but I'm still a distracted Glasshole putting everyone around me in danger"
Then yes.
Face it it's bad tech.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."