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."
It's the next big thing. How dare you question the next big thing!
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?
Could Google glass be used in a HUD capacity to actually improve driving safety?
Google Glass could block distracting billboards.
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
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?
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 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.
That sounds 'fair' but it would essentially destroy innovation. Sure the Google's of the world could afford to do those things but the guy working in his garage never could. Its 'regulation' like this that essentially destroys the concept of a free market.
Ultimately the people who decide to 'use' a technology or device under specific conditions need to be responsible. Unless it can be show the device itself is fundamentally hazardous, like just turning it on makes it likely to catch fire or something. In this case drivers need to be responsible, and asses for themselves if a device is to distracting or not to use while driving. Drivers need to be held accountable and know they will be held accountable when the error and cause harm to others.
Ultimately others don't have a legitimate reason to care why you rear ended them / ran over their cat / t-boned them in an intersection what have you, only that you committed the error and were at fault. Frankly why I don't think should matter much. The fact you were day dreaming, drunk, stoned, on your phone, etc does not change the outcome. The law as far as liability is concerned should focus solely on if it was operator error or not.
As far as criminality is concerned it should focus on negligence or not; that is were you operating recklessly or not. If knew or reasonably could have known something or condition was distracting, intoxicating, or otherwise reducing your abilities to a degree that would impair your ability to safely drive and you did anyway it should be considered criminal. There again it should not matter, if its drink, advanced age, Google Glass, etc.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
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 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.
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.
The driver, almost all accidents have to do with the driver. Getting the human out of the loop would be a better step.
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.
It's been that way for years.
Many of the posters here HATE technology. They don't want it in cars, they don't want it in classrooms, it's almost as if they'd prefer a world without any of it at all.
It's one of the reasons I don't post here much these days, too many neo-Luddites.
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.
Great idea! Especially considering they charge you double if you want to pay in cash. Illinois Toll Rates by Plaza.
My take is that a large part of the traditional Slashdot reader base love technology and the science behind it, but dislike the impact it has on person to person relationships, social norms and society in general. So get off my lawn unless you're gonna mow it.
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...
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?
It doesn't deliver it in any significant quantities. Outlawing e-cigs because of that is like outlawing someone drinking in a bar, because they're exhaling alcohol.
Please. e-Cigarettes produce less nicotine than regular cigarettes (about 10%), but it's still quite detectable and can be found in the bloodstream of secondhand inhalers.
But frankly, I don't care if they puff out caffeine or Tylenol or magic healing pixie dust, the major point is the you don't get to set my level of drug exposure for your own benefit. The principle behind secondhand smoking bans is the old one of "your right to swing your fist ends at my face." It's the reason we have similar laws like noise ordinances. Your entertainment rights end when they intersect with my body and my health. You don't get to force your habits on me.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
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.
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"