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?"
... 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."
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?
That's the wrong question to be asking. Driving is dangerous enough already -- the right question to ask is what study proves that this type of technology is safe to use while driving.
There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
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.
Apply this to other areas as well. A few weeks ago a friend called me up at midnight because his car had broken down in the boonies. I was awoken out of a sound slumber and was amazed at how dulled my reflexes and decision making capabilities were. For all intents and purposes I was in a drunken state of mind while at the same time being stone sober. Personally, I'd rather be on the road with somebody with a light buzz than with a parent in a car yelling at her kids and otherwise distracted.
"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin
Couldn't you say that about most distractions? Is it safe to converse with a passenger? Is it safe to have the radio on loud, or at all? You'll never be able to eliminate all risks from driving (it is the single most dangerous thing most of us do on a daily basis). Anecdotally, I believe that navigating with an HUD displayed on eyewear or on a windshield is far safer than a 4" LCD screen mounted somewhere on the dash, or a similar screen held in the lap.
"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin
Exactly! A whining 5 year old in the back seat is more distracting than an image on Glass. You can't test every possible behavior before it is allowed in a car. The law should be that every driver is RESPONSIBLE for paying attention to the road. If I am being distracted by Glass, I have a duty to turn it off.
"He took a duck in the face at 250 knots." -- William Gibson, Pattern Recognition
What study has shown that it is safe to drive while eating a Big Mac?
I'm pretty sure I've seen stories about people eating apples while driving being pulled over and prosecuted in my country (the UK), and our general laws against poor driving certainly cover that kind of case if the standard of driving is unacceptable as a result.
I'm in two minds about technology-specific laws. On the one hand, we introduced legislation here a few years ago against driving while using a hand-held mobile phone, which promptly led to aggressive marketing about how using a hands-free kit keeps you safe. (It doesn't; the exact same research used to justify the ban on hand-held devices showed that hands-free was almost as dangerous. It was left out of the law because of concerns over unrealistic enforcement, not because it was safe.)
On the other hand, the motivation for introducing the phone-specific law was that too many people are deluded enough to believe they can drive at their normal standard while on the phone, so they didn't think the regular laws against driving without due care and attention would apply. Every time that discussion comes up on Slashdot, plenty of people will turn up and exhibit the exact same arrogance and/or ignorance, thus proving the original motivation sound in that case. If the same is true of Google Glass or similar headsets, specific laws might be warranted in those cases as well.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
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.
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
Every driver is not going to do that. This is evident by how many people are texting while driving. Yeah every driver should be responsible. That would be great. Then every driver would drive the limit, not tail gate, signal lane changes, not text while driving, not drink while driving. What a beautiful nirvana that would be!
But that is not reality. So we legislate laws because we have already lost way to much as a society to do otherwise.
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
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.