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?"
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.
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.
Since accident rates have been declining for decades, yeah, it looks like it has worked so far.
For all the blather about "distracted driving" due to these neat new tech-toys, we're having fewer accidents and fewer fatalities. So it's really hard to see how these new forms of "distracted driving" are causing a problem
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
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.