Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Google Input Devices Transportation United Kingdom

In UK, Google Glass To Be Banned While Driving 214

Posted by timothy
from the should-be-mandatory-for-motorcycles dept.
RockDoctor writes "Stuff magazine, a gadget oriented mag, is reporting that the UK's Department for Transport is planning to ban drivers from using Google Glass, using the same law (1988 Road Traffic Act) that is used to ban drivers from using hand-held mobile phones. While there are obvious parallels between the distraction potential of the mobile phone and of Glass, there are arguments in the other direction that the speech-control aspects of Glass could make it less distracting than, say, a touch-screen SatNav. So, to ban Glass while driving or not? Typical fines for using a mobile phone while driving are £60 cash plus three penalty points on the driving license; the points expire three years after the offence and if you accumulate 12 points then you've lost your license. Repeat offenders may experience higher fines and/ or more points. Around a million people have received the penalty since the mobile phone ban was introduced in 2003."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

In UK, Google Glass To Be Banned While Driving

Comments Filter:
  • Glassholes (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Good. We don't need people driving around being glassholes.

  • Missing the point. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by AndyAndyAndyAndy (967043) <afacini@NospAm.gmail.com> on Thursday August 01, 2013 @12:46PM (#44447939)
    UI advances like GG are supposed to make driving with technology safer, not more dangerous. Let's be real: we're only a few short years from on-windshield HUDs for navigation, driving metrics, etc.
    • by CanHasDIY (1672858) on Thursday August 01, 2013 @12:51PM (#44447995) Homepage Journal

      UI advances like GG are supposed to make driving with technology safer, not more dangerous.

      That's the theory, anyway; however, the reality is quite different. [myfoxla.com]

      • by ackthpt (218170)

        UI advances like GG are supposed to make driving with technology safer, not more dangerous.

        That's the theory, anyway; however, the reality is quite different. [myfoxla.com]

        Probably better to just ban driving by humans and let the car drive itself.

        • You know, maybe Google Glass is just a plot to get Google Car jump started!
        • by CanHasDIY (1672858) on Thursday August 01, 2013 @02:18PM (#44449357) Homepage Journal

          UI advances like GG are supposed to make driving with technology safer, not more dangerous.

          That's the theory, anyway; however, the reality is quite different. [myfoxla.com]

          Probably better to just ban driving by humans and let the car drive itself.

          Again, seems a good idea in theory, but in practice might not be the magic bullet you think it is:

          Consider, for a moment, the recent crash of an Asiana airline flight. Among the issues brought up as a result, there has been question as to whether or not commercial pilots rely too much on automation technology, as there is speculation (backed by flight-recorder evidence) that such a practice was partially to blame for the crash.

          Keeping that in mind, consider this:

          To become a commercial pilot, one has to go through countless hours of training, flights, exams, certifications, etc.
          [yes, this is an oversimplification, for brevity's sake; if you want specifics, look them up]

          To become an automobile operator, the only requirements (in most of the US) are a short, written exam, a quick spin around the block, and a moderately successful parallel parking attempt.

          Considering the question of pilot reliance on automation, and the vast canyon of difference between the training they receive and that of a typical automobile operator, I fear this particular solution (self-driving cars) will only compound an existing problem.

          • by jdunn14 (455930)

            Considering the question of pilot reliance on automation, and the vast canyon of difference between the training they receive and that of a typical automobile operator, I fear this particular solution (self-driving cars) will only compound an existing problem.

            I can see this being a problem if automation is introduced piecemeal, but if you go from what we have now to something where the human driver is not required your example tends to make the opposite point for me. Before you say that cutting the human out is insane keep in mind that when something goes wrong in a car the stakes are not nearly as high as in a plane, both for the number of people involved, and for the fact that if the car engine cuts out and it coasts to a stop the result is generally not a pi

      • by AndyAndyAndyAndy (967043) <afacini@NospAm.gmail.com> on Thursday August 01, 2013 @01:17PM (#44448349)
        That article (and many other half-baked clips that were popular earlier this year) was based on a very weak report by AAA. Weak because it relied upon self-reporting, rather than accident report statistics.

        The more I read into it, it's just a mess. Graphs correlating phone use with internet use (no bearing on safety?), alcohol use during the last year with phone use during the last month, and importantly, correlates the frequency of car crashes over two years with cell phone use over one month. In that point, which should have been their most relevant, it even showed no statistical difference between the self-reported phone use of "once/rarely" and "often/regularly."

        Here is a link to the primary source. [aaafoundation.org]
        • If you want to argue the veracity of a particular report, you're more than welcome. Keep those fuckers honest.

          If you're arguing that there's no correlation between distracted driving and an increased probability of incident, you're lying to yourself.

      • by pixelpusher220 (529617) on Thursday August 01, 2013 @01:36PM (#44448613)
        The real point being that if you want to introduce 'new' technology to a functional environment, it should be mandatory to be TRAINED on the new technology.

        Cops in the US have radios, cell phones and laptop computers going at basically all times. Yet they don't seem to have they same issues as the general population. It's the training that GPS, phones and Glass users aren't getting and so are using things in stupid ways.

        It's human nature to use things. We need to adapt our behaviors to counteract that nature when it threatens safety; and that is regulation.
        • by LBt1st (709520)

          And cops never screw up!
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SzDfMPe40n8 [youtube.com]

          That said, I agree with you. The problem isn't the devices. It's that stupid people use them irresponsibly. We should ban stupid people from driving.

        • The real point being that if you want to introduce 'new' technology to a functional environment, it should be mandatory to be TRAINED on the new technology.

          I do not disagree, but I don't see it happening - somebody's going to bitch about having to pay for it, either individually or through taxes; probably someone with more money and influence than every person on Slashdot combined.

          Cops in the US have radios, cell phones and laptop computers going at basically all times. Yet they don't seem to have they same issues as the general population.

          A large part of that is due to the lack of accountability in law enforcement. For example: several years ago, I was sitting at a red light. I watched as a cop with a cell phone attached to his ear entered the left turn lane in front of me; he then proceeded to pull out in front of on

        • by mjwx (966435)

          Cops in the US have radios, cell phones and laptop computers going at basically all times. Yet they don't seem to have they same issues as the general population. It's the training that GPS, phones and Glass users aren't getting and so are using things in stupid ways.

          Cops do the same in Australia.

          If the average driver got half as much driver training as the average cop, I wouldn't mind about phones as much. But the fact is they dont, most drivers cant even drive a manual let alone stop without ABS or even manage their car without electronic traction control. Hell, most drivers cant even keep a consistent speed on a flat, straight road without the aid of cruise control. The average driver is simply too incompetent to use this technology.

          When the cop needs to concen

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward

      how will the 12 minutes of adverts that american providers like between each ppiece of information help road safety?

    • by bill_mcgonigle (4333) * on Thursday August 01, 2013 @12:52PM (#44448017) Homepage Journal

      Yeah, Google Glass isn't there yet, but I think I'd be safer not looking over to the Tom Tom (when I can see it ... can I install the Tom Tom software on Garmin hardware yet?), the radio, or down at the cell phone to see who's calling.

      I'm really interested in some of the advanced technologies like road outlines in fog or infrared imaging of wildlife in the road (moose!) that have been demonstrated, and retinal projection of that data just makes so much more sense than building a $4000 windshield that maintains a xenon mist.

      I do wonder if we'll get those before autopilots in cars make more sense, though.

      • by lgw (121541)

        An HUD windshield for your car won't show YouTube videos or instant messages. Google Glass will. That's pretty much all the argument needed.

        • Google Glass will

          Google Glass could.

          There are car navigation systems that already integrate text messaging. There are people who have been pulled over for watching porn on their vehicle's entertainment system while they drive. Unless you're going to take their phones away, at least if they're doing those stupid things while driving with Glass, their head will be pointed in the right direction. Stupid people are dangerous, but stupid people looking down at their laps while driving are even more dangerou

        • by AmiMoJo (196126) *

          Android has a "driving mode" which devices can switch when they are connected to a car dock. Naturally any app can make use of this mode, but typically manufacturers provide a simplified display that doesn't let you do much other than play music or navigate. Sometimes even that is limited to when the car isn't moving, like how many sat nav units disable the touch screen when the car is in motion.

          Glass will simply need something like that. When the user is moving at more than say 10KPH just disable YouTube a

    • by OzPeter (195038) on Thursday August 01, 2013 @01:02PM (#44448131)

      UI advances like GG are supposed to make driving with technology safer, not more dangerous. Let's be real: we're only a few short years from on-windshield HUDs for navigation, driving metrics, etc.

      A few short years away?? This is an article from 12 months ago Top 5 HUDs in modern cars today [techradar.com]

    • Let's be real: we're only a few short years from on-windshield HUDs for navigation, driving metrics, etc.

      . . . and flying cars.

      There's just so much stuff that we're only a few short years from! I can hardly wait a few short years, to see what stuff that we'll be only be a few short years from, in a few short years.

      • Except windshields HUDs already exist and have for at least a year or more.

        • Oh, they've been around far, far, far longer than that. Late 80's in fact (Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme and Nissan 240SX were among the first).
    • by gl4ss (559668)

      GG isn't a driving accessory though

      vettes had huds in the '90s, you want a hud you can have one today. that has little to do with gg though.

      and about gps devices... you're not supposed to be typing into them while driving either.

      • The point is, Google Glass could be an incredibly useful driving tool. It is only short-sightedness and unfounded FEAR that drive laws like this.
        • by gl4ss (559668)

          sure, it could. then it would be allowed and wouldn't be "using google glass" anymore.

          seriously though I really doubt the current iteration could be useful in any way except for recording your driving procedures and for suing your ass once you hit something while fiddling around with your cellphone. you can't overlay augmented lines of the road in your vision with it or shit like that, you pretty much can only take your eye _off_ the road by using it.

          • You dont need to overlay or any of that. Simply moving your SPEEDOMETER to a line of sight view is an improvement. It doenst even have to be numbers or gauges. You could make a colored box slowly change the color as you change velocity. No need to focus on anything but the road if you give them nothing to focus on. Simple, intuitive, functional, safe. You are using fear instead of addressing the issue at hand. This is knee-jerk reaction lawmaking.
            • by bws111 (1216812) on Thursday August 01, 2013 @03:07PM (#44450011)

              Most of these suggestions for 'improving' driving seem to come from quite crappy drivers. I include you in that category because you use the phrase '... focus on anything but the road'. WRONG! You are not supposed to be 'focused' on ANYTHING, including 'the road'. You are supposed to be ALERT. Your eyes are supposed to be constantly moving, look at the road, look at the car in front of you, look in front of that car, look in your mirrors, look at your gauges, look to at the sides, look off in the distance. ANYTHING that encourages (or allows) you to focus on ANYTHING, including the road, is a detriment to good driving, not an aid.

              Focusing on the road is called (or used to be) highway hypnosis. You are nicely focused, convinced that everything is OK (after all, if it wasn't OK my wonderful gadgets would tell me), and you are as dangerous as if you were just about asleep.

              The FEAR is not 'fear of the new', it is both the combined experience of the past (ie texting and cell phones), and the fear that these gadgets would cause crappy drivers to somehow think they are now better. Neither one of those is good.

            • by Cederic (9623)

              There's a very big difference between providing a HUD (near the eye, on the windscreen or wherever) that provides driving aids of various forms, and letting the population at large use a general purpose computing device that can obscure their entire vision in one eye while drawing all of their attention when they're controlling a large heavy fast moving vehicle.

              That isn't fear, that's raw common fucking sense.

        • by BasilBrush (643681) on Thursday August 01, 2013 @03:10PM (#44450039)

          And yet the UK has some of the safest roads in the world. With those few with better stats mostly being other countries with strong road safety laws, but lower population.

          The US for example is 4 times less safe. Now I don't know what particular evidence they used in the Google Glass, or whether they just went on the very obvious distraction dangers, but the UKs track record for doing the right thing for road safety is very good. And far better then the more anarchic states you will prefer.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate [wikipedia.org]

          • by bws111 (1216812)

            While I agree that the UK has more safe roads than the US, it is nowhere near 4 times safer. Using the metric of 'deaths per population' doesn't really say anything about the safety of the roads, only about your chances of being killed in an accident. Staying off the road decreases your chances of dying in an accident, but says nothing at all about the safety of the roads. A more useful metric is deaths/distance driven. The UK is 5.7, and the US is 8.5. Both are great compared to the UAE (310!!), Braz

          • by AmiMoJo (196126) *

            The UK is only safe because traffic jams and constant badly-planned roadworks make sure cars rarely get above 5 MPH.

            I see signs saying "works until Autumn 2014" to add a small slip-road to an existing one and marvel at how badly we get ripped off in this country.

        • Comparing how well Google Maps works as a navigation system; a lot of people are going to die while using Google Glass while behind the wheel.

    • by bws111 (1216812) on Thursday August 01, 2013 @01:08PM (#44448231)

      The most important thing in driving is to be alert. Anything that focuses your attention prevents you from being alert. It doesn't matter if the thing you are staring at is the road, the car in front of you, your phone, your gauges, or anything else. It all reduces alertness.

      GG is not some piece of magic. It WILL focus your attention.

      • What if google glass had a driving app.
        It could show you the speed limit and warn you when you're going over. So you don't have to keep on looking for speed signs when you're driving in areas your unaccustomed to.
        It could detect erratic driving and warn you to stay away from drunk drivers.
        It could show you your nav directions so you won't have to look down or near the radio for directions.
        It could detect adverse conditions and warn you before something happens. Like the car in front of you suddenly stoppi

        • by bws111 (1216812) on Thursday August 01, 2013 @02:25PM (#44449481)

          That's a whole lot of 'what ifs'.

          It could show you the speed limit and warn you when you're going over. So you don't have to keep on looking for speed signs when you're driving in areas your unaccustomed to.

          Seeing speed limit signs are difficult for you? Also, the signs are what set the limit, not some app. If GG can see the sign, so can you. If you are trusting some unofficial source to tell you the speed limit you are an idiot. And if you are like the vast majority of people you are almost always over the speed limit, making this indication useless. On the other hand, I am sure the cops would just love to know that you had already been warned about exceeding the speed limit.

           

          It could detect erratic driving and warn you to stay away from drunk drivers.

          That is your job as the driver. If you don't know how to do it, take a defensive driving course. Your job is to be alert for ANYTHING that can affect you, not just something previously identified as 'erratic'.

          It could show you your nav directions so you won't have to look down or near the radio for directions.

          Why are you looking at a nav for directions? You should be using voice directions. As I said above, the problem is what you are focused on (ie getting directions), not where you are looking.

          It could detect adverse conditions and warn you before something happens. Like the car in front of you suddenly stopping and your distracted with your kids or fiddling with the climate control.

          Adding additional distractions is not the answer to being distracted. What could be worse than being distracted, having the car stop in front of you, and having your attention drawn to your freaking app? If such alerts are desirable they would be FAR better delivered as an audible signal than something that takes your focus.

          It could tie into your car's sensors, when you try and change lanes with someone in your blind spot it could warn you about a possible collision.

          Again, that is your responsibilty. Relying on some app to do it is just stupid. And again, it will take your attention at exactly the wrong moment.

          Tie it to a infrared camera so when your driving in rural areas in the night it could warn you of dangerous deer on the road.

          If you are outdriving your headlights you are a dangerous driver. An app is not going to fix that.

          NONE of those things would make you 'a better driver'.

          • by mjwx (966435)

            NONE of those things would make you 'a better driver'.

            +10,000

            Drivers aids dont make bad drivers better.

            They dont even make mediocre drivers better.

            They dont because if a driver cant notice road signs, other vehicles, obstructions on the road or the road itself the driver will ignore any beeps, bloops or klaxons that a warning system will produce. In fact it will have the opposite effect and make a bad driver worse because they think they are magically protected by these driver aids. We live in a world where "death by GPS" is a term used by coroners be

        • It could show you the speed limit and warn you when you're going over. So you don't have to keep on looking for speed signs when you're driving in areas your unaccustomed to.

          A phone could do that with an audio-only alert which wouldn't immediately distract your visual attention from the view ahead.

          It could show you your nav directions so you won't have to look down or near the radio for directions.

          I thought that's why satnavs speak directions. Sometimes as Yoda!

          It could detect adverse conditions and warn you before something happens. Like the car in front of you suddenly stopping and your distracted with your kids or fiddling with the climate control.

          Or how about don't get distracted by the kids and stop fiddling with the controls while you're supposed to be driving the car?

          but an actual hud driving app would make your driving safer.

          It's not exactly like a true HUD. It's right there in your view whether you like or not. You can't look away. It can't attract your attention with a subtle blink at the edge of your vision and the

    • by ackthpt (218170)

      UI advances like GG are supposed to make driving with technology safer, not more dangerous. Let's be real: we're only a few short years from on-windshield HUDs for navigation, driving metrics, etc.

      On a race track this may be true, but when dealing with all the morons on the road, particularly those who aren't even distracted by a mobile, but are busy with makeup, shaving, brushing teeth, yelling at the driver ahead of them (through the windscreen, yet), picking nose, changing radio channels, having a twist of the neck to have a look at the crack-up in the next lane over, racing or simply not paying attention at all, you really do need your wits about you, not focusing on that 1 degree drop in oil tem

    • And only a few more short years from ads being added to those HUDs.

      • a) Google glass already has ads. Another reason to ban it whilst driving.

        b) Just as the UK has banned Google Glass whilst driving, I'd expect them to ban adverts on HUDs. Other jurisdictions may vary...

        • by swillden (191260)

          a) Google glass already has ads.

          Cite? Last I heard, Google was not only no putting ads on Glass, but had banned third party developers from incorporating ads into their apps.

    • Let's be real: we're only a few short years from on-windshield HUDs for navigation, driving metrics, etc.

      Really short:

      http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupes/1301_2014_chevrolet_corvette_stingray_first_look/photo_55.html [motortrend.com]

    • by tgd (2822)

      UI advances like GG are supposed to make driving with technology safer, not more dangerous. Let's be real: we're only a few short years from on-windshield HUDs for navigation, driving metrics, etc.

      Windscreen HUDs were pretty common on the "luxury" brands back into the mid 80's.

      They're not there anymore because they:
      a) suck because it makes you refocus your eyes without moving them
      b) are dangerous and distracting

      • a) suck because it makes you refocus your eyes without moving them

        I don't know about the 1980s ones, but the modern ones put the focal point of the HUD out in front of the car, not in the plane of the windscreen.

    • by DigiShaman (671371) on Thursday August 01, 2013 @01:54PM (#44448903) Homepage

      Driving is mainly visual at the primal level. Metrics, graphics, alerts, and other electronic doodads distract from the instantaneous on-goings of your surrounding environment as processing such instrumentation takes time. Time that leaves you and others vulnerable. Unlike flight where you can be IFR rated, driving requires reactions to be made in split seconds! Which BTW while you will never have an IFR rated drivers licenses. And if it was possible, then you wouldn't be driving the car. The computer would. Leaving you the ability to sit back and read a book or two.

      You might think the dashboard is more dangerous vs an overlaying HUD, but keep mind mind that we choose to look at the dashboard when we deem it safe whereas a HUD is always in-your-face slinging the brain into information overload. I don't blame technology. I blame the limitations of the human brain that wishes to use said technology during inappropriate conditions.

      • You might think the dashboard is more dangerous vs an overlaying HUD, but keep mind mind that we choose to look at the dashboard when we deem it safe whereas a HUD is always in-your-face slinging the brain into information overload.

        And Google Glass differs from a windscreen HUD - a windscreen HUD could at least put its information in the corner of your vision and let you choose when to look at it. A Glass would stick it right there in front of you.

        Wouldn't the binocular disparity also be a significant drawback compared to a real HUD?

    • by Fuzzums (250400)

      How will a better YouTube UI aid safer driving?

      Didn't think so.

    • Let's be real: we're only a few short years from on-windshield HUDs for navigation, driving metrics, etc.

      Nothing wrong with that. But it doesn't mean it's OK to have a mobile phone interface hovering in your eyes. Driving UI good. General phone UI, which may include some driving apps, bad.

      The build in HUDs are designed, hardware and software to be aids whilst driving. Google Glass is not. And it's users would be likely to use distracting apps on it, such as messaging.

    • While the UK test is a bit harder than the US the problem is most people can barely handle driving as it is without distractions and especially one right in your face that allows you to your social media updates. I only just saw an SUV driving run into a stationary car the other day. Apparently the non-moving car with its break lights or the 4 red lights didn't weren't visible.

      If people want to be treated like fully capable and professional drives they should act like it.
    • by Mashiki (184564)

      UI advances like GG are supposed to make driving with technology safer, not more dangerous. Let's be real: we're only a few short years from on-windshield HUDs for navigation, driving metrics, etc.

      On-windshield HUDS have been around since the 80's, hell my grandfather's old Cadillac Alante('87) had a HUD that would give you everything but navigation(since the tech didn't exist at the consumer level). My new car on the otherhand? It has all that built in. I agree that it's supposed to make driving safer, but I expect some idiot, somewhere will manage to smear themselves across the pavement and they'll try to ban the tech outright anyway.

    • by mjwx (966435)

      UI advances like GG are supposed to make driving with technology safer, not more dangerous. Let's be real: we're only a few short years from on-windshield HUDs for navigation, driving metrics, etc.

      The problem is, the human can be easily distracted by something not relating to driving and in the case of GG the human is in control of the UI.

      I wouldn't mind a HUD system that had a transparent projection on my windscreen, things like speed, RPM, current time and maybe even nav information (the only piece of in-car navigation I have is a paper based map book, when you live in a city for over a decade and cant navigate around it unassisted you have problems).

      This would be all I'd want out of it altho

    • by Skrapion (955066)

      The biggest problem I see with using Google Glass as a driving aid is that, if you drive a left-hand-drive car, Google Glass would obscure your view of the rearview mirror.

  • When Glass devices become available as prescription glasses, I don't see how they can implement a ban. Are they going to start controlling what type of spectacles people wear when they drive?

    • You can't see how they can do it? It's as simple as passing a law.

    • by ledow (319597) on Thursday August 01, 2013 @01:30PM (#44448497) Homepage

      Er... yes.

      Try driving in spectacles that aren't supplementing your vision to the legally required standard. British driving tests have an eye test component but AT ANY POINT if you were driving while having vision unable to pass that same test, you are deemed unfit to drive. You have to tell the DVLA if you wear glasses to drive, or have eye issues (lots of people with laser treatment have fallen foul of this in accidents where they failed to notify the DVLA that they don't need glasses any more - it all resolves itself in court, or before that point, but it's one of the things that insurers check in big accidents and police check if they are called to an accident).

      Try driving in sunglasses that are too dark at night (or windows too tinted - hell I've seen UK police with devices to test how tinted your windows are and they pulled people off the road, tested it, and removed the car if it was too much). You can get pulled and, same thing. Driving without due care and attention. It's without due care and attention to have something electronic ON and SHOWING in the car that is visible to the driver (e.g. sat-nav, TV, DVD, etc.) Yes, this includes your sat-nav if it is in the driver's eyeline. It's illegal. Read the warnings and booklets that come with any satnav sold in the EU / UK. You can click "I accept" all you like, it's still illegal.

      The difference is: What are the chances of getting caught? But that's already a loaded question. It means: I'm doing wrong, but how much of a risk can I take to do wrong and get away with it?

      When driving a fucking car, drive the fucking car. Don't have things switched on that do other things that stop you driving the fucking car. OF COURSE you're the best driver in the world and can do it all day long and not have an accident. So does EVERYONE else think that. Until you run over their little sister.

    • Are they going to start controlling what type of spectacles people wear when they drive?

      Why not? I'm pretty sure they wouldn't have any trouble booking you if they caught you driving down the road with duct tape over your face without having to implement a specific ban.

      I want a report on my desk first thing on Monday morning, or when you get out of intensive care.

  • by The Living Fractal (162153) <banantarr&hotmail,com> on Thursday August 01, 2013 @12:58PM (#44448083) Homepage
    The truth is pretty simple: People who want to be distracted while driving will find a way to be distracted while driving. Doesn't matter if it's a cell phone, spacing out thinking about other things, eating a Royale with Cheese or any number of other possibilities. You can write laws until you're blue in the face but you aren't addressing the behavior with any of them. What we need is smart automobiles that can tell when the driver is getting a blo---errr, is distracted, and can compensate accordingly. Maybe even by driving the car autonomously for a few moments. Obviously it's not a coincidence that Google is working on just that kind of tech right now.
    • by jeremyp (130771)

      You can write laws until you're blue in the face but you aren't addressing the behavior with any of them.

      Yes you are. The existence of the law indicates to them that their behaviour is unacceptable. If they get caught still doing it, the punishment reinforces the indication. If none of this works to change their behaviour, the law allows their driving privileges to be removed after a number of repeat offences.

  • Allow them... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Dan East (318230) on Thursday August 01, 2013 @01:07PM (#44448197) Homepage Journal

    They should allow them, if and only if the video from the glasses can be used by authorities in the event of an accident.

  • by hyades1 (1149581) <hyades1@hotmail.com> on Thursday August 01, 2013 @01:08PM (#44448229)

    There's already research indicating that the voice aspect of Google Glass won't make it safe. The problem with hands-free cell phones in cars is that the person (or app, for that matter) engaging the driver's attention isn't the same as a passenger. Passengers can usually tell when a driver is getting into a stressful or potentially dangerous situation, and they instinctively stop talking. Somebody at the other end of a cell call doesn't have that situational awareness, and will keep distracting the driver with their chatter even while they need every bit of concentration and ability to get through a potentially nasty situation.

  • by RevWaldo (1186281) on Thursday August 01, 2013 @01:13PM (#44448303)
    What if you're wearing your Google Glass but don't have it switched on? Still illegal?

    .
    • What about wearing Google Glass while in a Google self driving car, eating a Google burrito and listening to Sergey and the Googlettes play on Google radio?
    • by tgd (2822)

      What if you're wearing your Google Glass but don't have it switched on? Still illegal? .

      In the US its illegal to hang something from your rear-view-mirror because it is in the line of sight of the driver. So, that wouldn't be an unreasonable assumption.

      Of course, you see morons with their highschool graduation tassels hanging from them all the time.

  • by SuperBanana (662181) on Thursday August 01, 2013 @01:16PM (#44448333)

    Hands free technologies are not less distracting; in some cases, they're the worst. The cell phone lobby is desperately trying to focus on "hands free" stuff to sidetrack the issue.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/29/AR2010012900053.html [washingtonpost.com]

    http://money.cnn.com/2013/06/12/autos/aaa-voice-to-text/index.html [cnn.com]

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/even-hands-free-you-shouldnt-talk-or-text-while-driving/2013/07/29/4d7214ec-f3d0-11e2-aa2e-4088616498b4_story.html [washingtonpost.com]

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/24/opinion/hands-free-distractions.html?_r=0 [nytimes.com] ...and on and on, if you just google things like "hands free driving distracting"

    Having your hands on the wheel simply increases your control of the car. It does not do ANYTHING about your brain being more preoccupied with the conversation or task.

    Your job in your car is to DRIVE. Not to eat, not to put on makeup or comb your hair, not to text, not to read, not to talk to someone who isn't in the car. You're piloting 2-3 tons of metal that can and do injure, maim, and kill. People driving cars kill 30,000+ a year in the US alone. Take the responsibility seriously and stop faffing about trying to carry on your life in your car. If you need to get things done while traveling, RIDE THE BUS.

    • by Xicor (2738029)
      lol, but again you are assuming that everyone is going to misuse GG in a car. as i posted down below, it is entirely possible for you to JUST be using GG in the car for things that make your driving easier and safer.
      • by Xicor (2738029)
        thats like banning ladders because 1% of the population sets them up backwards and gets themselves killed.
        • by Xicor (2738029)
          just let ppl take a few days of training for a permit that allows you to have it on you while driving.
    • That's probably why Google is also developing hands-free driving technology. So everybody can use Google Glass even when they're driving, er, being driven to work. Google Car = the most expensive taxi ride you'll ever get. Makes me wonder whether in the future we'll evolve into big-headed space worms.
  • I've been in two accidents, solely the fault of the other driver, where both denied responsibility. Cameras would have been fantastic in each case to capture what was going on.

    • Then mount one on your dash.

      • I would love to have a hidden 360 degree camera, or even a hidden dash cam. However, in the DC-Baltimore metro area, leaving any electronic device in the car is an open invitation to a smash and grab theft. As a result, I keep almost nothing in my car.

        • So then take the camera out of the mount when you aren't in the car? Was that really so hard?

          • I'd much prefer a "Set and Forget" solution. It's much more reliable:

            1) Lugging a device, mounting and unmounting it whenever I get in and out of the car is tedious. And I won't do it all the time as a result.
            2) Thieves see mounts and will be more inclined to investigate the vehicle.

            I'm certainly not advocating for more distractions in the car. All I'm saying is, I'd prefer a hidden system, theft-resistant, integrated with the car. Which requires minimal attention. THAT I'd buy.

        • by mjwx (966435)

          I would love to have a hidden 360 degree camera, or even a hidden dash cam. However, in the DC-Baltimore metro area, leaving any electronic device in the car is an open invitation to a smash and grab theft. As a result, I keep almost nothing in my car.

          I have a DOD GSE 550. This camera is smaller than a Canon Ixus and will easily fit in your pocket. It's not that hard to remove from the windscreen mount. The only thing you leave in your car is the mount power cable.

  • Seriously, how many people do you see on a daily basis driving while talking on their phone, or staring down at their laps, occasionally looking up to see where they're going while typing out that text?

    I once told a girl to get off her phone as she pulled up to a junction while staring down at her phone and she went mental.

    If they can't stop people talking/texting while driving, then what chance do they have with a device that unless you're up close looks like a pair of glasses?

    Ban glasses.

  • google glass, being what it is, is capable of doing two things. one, with apps, it can make driving a much safer activity (calculating velocity, distance from the car in front of you, whether or not the car in front of you is stopping, the difference between the speed of the car in front of you and your car, etc.) and two, it can be used to play games and whatnot while you are in a car. obviously the latter would be bad, but theres no reason to ban google glass simply because a few retards are going to mis
  • The annoying thing about this is the lack of evidence.

    Do we really allow the government to ban anything it wants, even when there is no evidence it is harmful? Not an argument that it could be harmful, but actual evidence that it is? Just about anything can be argued to be harmful. If you want this precedent that things can just be banned with no evidence then you essentially accept the tenets of dictatorship. If they cited any kind of reasonable testing or evidence I would be fine with this, but they pret

    • by jeremyp (130771)

      The annoying thing about this is the lack of evidence.

      Do we really allow the government to ban anything it wants, even when there is no evidence it is harmful?

      I love my country, but I have to admit that, here in the UK, the answer to that question is apparently yes. All that's needed, it seems, is a badly researched and ill informed article in the Daily Mail that panders to the prejudices of its rabid right wing readership.

      I strongly suspect Google Glass will be helpful to drivers and reduce accidents. It will probably cause a few accidents but on balance it will prevent more, because people will be getting directions without looking away from their windscreen as they now must do to look at a map or GPS. And never mind the hundreds of blinking neon signs crowding out our streets with the express intention of distracting us from the road to look at them - how about a ban on those?

      You don't need to look at your satnav, it reads the instructions out to you precisely so you don't have to look away from the road.

"Consistency requires you to be as ignorant today as you were a year ago." -- Bernard Berenson

Working...