backtop


Print 118 comment(s) - last by ritualm.. on Feb 27 at 12:33 PM

States are worried about distracted driving

Google Glass isn't widely available to consumers yet, but it's already causing quite a stir as certain U.S. states begin contemplating laws that restrict their use on the road. In response, Google is putting its lobbying face on.
 
According to Reuters, around eight U.S. states are considering laws that would ban Google Glass from use while driving. In Illinois, Delaware and Missouri, Google has already sent lobbyists to try and defend its latest wearable gadget. 
 
Other states like New York, Maryland and West Virginia are looking into anti-Glass legislation as well, but said Google hasn't contacted them yet. The remaining two states -- New Jersey and Wyoming -- haven't said much regarding their potential Glass regulations or whether they were contacted by Google or not. 
 
Many state leaders worry that Glass, which is a pair of smart glasses with a tiny screen on the lens for accessing the Web and other information as well as communication, could distract drivers and cause accidents on the road. 
 
Distracted driving has been a serious discussion recently. In April 2013, the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) released distracted driving guidelines -- which were issued by the National Highway Safety Transportation Administration (NHTSA) -- with recommendations on how and when a driver should interact with certain electronic devices. The recommendations relate to the findings of an NHTSA naturalistic driving study called "The Impact of Hand-Held and Hands-Free Cell Phone Use on Driving Performance and Safety Critical Event Risk."


[SOURCE: Digital Trends]

NHTSA will release two more sets of guidelines for distracted driving in the future: Phase 2, which will cover portable electronic devices brought into vehicles, and Phase 3, which will cover voice recognition systems in cars. 

However, Google defended Glass saying that it isn't widely deployed yet, so now would be too soon to introduce any sort of legislation on its use.

Google is currently introducing Glass via the Glass Explorer program, where users apply for a pair, and if accepted by Google, pay a hefty fee of $1,500 to try them out ahead of everyone else. 

But Glass has already proved to be troublesome on the road. For instance, a California woman landed a ticket for wearing the glasses while driving. She later managed to beat the ticket, but it shows that there is no clear understanding of how these devices should be used on the road, and could cause confusion between users, police officers and courts in the future. 

Google has been trying to clean up Glass wearers' acts with efforts such as a guide it released for those in the Glass Explorer program. It contained a list of do's and don'ts when wearing Glass during the program. 

Glass seems to be making headway in some areas, such as recent adoption by the NYPD and Virgin Atlantic, but anti-Glass legislation by states could certainly hurt Google's vision for its new glasses, and it seems ready to fight. 

Source: Reuters



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

What happened to Do No Evil?
By stm1185 on 2/25/2014 1:04:03 PM , Rating: 2
They can't seriously believe that Glass is not a detriment to driving. Or that a driver interacting with glass can't cause fatalities.




RE: What happened to Do No Evil?
By ritualm on 2/25/2014 1:14:26 PM , Rating: 1
It's as much a distraction as the driver talking to a passenger(s). We don't ban conversations while driving, so how is using an assistive device a danger to the act of operating a motorized vehicle?


RE: What happened to Do No Evil?
By NellyFromMA on 2/25/2014 1:27:02 PM , Rating: 2
You're equating an audio distraction to a visual distraction?

We allow people to drive while listening to music also. We don't, however, allow people to drive and WATCH a concert on their in-dash dvd player.

Why not use your Google Glass / DVD player while parked? We need LESS distractions on the road, not more.


RE: What happened to Do No Evil?
By Shark Tek on 2/25/2014 1:29:49 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly. Why add more distractions to the car cockpit?
It will cause fatalities.


RE: What happened to Do No Evil?
By Shark Tek on 2/25/2014 1:29:49 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly. Why add more distractions to the car cockpit?
It will cause fatalities.


RE: What happened to Do No Evil?
By retrospooty on 2/25/14, Rating: 0
RE: What happened to Do No Evil?
By SeeManRun on 2/25/14, Rating: 0
RE: What happened to Do No Evil?
By Reclaimer77 on 2/25/14, Rating: -1
RE: What happened to Do No Evil?
By SeeManRun on 2/25/2014 3:57:03 PM , Rating: 3
I don't understand. I never said laws will make it not stop, but not having the laws permits the action by omission. So by not saying that texting is illegal, by ommission you are saying it is legal.

If someone is doing something illegal and they get in an accident, you can prosecute them. If they are doing something legal (or not illegal, like picking up dropped sunglasses, then you cannot prosecute them in the same way, since they were not doing anything illegal. You can charge them with undue care and attention, but not something more harsh, like texting while driving causing an accident.

Yes, I have heard the quote, and don't think it applies here.


RE: What happened to Do No Evil?
By retrospooty on 2/25/2014 7:55:39 PM , Rating: 1
"I don't understand. I never said laws will make it not stop, but not having the laws permits the action by omission. So by not saying that texting is illegal, by ommission you are saying it is legal."

There is no law that says I cant fiddle with my radio station and adjust the base/trebel. There is no law that says I can't open up my fast food lunch and remove the onions, but I do, others do too. There is no law that says I cant read road signs and billboards, but I do. BTW, how are we to read road signs without taking out eyes off the road?

You cant just make a law for every new thing that comes out, the law is already there, you need to pay attention to tthe road. You dont like it the way it is? YOU stay the f$%k off my roads. Driving isn't a right, its a privilege. You should choose not too, because someone might hit you. BTW, someone might have a heart attack and hit you, or even be driving while yelling at their disobedient toddler in the back seat and hit you. It's a risk you take when driving. A Nanny state wont alleviate it.


RE: What happened to Do No Evil?
By Aloonatic on 2/26/2014 7:34:36 AM , Rating: 2
I love the "nanny state" cries that ring out any time any new law might get passed. I want to take my gun out and shoot it down the high street. You don't like it, stay the f$%k off my side walks and no one gets killed. Nanny state!!!!!! :o)

Anyway, I think that people here might be arguing from different places. In the UK there are laws that "technically"** make it illegal to fiddle with your car radio, take a drink from your bottle of water or eat a sandwich etc whilst driving, which is all caught under the driving without due care and attention charge. These even count when the car is stationary, as long as the engine is running. (you'll probably find lots of examples if you do a search likehttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1369217/Sip... I believe that this used to be what people were charged with when they were using a mobile phone when driving until specific legislation was passed.

Is there no similar "catch all" rule in the states?

It's been said before many times I'm sure tho, but the best way to improve road safety would be to put a big sharp spike sticking out of the steering wheel. People might be a little more careful when driving their cars then.

** I might be recalling this incorrectly but I think that you are "technically" always meant to have both hands on the steering wheel whilst driving, and are only permitted to take one hand off of the wheel when changing gear, so even driving with one hand on the steering wheel whilst your head is resting on the other would be breaking the rules. 99% of the time, the police use their common sense.


RE: What happened to Do No Evil?
By Schrag4 on 2/26/2014 2:04:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
** I might be recalling this incorrectly but I think that you are "technically" always meant to have both hands on the steering wheel whilst driving, and are only permitted to take one hand off of the wheel when changing gear, so even driving with one hand on the steering wheel whilst your head is resting on the other would be breaking the rules. 99% of the time, the police use their common sense.


I don't think there are such laws in the US that lay out exactly how you should physically manipulate the controls, and I don't think there should be. I agree with the notion, however, that one should not drive recklessly, and that the law shouldn't be written to allow or disallow certain things. If a cop sees you drive 300 feet while looking down at the dash, I don't care if it's the radio or the phone or a cheeseburger, it's not OK. We don't need specific laws for those individual distractions IMO.


RE: What happened to Do No Evil?
By jimbojimbo on 2/25/2014 3:32:15 PM , Rating: 2
Easy. First degree murder instead of manslaughter or letting them skate by. Kill someone because you were speeding, let's say 20mph over? Again, first degree murder.
I want more freedom but harsher punishments. If someone wants to do something let them do it but as soon as it harms anybody else they have to pay the price. Don't want to pay the price? Obey the laws.


RE: What happened to Do No Evil?
By Flunk on 2/25/2014 3:42:57 PM , Rating: 2
That's still not going to stop it, people who do this sort of short-sighted thing aren't thinking about the consequences. I think the punishment would have to be instant death for them to take notice.


RE: What happened to Do No Evil?
By SeeManRun on 2/25/2014 3:53:11 PM , Rating: 5
Obedience via massive punishment does not make a free society.


RE: What happened to Do No Evil?
By Reclaimer77 on 2/25/2014 3:57:40 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah cause we don't have enough citizens in jail already. Let's give them life for a car accident.

Hell why stop there? Let's go full-on Judge Dread and go with summary judgements and executions.


RE: What happened to Do No Evil?
By Maiyr on 2/25/2014 4:18:29 PM , Rating: 1
If you kill someone because you were doing something stupid while driving you should get life.


RE: What happened to Do No Evil?
By MrBlastman on 2/25/2014 4:25:10 PM , Rating: 2
We all do stupid things sometimes. Throwing someone in jail for life for doing something stupid--well, that's a little extreme. We have vehicular manslaughter, instead, which puts them in for what, four years?

If our penal system focused more on true "rehabilitation" instead of "punishment," I bet we'd see future re-incarceration rates go down and society improve as a whole. Rock quarries and picking up trash sound great... but do they really help prepare the inmate for re-entry into the civil population?

I do draw a line. Violent murderers, pedophiles, rapists etc., they do need to be punished. Many of them can't be re-habilitated. But someone doing something stupid? Perhaps they can--and if they are, can lead by example, reach out to other people who might make that same stupid mistake, share their story and help prevent future loss of life.


RE: What happened to Do No Evil?
By Reclaimer77 on 2/25/2014 5:04:13 PM , Rating: 1
What's alarming in his proposal is it completely takes intent out of the equation.

What's even more hilarious is a Liberal will fight you tooth and nail on the death penalty for violent murderers. But they want Google Glass users thrown in jail for life if they get in a wreck. Uhhh wtf.


RE: What happened to Do No Evil?
By sgw2n5 on 2/25/2014 5:15:52 PM , Rating: 1
If somebody is knowingly doing something that increases the likelihood of an accident, and then a (fatal) accident occurs... that person should be punished severely. You don't agree with this?


RE: What happened to Do No Evil?
By Reclaimer77 on 2/25/2014 5:30:52 PM , Rating: 2
That's for the courts to decide. But simply doing something that increases a risk factor isn't grounds for a punishment reserved for malicious intent, no. I don't agree with that. Sounds like we're using hindsight over reason.

Life in prison for a car accident? There's no way to justify that and you know it.


RE: What happened to Do No Evil?
By sgw2n5 on 2/25/2014 5:45:04 PM , Rating: 2
As an example, lets say that I am texting while driving. This is not illegal in my state, and I know damn well that it drastically increases the likelihood of an accident. I do it anyway, and I hit and kill somebody.

I should be punished severely. I never said life in prison, but I should be in jail for a long time. Regardless of whether or not I intended to harm anyone, somebody died, and they died because I did something that I knew was dangerous.

Obviously the punishment shouldn't the same as that of premeditated murder, but it should be severe.


By Reclaimer77 on 2/25/2014 6:09:24 PM , Rating: 2
Do you realize we have the highest percentage of our population in prison than any developed nation?

We cannot afford, nor do we have the facilities, to hand out long-term sentences for accidents. It's bad enough we throw people in jail for having some herb on them!

There are severe punishments BESIDES jail you know. The family will probably destroy your ass in the civil trial anyway.

You need to understand this, knowing you are doing something that *may* result in a car accident is a far cry from knowingly killing someone.


By retrospooty on 2/25/2014 7:49:04 PM , Rating: 2
"What good is the personal responsibility mantra do if someone is distracted and runs into you and kills you ... The goal is to stop it before it happens. Just like speed limits"

And making it illegal will do that how exactly? Dont be such a ninny


RE: What happened to Do No Evil?
By ritualm on 2/25/2014 1:42:35 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
You're equating an audio distraction to a visual distraction?

Why does the "type" of distraction have to matter? They're both the same thing when it comes to driving.

There are laws that forbid the driver from using their cellphone or texting while driving, yet they're rarely enforced, and then only in the aftermath of a fatal accident. We even had one guy post how a new phone with a larger screen makes it more dangerous to use while driving than smaller ones:

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=34399...

Banning Glass from the road because it's a distraction is silly and impractical.


RE: What happened to Do No Evil?
By HomerTNachoCheese on 2/25/2014 2:08:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Why does the "type" of distraction have to matter? They're both the same thing when it comes to driving.


I do not need to look at the radio to listen to it, or turn my head to the back seat to talk to my daughter. If Google Glass is visually distracting, then it takes your eyes off of the road. That is why this "type" of distraction is a danger. Using the radio (changing the station, etc.), is a minimal visual distraction for those who need to visually find the buttons, but attention is quickly returned to the road.

Cell phones are OK to use just about anywhere when used hands-free. If you can hands-free dial someone, it is a hell of a lot safer than looking at your phone to dial. Looking at your phone is a visual distraction. Texting is a visual distraction, and keeps your eyes off the road much longer than messing with the radio. Having your texts read to you audibly or dictating texts verbally is not a visual distraction, and therefore less dangerous.

Therefore, visual and audio distractions are not the same thing when it comes to driving.


RE: What happened to Do No Evil?
By nafhan on 2/25/2014 2:50:25 PM , Rating: 2
Anyone with the ability to use their eyes and ears could tell you that visual and audio distractions are not the same thing. What your anecdotes don't do is provide any information about how disruptive to driving various audio or visual distractions are for a given person.

Well there are actual studies showing that children in the car are very distracting,* what I have not seen is similar studies about Google Glass. Further, there's a lot more people driving with children in the car (millions) than Google Glass (maybe thousands). So, based on real evidence, it's pretty clear that banning children, such as your daughter, from cars would save many more lives than legislation regarding a niche, experimental product used by a handful of people.

OR maybe this legislation has nothing to do with saving lives. Maybe it's just a ploy on the part of some politicians to make it look like they care about their constituents without actually doing much of anything. Hard to say...

More reasonably: Google Glass is only as dangerous as the person driving lets it be - just like anything else in the car.

*In answer to "what studies?": https://www.google.com/search?q=children+distracti...


RE: What happened to Do No Evil?
By Wazza1234 on 2/25/2014 3:21:58 PM , Rating: 1
Ridiculously dumb argument.

Transporting children is a necessary feature. Google glass isn't.

Obviously watching a video is more distracting than audio because you don't use audio cues to drive. You do use visual ones.

It'll get banned. Correctly so.


RE: What happened to Do No Evil?
By nafhan on 2/25/2014 4:29:31 PM , Rating: 2
So... cars should only have "necessary" features required to transport people? Would you lump GPS, radios, climate control, adjustable seats, etc. into that category of things that cars shouldn't have?

The bill is dumb because it's targeted at one specific aspect of distracted driving that almost no one uses. If you disagree, please explain why instead of just saying my argument is dumb (which, honestly, is a dumb argument).


RE: What happened to Do No Evil?
By Wazza1234 on 2/26/2014 5:06:34 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Would you lump GPS, radios, climate control, adjustable seats, etc. into that category of things that cars shouldn't have?


None of these things require that you are distracted visually, a point I already made. I don't like repeating myself.

quote:
So... cars should only have "necessary" features required to transport people?


Your lack of logic is showing. The argument that something in a car is justified because it's necessary is not the same argument as saying that only necessary things should be allowed.

quote:
The bill is dumb because it's targeted at one specific aspect of distracted driving that almost no one uses


The number of people using it is irrelevant. That can vary in an unpredictable way. The law defines ALL allowed / not allowed actions, not only popular ones. If not many people want to murder other people, does that make murder OK? THAT is a dumb argument.


RE: What happened to Do No Evil?
By nafhan on 2/26/2014 10:30:35 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The number of people using it is irrelevant. That can vary in an unpredictable way. The law defines ALL allowed / not allowed actions, not only popular ones. If not many people want to murder other people, does that make murder OK? THAT is a dumb argument.
We'll ignore that you're conflating this with murder for a moment, and run with your example:

Say there's been a single (high profile) attempted murder with a machete. This is followed by legislators in several states attempting to pass bills that make it harder to use machetes around other people while ignoring the fact that most murders are not done with machetes. If the bill gets passed, it will have very little (if any) effect on their constituents safety. It's pointless.

That's what's going on here. The problem is people not paying attention while driving. Not Google Glass. At the same time, it sounds like you'd feel safer if this law got passed. So, in that way, it's doing exactly what these legislators intended.


RE: What happened to Do No Evil?
By Wazza1234 on 2/26/2014 3:55:02 PM , Rating: 2
Firstly - you don't know what conflating means. Or what a proof by exception is. Or what an analogy is.

quote:
Say there's been a single (high profile) attempted murder with a machete. This is followed by legislators in several states attempting to pass bills that make it harder to use machetes around other people while ignoring the fact that most murders are not done with machetes. If the bill gets passed, it will have very little (if any) effect on their constituents safety. It's pointless.


So what you're saying is that it should be legal to watch a 50" tv whilst driving because only a small percentage of people are stupid enough to do this. I get that right?

Yeah... so.. my original point still stands. And your stupid argument that a crime which isn't often committed shouldn't be a crime is still stupid.

Just because something 'doesn't have much effect on safety' doesn't mean it should be legalized. And you haven't proven that it wont have an effect on safety, either. You would first have to prove that Google is a failure who will never sell any significant amount of Google glass products and no other company ever will either.

The comparable in your Machete example would be if machete's were a new technology which hadn't existed until now. The fact that only one murder had occurred wouldn't be a good reason not to outlaw them. Especially when common sense tells you that they can be dangerous and don't serve any practical purpose.

quote:
That's what's going on here. The problem is people not paying attention while driving. Not Google Glass


Same is true of a 50" TV being watched in a car, so that should be legal now? The only difference, actually - is that police wouldn't be able to tell if they were doing something illegal - which is reason alone to outlaw it.

quote:
At the same time, it sounds like you'd feel safer if this law got passed


Don't try to make out that logical points which prove you wrong are in any way connected to my 'feelings'.


RE: What happened to Do No Evil?
By nafhan on 2/26/2014 5:31:37 PM , Rating: 2
Since you're saying I'm saying a bunch of stuff I didn't say, I'll repeat myself for you: I'm not arguing in favor of distracted driving. I'm simply arguing against having individual laws covering each specific, stupid thing any person might conceivably ever do.

For instance, lawmakers shouldn't pass a law specifically against watching 50" TV's (a new technology!) while driving. Yes, that's a bad idea, but a law against it would be overly specific and unnecessary as that case is already covered just fine by existing laws.
quote:
... common sense tells you that they can be dangerous and don't serve any practical purpose.
I'm also going to disagree with you here. "Common sense" should not take the place of facts as a basis for law. You (and the lawmakers discussed in this article) have no facts. Just opinions.

On a side note, I'd be interested in seeing your explanations of how I don't know what conflating, proof by exception, or an analogy is. That sounds interesting.


By Reclaimer77 on 2/26/2014 6:39:18 PM , Rating: 2
This is how Socialists/Liberals/Collectivists win.

If you try and argue for personal freedoms and a limited Government, they'll just accuse you of being in favor of murders, deaths, child molestation, senior citizens dying, etc etc etc.


RE: What happened to Do No Evil?
By NellyFromMA on 2/25/2014 3:47:08 PM , Rating: 2
Seriously? Why does the type of distraction matter? Because, you can talk and drive at the same time. You can listen to music and drive at the same time. Each without any impairment to quality of driving because driving requires VISUAL ATTENTION MOST. It's even arguable that the radio isn't a distraction at all. A conversation, well... can you walk and talk at the same time? Now walk and use your cell-phone. I bet you have a higher chance of walking into something. There are more than enough instances of that occurring.

If you REALLY want to try to convince me otherwise, feel free, but its falling on deaf ears and I'm usually very open minded.

I'm a GREAT driver. I love to drive. Way to many times there is an idiot reading a book, using their cell phone or just generally fiddling around and NOT PAYING ATTENTION to the road. That can cost someone their life, not just the offender.

I am next to never interested in hearing about how SOMEONE ELSE thinks they know how I should live MY life. I get that. However, there are certain things that are just COMMON SENSE. Don't find new ways to become distracted from your primary task of DRIVING SAFELY.

We don't need MORE tech distractions. There isn't much of ANYONE that has gotten into an accident because of their radio. And if you find driving to be that difficult with the radio on, by all means you should shut it off. You don't need to break your line of vision to operate it even without steering wheel controls. If you can type then you KNOW this already.

That you think listening to music is different from wearing a device that covers your eyes and augments and supplements your vision is just crazy to me. I'm open-minded, but not to the point of defying common sense. Sorry.

When you hear about a kid dying because they were texting and driving its a sad thing. But then you remember they sort of got what they deserved.

When someone is KILLED by someone who is texting and driving, that is a different situation altogether. Someone's unnecessary selfishness took away someone else's loved one. All very EASILY preventable with just a PINCH of common sense and decency. You don't need to play with your toys while you drive.

Go ahead, try to insist your perceived right to play with your Google Glass or any other toy is more important than my safety and everyone else on the road around you. -_-


RE: What happened to Do No Evil?
By Reclaimer77 on 2/25/2014 5:34:14 PM , Rating: 2
What Google Glass is:

http://i1.ytimg.com/vi/Q2yX1ZkR2JI/maxresdefault.j...

What you are making it out to be:

http://www.ledr.com/colours/black.jpg

Any questions?


RE: What happened to Do No Evil?
By Wazza1234 on 2/26/2014 5:09:57 AM , Rating: 2
That picture doesn't make any kind of good point. That overlay could well prevent you noticing a child or a motorcyclist, or another vehicle. And also, it's not necessarily what you'll have on whilst driving.

Police wouldn't be able to tell if you had that on, or if you were watching a video. To prevent abuse, banning it is the only option.


RE: What happened to Do No Evil?
By ritualm on 2/25/2014 5:34:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I am next to never interested in hearing about how SOMEONE ELSE thinks they know how I should live MY life. I get that. However, there are certain things that are just COMMON SENSE. Don't find new ways to become distracted from your primary task of DRIVING SAFELY.

Then explain why wearing Glass while driving prevents someone from driving safely?

Here in Toronto, using cellphones while driving is a $220 fine, and $280 (on top of civil/criminal charges and demerit points) when that behavior is the primary cause of an accident. Except people still do it.

Just because I might be wearing Glass while driving, doesn't mean I'm necessarily using it at the same time, because COMMON SENSE. I already had two at-fault accidents under my driving record to need a lecture from yours truly why thisandthat while driving is bad.

Banning Glass from the road is meaningless, FWIW it screams nanny state policy in bold red letters. Easier to perfect driverless transportation systems so we can take the human factor out of the equation altogether.


RE: What happened to Do No Evil?
By Wazza1234 on 2/26/2014 5:16:29 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Then explain why wearing Glass while driving prevents someone from driving safely?


Can you honestly not see how Google Glass can cause accidents? No dangerous activities in a car necessarily cause accidents. It's their likelihood to, versus the benefit they provide or necessity, which determine if they are outlawed. Google Glass serves no purpose which isn't already covered by other things, and can obviously be open to abuse in a way which can't be policed.

quote:
Here in Toronto, using cellphones while driving is a $220 fine, and $280 (on top of civil/criminal charges and demerit points) when that behavior is the primary cause of an accident. Except people still do it.


What's your point? That people break the laws... so? That doesn't mean the law is wrong.

quote:
Just because I might be wearing Glass while driving, doesn't mean I'm necessarily using it at the same time, because COMMON SENSE


Yeah if only you could use the assumption that everybody uses common sense. That way, we could have no laws at all!

quote:
Banning Glass from the road is meaningless, FWIW it screams nanny state policy in bold red letters


No, it screams that if you want to live in free society where you can be relatively confident that someone wont run you over, you have to have limits to what people are allowed to do whilst driving. Things which can be extremely distracting (CAN be, not necessarily are) and don't add value are not going to be legal. The other problem with Glass is that the police can't tell what you have on your display so if it was legal people could abuse it in the same way as they could watch a 40" TV screen whilst driving.

Your claim that people wont (which is wrong), or might not necessarily (which is irrelevant) is flawed. The law will aim to prevent it happening or deter it by adding fines / consequences.


RE: What happened to Do No Evil?
By ritualm on 2/27/2014 12:33:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Can you honestly not see how Google Glass can cause accidents?

More like "can you honestly believe that merely wearing Glass can cause accidents", testerguy.
quote:
What's your point? That people break the laws... so? That doesn't mean the law is wrong.

You can never legislate against stupidity. It simply doesn't work. The stupid doesn't care that it's forbidden behavior, they do it anyways.

Make something idiot-proof and the stupid will do everything to break it.
quote:
Yeah if only you could use the assumption that everybody uses common sense. That way, we could have no laws at all!

Ironically, you don't exercise any common sense at all with your posts, let alone your two previous permabanned DailyTech accounts.
quote:
The other problem with Glass is that the police can't tell what you have on your display

How can you be so confident that the cops can't tell? You work for the NSA?
quote:
Your claim that people wont (which is wrong), or might not necessarily (which is irrelevant) is flawed. The law will aim to prevent it happening or deter it by adding fines / consequences.

Just another example of nanny state thinking infecting policymakers across USA. OMG! THINK OF THE CHILDREN! Might as well tie 'em all down with straitjackets and lock 'em up behind foam-padded prison cells, so they cannot accidentally themselves!

Yeah right.


RE: What happened to Do No Evil?
By tayb on 2/25/2014 1:53:11 PM , Rating: 2
But we allow advertising all along the highway? Not only that but there are controls, knobs, and screens inside the car that require visual attention. GPS is one large example.

If you want safe driving ban humans from behind the banning Google Glass and banning screaming infants. Actually, banning screaming infants would make the roads safer than banning Google Glass. More screaming infants and more of a distraction.


RE: What happened to Do No Evil?
By SeeManRun on 2/25/2014 2:00:58 PM , Rating: 2
You're right, but it is a ridiculous argument. Because we can't get rid of one big distraction, we must let all others as well? A screaming infant has to get to its destination with its parent. It is a necessary evil.


RE: What happened to Do No Evil?
By FITCamaro on 2/25/2014 2:17:34 PM , Rating: 2
There's this thing called personal responsibility. Are we all at fault because a minority choose to be morons? Punish those who cause problems. Be it an accident or just bad driving in general. Don't criminalize all behavior just because it can hurt someone. Otherwise we'll need to criminalize driving itself.


RE: What happened to Do No Evil?
By SeeManRun on 2/25/2014 2:48:23 PM , Rating: 2
But that is the way it works for everything. Lifeguards are only necessary for people that can't swim or have an accident and need assistance. We all pay for those lifeguards to be on duty. We all pay for police to try to thwart accidents before they happen, which is what the point of speeding tickets is. We all pay for seatbelts in our cars even if we don't want to use them.
We, as a society similar to almost every other civilized society on Earth, have made these decisions on what things should be allowed and what shouldn't be allowed because the personal responsibility approach fails again and again. Example after example are evident on why we don't just have people exercise personal responsibility. Income taxes taken off each cheque instead of at the end of the year is a great example, as is employment insurance if you lose your job, or saving for retirement via a pension/401k..
People, again and again show they lack the ability to be personally responsible in all regards of their lives, and for the rest of us, we seem to have deemed it worth it to support these people by making rules that help them along. The downside is we have to play by the same rules. The upside is we don't have to deal with people not paying taxes, going totally homeless when they lose a job, and not drowning in pools and at beaches.


By Reclaimer77 on 2/25/2014 3:22:49 PM , Rating: 2
Pure Collectivist drivel.

How sad people like you are allowed to spread a message that the human spirit should be crushed.

And your analogies...yeah because we already do SO many things wrong, let's continue down that path. Brilliant!


RE: What happened to Do No Evil?
By FITCamaro on 2/25/2014 3:30:20 PM , Rating: 1
People have largely stopped exercising personal responsibility because the government is actively working to educate against it and discourage it. Kids today are taught everything bad that happens to them is someone else's fault. Lose your job? The government will take care of you. Choose a bad career path? We've got you covered. Waste a ton of money on a pointless degree? There for you too.

And I support getting rid of a lot of those nanny state laws you talked about. Seat belts for instance.

We should also switch to a Fair Tax instead of the income tax. All it's used for is income redistribution. Instead we should make our entire check and then pay taxes through buying things. You know, economic activity.

And we don't have to deal with people not paying taxes? Half the country doesn't. People can still go homeless. And kids still drown in pools and at beaches.

I'm also not against the idea of individual state sponsored unemployment insurance but I am against the federal government being involved with it like they are now. The federal government has no authority to. States do. Whether or not a state offers it should depend on the state and how the voters/businesses feel about it.

And most don't deem it worthy. Just there's enough who are bought and paid for via said entitlements that we get enough liberal politicians to push this crap.


RE: What happened to Do No Evil?
By Maiyr on 2/25/2014 4:24:47 PM , Rating: 2
Well said.


RE: What happened to Do No Evil?
By NellyFromMA on 2/25/2014 4:01:00 PM , Rating: 2
Rules exist because not everyone follows them. That's just life. That's why the speed limit exists for example. When you win the argument to get rid of the speed limit because of personal responsibility, then we'll all consider your 'point'.

For what its worth, I actually think there isn't enough personal responsibility today. However, we do need repercussions for those who partake in activity that harms others. And we need to outline what we deem acceptable and what isn't. That's civilized life and has been for quite some time.

Do I think guns should be outlawed because they can hurt someone? No. Do I think they should have proper rules governing their usage and right to possession based on sensible criteria? Yes. The same applies here.


By Reclaimer77 on 2/25/2014 6:13:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
When you win the argument to get rid of the speed limit because of personal responsibility, then we'll all consider your 'point'.


*cough* Germany *cough*

The Autobahn has a lower accident rate than a 55mph American highway. Hmmm I wonder why that is...

OH well, it must because they don't have #1 road killer Google Glass yet. That's it!


RE: What happened to Do No Evil?
By ebakke on 2/25/2014 2:27:33 PM , Rating: 3
The ridiculous argument is trying to come up with every possible distraction and then evaluating each to determine if it should/shouldn't be allowed, if it does/doesn't require legislation, and what any penalties should be.

Dumb.

Punish the crime (distracted driving, being at fault for a wreck, injuring another human, etc). I don't care what your particular distraction of choice is. Chasing the perpetually changing set of potential distractions is a fools errand, and is simply a means for your legislators to give the perception they're "doing something".


RE: What happened to Do No Evil?
By Rukkian on 2/25/2014 2:46:36 PM , Rating: 2
Wish I could +6 this. There are laws in every state to deal with distracted or reckless driving. Distractions can come from anywhere, and putting new laws on the books just makes the legal system even more convoluted. If somebody is driving erratically, pull them over and give them a ticket. Do no worry about whether they were texting, getting a blow job, or doing a handstand while driving. If they cause an accident, they need to pay for it.

This is pointless posturing by lawmakers that want to look like they are accomplishing something.


RE: What happened to Do No Evil?
By NellyFromMA on 2/25/2014 4:04:51 PM , Rating: 2
I second the +6


By retrospooty on 2/25/2014 9:56:13 PM , Rating: 2
3rd


RE: What happened to Do No Evil?
By Wazza1234 on 2/26/2014 5:30:12 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The ridiculous argument is trying to come up with every possible distraction and then evaluating each to determine if it should/shouldn't be allowed, if it does/doesn't require legislation, and what any penalties should be.

Dumb.

Punish the crime (distracted driving, being at fault for a wreck, injuring another human, etc). I don't care what your particular distraction of choice is. Chasing the perpetually changing set of potential distractions is a fools errand, and is simply a means for your legislators to give the perception they're "doing something".


This could not be more wrong, and the people who '2nd' and '3rd' (the two Google cheerleaders, of course) are equally dumb for agreeing to it.

The primary point of laws is not to 'punish' crimes. It's to PREVENT crimes, whether that's by making the punishment a deterrent, or by reducing the proliferance of something. If you wait for the accident to happen, and then punish the driver, it's already too late. The damage is done.

If you argue that the police can see whether someone is 'distracted' or not before the accident, that falls down for several reasons:

1 - If the person is using Google Glass you can't tell what they have on their display.
2 - Police aren't everywhere, the effectiveness would be massively reduced if it only applied where a policeman saw distracted driving.
3 - In order to clarify whether the police could describe the driving as 'distracted driving' - you have to know what constitutes a distraction. So you're back to square one.

Conversely, you say punish 'distracted driving' - yet that's exactly what they are doing. They define driving whilst wearing Google Glass as 'distracted driving' - and they impost a punishment for it. You can't expect the police to say it's OK for a driver to watch a movie in their glasses whilst they drive, but the police have no way of knowing that someone ISN'T doing that. So you either ban Google Glass whilst driving, or you try to claim that watching a movie on Google Glass is OK - because the police wouldn't be able to tell the two apart.


RE: What happened to Do No Evil?
By retrospooty on 2/26/2014 7:33:47 AM , Rating: 1
"This could not be more wrong, and the people who '2nd' and '3rd' (the two Google cheerleaders, of course) are equally dumb for agreeing to it."

It has nothing to do with Google. There will be many brands on the market. There are already 2-3 other options I have see, and chances are even Apple will "invent" it a few years afterward. This is about nanny state laws and the impossibility of enforcing them.

There is nothing you can say that negates the logic of this... "The ridiculous argument is trying to come up with every possible distraction and then evaluating each to determine if it should/shouldn't be allowed, if it does/doesn't require legislation, and what any penalties should be."

I would argue that using a glass HUD (with a shrunken, more "see through" background than the screenshots above) as a NAV would be FAR less distracting and dangerous than using an in dash or on phone NAV (think small, sized like almost any FPS game). The fact is a drive could be distracted by anything, they have to drive safely. They could get in an accident alot easier trying to put the in dash NAV back to radio controls than on glass, or any of the other nuymerous distractions that have always existed. You simply cant outlaw every possible distraction individually.

To your points.
1. It none of your damn business. I may well be using NAV is a far safer manor than in dash or on phone.
2. They arent everywhere and cant possibly see my Glass under my a hat if they were near you, so what is the point?
3. These laws already exist in most places, and its at officer discretion. If they feel you are driving poorly or are distracted they can nab you. That is how it already works. IF they see you stuffing your face with a burger, sipping a soda driving with your knees, they can (and should) get you.

Look, the point is you simply cant outlaw everything possible and there is no way to enforce it anyhow. The nanny state that many of our countries are becoming is just ridiculous. I use my phone on a cd tray mount for NAV/Traffic every day. If an officer were right next to me, seeing me tap my phone , he has no way to know if I am dialing in my NAV, using pandora, texting, or watching a full on movie for that matter. You cant outlaw it all, you may as well outlaw looking at road signs, because they take your eyes off the road. Your view is so shortsighted it isnt even funny.


RE: What happened to Do No Evil?
By Wazza1234 on 2/26/2014 4:10:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It has nothing to do with Google.


Yeah OK.

quote:
There is nothing you can say that negates the logic of this... "The ridiculous argument is trying to come up with every possible distraction and then evaluating each to determine if it should/shouldn't be allowed, if it does/doesn't require legislation, and what any penalties should be."


I already did. Several examples in my post above. Did you even read it?

quote:
I would argue that using a glass HUD (with a shrunken, more "see through" background than the screenshots above) as a NAV would be FAR less distracting


Well you'd be wrong. A nav isn't in your view wherever you look. And you don't ever have to look at it, either.

quote:
The fact is a drive could be distracted by anything, they have to drive safely


Right, so because things can be distracting, we must legalize anything which can distract? Most ridiculously stupid argument - ever. Lets legalize drunk driving, too, since that's not the only thing which can distract. After all, it's the dangerous driving which we should punish, right, not drunk driving? We will wait for any drunkards to drive dangerously before we remove them from the road, otherwise - it's legal. We can pull over anyone drunk and it's OK, we'll let them drive off.

I wonder if you see with that example how retarded your logic is.

quote:
1. It none of your damn business. I may well be using NAV is a far safer manor than in dash or on phone.


And you may not. This doesn't contradict my point.

quote:
2. They arent everywhere and cant possibly see my Glass under my a hat if they were near you, so what is the point?


Again, that makes my point. The fact that they can't be there to see the 'dangerous driving' you talk about means that they have to make the causal factors illegal. Such as Google Glass, or driving drunk. What happens, you see - special boy, is that when you outlaw something, fewer people do it. So you don't need the police to individually spot every example.

quote:
3. These laws already exist in most places, and its at officer discretion. If they feel you are driving poorly or are distracted they can nab you


Where did I say anything which contradicted this? Moron.

quote:
Look, the point is you simply cant outlaw everything possible and there is no way to enforce it anyhow


Of course you can outlaw anything which can distract. In fact, like you said it's already the case. How to contradict yourself...

quote:
If an officer were right next to me, seeing me tap my phone , he has no way to know if I am dialing in my NAV, using pandora, texting, or watching a full on movie for that matter. You cant outlaw it all


Yes you can. And they already have. Outlawing Google Glass is necessary precisely because they can't tell by looking if you're using it in a distracting manor. It's the same reason they don't allow explosives on planes. They don't care if you are or aren't planning to blow up the plane - the point is you MAY BE, and they can't tell, so it's outlawed. Logical, obvious.

quote:
you may as well outlaw looking at road signs, because they take your eyes off the road


No, road signs are part of 'the road' which you're meant to be looking at and shouldn't be distracted from. And they add a net positive effect. Idiotic point again.

quote:
Your view is so shortsighted it isnt even funny.


The only shortsighted moron here - is you. Lets legalize 50 inch TV's in windscreens, drunk driving, and driving while watching movies on phones. After all, we're only allowed to 'get them' for this if a police car happens to witness them doing something dangerous.

What an awesome world that would be.


By retrospooty on 2/26/2014 5:04:51 PM , Rating: 2
Ugh... I don't even have the energy to go on with a brick wall troll such as you, a lost cause as always... Thank god we are a continent apart. I take much happiness knowing you are 6000 miles away from me.

This is totally you. Nutjob to the last. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/style-blog/wp/...


RE: What happened to Do No Evil?
By ebakke on 2/26/2014 2:14:59 PM , Rating: 2
You're doing it wrong.

If the person next to me is wearing Glass and is staying in his/her lane, signaling between lane changes, maintaining an appropriate following distance, maintaining a speed consistent with the flow of traffic, etc I don't care what they're wearing. I also don't care if they're talking to 7 other people in their enormous SUV. Or changing radio stations. Or looking at a GPS.

If the person next to me isn't driving safely, I also care if he/she is wearing Glass (or being distracted by anything else). I care that I'm being endangered; I do not care why.

I admit, I used the wrong phrase earlier I didn't mean "distracted driving" should be the crime. Inattentive/distracted driving as exhibited by swerving, speeding, following too closely, not signaling, reckless endangerment - these should be the crimes. Again, it should be *what* you're doing not *how* you're doing it.

Criminalizing wearing Glass is a car is dumb. And if you support that, then logically you'd have to support new legislation to ban the following activities (among infinite others) while driving: playing monopoly, assembling burritos, painting or sculpting, upgrading the RAM in a laptop, upgrading the RAM in a desktop, any small engine repair, writing in a greeting card, sewing, shaving, replacing a watch battery, sex, performing mathematics while showing your work (otherwise, no credit!), juggling, being blindfolded, and on and on and on.


RE: What happened to Do No Evil?
By Wazza1234 on 2/26/2014 4:26:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If the person next to me is wearing Glass and is staying in his/her lane, signaling between lane changes, maintaining an appropriate following distance, maintaining a speed consistent with the flow of traffic, etc I don't care what they're wearing. I also don't care if they're talking to 7 other people in their enormous SUV. Or changing radio stations. Or looking at a GPS.


Right, totally dude. So when the person next to you is drunk out of their face, you wont care because they signalled when they changed lane. And when the police car is gone and they proceed to run over your first child due to being drunk, that's fine because THEN they are driving dangerously and can be punished. We should legalise drunk driving, because you don't CARE..

.....

Your stupidity is already answered in my former post. The purpose of these laws isn't to punish retrospectively. It's to try to prevent people actually driving dangerously in the first place, by outlawing the factors which cause it. Like alcohol. Waiting for the people to drive dangerously is TOO LATE.

quote:
Criminalizing wearing Glass is a car is dumb


That isn't anything remotely approaching a logical argument.

quote:
And if you support that, then logically you'd have to support new legislation to ban the following activities (among infinite others) while driving: playing monopoly, assembling burritos, painting or sculpting, upgrading the RAM in a laptop, upgrading the RAM in a desktop, any small engine repair, writing in a greeting card, sewing, shaving, replacing a watch battery, sex, performing mathematics while showing your work (otherwise, no credit!), juggling, being blindfolded, and on and on and on.


Yes, they should be illegal too. Not quite sure why you think this is a good point since they are quite obvious examples. I'm quite happy for there to be a blanket law covering any distracting activity, rather than defining every one. The point (like I already told you in my previous post) is that Google Glass would be covered by this blanket law. In other words, like playing monopoly whilst driving, wearing Google glass is considered 'distracting' and is punishable.

Either way, of course, you have to have a way to define what is distracting, and that method will have to state that Google Glass is included, or include a category of devices which are illegal.

That's a semantic argument about how the law is written. It doesn't change the end result.


RE: What happened to Do No Evil?
By ebakke on 2/26/2014 4:51:42 PM , Rating: 2
Shouting at and insulting others might make you feel better. It may also give you the impression you're "winning" an argument. Unfortunately for you, it does not. I give you the courtesy of respectful, honest debate. I expect the same in return.

You're missing my point entirely, perhaps intentionally so. Trying to proactively prevent crimes by outlawing behavior that does no harm in itself results in an infinite amount of potential laws that end up criminalizing everything (at worst) or polluting the legal code with unnecessary complexity (at best). It's a fools errand. You're not addressing the root of the problem, and you're stuck muddling through the details of every potential method of harming another instead of focusing on the harm itself.

I'm not sure where you got the idea I think it would be fine if someone killed my kid. I, of course, would not be fine with that. My argument is that I do not care what the person who killed my kid chose to be distracted by. I care that my kid is dead, at the hands of that other person. The mechanism is irrelevant.

quote:
I'm quite happy for there to be a blanket law covering any distracting activity, rather than defining every one.
And I'm quite happy having laws covering things that actually harm another human. With respect to the roadways, we already have those laws.


By retrospooty on 2/26/2014 5:14:43 PM , Rating: 2
"Shouting at and insulting others might make you feel better. It may also give you the impression you're "winning" an argument. Unfortunately for you, it does not."

It does, the man is a lonely psychopath. Seriously, I am NOT just throwing that word around.

":I give you the courtesy of respectful, honest debate. I expect the same in return."

You are talking to the wrong guy.

"You're missing my point entirely, perhaps intentionally so. Trying to proactively prevent crimes by outlawing behavior that does no harm in itself results in an infinite amount of potential laws that end up criminalizing everything (at worst) or polluting the legal code with unnecessary complexity (at best). It's a fools errand. You're not addressing the root of the problem, and you're stuck muddling through the details of every potential method of harming another instead of focusing on the harm itself."

Totally agreed. It's just another pointless thing for our cops, courts and lawyers to track and spend $ on. Another total waste of time, effort and money that will change nothing.


RE: What happened to Do No Evil?
By ebakke on 2/26/2014 2:30:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The primary point of laws is not to 'punish' crimes. It's to PREVENT crimes, whether that's by making the punishment a deterrent, or by reducing the proliferance of something. If you wait for the accident to happen, and then punish the driver, it's already too late. The damage is done.

Laws, by definition, create crimes. Without the law saying murder is illegal, killing someone would not be a crime. This particular law will be creating the crime of wearing Google Glass while driving a vehicle (something that, in and of itself is a victimless crime I might add).

Laws define crimes based on certain behaviors, and they punish those behaviors in an attempt to reduce the frequency of said behaviors. They don't prevent anything, as evidenced by the existence of crime today. They might add another criterion to evaluate when making a decision, but that's about it.

You seem to think that if we just ban Google Glass then no one will wear it in their cars anymore. Much like the raging success that anti-texting laws have been....


RE: What happened to Do No Evil?
By Wazza1234 on 2/26/2014 4:19:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Laws, by definition, create crimes


Pointless semantic argument, so congratulations for that, but wrong anyway.

Laws by definition, create laws. They DEFINE what constitutes a crime. They don't 'create crimes'. Crimes include the actual carrying out of said illegal activity.

quote:
This particular law will be creating the crime of wearing Google Glass while driving a vehicle


No, this particular law will be DEFINING the crime of wearing Google Glass while driving a vehicle, the crime would only happen if and when someone did it.

And so far you've added precisely nothing which contradicts my post which explains the motives behind defining laws, not what laws actually are. So congrats on that epic fail in numerous ways. On we go to paragraph 2.

quote:
Laws define crimes based on certain behaviors, and they punish those behaviors in an attempt to reduce the frequency of said behaviors. They don't prevent anything


This is just so plainly obviously wrong, I wonder is it even worth disproving? You say that the laws 'reduce the frequency of said behaviours' and then in the same paragraph write that they 'dont prevent anything'. Is there some kind of mental fart there, or do you not know what 'prevent' means? Perhaps you're not English? Let me educate you. The act of reducing the instances of something IS preventing those crimes which would otherwise have happened. By definition.

quote:
They might add another criterion to evaluate when making a decision, but that's about it.


Yes, they may cause people not to commit the crime, but that's about it. Good point...

quote:
You seem to think that if we just ban Google Glass then no one will wear it in their cars anymore


Ridiculously stupid straw man in line with the intellect demonstrated in the rest of your comment. I never said that nobody breaks the law, I'm saying that FEWER people will wear Glass and drive IF it's illegal. It's really not complicated.

quote:
Much like the raging success that anti-texting laws have been....


Yeah feel free to present the evidence of how many accidents would be caused by anti-texting if it wasn't illegal. I'll wait on that since that's what you'll need to prove your point. Oh, hang on a minute - what you're actually saying here is that if people don't follow the law, we shouldn't have the law in the first place. That's a pretty special line of reasoning.


RE: What happened to Do No Evil?
By ebakke on 2/26/2014 5:07:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I never said that nobody breaks the law, I'm saying that FEWER people will wear Glass and drive IF it's illegal. It's really not complicated.
You're probably right; fewer people are likely to wear Glass and drive with a ban than without it. But it's not going to prevent everyone from doing it. It's not going to stop accidents on the roads, and it's not going to force people to focus on driving. It's simply going to take away a single distraction of limitless options, for those who choose to follow the law.

I'm saying laws criminalizing behavior that does not directly harm another person are a waste of time. I'm saying anti-texting laws are just as stupid as anti-Google Glass laws. I'm saying it's an attempt to solve the wrong problem. I'm saying people are going to do what people are going to do, with or without laws.

People who want to murder others, will murder others. People who want to text and drive, will text and drive. People who want to wear Glass, will wear Glass. You can create all the laws you want, but those most likely to respect the laws are those least likely to engage in that behavior in the first place. Those who are willing to endanger or directly harm another person, don't give a damn about your laws.

Create laws that punish harming another person. And punish them severely. Leave the rest alone. Otherwise we're just on a never-ending path of "well we have to [insert some new way of restricting freedom] so we can protect people!" I don't want pre-crime. I don't want thought police. I want individuals to have the freedom to make their own choices, both good ones and bad ones.


RE: What happened to Do No Evil?
By ritualm on 2/25/2014 2:03:08 PM , Rating: 2
RE: What happened to Do No Evil?
By Jeffk464 on 2/25/2014 4:19:55 PM , Rating: 2
I think you guys are all missing a point this type of heads up display can be used to warn drivers of developing situations. Putting out a blanket ban has the chance to stop safety innovation.


RE: What happened to Do No Evil?
By FITCamaro on 2/25/2014 2:15:37 PM , Rating: 2
I drove from Charleston to Orlando streaming a football game on my phone. Listening to the game. Should I have been pulled over? Prove someone is using the device at the time they're pulled over. You can't.


RE: What happened to Do No Evil?
By Rukkian on 2/25/2014 2:48:40 PM , Rating: 2
It could be proven if they confiscated your phone or your data records, but that would not be worth it. If you were driving erratically, then you deserve a ticket, if not, then so be it.


RE: What happened to Do No Evil?
By Flunk on 2/25/2014 3:45:17 PM , Rating: 2
Depends what your laws are like, that would be totally legal in my jurisdiction because it's only illegal if you actually interact with the device while driving (and it's not dash mounted).


RE: What happened to Do No Evil?
By kfonda on 2/25/2014 7:02:59 PM , Rating: 3
Most states already have laws about obstructing or reducing the driver’s view. It is already illegal to have things on the windshield or rear window that would reduce your view or the road. Seems to me Google Glass falls squarely in this category.


RE: What happened to Do No Evil?
By Reclaimer77 on 2/25/2014 7:06:26 PM , Rating: 1
http://i1.ytimg.com/vi/Q2yX1ZkR2JI/maxresdefault.j...

Yeah let me tell ya, that view is really "obstructed".

Do you idiots even know what a HUD is!? This is getting ridiculous. Don't debate something if you don't know wtf you're talking about.


RE: What happened to Do No Evil?
By kfonda on 2/25/2014 7:18:09 PM , Rating: 2
The law say obstructed or 'reduced', in your picture a large part of the view out of the windshield is reduced.


RE: What happened to Do No Evil?
By Reclaimer77 on 2/25/2014 7:29:16 PM , Rating: 2
Okay I guess you should make sunglasses illegal too.


RE: What happened to Do No Evil?
By retrospooty on 2/25/2014 9:55:33 PM , Rating: 2
And blinking. Or at least legislate the legth of time your eyes are closed durrng each blink and have a max legal BPM (blinks per minute) /s

My god these people are such weenies


RE: What happened to Do No Evil?
By kfonda on 2/25/2014 10:13:20 PM , Rating: 3
I didn't say anything about making new laws. I pointed out that this would be covered by existing laws. There is no way you can convince me that that heads up display would not be distracting.


RE: What happened to Do No Evil?
By Reclaimer77 on 2/25/2014 10:40:43 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
There is no way you can convince me that that heads up display would not be distracting.


You're an idiot and trying to convince your ilk of anything is getting tiring.

Compare this:
http://i1.ytimg.com/vi/Q2yX1ZkR2JI/maxresdefault.j...

To this:
http://gigaom.com/2009/12/16/how-about-a-data-plan...

Clearly the HUD technology is less distracting. That's the ENTIRE POINT of a HUD! We learned this back in World War II with the refactor sight. Goddamn you people are stuck on stupid.


RE: What happened to Do No Evil?
By kfonda on 2/25/2014 11:11:34 PM , Rating: 2
You are wrong. I don't have to look at the GPS screen but with Glass that display is in my windshield whether I want it or not. In your own photo if there is a pedestrian on the side of the road by the car in front it would be very difficult to see them.


RE: What happened to Do No Evil?
By aldenf on 2/25/2014 11:54:27 PM , Rating: 2
Studies have shown that automotive HUDs are safer than the instrument-panel displays, especially for older drivers. (see: http://www.mvs.net/pdf/Human_Factors_of_HUDs.pdf --- US DOT/NTHSA Study)


RE: What happened to Do No Evil?
By Wazza1234 on 2/26/2014 5:22:46 AM , Rating: 2
Yes but your argument is irrelevant. You can look away from a HUD too.

Google Glass is static relative to your eye.

Plus, you can't guarantee that someone wearing glass is using it as a HUD, rather than watching a movie.


RE: What happened to Do No Evil?
By inighthawki on 2/26/2014 12:46:36 AM , Rating: 2
I won't lie, from both pictures that HUD looks WAY more obnoxious and distracting than that thing I don't have to look at.


RE: What happened to Do No Evil?
By retrospooty on 2/26/2014 7:11:35 AM , Rating: 2
You know, things like size and opacity are adjustable right? You CAN make it smaller and more see through. It would be like a HUD in a video game.


By inighthawki on 2/26/2014 11:13:23 AM , Rating: 2
I realize that, but I was just taking his comparison a bit more literally. It's absolutely possible to make a HUD more distracting. Size and opacity won't always necessarily fix the problem either. Too opaque and changes to content become distracting, too transparent and it may not be very visible and may require extra effort by the user to see the contents.

I'd be more interested in seeing a study that shows how HUD technology impacts drivers than making these kinds of assumptions though. I have nothing against the technology, I just have no data showing the safety of the product while driving. Would be nice if they conducted these studies prior to outright banning it.


RE: What happened to Do No Evil?
By Reclaimer77 on 2/26/2014 8:23:19 AM , Rating: 2
Intentionally missing the point. With traditional in-dash systems, you HAVE to take your eyes completely off the toad to view them.

If Ford My Touch is legal, a touchscreen based system, there can be no justification for banning Glass from cars.


By inighthawki on 2/26/2014 11:08:45 AM , Rating: 2
Actually the reason it looks more distracting to me is because I don't need to look at my onboard stuff.


RE: What happened to Do No Evil?
By Reclaimer77 on 2/25/14, Rating: -1
By NellyFromMA on 2/25/2014 1:30:36 PM , Rating: 2
I too am a fan of natural selection handling that vast majority of life's dilemmas. However, it has been interfered with for quite some time.

Restore it in whole or accept today's life for what it is: A life full of idiots who do things poorly and cause vocal people to get angry and cry until all danger is legislated out of our [legal] lives.


RE: What happened to Do No Evil?
By mgilbert on 2/25/2014 1:33:20 PM , Rating: 2
So, I guess you are opposed to drunk driving laws as well? The problem with your stand is that the people who drive distracted don't just kill themselves. They kill innocent, careful, conscientious drivers as well.


RE: What happened to Do No Evil?
By FITCamaro on 2/25/2014 2:21:08 PM , Rating: 2
I am not opposed to people who are pulled over for driving poorly because they are drunk and then being punished. I am opposed to people being pulled over who are not driving poorly because they might be driving drunk.


RE: What happened to Do No Evil?
By Reclaimer77 on 2/25/14, Rating: 0
RE: What happened to Do No Evil?
By mgilbert on 2/25/2014 3:04:18 PM , Rating: 2
Both distracted driving and drunk driving are personal choices, are dangerous, and cause accidents and deaths. No, I don't see a big difference. Why should one be legal and the other not? Explain it to me.


RE: What happened to Do No Evil?
By Reclaimer77 on 2/25/2014 3:12:01 PM , Rating: 1
Drunk driving impairs your judgment at all times. Even if you "feel fine" you aren't.

I would think this is obvious. But you nanny bedwetters will honestly stop at nothing to push your dumbass agenda of control over everyone and the erosion of all accountability.

Punishing detracted drivers good. Assuming everyone is distracted simply by owning a device, BAD.

So simple even a caveman should get it.


RE: What happened to Do No Evil?
By mgilbert on 2/25/2014 3:20:47 PM , Rating: 2
Hey, I hate the government as much as the next guy - probably more - but the truth is, if you allow people to wear a device that plays videos, people ARE going to watch videos, and people ARE going to get killed. When it is your best friend, son, daughter, or parent that gets killed by a distracted driver, maybe then you'll get it. Texting should also be illegal in all 50 states. As long as it is legal somewhere, trust me, some 16 year old will be sure that HE is the ONE person on earth who can do it safely - until he kills someone you love.


RE: What happened to Do No Evil?
By Reclaimer77 on 2/25/2014 3:33:14 PM , Rating: 1
"If you allow people to"

Allow? Is this still America?

Allow....wow.


RE: What happened to Do No Evil?
By SeeManRun on 2/25/2014 4:08:31 PM , Rating: 2
Well, they have to get a drivers license. So allow is the correct term here, as in the State allows me to operate a motor vehicle and that privilege can be taken away by the State if I acquire too many violations.


RE: What happened to Do No Evil?
By inighthawki on 2/25/2014 5:23:06 PM , Rating: 2
Just because it's America doesn't mean you're just "allowed" to do whatever you want.


RE: What happened to Do No Evil?
By Reclaimer77 on 2/25/2014 6:34:11 PM , Rating: 1
Just because I can't do whatever I want, doesn't give you the right to treat everyone with a device as a criminal. Whether they're using it or not at the time of question.

I hope you assholes know this is exactly why we have things like the NSA spying on us. You're just fine with giving the police state more power, if you happen to agree with the particulars. Problem is, unlike you, they don't put limits on those powers.

Did you real the article the other day of the cop who beat the hell out of some woman for using her cellphone during a traffic stop? That's the kind of crap what you're supporting leads to. Horrible abuses of power the average citizen cannot defend against.

"Distracted driving". Fucking first world problems...


By inighthawki on 2/25/2014 10:50:30 PM , Rating: 2
Wow you're so full of it. You're lashing out at everyone who might even remotely disagree with you. Notice how my post that you replied to did not take a stance against you (nor for you). I commented entirely on the sheer inaccuracy of your statement. Maybe you should just calm the f*ck down because your posts are starting to sound like a rabid dog.


RE: What happened to Do No Evil?
By Rukkian on 2/25/2014 4:52:35 PM , Rating: 2
So basically you are saying that every person that has a cell phone watches movies while in a car, I guess we need to ban all cell phones, laptops, tablets from any car, cause if it can be done, then people do it.

Just because Glass can display movies does not mean that is its only purpose. There are numerous uses - Heads up display of all pertinent information without taking your eyes off the road. No more need to look at the dash to see the gps, speed, etc. Getting drowsy - it will know, and alert you (if it doesn't do this now, it would seem to be a simple addition).

In the end, what should be banned is inattentive, reckless, or erratic driving. There is no need to go down the road of Ban this device, now ban this device, now ban this device, etc, etc.


By retrospooty on 2/26/2014 7:39:12 AM , Rating: 2
What if someone you love gets killed by a guy eating while driving, or someone adjusting their radio, or even looking at a billboard on the side of the road, or even a road sign? Driving isnt safe, its a risk. Sounds like you should encase yourself and your loved ones in plastic and stay of the roads. Dont breath either, because the sh1t in the air will kill you too.


RE: What happened to Do No Evil?
By aurareturn on 2/25/2014 1:27:44 PM , Rating: 2
So what happens in the future if the Google Glasses are prescription and you need it to drive? Do you always carry 2 pairs of glasses?


By inighthawki on 2/25/2014 5:25:04 PM , Rating: 2
I would assume it would be detachable from the actual glasses themselves. Having it permanently attached to prescription glasses is pretty stupid.


RE: What happened to Do No Evil?
By aldenf on 2/25/2014 1:42:19 PM , Rating: 3
I certainly agree if a driver wearing Glass is streaming the latest blockbuster, it's a definite detriment.

If, however, Glass eliminates the problems with heads up displays (HUD) projected onto windshields, it could become a very useful and safety conscious tool.

Imagine...

A Glass wearer climbs behind the wheel of a vehicle. Glass syncs with safety/info systems built into said vehicle. Things that usually require our focus to leave the road are unobtrusively projected in our sight-line while retaining focus on the road; ie. current speed, simple GPS interaction, rear-view camera while in reverse, accident avoidance systems, blind spot/lane-change warnings, etc.

I'm not sure how we survived a hundred years or so without such "safety systems" in our vehicles. If they're going to be installed, however, Glass may just make them more safe to use.

Glass is simply a tool. As long as the driver does not utilize it as a toy while driving, I see no issues. Of course, this relies on the personal responsibility of the individual. Unfortunately, too many individuals are becoming less and less responsible...


RE: What happened to Do No Evil?
By FITCamaro on 2/25/2014 2:22:54 PM , Rating: 2
Seriously. What if my Glass is giving me an overlay with my directions on it as the original commercial for Glass showed? You don't have to look at it. You can ignore it and focus on the road and then glance at it when you need to. Merely wearing one doesn't mean you're distracted.


RE: What happened to Do No Evil?
By SeeManRun on 2/25/2014 4:10:49 PM , Rating: 2
It would be too much of a burden to have to stop everyone and actually verify their Glass was active while driving, so the law will be to not wear it on your head. The only alternative is to allow it completely, which many groups other than Google will rally against.


RE: What happened to Do No Evil?
By TSS on 2/25/2014 7:56:01 PM , Rating: 2
It'll always be a distraction. A car moving at 60 mph is moving 27 meters per second, or about the quarter of a football field. It'll take you atleast a second to process information of looking away then looking back at the road, atleast for the average human. Might even take more since you have to focus on something far away, then closeby, then far away again. People who are irresponsible enough to use the Glass while driving certainly aren't going to mind their distance either.

Plus there isn't a single thing that the google glass can show that isn't already shown in some other way in the car. It adds nothing, but opens up a whole lot of possible distractions.

Banning not just the use, but wearing google glass as a driver is the only sensible thing to do (to prevent "but it was off" claims). That said, doing so is completly futile. Due to the simple fact there will never be enough police to enforce such a law. And when it's not enforced people will do it anyway, case in point people still using mobile phones to text while driving. You cannot outlaw irresponsible behaviour.

The way we'll have to deal with this is the exact same way in which you say you're not sure how we survived for so long without safety systems: simply accept things go wrong. Accept people *will* die because of the Glass, just as it was once accepted having a steering column pushed through your face was *your* fault for not driving carefully enough. Wether that's the right way to go about it time will tell - but it'll probably be the only way for years to come.


RE: What happened to Do No Evil?
By Reclaimer77 on 2/25/2014 8:07:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It'll take you atleast a second to process information of looking away then looking back at the road


Another idiot who doesn't understand what a HUD is. Amazing!

http://i1.ytimg.com/vi/Q2yX1ZkR2JI/maxresdefault.j...

How are you looking away and taking your eyes off the road again? Hello!?

quote:
Plus there isn't a single thing that the google glass can show that isn't already shown in some other way in the car.


You mean like my smartphone? Yeah that's WAY more distracting than Glass. Think about it.

quote:
Accept people *will* die because of the Glass


Hyperbole.


RE: What happened to Do No Evil?
By atechfan on 2/25/2014 9:26:39 PM , Rating: 2
Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think that is how Glass works. It is not like a HUD. With a HUD, the info is in your line of sight, usually projected on to the windshield. With Glass, don't you have to look up to see it. It isn't projected in front of your eye, is it?

Also, since it is so close to the eye, wouldn't you have to focus on it to see it, thereby making everything else out of focus?


By retrospooty on 2/25/2014 9:52:24 PM , Rating: 2
Glass is like the hud in any FPS game. Vital info on screen, but not right in your primary focus. Its up and to the side. You take your eyes off the road far less than using an in dash NAV or phone.


RE: What happened to Do No Evil?
By Reclaimer77 on 2/25/2014 10:34:13 PM , Rating: 2
See what I'm fighting against? People seem to have come to these conclusions somehow without knowing the basics. And you're a smart guy!

That picture I showed you is exactly how Google Glass works. It's a HUD, that's all. No focus issues, no distractions.

I don't know what's going on here, I just really don't get it. Is it because it's a Google product, or people just can't take the two minutes to research it and troll instead?

The single greatest, most intuitive, and SAFEST driver aid ever invented is being demonized and called a distraction.....just wtf is going on here? That GPS unit mounted to your dash is several times more distracting than Google Glass, yet nobody seems to have an issue with that.


RE: What happened to Do No Evil?
By aldenf on 2/25/2014 11:08:27 PM , Rating: 2
I'm with you Reclaimer. It seems absurd.

I think the concern is that there is already far too many overly distracted drivers on the road. People are concerned about another distraction being disastrous. I simply think we should insist drivers start paying attention to what they're supposed to be doing: driving.

The other day, I was driving out of NYC about 3 in the afternoon. This guy is camped in the left lane, doing 50 in a 65, cell phone to his ear and road atlas across his steering wheel. I had to glance three times to make sure I wasn't seeing things...


RE: What happened to Do No Evil?
By atechfan on 2/26/2014 6:10:36 AM , Rating: 2
All I was asking for was a clarification from someone who has actually used Glass, not just seen pics on the web. Those show what the Glass can display, not how you view it. Every description I have read about it mentions how you only see it if looking at it, so I wanted to know if you always see it, or if it is above you line of sight and you need to physically turn your eyeball up to see it. Big difference between those two scenarios.

Is there anyone in this thread who actually uses Glass who can tell me how easy it is to view the info Glass displays while still seeing the world around you.


RE: What happened to Do No Evil?
By aldenf on 2/25/2014 10:57:01 PM , Rating: 2
This is a great example of contemporary HUD from BMW:

http://www.e90post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=604...

The problem with traditional HUDs, projected onto the windshield, is that they're easily washed out by sunlight, making them unpredictable and unreliable.

Engineers are apparently working on new technologies to make HUDs a reality in passenger vehicles. The hurdles still seem to be function and/or cost.

As far as glass is concerned; no it would not be like a fighter jet's HUD projected smack in the middle of the windshield. Glass keeps the display nearby, however. It would be less distracting than glancing at the rear-view mirror (much less the dash or console), keeping the road in strong peripheral sight.

As far as eye focus goes, it's really no worse than refocusing onto the dash and then back onto the road. No display, Glass or HUD, is meant to look at for longer than a moment. That's why the design needs to be simple and clean.


RE: What happened to Do No Evil?
By aldenf on 2/25/2014 10:29:48 PM , Rating: 2
Thank you for the physics lesson. But I think you missed my point entirely.

quote:
Plus there isn't a single thing that the google glass can show that isn't already shown in some other way in the car.


... Yet you have to take your eyes off the road to see what is being shown to you. All the new hi-tech safety systems that have recently been introduced (rear mounted cameras, accident avoidance, blind spot/lane-change warning, etc) can be as distracting as the crazy entertainment systems now being offered in vehicles. Their sole purpose for existing is to make up for people who don't pay attention while driving.

The possibilities for Glass to put all this information directly, yet unobtrusively, into a driver's field of vision without taking his/her eyes off the road is an addition to safety, not a detraction. Currently, glancing at the instrument cluster, radio station, GPS, warning light, etc, takes one's attention from the road as 27 meters fly by unnoticed.

I certainly am not advocating a return to the 1950's and remove all the seat belts, air bags and anti-lock brakes. That's ludicrous. I do wonder, however, in my almost 30 years of driving, how it is that I've never backed over a child or animal without a back-up camera; how I've never rear-ended someone without an accident avoidance system; how I've never side-swiped another driver without a blind spot intervention system.

I am suggesting that all the high-tech safety systems being installed in vehicles today are simply to compensate for people who, quite possibly, should not be driving to begin with.

I would not mind removing all entertainment, non-essential information, communication and distracting safety systems from vehicles entirely. This would allow all drivers to concentrate on the number one priority while behind the wheel: driving. Since this is unlikely ever to happen, I'm simply suggesting that Google Glass may be in a position to tie together all the information, communication, navigation and safety systems into a much safer interface that does not require the driver to remove focus from the road.

Glass is a tool; nothing less, nothing more. As is the case with many tools, it can be appropriately used or misused. Would allowing drivers to wear Glass cause more problems than it solves? Perhaps. It's entirely up to us. You seem to think it would be disastrous. You apparently have much faith in your fellow human beings. Perhaps we should be addressing that lack of faith and it's cause instead of demonizing an inanimate electronic device.

All this being said, I can't see myself buying a Glass-type gadget any time soon. Not my style. Besides, I like to drive. I like to think that I'm reasonably good at it. My favorite car? A 1967 Chevy roadster. The only distractions: a convertible top, AM/FM radio and the exhaust growl.


RE: What happened to Do No Evil?
By Jeffk464 on 2/25/2014 4:13:07 PM , Rating: 2
I guess its nice that legislation can be bought when it goes in your favor. :)


Accidents
By HostileEffect on 2/26/2014 12:00:08 AM , Rating: 2
Cops sitting around corners with a radar gun causing everyone to slam on their brakes is more prone to cause accidents than ANY device. Traffic flows at about 80MPH out here, the actual speed limit is about 45, cop hiding around a corner is begging for a pile up and they want to make yet another device illegal?

Fix the current problems before you try to make new ones.

I'm tired, I've worked too hard all day and have nice burn marks from facing the same direction from 7AM to 3PM. Night.




RE: Accidents
By atechfan on 2/26/2014 6:12:09 AM , Rating: 2
If someone slams on the brakes because he sees a cop, then he is an idiot who shouldn't be driving. It isn't the cop's fault people do not know how to brake properly or follow posted speed limits.


Yeah right
By pandemonium on 2/26/2014 1:22:23 AM , Rating: 2
This'll never pass. Most drivers can barely drive without distractions as is.

We need higher class driver's licenses to allow more capable people to be able to do multi-tasking while driving, because frankly, I'm tired of being dragged down by the lowest common denominator in this country.




Driving Ticket
By shineLS7 on 2/26/2014 5:20:41 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not sure if many people remember when the original story broke, about the woman in California receiving the ticket, she only got a ticket for the Google Glass because she was arguing with the police officer because she WASN'T getting a ticket for the glasses. He initially was not going to cite her. She argued that she should be ticketed and to satisfy her, the office wrote another ticket.




"I want people to see my movies in the best formats possible. For [Paramount] to deny people who have Blu-ray sucks!" -- Movie Director Michael Bay

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki