×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

In UK, Google Glass To Be Banned While Driving

timothy posted about 9 months ago | from the should-be-mandatory-for-motorcycles dept.

Google 214

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."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

214 comments

Glassholes (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44447925)

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

Re:Glassholes (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44448279)

While some of their other products are nice, I really think Google are showing their arrogance with Glass.

They're doing a lot of interesting things on the net, but Glass is an intrusion into life in the street. It's good there's a clampdown on its effects on traffic.

Disclaimer: I use several Google products on the net, but not Glass. I have no connection to Google, except as a satisfied customer of several of their products, excluding Glass. I was fucked in the ass by a goat yesterday.

Re:Glassholes (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44449191)

Staaka? This is the United Kingdom. We do not (imitates Randall Meeks' head jerks to turn the page), nooo.

Missing the point. (5, Interesting)

AndyAndyAndyAndy (967043) | about 9 months ago | (#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.

Re:Missing the point. (5, Informative)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 9 months ago | (#44447995)

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]

Re:Missing the point. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44448235)

I want AAA to know... that only really stupid people use them in the first place and their studies should not be applied to the general driving population... oh wait... ratio of stupid people on the road... nvm carry on.

Re:Missing the point. (2)

ackthpt (218170) | about 9 months ago | (#44448305)

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.

Re:Missing the point. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44448727)

Luckily Google is working on that too.

Re:Missing the point. (3, Interesting)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 9 months ago | (#44449357)

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.

Re:Missing the point. (4, Insightful)

AndyAndyAndyAndy (967043) | about 9 months ago | (#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]

Re:Missing the point. (2)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 9 months ago | (#44449415)

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.

Re:Missing the point. (4, Interesting)

pixelpusher220 (529617) | about 9 months ago | (#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.

Re:Missing the point. (1)

LBt1st (709520) | about 9 months ago | (#44449361)

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.

Re:Missing the point. (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 9 months ago | (#44449557)

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 oncoming traffic, causing a woman (who had the right of way) to collide with his patrol car.

3 months later I read in the local fishwrapper that the woman was blamed for the accident, but for some strange reason all charges were dropped. So, the distracted cop caused a crash, cost the taxpayers a few bucks in patrol car/street repairs, and the whole incident just kind of fell off the radar.

Granted, anecdotes are not evidence, and the training definitely helps, but the reality (that none of us can honestly deny) is that stupid/criminal shit that LEOs engage in is rarely reported, and even more rarely prosecuted, thus skewing the statistics.

It's human nature to use things. We need to adapt our behaviors to counteract that nature when it threatens safety...

Well, I would say that makes no sense, but

OOH SHINY!!!

Sorry, what was I saying? :)

Re:Missing the point. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44448007)

Eyes that are focused on the windscreen (remember, it's a UK story) will see the road clearer than ones focused on Google Glass a centimetre or so from the eye.

Re:Missing the point. (3, Insightful)

noh8rz10 (2716597) | about 9 months ago | (#44448239)

Eyes that are focused on the windscreen (remember, it's a UK story) will see the road clearer than ones focused on Google Glass a centimetre or so from the eye.

it's even more drastic than you say. eyes are focused on the car 100 feet away, then GG 1 cm away. attention nightmare.

Re:Missing the point. (1)

0123456 (636235) | about 9 months ago | (#44450043)

it's even more drastic than you say. eyes are focused on the car 100 feet away, then GG 1 cm away. attention nightmare.

I don't know the details of Google Telescreen, but presumably the image is focussed at infinity, like previous wearable displays?

Re:Missing the point. (3, Insightful)

Russ1642 (1087959) | about 9 months ago | (#44448345)

Anyone looking at their windscreen is blind to what's ahead of them anyways. You need to be focused roughly ten seconds down the road to be able to react properly.

Re:Missing the point. (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44448009)

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

Re:Missing the point. (3, Interesting)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about 9 months ago | (#44448017)

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.

Re: Missing the point. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44448151)

This is the real way in which technology can make roads safer. If people want to be entretained while driving, then they shouldn't drive. The focus it requires is the reason why i hate driving, but there's no way around it. If you want to drive safe, keep your eyes and mind on the road.

Re:Missing the point. (2)

lgw (121541) | about 9 months ago | (#44450101)

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.

Re:Missing the point. (3, Informative)

OzPeter (195038) | about 9 months ago | (#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]

Re:Missing the point. (1)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | about 9 months ago | (#44448155)

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.

Re:Missing the point. (2)

gl4ss (559668) | about 9 months ago | (#44448179)

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.

Re:Missing the point. (2)

spire3661 (1038968) | about 9 months ago | (#44448507)

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.

Re:Missing the point. (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about 9 months ago | (#44448813)

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.

Re:Missing the point. (1)

spire3661 (1038968) | about 9 months ago | (#44449271)

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.

Re:Missing the point. (4, Insightful)

bws111 (1216812) | about 9 months ago | (#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.

Re:Missing the point. (3, Informative)

BasilBrush (643681) | about 9 months ago | (#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]

Re:Missing the point. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44450067)

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.

The main problem with glass is that while it could be used to aid in driving (placing maps and direction in your field of view), it is more likely to be used by the average person to watch movies while driving.

Re:Missing the point. (4, Insightful)

bws111 (1216812) | about 9 months ago | (#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.

Re:Missing the point. (1)

hypergreatthing (254983) | about 9 months ago | (#44448891)

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 stopping and your distracted with your kids or fiddling with the climate control.
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.
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.

There are multiple possibilities where it could help you be a better driver. Yes, you could use it for playing farmville or searching something, but an actual hud driving app would make your driving safer.

Re:Missing the point. (3, Insightful)

bws111 (1216812) | about 9 months ago | (#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'.

Re:Missing the point. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44450105)

Seeing speed limit signs are difficult for you?

If they're concentrating on other traffic, yes. There are usually far more important things to be looking at on the road than speed limit signs.

Also, the signs are what set the limit, not some app.

Uh, no, they don't. The local laws set the speed limit, not the signs.

When I lived in the UK, one night the local scallywags turned the speed limit signs around so the side that should have said 30 said 40 and vice-versa. That didn't mean the speed limit changed.

When I lived there, I also had a GPS which would warn me when there was a speed camera ahead and I was over the speed limit. That meant I could actually concentrate on driving, rather than looking for irrelevant signs and cameras hidden behind trees.

Re:Missing the point. (1)

bws111 (1216812) | about 9 months ago | (#44450277)

Eh, no. If you are driving in such a manner that there are far more important things to look at than speed limit (or any other) signs, then you are a dangerous driver, and an app is not going to fix it. If you are in a situation where traffic is so dense that it requires your attention (bad thing to begin with), what difference does the speed limit make? What, if your little app says you are far under the speed limit you are magically going to remove the dense traffic that is causing the problem? If your app says you are too fast (in this dense traffic) you are going to slow down? If traffic is that dense, slow down anyway.

Yes, obviously the laws set the limit. The signs are the official notice of the limit. If someone changes the sign, and you are under what the new sign says, you have a very good chance of getting any charge thrown out. You have zero chance of getting the charge thrown out when your excuse is 'Google said it was OK'.

Re:Missing the point. (1)

ackthpt (218170) | about 9 months ago | (#44448291)

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 temperature.

Re:Missing the point. (2)

Opportunist (166417) | about 9 months ago | (#44448377)

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

Re:Missing the point. (1)

BasilBrush (643681) | about 9 months ago | (#44449759)

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...

Re:Missing the point. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44448493)

I'm pretty sure that the HUD displays put in place by auto manufacturers won't clutter your windscreen with ads, porn, instant messages, emails, a web browser, streaming video, and skype.

Re:Missing the point. (1)

tgd (2822) | about 9 months ago | (#44448611)

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

Re:Missing the point. (1)

BasilBrush (643681) | about 9 months ago | (#44449933)

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.

Re:Missing the point. (3, Interesting)

DigiShaman (671371) | about 9 months ago | (#44448903)

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.

Re:Missing the point. (2)

BasilBrush (643681) | about 9 months ago | (#44449501)

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.

Just a warm up. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44447997)

They are warming up to banning any kind of self-driving car, in order that we be kept in the stone age here in the UK. So long as UK.GOV keep paying for the benefits the masses will be happy.

AG.

Re:Just a warm up. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44448355)

Good. Fuck robot cars.

Re:Just a warm up. (1)

spire3661 (1038968) | about 9 months ago | (#44448553)

NO, fuck humans driving cars. We lose WAY too many people in car accidents, robot cars WILL happen.

Re:Just a warm up. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44449261)

No, don't fuck humans driving cars, let them concentrate on driving, fucking the driver can be very distracting for the driver.

10 points = "free" Oyster card?? (0)

RobertLTux (260313) | about 9 months ago | (#44448019)

as long as they don't have a way of preventing someone driving on the Right* Side of the road due to the "GPS IS GOD" problem then yes i would ban these things from the british roads.

*note where this is before making any "funny" comments

Prescription integration (1)

kylegordon (159137) | about 9 months ago | (#44448069)

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?

Re:Prescription integration (5, Informative)

ledow (319597) | about 9 months ago | (#44448497)

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.

Seriously?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44448079)

They have to tell people not to be stupid?

Re:Seriously?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44448949)

Hi... You must be new [gstatic.com] to this [s-msn.com] planet [cardomain.com] !

And those are just a few of the idiots on 2 wheels. There are millions where those came from. We have millions that do it on 4 even more readily. You think they're capable of realizing the dangers of Glass on their own?

Somebody mod this guy funny! Quick!

First-world problems (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44448081)

Oh no! My expensive hipster toy is banned from being played with while I drive!!! :slitwrists:

Damn, first-world problems are getting brutal these days.

Stupid but...okay whatever. (3, Insightful)

The Living Fractal (162153) | about 9 months ago | (#44448083)

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.

Stupid Loaded Questions (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44448135)

It doesn't matter how much more or less distracting Google Glass is from mobile phones, but how distracting it is to not having it.

In addition, a display and it's frame sitting in your periphery vision will block out that car about to run through a red light. I've owned and used HMDs. People using HMDs with one display tend to keep turning their head towards the display (trying to bring it into view of both eyes as our brain expects). This is funny when the person walks into a post and extremely dangerous when driving. Try it right now. Pretend there's some text only on the top corner of your glasses. Try glancing at it without turning your head. Now also read that text while staying focused on the road. You can't do it. Your center of vision is in focus and what you use to read. The further from center the more out of focus things become.

Oh, the UK (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44448185)

This is from the same country that had a city council that chose to ban fire extinguisher as a fire hazard.

http://metro.co.uk/2008/03/10/extinguishers-banned-as-a-fire-safety-hazard-32065/

Re:Oh, the UK (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44448395)

http://youtu.be/1EBfxjSFAxQ

Re:Oh, the UK (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44448407)

Some types of fire extinguisher ARE a fire hazard. Why else do you think that you have different types of extinguisher for different types of fires?
The wrong extinguisher in the wrong place and USED can hasten the spread of a fire.

Oh, and the Metro is published by the same people as the Daily Mail (Fail,Wail etc) which is one of the worst tabloids we have. No one outside of a Facist should read it.

Allow them... (3, Interesting)

Dan East (318230) | about 9 months ago | (#44448197)

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

How about if... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44448227)

How about if someone is driving dangerously they get pulled over, regardless of what is on their face or in their hands.

OH WAIT that would require police to actually monitor traffic rather than leaving it to passive cameras that do nothing for public safety.

Re:How about if... (3, Insightful)

bws111 (1216812) | about 9 months ago | (#44448361)

The difference between 'driving dangerously' and 'deadly crash' is nothing but luck. The point is to stop the problem BEFORE it becomes 'dangerous driving'. You did know that, right?

Re:How about if... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44448885)

Given the current track record of accident prevention (drunk driving?) I wouldn't put a lot of merit in your point.

Hands-free doesn't mean "safe" (2)

hyades1 (1149581) | about 9 months ago | (#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.

Off-Topic: Poll? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44448259)

Why does the poll have comments disabled? Has that ever been done before or is Dice changing things?

"Using" vs. "wearing"? (2)

RevWaldo (1186281) | about 9 months ago | (#44448303)

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

.

Re:"Using" vs. "wearing"? (1)

Sponge Bath (413667) | about 9 months ago | (#44448403)

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?

Re:"Using" vs. "wearing"? (1)

tgd (2822) | about 9 months ago | (#44448643)

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.

Re:"Using" vs. "wearing"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44448821)

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.

Wrong, in certain places it may be illegal, but certainly not "In the US".

hands-free is not less distracting (4, Insightful)

SuperBanana (662181) | about 9 months ago | (#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.

Re:hands-free is not less distracting (1)

Xicor (2738029) | about 9 months ago | (#44449641)

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.

Re:hands-free is not less distracting (1)

Xicor (2738029) | about 9 months ago | (#44449745)

thats like banning ladders because 1% of the population sets them up backwards and gets themselves killed.

Re:hands-free is not less distracting (1)

Xicor (2738029) | about 9 months ago | (#44449833)

just let ppl take a few days of training for a permit that allows you to have it on you while driving.

Would love to see cameras in cars (1)

Beeftopia (1846720) | about 9 months ago | (#44448615)

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.

Re:Would love to see cameras in cars (2)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | about 9 months ago | (#44448759)

Then mount one on your dash.

Re:Would love to see cameras in cars (1)

Beeftopia (1846720) | about 9 months ago | (#44449285)

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.

Re:Would love to see cameras in cars (1)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | about 9 months ago | (#44449507)

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

Re:Would love to see cameras in cars (1)

Beeftopia (1846720) | about 9 months ago | (#44450073)

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.

Stupid laws by stupid people (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44448957)

Google Glass is only recognizable as such in its present preview release form. And though Google is the most publicized they are not the only one producing the technology. Revo, Oakley, Perry Ellis and others are surely going to get a piece of the always connected eye-wear action. Good luck pulling over everyone wearing glasses to check whether or not the internal computer is disabled.

lol good luck (1)

Rik Sweeney (471717) | about 9 months ago | (#44448987)

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.

fuc4er (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44449171)

And MichaeL Smith so that their :that the project

Surveilance (1)

GigaBurglar (2465952) | about 9 months ago | (#44449189)

Google Glass = voluntary surveillance.

Step 1. Record every facet of your life and take pictures.
Step 2. Backup precious videos of your cat, and snaps of your neighbour taking our her garbage, to the cloud.
Step 3. Meta data is extracted, date/time, GPS.
Step 4. Facial recognition is added to make it easier to tag your photos.
Step 5. Implicitly give access to your data to the NSA / GCHQ and allow them to unconstitutionally build a massive profile on you - including meta data / GPS / names of tagged faces.
Step 6. ???
Step 7. Profit!
Step 6.

not really a good idea (1)

Xicor (2738029) | about 9 months ago | (#44449625)

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 misuse it. i dont see a law banning you from playing gameboy in the car, or putting a laptop on your dashboard.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...