Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

Google Glass Integration For Cars Is Coming: Neat Idea Or Crazy Town?

timothy posted about a year ago | from the save-one-hand-for-your-sandwich dept.

Displays 102

cartechboy writes "Americans have enough trouble keeping from texting their way to dangerous — or worse — situations in cars. But now car makers, looking to differentiate with tech integrations and after jamming iPhone everywhere, are working hard at integrating Google Glass into vehicles. Consider this quote: 'Within seconds, I've got step-by-step directions to a coffee shop down the street beamed directly to my eyeballs.' Aside from being a little Jetsons, sounds potentially problematic. (Note, Mercedes had been doing R&D since July.) It goes without saying that someone is working on an integration of their own with a Tesla Model S. There is a coolness factor, there may be some utility — but not sure this is a great idea."

cancel ×

102 comments

great idea1.0 (1)

turkeydance (1266624) | about a year ago | (#44589471)

yeah right

Re:great idea1.0 (1)

O('_')O_Bush (1162487) | about a year ago | (#44590395)

They are gung-ho about this super idea.

Until the lawsuits start rolling in.

I mean, people already have trouble driving when the sun is somewhere in front of them....

TAKE ME TO FUNKY TOWN !! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44589473)

Not crazy town !!

Couple it with Google Self-Driving Car (4, Funny)

ackthpt (218170) | about a year ago | (#44589483)

Car, I'm bored, take me to somewhere interesting. I'll take a nap while you drive.

Re:Couple it with Google Self-Driving Car (1)

istartedi (132515) | about a year ago | (#44590705)

You wake up in the garage at 2 AM.

"Car, was it interesting?"

(in Siri-like voice) "Yes. It. Was. Interesting".

"Car, why does it smell like 10W 40 in here?"

"I do not know. What. You are talking. About".

Re:Couple it with Google Self-Driving Car (0)

maxwell demon (590494) | about a year ago | (#44591883)

You wake up in the garage at 2 AM.

"Car, was it interesting?"

(in Siri-like voice) "Yes. It. Was. Interesting".

"Car, why does it smell like 10W 40 in here?"

"I do not know. What. You are talking. About".

Nor do I.

Re:Couple it with Google Self-Driving Car (1)

serviscope_minor (664417) | about a year ago | (#44592711)

Nor do I.

What is interesting to a car is probably not interesting to a human.

Re:Couple it with Google Self-Driving Car (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | about a year ago | (#44594159)

I still don't have any idea what a "10W 40" is.

Re:Couple it with Google Self-Driving Car (1)

fivethreeo (1421165) | about a year ago | (#44596059)

10W-40 mineral oil. Cars like having their oil changed aswell.

Re:Couple it with Google Self-Driving Car (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44596079)

Engine oil. There was probably an orgy of cars and his got bukkaked in the air-intake manifold.

Re:Couple it with Google Self-Driving Car (1)

slash.jit (2893213) | about a year ago | (#44595993)

Car.. switch off the lights and take us for a long drive.. i'm going to have sex with my GF.

AD's (3, Insightful)

Osgeld (1900440) | about a year ago | (#44589531)

what is the top and bottom quarter of my windshield now going to have banner AD's beaming me garbage I either A) already bought, or B) have zero interest, in as I drive down the road?

I can see the potential of such a heads up system, but I also know how Google makes its money, its not by charity.

Re:AD's (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44590013)

what is the top and bottom quarter of my windshield now going to have banner AD's beaming me garbage I either A) already bought, or B) have zero interest, in as I drive down the road?

I can see the potential of such a heads up system, but I also know how Google makes its money, its not by charity.

Rooting and Adblock are your friend. Or, just roll your own based on the source they release.

Either way, it's a huge distraction while driving. I wouldn't recommend it.

Re: AD's (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44590959)

Distracting, maybe; still, rooting while driving is lots of fun.

Re:AD's (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44590165)

You don't think Google analyzing everything you see and everywhere you go and selling analytics services isn't profitable enough? Then they can send ads to you while you're not driving, and your wife can pay to see if you're cheating on her.

Re:AD's (2)

fast turtle (1118037) | about a year ago | (#44590273)

What's this "Wife" you speak of? Is it related to a gerbil?

Re:AD's (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | about a year ago | (#44591901)

It's another possible distraction when driving.

Re:AD's (1)

C18H27NO3 (1282172) | about a year ago | (#44590169)

Instead of the ads being intrusive they'll probably just project them as a 3D hologram on the roof of your car so everyone can see them.

Re:AD's (1)

fast turtle (1118037) | about a year ago | (#44590269)

Punch the Monkey! Punch the Monkey! O'kay, I'll run that god damn monkey over.

Why did you run the Mayor over?

Re:AD's (3, Informative)

swillden (191260) | about a year ago | (#44590533)

Google has said it's not going to allow advertising on Glass. I think the business model for Glass is just profit on hardware sales. I don't actually know the plan, that's just a guess.

Oh, and regarding the other likely assumption of evil that I know someone is going to post: Google is also not going to be streaming everything your Glass sees to their servers. Privacy issues aside, it'd destroy the battery life and blow through your mobile data plan in no time.

(Disclaimer: I work for Google but have no inside knowledge of Glass.)

Re:AD's (2)

YrWrstNtmr (564987) | about a year ago | (#44590871)

Google has said it's not going to allow advertising on Glass.

They also said 'no porn'.
That won't work either. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/24/google-glass-porn_n_3644321.html [huffingtonpost.com]

Re:AD's (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about a year ago | (#44592455)

They obviously meant no pornographic apps, not "you can't make porn with it". Anything with a camera can be used to make porn.

Re:AD's (1)

Osgeld (1900440) | about a year ago | (#44591455)

there is no such thing as profit on hardware sales

Re:AD's (1)

swillden (191260) | about a year ago | (#44591595)

there is no such thing as profit on hardware sales

Apple disagrees.

Re:AD's (1)

Osgeld (1900440) | about a year ago | (#44591801)

only for the last 7-10 years of their 36 year lifespan

Re:AD's (1)

Cederic (9623) | about a year ago | (#44592903)

Tell that to manufacturers of TVs, fridges, washing machines, computer mice, keyboards, cars, desk lamps and inflatable sheep.

Re:AD's (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44595165)

omg why must people just be flat out retarded, we are talking computer shit here, keep up or fuck off

Re: AD's (1)

ceoyoyo (59147) | about a year ago | (#44591509)

Of course, google never introduces a product with no ads and then adds ads later. Nope. Maps.

Re:AD's (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about a year ago | (#44592425)

Hardware sales and getting more people to use their services. If you use Google services like Maps on Glass you will probably also use them on your phone and computer where there are ads.

Re:AD's (1)

gblfxt (931709) | about a year ago | (#44590869)

that would be stupid at best, and google as a company has not done many stupid things. having people get in wrecks reading ads while driving is a litigious affair at best.

Re:AD's (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44593053)

My Prius already has a heads up display, but only for mph and for the navigation turns.(and tenths of a mile to those turns) I really love both of those features, although at the time of purchase I thought them silly. I only got them because they came as a package with the photovoltaic roof, which runs a fan in the summer, if parked in the sun...another much loved feature by anyone who's ever gone into a car that's 140 degrees!

google glass hack-vision (1)

turkeydance (1266624) | about a year ago | (#44589545)

oooh....pretty colors....State Farm is There.

Re:google glass hack-vision (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44590699)

It's Jake..... From State Farm....

Why now? (2)

s.petry (762400) | about a year ago | (#44589577)

I'm really stumped on this one. New cars are coming out with all kinds of distractions, like web browsing and now this. If we all had cars that drove themselves I would not mind. I can't see how this will result in anything different than people texting and driving. A few will use it as suggested (step by step GPS), but a few will crash into innocent people while updating Facebook or browsing the web.

Re:Why now? (5, Funny)

ackthpt (218170) | about a year ago | (#44589595)

"Oh, officer, we haven't seen him for days and we're so worried about him. We don't know were he could be."

"OK, please try to calm down and think. Did you have a fight or was he upset about anything?"

"No. Well ... the last thing I remember, the neighbor boy, Dennis Mitchell and his dog Ruff, came over. Dennis was asking George why he was so old and such little boy questions. George stated he wanted to go to the store to pick up some more pipe tobacco. The last thing I remember, as he was getting into the car George said to Dennis 'Get lost!'"

Re:Why now? (1)

s.petry (762400) | about a year ago | (#44590937)

That was funny! Thanks for making my Friday!

Except that... (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | about a year ago | (#44590717)

Except that if someone is going to be a crappy driver, they're going to do it with or without technology. Technology is simply the boogeyman that the media uses rather than simply admitting that there are some poor drivers on the road. A crying child in the backseat is infinitely more distracting than a radio/cell phone/Google Glass

Re:Except that... (1)

s.petry (762400) | about a year ago | (#44590987)

I don't agree that it's a boogeyman. I'd agree that there are many distractions to deal with driving, all of which should be manageable. Some things are simply not manageable and should not be put where the driver can be distracted. To me, it's kind of like when the larger vehicles came out with TVs in the back seat. The noise may be distracting to the driver, but the visual distraction was out of the way. The HUD features would be more like putting the TV in view of the driver.

Distracting visuals are very different from audible distractions when it comes to a task that requires hand to eye coordination.

Re:Except that... (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | about a year ago | (#44591923)

Distracting visuals are very different from audible distractions when it comes to a task that requires hand to eye coordination.

Yet we put distracting visuals in the streets, in the form of electronic, animated advertising displays. Mostly at crowded places where you need your concentration most.

Re:Except that... (1)

s.petry (762400) | about a year ago | (#44598197)

A billboard is not exactly in the drivers face, which differs from HUD and TV displays.

Re: Except that... (1)

ceoyoyo (59147) | about a year ago | (#44591523)

Except that crappy drivers are even crappier when they have phones or kids. Crappy drivers make crappy choices. The problem with glass is that it's an exceptionally crappy choice when you're driving because it's in your vision and you can't really do anything to get rid of the distraction in an emergency. Kind of like a kid, except most people are smart enough not to drive with their kids between themselves and the windshield.

Re:Why now? (2)

farble1670 (803356) | about a year ago | (#44590775)

the first problem is that the law is not clear.

i can't hold the phone to my ear, but i can talk hands free ... because driving with one hand is impossible? why isn't one-handed driving in general illegal?

i can use my stand alone GPS system, but not my phone that's running a navigation?

why can i mess with an overly complicated in-dash entertainment system, but not my phone? if i mount my phone, is it now legal to interact w/ it while driving?

Re:Why now? (1)

gblfxt (931709) | about a year ago | (#44590913)

nothing has changed, stupid drivers will continue to be stupid, responsible drivers aren't suddenly going to start browsing or updating facebook while driving.

Re:Why now? (1)

MrL0G1C (867445) | about a year ago | (#44592587)

" New cars are coming out with all kinds of distractions, like web browsing"

I sincerely hope that this isn't available whilst the car is running, otherwise if it could be proven that someone was using it whilst driving and causing accidental death, then the car manufacturer should jointly be charged with vehicular manslaughter.

Re:Why now? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44605419)

I don't think so that it is a good idea because it could be dangerous while driving.
ASP.NET development Company [goodcoresoft.com]

Feature (3, Funny)

puddingebola (2036796) | about a year ago | (#44589589)

Now you can launch yourself through the windshield directly into the virtual world of Google Glass. My first adware app for Google Glass will simulate a Mac truck approaching your car, right on your windshield. The driver's instinct will be to swerve off the road, right into the gas stations that pay me for this amazing new form of advertising.

Re:Feature (1)

MMC Monster (602931) | about a year ago | (#44593681)

My first adware app for Google Glass will simulate a Mac truck approaching your car[...]

Why not a Window truck? Wouldn't they be easier to find?

Great idea... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44589605)

YES! Spend hundreds of thousands of dollars creating all these car integration apps, then watch as cities all over the country ban google glass use while driving because its too distracting.

Not sure it's the best way to go (2)

SuperKendall (25149) | about a year ago | (#44589629)

Although car integration for Glass makes a lot more practical sense for me than other uses, I think there are a lot of other options that give you better and richer feedback. In car screens would have more detail than Glass, HUD displays projected on your lower windshield would be better yet as they could provide a ton of useful info.

Re:Not sure it's the best way to go (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about a year ago | (#44589711)

Infrared cameras at night and in fog, anyone?

Even then glass not great (2)

SuperKendall (25149) | about a year ago | (#44589839)

Infrared cameras at night and in fog, anyone?

I would LOVE to see that.

But, as a projection overlaid on my windshield, or at least a pretty large projection on the bottom of the windshield. Or even in the large screen embedded in my dashboard that highlights heat sources.

Having a small floating screen that kind of messes with your peripheral vision is NOT the best way to deliver IR video feeds from the front of your car.

Re:Even then glass not great (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44590191)

What if the windshield fogs over at a critical moment during your trip???

Re:Even then glass not great (1)

Austrian Anarchy (3010653) | about a year ago | (#44590563)

Rain-X Anti-Fog works wonders to prevent that.

Projector Screen (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | about a year ago | (#44591269)

What if the windshield fogs over at a critical moment during your trip???

Well being a white surface on which the projection would be even more visible I'd be pretty damn happy I had an IR view of the road ahead instead of nothing at all!!

I would of course run the defroster rather than rely on the video for long...

Re:Even then glass not great (1)

Austrian Anarchy (3010653) | about a year ago | (#44590499)

I thought I already saw that in a car commercial about a decade ago, and it was a real option. What is everybody getting all worked up over a head-up display (HUD) for anyway? They have been in use in military aircraft for decades.

Re:Even then glass not great (1)

OolimPhon (1120895) | about a year ago | (#44592397)

When was the last time you flew a military aircraft down a crowded street? Not too many pedestrians, cyclists, dogs, parked vehicles up there in the skies.

Re:Even then glass not great (1)

Cederic (9623) | about a year ago | (#44592925)

When was the last time you tried to dogfight in your Chevy? Not too many enemy aircraft, AA guns and threats coming in vertically on the street.

HUDs help you avoid looking down. It's in the name: "Head Up"

Maybe you're safer looking at the speedometer or the satnav or the gear stick instead of looking at the road?

Re:Not sure it's the best way to go (1)

slick7 (1703596) | about a year ago | (#44589979)

Infrared cameras at night and in fog, anyone?

This may also be a video recording of policy enforcers who do not like to be recorded.
"You have the right to remain silent"
"You have the right to stop recording your iCar, in the event you do not, your car will be impounded while a search warrent is processed"

Re:Not sure it's the best way to go (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44592055)

Yes, that's what i'm wainting for.

Re:Not sure it's the best way to go (2)

roc97007 (608802) | about a year ago | (#44590715)

I could go with a commercially available HUD in a car, on one condition -- any manufacturer who knowingly includes advertisements in a vehicle HUD will have their CEO summarily executed.

We'd probably lose a few before word got around.

Re:Not sure it's the best way to go (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44592671)

'better and richer feedback'?

Are you some kind of marketing droid?

Re:Not sure it's the best way to go (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44593303)

Honest questions. Would not the google glass (directed on to the eye) be a replacement for the HUD (on the windshield) style?

Re:Not sure it's the best way to go (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44593307)

Also, with the HUD, you will be able to wear you sunglasses if the sun is too bright and in front of you.

Papers! We must see your papers! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44589743)

Fucking Bloomberg [cbslocal.com]

How about no... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44589855)

I'd support a $5000 fine for anyone caught even wearing google glass while driving a car.

People are fucking scary now with their cellphones and other bs they do while driving...

Reduces visibility (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | about a year ago | (#44589909)

After some thought I think Glass is a really bad idea for driving. Having the screen floating in your vision reduces what you can see in the same way a really badly place side pillar in the car can... I guess we can call it the G-Pillar.

Combine with the Joo Janta 200 app! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44589857)

Combine this with the Joo Janta 200 app for Google Glass that turns them into Super-Chromatic Peril Sensitive Sunglasses which go completely black at the first hint of trouble!

Glass while driving is extremely dangerous (5, Insightful)

cmay (687134) | about a year ago | (#44589883)

This is a terrible idea. Trying to read Glass while driving is VERY difficult, and you get the false sense of security that you are still "looking" at the road, when really you are not at all focused on anything in front of you. I tried it for a bit and was amazed how hard it was and how dangerous it felt. I would never use it like that. I think I'd be safer taking quick glances down at my phone with the maps app than trying to use Glass.

Re:Glass while driving is extremely dangerous (1)

jonyen (2633919) | about a year ago | (#44589905)

There's also the problem of, "OK Glass, take a video of that scene over to my side..."

Re:Glass while driving is extremely dangerous (1)

jklovanc (1603149) | about a year ago | (#44590101)

Depends on how it is done. A simple icon for the next turn and a colour coded distance readout would not be that distracting. Maybe the icon could get bigger as the distance got smaller. There is a big difference between trying to read words and dealing with icons.

Re:Glass while driving is extremely dangerous (1)

westlake (615356) | about a year ago | (#44590303)

A simple icon for the next turn and a colour coded distance readout would not be that distracting

That could be done simply and cheaply by projecting the data on the windshield.

Re:Glass while driving is extremely dangerous (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44590569)

Re:Glass while driving is extremely dangerous (1)

MMC Monster (602931) | about a year ago | (#44593695)

Try a car with a good heads up display. They can show current speed, map directions, and/or music selection on the windscreen, at a focal length almost the same as the road. Much quicker to look at the HUD than the speedometer, and it's not obtrusive enough that you're always paying attention to it.

Now I can get rid of my steering wheel worksurface (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44589935)

Finally!

I was wondering when I could get my old steering wheel laptop attachment [amazon.com] .

Google Glass will allow me to pay even more attention to my e-mails on my way to work!

NSA Glass can kiss my ass (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44589937)

...not gonna happen in my car until it's mandated via obamacare.

Re:NSA Glass can kiss my ass (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44589971)

...not gonna happen in my car until it's mandated via obamacare.

Who needs enemies with friends like you?

Rage against Obamacare all you want. The NSA is happy for the diversion from the real issues.

Re:NSA Glass can kiss my ass (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44590197)

If Obama can make you buy for-profit insurance "for your own good" why shouldn't he force everyone to buy Google Glass, "for our own good"? Obama has expanded the survellience state over the last five years and has no intention of reigning it in. If you think Obama is "on your side" then the one being diverted is YOU.

Also, since you don't seem to have very good critical thinking skills let me remind you that Obamacare is Mitt Romney's healthcare plan from Massachussetts! You are supporting a REPUBLICAN PLAN!

Re:NSA Glass can kiss my ass (0)

Cederic (9623) | about a year ago | (#44592943)

Please, allow me to share an insight that may help you in continuing this discussion: WE DONT GIVE A SHIT

Obama, Romney, Donald fucking Duck. Who fucking cares. We're talking about the meshing of wearable technology with automotive technology and fucking healthcare is relevant only when discussing its clearly imminent need.

Now fuck off to some political discussion and let us bitch about stupid drivers.

brakes.sys has cases a system error (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about a year ago | (#44590065)

brakes.sys has cases a system error please hold down start to restart your car.

Re:brakes.sys has cases a system error (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44592605)

Herro! China-Man! Sorry, did you say:

brakes.sys has cases a system error

..or did you mean:

brakes.sys has cases a system error please hold down start to restart your car.

..or maybe:

"brakes.sys has cases a system error please hold down start to restart your car."

..or even:

brakes.sys has cases a system error please hold down start to restart your car.

Please, do tell - inquiring minds want to know!

Re:brakes.sys has cases a system error (1)

Cederic (9623) | about a year ago | (#44592953)

Indeed - and now imagine that conversation while doing 75mph towards a junction :)

HUD First Please (1)

matthew_t_west (800388) | about a year ago | (#44590199)

I think a true heads-up display on a windshield would be much more useful than Glass. Plus it could be ensured on a true HUD, you are only seeing what you want to see (i.e. - car stats, speed, highlighted roadway/signs, etc.). I've been thinking of making one myself since there doesn't seem to be a good DIY version out on the webs. Please correct me if I'm wrong!

Ironic, no? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44590201)

Considering these are supposed to be GLASSES, the lack of FOCUS is funny. There are three areas we should focus on when it comes to advancement and evolution of the car:

1. Efficiency. 'Nuff said.
2. Self-driving. Take that incompetent moron sitting between the steering wheel and the seat directly behind it out of the decision making loop, freeing him or her to do whatever he or she feels he/she should REALLY be doing, like texting, for example, or drinking a beer.
3. Flight. Again, enough said. It's absolutely essential though, that 1 and 2 be completed before 3, because the last thing we need is a barely-guided, AIRBORNE missile that belches pollutants by the ton to do what in most cases can be done by a fucking bicycle, namely, moving ONE person from Point A, to some nearby Point B.

Adding distractions to the experience of performing a task (driving) done by so many only marginally competent to do it just goes to show further evidence that Google's motto is a joke, or perhaps it was meant ironically or as subterfuge from the outset.

Plain Ass Stupid (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44590281)

Good grief. What a stupid idea.

Bears (1)

hibiki_r (649814) | about a year ago | (#44590457)

I keep hoping for an augmented reality navigation system. Not only would it make sure I don't have to listen to some automated voice that can't pronounce street names, but it'd make sure my son stops complaining about how he can't see any bears to our left or right, no matter what the navigation system says.

Now that I think of it, instead of an arrow, the system could display a very realistic grizzly bear in whichever lane I am supposed to use to get to the highway's exit.

Hit me while you're distracted and I will OWN you. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44590491)

I retain an attorney so I am ready to deal with irresponsible
fuckwits who think it is somehow "ok" to drive while not
paying attention.

Believe me, if you hit me and injure me or my family, you
will wish you had thought better of it, if not before the legal
proceedings, then afterward when you are living in the homeless
shelter.

Re:Hit me while you're distracted and I will OWN y (1)

Cederic (9623) | about a year ago | (#44592967)

They'll be covered by their car insurance.

Anyway, what makes you think your attorney is any better than theirs? And why would you think a prospective distracted idiot will know about your attorney before they hit you, especially when you're posting anonymously?

Plus, if I were planning to hit you, and did know you had an attorney (the only situation in which your ridiculous threat has any relevance) you're merely making me realise that injuring you would be foolish, and I'd better make sure I finish the job properly.

I'm not sure you've thought this through.

Brilliant (1)

techsoldaten (309296) | about a year ago | (#44590531)

It will go well with my HD TV windshield and the Beats by Dre headphones I wear whenever I drive.

Why is it a bad idea? (1)

swillden (191260) | about a year ago | (#44590581)

Turn-by-turn directions that appear to be floating in the air 8 feet in front of you, a little up and to the right so they're out of your central field of vision, seem like a safer option than putting the same directions on a screen in the center of the console and much safer than on a little handheld screen.

Short of an actual HUD, Glass seems like the ideal way to display driving-related information. In theory, at least. I've read that the current generation isn't quite bright enough, so directions are hard to see. That may be fixed in the public release model, dunno.

Of course, people can (and some will) use Glass for other, distracting, purposes while driving. But that's hardly the fault of the technology.

Re:Why is it a bad idea? (1)

Osgeld (1900440) | about a year ago | (#44591813)

"I've read that the current generation isn't quite bright enough"

the current generation apparently cant make it 2 blocks without a babysitter giving them step by step directions

Glassholes (1)

billrp (1530055) | about a year ago | (#44590613)

(yes I saw it somewhere else)

Why not just a fixed HUD? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44591291)

Why do this with glass, which not only could have a lot going and be more distracting, not to mention it's right in the line of sight where there might be something more important going on? By having a HUD that's actually part of the car, so it's always just at the edge of your line of sight and not in the way of anything but your own hood? I have a family member with a 2000 Corvette that has this feature. It projected onto the bottom of the windshield and was focused in a way where it looked like it was floating. I remember it showing speed and tach and was friggin' awesome, you could see your speed and rpms without ever having to glance away from the road, not even to your dashboard. I'm surprised that this was made 13 years ago and it's still not standard equipment on new cars. I'm sure by now they could have the technology to show more details like maps or whatever would be useful, and out of the way but not so far out of the way you have to take your eyes away from the road.

One thing... (1)

libtek (902569) | about a year ago | (#44591609)

Even wearing headphones is prohibited in IL (and I expect many other states).

How would this Glass distraction, in front of your eye at all times, help you be a better driver? As far as I'm concerned this is even worse that texting on the road. It would be a great solution if we were concerned that taking our eyes off the road is the problem. Changing focus and distraction seems to be the issue, and I'm not sure how being bombarded with the location-aware reality overlay that is Google Glass will contribute to a decline in automotive accidents.

Re:One thing... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44601551)

That's interesting, because my hands-free device for my phone IS a pair of bluetooth headphones...and in a variety of states, I can't use my phone while driving WITHOUT using those.

QNX not Linux (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44593073)

More likely to be running QNX than Linux based Google Glass. Here's a video QNX put out about the future of in-car integration
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wY9AzUfSdKU

Stupid - I already have it & it doesn't work! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44595127)

Ok, it's not google glass but a 2008 vehicle with built-in navigator. It doesn't work. Why? Because my passenger cannot enter information while the car is moving.

No, I don't want to stop on the side of the road with my engine running trying to fumble-input a destination with a lame-ass onscreen keyboard.

&, no, I don't want to put my car on my cell data plan - I'm getting reamed for too much money already by my cell provider.

Oh let's try that new restaurant - only to find the navigator doesn't even know about the street it's on, much less the new restaurant.

So, my passenger can sit quietly by using a smartfone's navigator, or can watch me drive around swearing about one-way & dead-end streets 'til I give up & go to the place I preferred anyway.

This is brilliant (1)

ruir (2709173) | about a year ago | (#44595431)

I have dreaming about having a display in my car for decades now. It is wonderful to see some of this technologies come to life.

If I see people driving with google glass on (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44595967)

I will consider it my duty to throw a rock through their windshield. Consider this fair warning.

I'm agin it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44599611)

This would seem to offer no clear advantage over current HUD tech, and would actually be worse in almost every conceivable way (ease of use, clarity/resolution, distraction level) except for the ability to use colors, so it seems to be a non-starter from the functionality perspective.

I would prefer that any tech on which I rely while driving be integrated into the vehicle's power source, so that I don't have to worry about it going dead while I'm using it, so it fails (for me) from the practicality perspective.

Many states have had laws against distracted driving on the books for years, and are actually starting to enforce them. There are also laws against front windshield tint and other forward visual obstructions. (It's actually illegal in some states to hang anything from your rearview mirror or to rock a dashboard Jesus, as that is considered an obstruction to driver vision. Wearing something that covers your eyes and interferes with your vision sure seems like it would run afoul of both of these laws. And rightly so, IMO.) So it fails from the legal perspective.

But it'll probably be an option in every car in 2 years.

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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...