6 ms·

As someone who commutes on a motorbike I'd even go further and say that it should be illegal. When you're driving you need to be focused on the road, not watchi

by simias 13y ago

As someone who commutes on a motorbike I'd even go further and say that it should be illegal. When you're driving you need to be focused on the road, not watching your friend's facebook wall. Hopefully soon enough we'll get fully automatic cars and this will be a problem of the past but in the meantime this seem the safest approach.

kolinko 13y ago
So, you'd like to have car dashboards illegal as well? First of all, Glass could've been turned off. Second of all, she could be using it for GPS and other things. Personally, as a driver, I'd prefer to have all my car information on some kind of a HMD, and not on the dashboard, where I have to look away from the road.
- iamshs 13y ago
  Glass is directly obstructing the field of view. It is not a defensible position to be frank. If it is turned off, well and good, but still the "eyepiece" can cause problems like glare, reflection, transparency problems. If it is turned on, no matter for what purpose, then it is a distraction and a direct one. Why do you want your one organ that is keeping you safe on road, be bombarded with information other than the one in its periphery?
  - randallsquared 13y ago
    Your arguments are about as effective against sunglasses and other displays not directly in front of your eyes (others have already mentioned dashboards, but the HUDs projected on some windshields are a better analogy).
  - onebaddude 13y ago
    >but still the "eyepiece" can cause problems like glare, reflection, transparency problems. I'm going to go out on a limb and assume you don't drive much. I spend a lot of time on the road (60,000+km this year). There are a multitude of things to distract you behind the wheel, from eating, phones, stereos, day-dreaming, other drivers, nature, whatever. It's endless. If having a small eye piece is distracting to you, by all means don't wear one. But don't project your inability to maintain focus on all other drivers.
    - iamshs 13y ago
      A persistent illumination 2 inch in front of my eye, can be a major cause of distractin and fatigue though. Also glancing at phones do cause accidents. You are also projecting the ability to focus with an eye piece on, on all drivers. How about extensive testing before letting it on road?
      - alexpalmer 13y ago
        The display is only on for a couple seconds at a time. I personally fall on the other side; why not extensively test before banning. We live in a society that jumps to conclusions. I believe we should have a proper understanding of something before deciding to make laws relating to it. What about the positive benefits. Also, do you really expect them to do the research after banning it? Look how long it has taken the FAA to even start reducing the ban on mobile devices.
        dllthomas 13y ago
        We already have laws relating to it - it's basically a mobile device. It's a special mobile device, and may deserve an exception, but it should be shown that it's less harmful than the other devices that were banned based on evidence.
        kolinko 13y ago
        No, it should be shown that it's just as harmful as other kinds of screens before being banned. I've lived in a country which forbade everything by default unless law explicitly allowed it. I guarantee you don't want to go this way.
- simias 13y ago
  A special purpose HMD for GPS sounds great. A general purpose head mounted entertainment system that may or may not be used to display GPS along many other things while driving is a terrible idea.
- termain 13y ago
  She's been cited, not convicted, so she's free to argue that it was off in court. The legality of her actions is not determined by the actions of the officer, particularly given that she cited, not arrested. Definitely agree with you that I'd prefer a HMD or HUD in general to look-down instrumentation.
blackaspen 13y ago
I absolutely agree. If you want to be distracted and watch some YouTube videos or whatnot, then public transit would love to have you.
- icebraining 13y ago
  But she wasn't watching YouTube videos; the Glass was off. She was just wearing them. How is it any worse than wearing normal glasses? What happens if and when Glass-like devices become common and glasses-wearing people like me get them with prescription lenses?
  - blackaspen 13y ago
    I wear glasses as well, and I agree there. But how do you want to prove that Glass was off? Should your Glass report to the Police when it's on and off?
    - burntsushi 13y ago
      > But how do you want to prove that Glass was off? That's the wrong question. The right question is: How does law enforcement prove that Glass was distracting me? I shouldn't have to prove my innocence. They should have to prove my guilt.
      - dllthomas 13y ago
        Standards are a bit lower for a civil infraction. Which isn't to say that this isn't a consideration, but is certainly to say that the situation is not the same as with a misdemeanor or felony the way our system currently works (and that is quite possibly appropriate).
        deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
        mindcrime 13y ago
dllthomas 13y ago
I'm sympathetic to that position, to be sure. What hesitation I have comes from potential legitimate uses (navigation, HUD for what would otherwise be on dash), and a mild leeriness around having to demonstrate that I am behaving correctly instead of simply behaving correctly. I'm not sure where I ultimately come down.
davej 13y ago
I am also a motorbike commuter and I was really looking forward to using the Google Glass for GPS navigation as I ride. It does not obstruct the main field of view, as far as I can tell it is very small and in the corner of your vision. It is surely more dangerous to look down at a GPS while riding a bike. I'm in Ireland and early indications make it look like it will be illegal to use while driving.
reginaldjcooper 13y ago
Agree 100%. Many persons are already far too cavalier about driving. In one of the last TSA threads a few people insisted that requiring a driver's license (also) unduly restricted freedom of travel, totally disregarding that driving is different from flying because you are operating heavy machinery in public. I think a single DWI should be an instant and permanent revocation. DW-Texting/Facebook should be at least a temporary revocation. Having a computer on your face is the same class of thing. If you're so important that you can risk other persons' lives to save your time you can afford to hire a taxi.
- dllthomas 13y ago
  I don't understand being more lenient about DW-T/F than DWI, at least at a low BAC. It's comparably dangerous, and a lot harder to be mistaken. "Oops, I metabolize alcohol more slowly than I thought" vs. "Oops, I took my hands off the wheel, pulled out my phone...".
  - reginaldjcooper 13y ago
    Yeah, you could argue me over to your position quite easily. My thinking is it's less dangerous because you can put it down. But I'd be fine with taking licenses away for DWT.
    - dllthomas 13y ago
      Hm, I guess that's a point. If you're intoxicated, you're intoxicated at the most dangerous bit of your drive. If you're playing with your phone, you might be picking relatively safe times to do so (at an extreme, I've been known to check things on my phone if traffic is literally stopped).
- yardie 13y ago
  I disagree. Most people need to drive to work and most people need to work to eat. Permanent revocation will just create more unlicensed, uninsured drivers. This has the unintended consequence of putting more burden on regular drivers (who pay hire premiums) and the state (which has to pay for incarceration). This is why California and Florida, places with high undocumented immigrant populations, have such high insurance rates. Not only am I paying a premium on my driving I'm also paying a premium on the guy not insured at all.

by simias 13y ago

kolinko 13y ago

So, you'd like to have car dashboards illegal as well? First of all, Glass could've been turned off. Second of all, she could be using it for GPS and other things. Personally, as a driver, I'd prefer to have all my car information on some kind of a HMD, and not on the dashboard, where I have to look away from the road.

iamshs 13y ago
Glass is directly obstructing the field of view. It is not a defensible position to be frank. If it is turned off, well and good, but still the "eyepiece" can cause problems like glare, reflection, transparency problems. If it is turned on, no matter for what purpose, then it is a distraction and a direct one. Why do you want your one organ that is keeping you safe on road, be bombarded with information other than the one in its periphery?
- randallsquared 13y ago
  Your arguments are about as effective against sunglasses and other displays not directly in front of your eyes (others have already mentioned dashboards, but the HUDs projected on some windshields are a better analogy).
- onebaddude 13y ago
  >but still the "eyepiece" can cause problems like glare, reflection, transparency problems. I'm going to go out on a limb and assume you don't drive much. I spend a lot of time on the road (60,000+km this year). There are a multitude of things to distract you behind the wheel, from eating, phones, stereos, day-dreaming, other drivers, nature, whatever. It's endless. If having a small eye piece is distracting to you, by all means don't wear one. But don't project your inability to maintain focus on all other drivers.
  - iamshs 13y ago
    A persistent illumination 2 inch in front of my eye, can be a major cause of distractin and fatigue though. Also glancing at phones do cause accidents. You are also projecting the ability to focus with an eye piece on, on all drivers. How about extensive testing before letting it on road?
    - alexpalmer 13y ago
      The display is only on for a couple seconds at a time. I personally fall on the other side; why not extensively test before banning. We live in a society that jumps to conclusions. I believe we should have a proper understanding of something before deciding to make laws relating to it. What about the positive benefits. Also, do you really expect them to do the research after banning it? Look how long it has taken the FAA to even start reducing the ban on mobile devices.
      - dllthomas 13y ago
        We already have laws relating to it - it's basically a mobile device. It's a special mobile device, and may deserve an exception, but it should be shown that it's less harmful than the other devices that were banned based on evidence.
        kolinko 13y ago
        No, it should be shown that it's just as harmful as other kinds of screens before being banned. I've lived in a country which forbade everything by default unless law explicitly allowed it. I guarantee you don't want to go this way.
simias 13y ago
A special purpose HMD for GPS sounds great. A general purpose head mounted entertainment system that may or may not be used to display GPS along many other things while driving is a terrible idea.
termain 13y ago
She's been cited, not convicted, so she's free to argue that it was off in court. The legality of her actions is not determined by the actions of the officer, particularly given that she cited, not arrested. Definitely agree with you that I'd prefer a HMD or HUD in general to look-down instrumentation.

blackaspen 13y ago

I absolutely agree. If you want to be distracted and watch some YouTube videos or whatnot, then public transit would love to have you.

icebraining 13y ago
But she wasn't watching YouTube videos; the Glass was off. She was just wearing them. How is it any worse than wearing normal glasses? What happens if and when Glass-like devices become common and glasses-wearing people like me get them with prescription lenses?
- blackaspen 13y ago
  I wear glasses as well, and I agree there. But how do you want to prove that Glass was off? Should your Glass report to the Police when it's on and off?
  - burntsushi 13y ago
    > But how do you want to prove that Glass was off? That's the wrong question. The right question is: How does law enforcement prove that Glass was distracting me? I shouldn't have to prove my innocence. They should have to prove my guilt.
    - dllthomas 13y ago
      Standards are a bit lower for a civil infraction. Which isn't to say that this isn't a consideration, but is certainly to say that the situation is not the same as with a misdemeanor or felony the way our system currently works (and that is quite possibly appropriate).
      - deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
      - mindcrime 13y ago

dllthomas 13y ago

I'm sympathetic to that position, to be sure. What hesitation I have comes from potential legitimate uses (navigation, HUD for what would otherwise be on dash), and a mild leeriness around having to demonstrate that I am behaving correctly instead of simply behaving correctly. I'm not sure where I ultimately come down.

davej 13y ago

I am also a motorbike commuter and I was really looking forward to using the Google Glass for GPS navigation as I ride. It does not obstruct the main field of view, as far as I can tell it is very small and in the corner of your vision. It is surely more dangerous to look down at a GPS while riding a bike. I'm in Ireland and early indications make it look like it will be illegal to use while driving.

reginaldjcooper 13y ago

Agree 100%. Many persons are already far too cavalier about driving. In one of the last TSA threads a few people insisted that requiring a driver's license (also) unduly restricted freedom of travel, totally disregarding that driving is different from flying because you are operating heavy machinery in public. I think a single DWI should be an instant and permanent revocation. DW-Texting/Facebook should be at least a temporary revocation. Having a computer on your face is the same class of thing. If you're so important that you can risk other persons' lives to save your time you can afford to hire a taxi.

dllthomas 13y ago
I don't understand being more lenient about DW-T/F than DWI, at least at a low BAC. It's comparably dangerous, and a lot harder to be mistaken. "Oops, I metabolize alcohol more slowly than I thought" vs. "Oops, I took my hands off the wheel, pulled out my phone...".
- reginaldjcooper 13y ago
  Yeah, you could argue me over to your position quite easily. My thinking is it's less dangerous because you can put it down. But I'd be fine with taking licenses away for DWT.
  - dllthomas 13y ago
    Hm, I guess that's a point. If you're intoxicated, you're intoxicated at the most dangerous bit of your drive. If you're playing with your phone, you might be picking relatively safe times to do so (at an extreme, I've been known to check things on my phone if traffic is literally stopped).
yardie 13y ago
I disagree. Most people need to drive to work and most people need to work to eat. Permanent revocation will just create more unlicensed, uninsured drivers. This has the unintended consequence of putting more burden on regular drivers (who pay hire premiums) and the state (which has to pay for incarceration). This is why California and Florida, places with high undocumented immigrant populations, have such high insurance rates. Not only am I paying a premium on my driving I'm also paying a premium on the guy not insured at all.