7 ms·

Whether it's valid or not, something capable of projecting into your eye while you are driving seems like it is a potential danger. It is not the same as a moni

by alayne 13y ago

Whether it's valid or not, something capable of projecting into your eye while you are driving seems like it is a potential danger. It is not the same as a monitor that is not directly in your line of vision or obstructing your view of the road. My question would be what this woman was doing that attracted the attention of the police in the first place.

RogerL 13y ago
She was speeding.
- bpicolo 13y ago
  First thing on the ticket it looks like, yep.
- iamshs 13y ago
  But she was also cited for a television screen in front of driver's view. The first citation was speeding, which probably is why she was stopped, and then she was issued second citation of driver's view obstruction by an entertainment device.
  - myko 13y ago
    Glass isn't an 'entertainment device'. Glass could potentially make us better drivers. One of the use cases we've looked at is wiring Glass up to alert drivers when someone is in their blind spot or someone is coming up too quickly behind them. This citation is bogus. It's safer to look at Glass for directions than my nav system, but you wont see me get ticketed for looking at my nav system.
    - iamshs 13y ago
      Glass is an entertainment device, just because it is HUD does not invalidate it having an audio visual feedback, complete with a camera. It is made for consumption, on a small and more personal scale. Glass could potentially make us worse drivers too. Satnav systems have guidelines issued for usage. Here, we are dealing with illumination directly 2 inch in front of my eye. I will go by your data, but would rather want California DMV to test it out comprehensively.
      - myko 13y ago
        Consumption doesn't mean entertainment, unless you think navigation and driving alerts are entertainment? Satnav systems potentially make us worse drivers as well. If I have to look down at the system (which I do) it's much more intrusive than Glass, which only requires I look up and slightly to the right to see. It is certainly not directly in front of your eye unless you are wearing it completely incorrectly. Have you had Glass on? It isn't as intrusive as you appear to believe.
        iamshs 13y ago
        https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6640694 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6640694 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6640895 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6640895 Two people who have tried. Unrelated: Looks like another topic nuked: http://hnrankings.info/6640532/ http://hnrankings.info/6640532/
        ecspike 13y ago
        I've driven with Glass and on a trip where I'm not sure of the turns, it is much safer than looking at my phone for GPS instructions. It sits above my field of vision and is no more distracting that the frames of my glasses. When Glass is in nav mode, that's all it does. Shows you the next turn and/or the route overview.
        danellis 13y ago
        And to be clear, since you didn't say it, the screen is off between those turns. It also gives you audible directions just as any other GPS would, so you don't have to look at it.
      - lnanek2 13y ago
        Heads up displays have already been proven by the military to be much safer. They try to reduce "heads down" time for the pilots looking at their instruments as much as possible. If you compare a GPS unit the user has to turn their head or worse look down to use vs. a Glass sitting above their vision with the directions always available at a glance, the Glass is pretty clearly superior. Realistically, many users use their phones for GPS and don't have a proper mount whereas Glass will always be properly mounted to be hands free, so it's probably even safer than the most common thing of just using your phone for directions.
    - gamblor956 13y ago
      That may be true of the unreleased Gen2 Google Glasses, which project the image directly in your field of vision, but it is most certainly not true of the Google Glass Explorers currently available, which require the user to look up at the display. In its current incarnation, Google Glass is just as distracting as looking at the radio or instruments, and should not be regarded as a HUD.
      - myko 13y ago
        > which project the image directly in your field of vision Really? Link? This seems like a bad idea.
        foley 13y ago
        It is possible to project directly into the retina: http://www.engadget.com/2013/10/09/avegant-retinal-hmd/ http://www.engadget.com/2013/10/09/avegant-retinal-hmd/ Definitely dangerous but I see a lot of potential in the technology with the possibility of true retina quality resolution.
      - vacri 13y ago
        Google glass is a HUD. When it is on, it also projects directly into your eye. My honours thesis was comaparing the angle between the eyes when viewing items in a 'virtual screen' (eyepiece HUD) and a real screen (half-dome field at 3m). Glass uses the same technology as the military HUD - throwing collimated light into your eye and using your retina as the screen. Not to mention that the glass is still in your field of vision when looking elsewhere, you're just not directly focusing on it. Your field of vision is 'everything you see', not 'what you're focusing on'. Similarly, in its current incarnation, I can watch video on Glass. My radio and instruments can't do the same.
      - danellis 13y ago
        > the unreleased Gen2 Google Glasses, which project the image directly in your field of vision Where did you get that idea from? The pictures of the gen 2 Google Glass look almost identical to the gen 1, with the prism and all.
    - lambda 13y ago
      A person shall not drive a motor vehicle if a television receiver, a video monitor, or a television or video screen, or any other similar means of visually displaying a television broadcast or video signal that produces entertainment or business applications It doesn't have to be only an entertainment device. If it can produce entertainment or business applications, it's not allowed. http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d12/vc27602.htm http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d12/vc27602.htm There are exceptions for devices that have interlocks that allow them to act only as a GPS, map, vehicle information system, or or rear-view camera display while the vehicle is in motion. The Glass doesn't meet these criteria as it has no such interlock.
    - codex 13y ago
      Can't you alert the driver using an audio-only system that doesn't require Glass? And aren't audio-only GPS directions safer than video-delivered directions in general? Perhaps dash-mounted GPS screens should be outlawed as well.
calvin_c 13y ago
But Glass doesn't project into the eye. It projects into a glass prism at the edge of a field of vision. The argument could be made that this still constitutes a distraction if it comes up, but if my phone is mounted in my car and lights up with a text, it's pretty easy for me to notice that it lights up but keep focused on the road and ignore it. I imagine a responsible Glass user could do the same.
- iamshs 13y ago
  Glass directly obstructs the view field, irregardless of where it projects. I agree with the citaion wholeheartedly. Regarding phone, see section b (11): http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d12/vc26708.htm http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d12/vc26708.htm
  - myko 13y ago
    Have you even used Glass? It doesn't obstruct my view any more than my prescription lenses.
    - iamshs 13y ago
      I have not, but looks like this guy has [1]. But I would also not rely on anecdotes, and would want them to test it out comprehensively before allowing it on road. If I am commanding a 1000 ton metal hurling with a speed of 110 kmph, its better safe than sorry. [1] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6640895 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6640895
      - crymer11 13y ago
        Considering the legal weight limit (not including special permits) for commercial vehicles, e.g. 18-wheelers, on most US roads is 80,000 lb. (36.29 metric tons), it'd be quite surprising to see anyone in a 1000 ton (metric or short) vehicle, let alone traveling at a rate of 110 km/h.
        13y ago
ripter 13y ago
It sounds like a lot of people comment don't actually own a glass. I do. It doesn't project anything into your eye and unless you tap it or use the head nod to turn it on, it doesn't display anything. And if you don't give it a command (voice or tap) then it turns off in a few seconds. Unless she was actually watching a video on it, then it's no more distracting than the clock on your dashboard.
- outside1234 13y ago
  That's the same as a dash mounted monitor. Which is still illegal even if off.
  - jswhitten 13y ago
    Doesn't "is operating" mean it's only illegal if turned on? 27602. (a) A person shall not drive a motor vehicle if a television receiver, a video monitor, or a television or video screen, or any other similar means of visually displaying a television broadcast or video signal that produces entertainment or business applications, is operating and is located in the motor vehicle at a point forward of the back of the driver’s seat, or is operating and the monitor, screen, or display is visible to the driver while driving the motor vehicle.
    - ceol 13y ago
      Isn't Glass always turned on and waiting for user input? Does "is operating" mean the device is powered even if it's not doing anything? These are some of the things the courts have to figure out.
      - pyre 13y ago
        Parent was probably referring to @outside1234's assertion that dash-mounted monitors are illegal even if turned off.
- bdcravens 13y ago
  It's worth saying that some states make having a television mounted in your dash illegal. (Some states are a bit more lenient, only making it illegal for the driver to watch TV) The sensibility of those laws aside, if they exist, application to Glass isn't much of a stretch.
bryan_rasmussen 13y ago
1. ran over a bunch of people 2. pounded rhythmically on the steering wheel while singing "bad boys, bad boys, whatcha gonna do"
codex 13y ago
She was speeding--in the seventies while in a 65 mph zone. Additionally, from an article on the web: "Under California rules, video screens are prohibited anywhere ahead of the front seats unless they're displaying GPS information, a map, or information about the car itself."

by alayne 13y ago

RogerL 13y ago

She was speeding.

bpicolo 13y ago
First thing on the ticket it looks like, yep.
iamshs 13y ago
But she was also cited for a television screen in front of driver's view. The first citation was speeding, which probably is why she was stopped, and then she was issued second citation of driver's view obstruction by an entertainment device.
- myko 13y ago
  Glass isn't an 'entertainment device'. Glass could potentially make us better drivers. One of the use cases we've looked at is wiring Glass up to alert drivers when someone is in their blind spot or someone is coming up too quickly behind them. This citation is bogus. It's safer to look at Glass for directions than my nav system, but you wont see me get ticketed for looking at my nav system.
  - iamshs 13y ago
    Glass is an entertainment device, just because it is HUD does not invalidate it having an audio visual feedback, complete with a camera. It is made for consumption, on a small and more personal scale. Glass could potentially make us worse drivers too. Satnav systems have guidelines issued for usage. Here, we are dealing with illumination directly 2 inch in front of my eye. I will go by your data, but would rather want California DMV to test it out comprehensively.
    - myko 13y ago
      Consumption doesn't mean entertainment, unless you think navigation and driving alerts are entertainment? Satnav systems potentially make us worse drivers as well. If I have to look down at the system (which I do) it's much more intrusive than Glass, which only requires I look up and slightly to the right to see. It is certainly not directly in front of your eye unless you are wearing it completely incorrectly. Have you had Glass on? It isn't as intrusive as you appear to believe.
      - iamshs 13y ago
        https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6640694 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6640694 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6640895 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6640895 Two people who have tried. Unrelated: Looks like another topic nuked: http://hnrankings.info/6640532/ http://hnrankings.info/6640532/
        ecspike 13y ago
        I've driven with Glass and on a trip where I'm not sure of the turns, it is much safer than looking at my phone for GPS instructions. It sits above my field of vision and is no more distracting that the frames of my glasses. When Glass is in nav mode, that's all it does. Shows you the next turn and/or the route overview.
        danellis 13y ago
        And to be clear, since you didn't say it, the screen is off between those turns. It also gives you audible directions just as any other GPS would, so you don't have to look at it.
    - lnanek2 13y ago
      Heads up displays have already been proven by the military to be much safer. They try to reduce "heads down" time for the pilots looking at their instruments as much as possible. If you compare a GPS unit the user has to turn their head or worse look down to use vs. a Glass sitting above their vision with the directions always available at a glance, the Glass is pretty clearly superior. Realistically, many users use their phones for GPS and don't have a proper mount whereas Glass will always be properly mounted to be hands free, so it's probably even safer than the most common thing of just using your phone for directions.
  - gamblor956 13y ago
    That may be true of the unreleased Gen2 Google Glasses, which project the image directly in your field of vision, but it is most certainly not true of the Google Glass Explorers currently available, which require the user to look up at the display. In its current incarnation, Google Glass is just as distracting as looking at the radio or instruments, and should not be regarded as a HUD.
    - myko 13y ago
      > which project the image directly in your field of vision Really? Link? This seems like a bad idea.
      - foley 13y ago
        It is possible to project directly into the retina: http://www.engadget.com/2013/10/09/avegant-retinal-hmd/ http://www.engadget.com/2013/10/09/avegant-retinal-hmd/ Definitely dangerous but I see a lot of potential in the technology with the possibility of true retina quality resolution.
    - vacri 13y ago
      Google glass is a HUD. When it is on, it also projects directly into your eye. My honours thesis was comaparing the angle between the eyes when viewing items in a 'virtual screen' (eyepiece HUD) and a real screen (half-dome field at 3m). Glass uses the same technology as the military HUD - throwing collimated light into your eye and using your retina as the screen. Not to mention that the glass is still in your field of vision when looking elsewhere, you're just not directly focusing on it. Your field of vision is 'everything you see', not 'what you're focusing on'. Similarly, in its current incarnation, I can watch video on Glass. My radio and instruments can't do the same.
    - danellis 13y ago
      > the unreleased Gen2 Google Glasses, which project the image directly in your field of vision Where did you get that idea from? The pictures of the gen 2 Google Glass look almost identical to the gen 1, with the prism and all.
  - lambda 13y ago
    A person shall not drive a motor vehicle if a television receiver, a video monitor, or a television or video screen, or any other similar means of visually displaying a television broadcast or video signal that produces entertainment or business applications It doesn't have to be only an entertainment device. If it can produce entertainment or business applications, it's not allowed. http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d12/vc27602.htm http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d12/vc27602.htm There are exceptions for devices that have interlocks that allow them to act only as a GPS, map, vehicle information system, or or rear-view camera display while the vehicle is in motion. The Glass doesn't meet these criteria as it has no such interlock.
  - codex 13y ago
    Can't you alert the driver using an audio-only system that doesn't require Glass? And aren't audio-only GPS directions safer than video-delivered directions in general? Perhaps dash-mounted GPS screens should be outlawed as well.

calvin_c 13y ago

But Glass doesn't project into the eye. It projects into a glass prism at the edge of a field of vision. The argument could be made that this still constitutes a distraction if it comes up, but if my phone is mounted in my car and lights up with a text, it's pretty easy for me to notice that it lights up but keep focused on the road and ignore it. I imagine a responsible Glass user could do the same.

iamshs 13y ago
Glass directly obstructs the view field, irregardless of where it projects. I agree with the citaion wholeheartedly. Regarding phone, see section b (11): http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d12/vc26708.htm http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d12/vc26708.htm
- myko 13y ago
  Have you even used Glass? It doesn't obstruct my view any more than my prescription lenses.
  - iamshs 13y ago
    I have not, but looks like this guy has [1]. But I would also not rely on anecdotes, and would want them to test it out comprehensively before allowing it on road. If I am commanding a 1000 ton metal hurling with a speed of 110 kmph, its better safe than sorry. [1] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6640895 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6640895
    - crymer11 13y ago
      Considering the legal weight limit (not including special permits) for commercial vehicles, e.g. 18-wheelers, on most US roads is 80,000 lb. (36.29 metric tons), it'd be quite surprising to see anyone in a 1000 ton (metric or short) vehicle, let alone traveling at a rate of 110 km/h.
      - 13y ago

ripter 13y ago

It sounds like a lot of people comment don't actually own a glass. I do. It doesn't project anything into your eye and unless you tap it or use the head nod to turn it on, it doesn't display anything. And if you don't give it a command (voice or tap) then it turns off in a few seconds. Unless she was actually watching a video on it, then it's no more distracting than the clock on your dashboard.

outside1234 13y ago
That's the same as a dash mounted monitor. Which is still illegal even if off.
- jswhitten 13y ago
  Doesn't "is operating" mean it's only illegal if turned on? 27602. (a) A person shall not drive a motor vehicle if a television receiver, a video monitor, or a television or video screen, or any other similar means of visually displaying a television broadcast or video signal that produces entertainment or business applications, is operating and is located in the motor vehicle at a point forward of the back of the driver’s seat, or is operating and the monitor, screen, or display is visible to the driver while driving the motor vehicle.
  - ceol 13y ago
    Isn't Glass always turned on and waiting for user input? Does "is operating" mean the device is powered even if it's not doing anything? These are some of the things the courts have to figure out.
    - pyre 13y ago
      Parent was probably referring to @outside1234's assertion that dash-mounted monitors are illegal even if turned off.
bdcravens 13y ago
It's worth saying that some states make having a television mounted in your dash illegal. (Some states are a bit more lenient, only making it illegal for the driver to watch TV) The sensibility of those laws aside, if they exist, application to Glass isn't much of a stretch.

bryan_rasmussen 13y ago

1. ran over a bunch of people 2. pounded rhythmically on the steering wheel while singing "bad boys, bad boys, whatcha gonna do"

codex 13y ago

She was speeding--in the seventies while in a 65 mph zone. Additionally, from an article on the web: "Under California rules, video screens are prohibited anywhere ahead of the front seats unless they're displaying GPS information, a map, or information about the car itself."