One wonders if this was staged. And by staged I mean if there was a note out to officers saying "If you pull over someone for a violation add this charge if they are wearing Google Glass."
There are a bunch of unanswered questions (and by that I mean not yet litigated differences in opinion) with respect to glass.
For example, if you're driving and you notice you are being tailed, and you say 'Glass record' and you look down at your speedometer, and up at your rear view mirror, and then record the entire traffic stop. Is that video admissible in court? There have been stories of police officers being less than truthful in how a stop occurred, video makes that harder. There is also the infamous 'resisting arrest' charge which people of various demographics feel is used when profiling to hassle them. So if you can get it on record that it is illegal to drive with Glass, then you make it more obvious if someone reaches over and puts on their glass when they get pulled over.
Another question, is it a phone or not? It has a cellular connection capability so kind of. If its a phone are you 'texting' when it is showing text? Who knows, some would argue yes, some would argue no. Again, not yet litigated.
All these things are going to come through the courts eventually if this product gets any traction. So did the CHP tell their officers to add this if they stopped someone? I don't know but I can't think of any reason an officer would try 'watching tv' as the infraction.
For example, if you're driving and you notice you are being tailed, and you say 'Glass record' and you look down at your speedometer, and up at your rear view mirror, and then record the entire traffic stop. Is that video admissible in court?
I wouldn't think so. It's a very short distance from here to "notice you are being tailed, slow down, say 'Glass record'"
Remember the cop also has a dash cam. It's trivial to sync timestamps on the two videos and show several seconds missing from the beginning of your video.
I have direct personal knowledge[1] of demanding 'dash cam' video only to have the police department tell the court it had become "lost and unretrievable". So the chain of custody is important.
[1] My sister-in-law is a public defender, and she demands it all the time and gets a variety of pathetic excuses why "this time" it is unavailable.
And let's not forget that traffic court isn't an episode of Law and Order. Walking in and dramatically demanding dash cam video over a couple-hundred dollar ticket is going to put a very annoyed look on the judge's face. For a simple traffic violation such as speeding, you'll never get to the point of "oh, but if you sync the timestamps between the two videos..." It's a rabbit hole that the judge just won't bother with.
If you're ever in this situation just hire a damn lawyer and listen to their advice.
As a hopefully humorous aside, this joke is as applicable to the way "nerds" view the legal system as it is to the way they view cryptography (though obviously in a more metaphorical sense): http://xkcd.com/538/
I had a feeling that was going on--to bad. For years, I
wanted cams on every Cruiser. They are cheap, but so
few police departments utilize the technology. I can
honestly say that I have been pulled over in Marin County
so many times, just because the vechicle I was driving
stood out(was old), or I was driving past 10 p.m. on a fri- sat. night. I can't imagine what immigrants have to go through.
I've even considered installing cams on my current vechicle.
reading (and watching on Youtube when available) about a bunch of recent beatings and shootings, i think it should be made into a law that a police officer may apply force only when the action is being recorded (by a helmet or Glass-style camera of the officer). Without recording on, police officers should be considered "off-duty" and be subject to regular rules just like any other citizen.
The reason evidence gathered in illegal searches is inadmissible in court is so there's no incentive for cops to perform illegal searches to 'get the bad guys'.
If the law said "the video has been lost" meant instant acquittal, the video technology would become radically more reliable.
Aren't there certain conditions for the camera to operate lights are siren both or perhaps? It's not on constantly from what I understand and it would make sense for a technical and privacy reasons.
There have been a number of rulings [1] that have made laws restricting the filming of police doing their jobs unconstitutional. So that aspect of it is on pretty solid footing.
I got hit by a car a few months ago and painfully walked away. The car was turning and not even at a fast speed. My friend passed away a few weeks ago when she got hit by a truck.
People forget just how much force is behind a vehicle moving at the speed limit.
I think, I THINK, that maybe we can respect the value of a human life enough to put down our computers while we drive.
Let's not pretend that this has anything to do with preferring gadgets over safety. People are making this argument over and over and over in this comment thread and it's just dumb.
It's pretty clear that people who justify this are doing so because they don't think it's unsafe. You may disagree, and that's fine, but realize that they disagree with you, and do not see it as a safety issue.
If you don't think it's unsafe, how would awareness of car accidents or respect for human life affect anything? You're aiming at the wrong idea.
There is a difference between people who 'think' texting while driving is safe because they are ignorant and people who think that it's safe because it doesn't actually lead to any accidents.
The people in the latter group can be proven wrong objectively by data that shows accidents that occur as a result of texting while driving, whereas the former group is irrelevant because they are simply ignorant.
There is currently no data or at least not enough data to support the conclusion that simply wearing a Google glass (which does not imply use in the same way that holding up a cell phone while driving does) causes accidents.
Let's not pretend we need a study to determine whether using your google glass while driving is safe or not. Anything that takes your attention away from the task at hand - navigating a one-to-two-ton piece of machinery at high speeds - is going to cause accidents.
That's a ridiculous oversimplification: How do you know Glass will not allow people to be better drivers? like hearing: "You may want to reduce your speed, you are going over the 70 mph limit" or "You are going the wrong way, please turn you car around" or "There is a jam in this street a few miles ahead, you may want to take take Loremipsum road".
If the device eventually can improve the "task at hand" when driving then _the police_ is the one increasing risks by punishing people with wearable technology.
Are just going to pretend that driver don't get distracted already with GPSs? with conversations with other passengers? with phone conversations?
What if is way more safe to use your voice than your hands to communicate? (and some people is going to do it anyway despite laws against texting while driving)
What if is way faster to change your eye-focus than to move your eyes and head to see the GPS?
Many of you guys commenting here are acting like this thing is black-and-white when is clearly not.
You completely miss my point. I'm merely saying that because they think it's safe, berating them for prioritizing convenience over safety or failing to respect human life is not going to work, because they don't think they're doing that.
I agree that right now devices like this are a huge distraction while driving, but devices which are physically coupled to the driver's head have huge potential to actually improve the attentiveness and overall safety of a driver, so long as they're made to do so. Outright banning all such devices limits this possibility.
I really wish the direct approach to the law could work so that this technology could evolve at its normal pace. What's the issue we're trying to solve? Unnecessary injury/property damage due to distracted driving. What should the law be? Enforce a severe punishment for drivers who cause personal injury or property damage while driving distracted. Oh, you were typing a text message when you ran over that pedestrian? Well we're going to drain your personal assets first, perhaps garnish your wages, and then if and only if those assets don't cover the damages your insurance will start to kick in. Oh, the pedestrian died due to your provable distractedness? You're going to prison.
But again, I realize that's very ideal and won't work in the real world. Negligence doesn't respond to punishment in the same way as crimes which require the perpetrator to make an active decision to forego their morals. Negligence is by definition passive. It's the act of not doing. You could argue that device-induce distracted driving is a more active form of negligence, but the psychology behind the way beeps and buzzes control our lives is weird. Want to cut ahead of a long line when all you need to do is ask someone a question? Look up the phone number for the person sitting behind the desk and call them. Nine times out of ten they'll answer (protip to students: this is a really good way to hack your university's registration office). Logic is completely suspended when Pavlov's bell rings.
For starters, we could all stop calling them car "accidents"... The language we use has a direct affect on the emotions we feel while talking about subjects such as this. Softening our language takes the humanity out of life. I refer you to George Carlin [1], who explained it better than I could.
I am a firm believer that everyone should have to do the following things before getting a drivers license:
1. Spend a month in an accident recovery unit, seeing first hand victims of MVAs.
2. Be in a crash. Somehow this would have to be simulated, at a speed that won't cause injury, but will shock. (I was in a simulated 15mph crash at a fair - it HURT!)
It doesn't hurt the first day, it hurts the next day after the adrenaline wears off. I got TBoned by who ran a red light because he was texting, he hit me at 35. He never hit the brakes. Funny thing if you believe in karma, is that his air bag shoved the cell phone into his face and knocked him out.
I think this should be mandatory every couple of years or so in order to renew your driver's license.
On the day I applied for my license, I visited my dad at the hospital and the guy next to him had a smashed face from a car accident. He had been in a car with a friend, who was driving, and his teenage girlfriend, who was pregnant. The girlfriend's baby died and it was considered unlikely that the girl would survive. The driver went mostly unharmed and was understandably very upset.
I swore that day to always remind myself of this before I get into a car. I used to, but now I don't. The impression fades.
2) Is very true. I crashed my first car aged about 7 on a friend's farm - old volvo estate, slammed it diagonally into a tree doing about 30, and rolled it down a bank. Terrifying, but a very, very valuable lesson in terms of just how much energy a few tonnes of metal at 30mph carries.
I walked out of it unscathed, but was a kid made of rubber. Dare say these days I'd have smashed ribs and so-forth from the same - at the least.
But the Glass is more than a GPS. It lets you read texts and emails. Reading texts and emails while you're driving will necessarily be more distracting than not doing so. And that's what's not allowed.
The law is written such that it's only allowed to be able to offer both an approved function as well as an entertainment/business function if there's an interlock that prevents anything but the approved functions from being used while the vehicle is in motion.
> The law is written such that it's only allowed to be able to offer both an approved function as well as an entertainment/business function if there's an interlock that prevents anything but the approved functions from being used while the vehicle is in motion.
Should be easy enough to arrange. Also, implement a time readout for "current GPS Nav session" so the officer can verify there was no funny business going on.
Set up a route beforehand. If for some reason you have to fiddle with GPS and it's distracting, then do what people did before GPS was around: pull over and figure out your bearings.
EDIT: I don't want to come off as anti-tech in cars. I definitely believe that tech can enhance road safety, although I'm more looking forward to driverless cars. I do think that Glass is more distracting than normal GPS devices because Glass has the capability to do so much more than GPS. I don't totally trust people to only use the GPS function in Glass.
Yes, I remember rifling through a Thomas Guide on a trip up the California coast back in the day and suddenly realizing I had changed lanes. Luckily there was no one next to me at the time…
There's a catch-22 in deciding safe driving behavior.
I think I'd prefer everyone being technologically conservative with respect to driver distraction. Until something can be shown to not be a dangerous distractions, drivers can't have it. When we ban things after they prove to be a distraction, that usually means we proved them a distraction via a body count. Waiting for a hundred or a thousand people to die so that you have statistical certainty is the shittiest kind of science.
This is a bit of a catch-22, because we're pretty piss-poor at proving the negative, that things aren't a distraction. We're still way more paranoid about electronics on an airplane than most people think we need to be.
What should happen -- in my opinion, and for all I know what does happen in some situations -- is a series of trials. First, laboratory, simulation-based trials. If drivers in a simulation are distracted by a new gizmo -- GPS, dash-mounted phone, Glass, car console, whatever -- we can eliminate it there, with zero people dying. Then and only then, if we have reason to believe no one will die because of it, we can have real-world trials, followed by approval for the general population.
Obviously, this would suck for early Glass adopters, since it would likely take a year plus to complete good trials, but you could approve broad classes of devices and fast-track similar devices in the future.
> When we ban things after they prove to be a distraction, that usually means we proved them a distraction via a body count. Waiting for a hundred or a thousand people to die so that you have statistical certainty is the shittiest kind of science.
I don't know. You make this sound really bad, but isn't this how a lot of science works? How do we know if a medical treatment doesn't have disasterous side effects? Sure, we start by assuming it's safe, and maybe we test on animals to gain some confidence, but at the end of the day you can't really be sure until people have tried the treatment.
Obviously, there are other safer ways to study whether things distract drivers. Perhaps we could use driving simulators to test reaction time. I probably should have worded my comment differently, and asked for proof that Google Glass makes drivers quantifiably more distracted or less reactive rather than asking directly for proof of a higher accident rate.
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.
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.
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.
This is the law relevant to the current situation. It has to do with televisions, and makes no provisions devices capable of multiple functions (for example, cellphones can be GPS devices or show movies).
I will say that if the courts uphold that law as applying to Glass, then it also bans a front-seat passenger from operating (or even having visible) a smartphone, tablet, laptop, etc.
Which is silly, but then again CA's vehicles codes always have been.
Obviously your concern isn't the general discussion, but to establish whether I'm incorrect :-)
Like most HNers I'm checking in on stories and commenting to the best of my knowledge while working. If I can invoice you for the time, I'd be more than happy to provide you with a properly MLA formatted list of sources.
In lieu of that, I hope you'll trust that I'm not just making this up. I do recall there's a list of at least 4-6 states that are very hard-line on this issue, and probably a majority of the states have laws prohibiting the driver watching video while driving.
I'd like more information, which may or may not establish that you're correct. Or incorrect. Or wrong in a way that's subtle. Or right, despite that, because of legal precedence I'm not aware of.
I recognize that such a utility would make it harder for lawyers to make money, since a hefty chunk of their value-add is removed. I'm okay with that. It would be even awesomer when local laws aren't de facto locked away from public perusal through paywalls, though that probably doesn't apply to this particular case.
I honestly don't care if you're making it up. I want to know what's actually on the books. About 20 minutes ago, a mailing list informed me that Tetris has been used to treat flashbacks and Chess has been used to treat ADHD. A 5-second google was able to confirm that this isn't complete bullshit. Googling "states that make driving with a television illegal" gets me nothing but random things about driver's licenses and illegal immigrants.
Seriously. Full-text search on up-to-date records of law. That's all I ask.
No problem; you made it a bit clear here what you were trying to say. What you're asking for would probably make someone quite wealthy, and would be a great startup idea. In the context of the thread, it was kind of unclear if you were talking more about my comment or your idea.
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.
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.
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
As someone who's worn Glass, and who regularly wears thick-rimmed corrective glasses, I have to say that the frames of my glasses are a larger obstruction than Glass.
The screen on Glass actually rests outside of my normal field of view when wearing corrective glasses, it lies above where the lens would be, in an area where my vision is uncorrected and therefore useless for driving already. That's not a problem though because that area contains the sky and the roof of my car, two things mostly unimportant for driving.
Should I be cited for driving because my corrective glasses don't allow me to see with perfect clarity the area where my windshield joins with the roof? I think not.
The display prism sits above your line of vision (and is transparent besides). It obstructs less than the typical sun shade on the wind shield, although the roof of the car vs. a convertible is probably a more accurate comparison. During normal usage the Glass blocks out a bit of the sky you never look at anyway, it doesn't sit in front of your eye.
I have worn one. It does not impinge on your normal field of view. It's up and to the right of where you're normally looking and you have to make a conscious effort to direct your attention to it. In a car, as other people have said, the only thing it is likely to block your view of, is the inside of your car roof.
It must depend on the user. I have worn them daily since end of April and only ever notice when they're not on my head. I'll feel a vibration in my pocket and try to check glass. The first few times you wear them you may notice them in your peripheral vision but your brain quickly tunes them out. There is no obstruction of my view.
In my opinion, they are far safer to wear and use for the purpose of navigation than a phone or mounted GPS. They give me the necessary information quickly and don't require me to adjust my vision off the road.
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.
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.
It doesn't really matter. It's easily available distraction and people will end up looking on movies instead of the road all the time.
It's like with TV in your car. It's not obstructing your view on the road, it's too easy to focus attention on it thus it's illegal to have one (unless it's switched off over some speed or w/e details various countries/states implement).
>I imagine a responsible Glass user could do the same.
The problem is many users won't be responsible. Good driver who doesn't use phone when driving is focused and well trained could responsibly break speed limit very often and still drive safer than 99% of people out there. Unfortunately it's impossible to fit the law to such cases so people who pay attention are hold to the same standards as texting-while-driving morons.
Same with glass - banning it is better for everybody.
Responsible drivers, even those wearing glass, would only use it for driving related tasks, if use it at all.
The irresponsible drivers, the ones who would watch movies, would do it whether it is legal or not. Same people who text and drive even though it is illegal.
> people will end up looking on movies instead of the road all the time
Have you used Glass? It hardly seems likely people are going to use it for watching movies on while driving - the screen is really small and in one corner of your vision.
The point is that is a possible distraction. You can only really thoroughly process 2-3 inputs per second. If something on Glass, no matter what, make you focus on it, you're down to 1-2 things, which might very well be the difference between a deadly accident and no accident.
I'm sure a lot of users would be able to ignore Glass when needed, but the majority wouldn't and that's why they're making laws.
When I tried Glass, the display was always visible when active. At least it's physically possible to not look at your phone. The one defense I would give is that the Glass projection turns off quite quickly, presumably to save battery power. It's not an always on HUD.
That prism is part of the object, and the light coming from it enters your eye. You are not viewing a screen - your retina is, in effect, the screen. It's wholly inaccurate to say it doesn't project into the eye.
The prism is a mirror that lets you see the screen. But you're focusing entirely in the wrong part of this. The important thing is that it's a small display off in the corner, not blocking or overlapping what you're looking at. It's not aiming a light at your eye any more than a book would.
The 'screen' is projected into your eye. The mirror is a lens that helps collimate the light for this purpose. The attentional split of the device is a different argument, but I was just correcting this error that there's 'nothing projected into the eye'. If your fundamentals are wrong, chances are you aren't aware of the caveats in this field.
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."
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
"Consumption" != "entertainment".
A navigation system is made for consuming content, too.
'Take a photo and upload it to my social network' is an entertainment device. Sure, you could construct an argument around professional photographers blah blah, but the camera is not professional quality, and from experience, there's no way to frame the photo properly. The glass is almost entirely an entertainment device in its current form.
I agree on general grounds that the Glass is mostly for entertainment, but you argument is not a good one. That a device is not optimal for a particular kind of photography doesn't preclude someone from using it for photography artistically or professionally. Using "crappy" cameras can conceivably add to the photo; using the Glass for photo is no less valid than filming a movie with a black and white camera even though we have color cameras.
My argument that it's "not a professional photographer's tool blah blah" was intended to prevent exactly what you have just said. Yes, you can make a baroque, twisted set of circumstances in which the item might be made use of in a professional manner, but that's not how it's going to be used.
You could say the same thing of a craft knife: it's not a surgical tool. Sure, in a very particular set of circumstances, a surgeon will use one, but that's 'blah blah'. It's not the way the items is used by the vast bulk of its users.
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.
Slight correction - a properly designed HUD is safer, in aircraft.
Aircraft are not cars - watching for other aircraft is typically handled by air traffic controllers for most aircraft that will have HUDs, or the HUDs are capable of displaying the locations of other aircraft.
Google Glass interfaces are not designed to be HUDs to be used when driving, and there is no ATC or automatic detection of other vehicles when you're in a car.
sure, but are you implying that taking your eyes off the road to look down is safer than having directions superimposed on the road, because you're driving and not flying?
Honestly, yes. You have to consciously decide to look down at an in-car UI, and change your focus to match. If something is constantly in your field of vision, it's going to consume more of your attention when you should be watching traffic around you.
My flight instructor phrased it this way. In a car in good conditions, you spend 95% of your time watching your surroundings. In an aircraft in visual conditions, you spend 70% of your time looking outside the cockpit. In an aircraft in instrument conditions, you spend maybe 5% of your time looking outside.
The pilot is focused on the hud first, the outside environment second. A car should be completely reversed from that.
> 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.
My GPS (actually my phone in a special car dock) is right up on my dash/windscreen, always in my peripheral. I glance at it with ease. And while I am glancing at it, the road ahead of me is in my peripheral. That sounds a lot like what people are describing how to use Glass for GPS. Where are you mounting your GPS that it takes more than a glance to see?
>Heads up displays have already been proven by the military to be much safer.
Correction: Military heads up displays have already been proven by the military to be much safer. In order for their results to apply to Google Glass, they would have to install Angry Birds, Facebook, and YouTube on those devices, too.
The military also have teams of cognitive scientists A/B testing different HUD apps. I remember seeing one paper where they were A/B testing different presentations of incoming enemy fighter craft. This stuff is tested by people who have very deep knowledge about perception and attention, and aren't just an app slapped together in spare time.
I remember from that testing that there were three ways the threat was categorised by distance: safe, lethal, very lethal - the middle one was very specifically not "kinda in danger" :)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
As a user of Google Glass, driving with it is idiotic.
It is great when walking or riding the bus/subway. Having anything except critical driving information such as speed presented in a Heads Up Display fashion is a distraction. Especially when going 80mph with other vehicles on the road.
Just asked around my office to the other daily glass users. All three of us disagree with you.
1 anecdote vs 3 anecdotes... If only anecdotes proved anything in a debate.
I wear it all the time when I drive and I've even traveled at ~95mph for a sustained period of time on the toll road nearby. In addition it is worth mentioning that I rarely look at it while I'm moving.
11% over the speed limit (85mph) is completely average.
Trust me, I'd prefer no person be allowed to drive. It is insanely dangerous and most people are really bad at it. I worked on autonomous cars about five years ago and I cannot wait for the technology to be consumer ready.
Yeah, my point was about both the speed and the very concept of being so blasé about how dangerous it might be to get distracted at those kind of speeds. Or pretty much any speed, to be honest.
I too cannot wait for autonomous cars; I hope a day will come when I can actually use one without needing a license! Luckily, where I live, public transport is good enough that I would only really benefit from a car a handful of times each year, and I'm happy to forgo that for the benefits - financial, environmental, safety, etc.
In what universe are vehicles sold without dash mounted radios and nav systems? Those are dramatically more distracting than a HUD, as they require the user to avert their eyes from the road for use.
I was recently shopping for a car, and I will tell you now, I did not see a single one that had a front seat with no displays or controls besides the steering wheel, pedals and speedometer.
It's true, cars have headlight switches, tachometers, gas gauges and electronic mirror controls. The horror.
The only devices that can actively command your attention are the gauges & lights in the instrument cluster (which are all important to driving safely) and possibly the screen on your radio. Speaking of which, I hated the old radio on my old car, because it was too bright and had too much activity on the display.
> It's true, cars have headlight switches, tachometers, gas gauges and electronic mirror controls. The horror.
You forgot climate control, cruise control, a confusing array of wiper settings, CD controls, radio, bluetooth, GPS, fuel efficiency feedback and probably a few others I didn't think of right off the top of my head. The point is not that cars are insanely distracting, but just that Glass is probably not the most distracting thing in your car.
Many of these have similar risk cost vs. risk reward tradeoffs. Climate control helps keep you focused (I know I have a hard time focusing on the road when it's 40F in my car) and cruise control helps keep you predictable to other drivers.
Bluetooth integration assumes people are going to use their phones either way, and thus handsfree is the safer choice. GPS informs drivers in advance so they don't have to swerve across seven lanes of traffic to make their exit.
My point is, what problem does Glass solve that makes it worth the risk?
If future iterations of Glass are able to incorporate existing dash functions, thus making them safer to access by not having to take one's eyes off the road, then the benefits are obvious.
It isn't a true "HUD": it is a tiny screen sitting next to one eye in the extreme corner of your vision; it requires a massive refocus of your eyeballs to see the screen, and in the process your other eye totally loses its ability to focus on anything at all. If you want to look back at what you are doing, you have to move your eyes, refocus them, and even resynchronize them. The point of a "HUD" is that you can see updated information while continuing to stare straight ahead and focus on your target: Glass is not a HUD.
i see this as fair game. 80(or 90 on a good pieces of 280) in a 65 is fine as long as you pay enough attention to the driving to notice a cop and slow down a bit. If you don't pay enough attention - well, you just shouldn't drive 80 ( sometimes, when i'm really tired late after work, i drive in the right at 60-65)
along 101 between sf and southbay, 80 is normal flow in left most lanes (or should be unless some asshat in a prius is smugly going 65 while 25 cars are flashing their brights in vain and forced to dangerously weave across 3 lanes to pass)
and for those who drive 101, please be considerate and keep up, or keep right.
The end result is, someone was ticketed for speeding-BFD. It inevitably happens to most drivers, and its not the end of the world, especially because if you can afford Glass, you're probably going to be able to afford a ticket. Only on HN do we have people second guessing the entire concept of speed limits, and making all sorts of excuses for something so trivial as a speeding ticket being given out.
Since you looked at all the comments, you should have noticed that she was not using the glass, and thought she was in a 75 zone. So I'm at a loss as to what you're implying..
Where is she from that she thought it was a 75 zone? There are none in all of California. Hours away on the 101, there is a 70 mph zone. Certainly nowhere around here.
12) A portable Global Positioning System (GPS), which may be mounted in a seven-inch square in the lower corner of the windshield farthest removed from the driver or in a five-inch square in the lower corner of the windshield nearest to the driver and outside of an airbag deployment zone, if the system is used only for door-to-door navigation while the motor vehicle is being operated.
Seems like a law that would make driving with a GPS more dangerous for many people. When I use a GPS (either dedicated, or my phone), I place it in a pocket in my center console, down below my radio / AC controls. This prevents me from constantly looking at it, as I rely solely on it's TTS feature. I consider this to be much safer, though it sounds like in California it would be forbidden.
Maybe it's not the law the woman violated. Naturally, she posted a blurry picture that makes it hard to read, on top of which google plus has decided I shouldn't be able to zoom in, so I can't quite make out the citation number.
I assume Glass is much more intrusive in for FoV. GPS are also generally optimized to be used while driving (special contrast for night use to avoid blinding the driver etc...).
And mainly, you can't use your GPS for distracting activities like watching videos, browsing the web, talking to your friends... Unless your GPS is your smartphone or tablet, in which case it's the same problem.
So, you cannot use gps for distractions, unless you can?
As for FoV - as far as I remember, the screen on Glass is quite small. The location is different from what law allows (top right instead of bottom), but still...
That article is specifically about using your phone as a GPS while it's in your hand. Using it hands-free in a car dock is a different matter (and much closer to the Glass scenario). From the article you linked:
Had Spriggs’s cell phone been fastened on a dash dock, the
story might have turned out differently; that’s because,
even though California has a hand-held ban for texting,
talking, listening (and now, using GPS), it doesn’t
prohibit hands-free cell phone use.
It's not, GPS dashboards are dangerous as well. A lot of people are just too distractable to have these kinds of things stealing their attention away from the road.
I'm all for people being distracted, but not when a) they're driving a one-ton killing machine and b) very often the things distracting them are just flat out wrong: I can't tell you how many times I've been in a car with a GPS (or iphone) and it gives completely ridiculous directions. Sometimes it's better to just switch off your targeting computer and pay attention.
The Glass has non GPS functionality. I have no opinion on it's use as a nav system, having not used it.
No, there really isn't an assumption of innocence for some things. If I am driving with an open container (booze), I'm getting cited, regardless of whether the officer saw me take a sip. IOW, I argue that Glass has such a high degree of risk for distraction and abuse that I don't want them to be legal to use while driving.
My in dash GPS has all sorts of warnings when attempting to program it while driving. One nice feature of my car (VW) is that the road animation and distance is also shown under the speedometer (less graphically pretty but useful).
Now, interestingly enough, adjusting my stereo or its settings don't carry carry the same warnings. I guess the assume you need to adjust them less.
Taking a look at the speedometer guarantees you aren't driving too fast and looking at the road is a mayor part of (safe)driving. Looking at the glass isn't, because even if you use it to look at the map that distracts you for way too long( >1sec, assuming you have to deal with the interface ).
A speedometer is designed so it can be read at a glance at high speed. (and, in addition, if people on this form are not regularly checking their mirrors as well they should reconsider their driving habits).
Well as others have explained, its part of the natural cycle all good drivers adopt. Mirrors, dash cluster; for speed and idiot lights, and in general just knowing what is going on around you.
Also, most in car GPS systems do take as well as give voice commands. With steering wheel controls you can do your stereo equally as well.
There was a motorcycle helmet recently shown off by some odd company that incorporated glass like features. Sorry, no way. The last thing we need is just off the line of sight images to distract.
It would seem to comport with the law, as best I (as some random dude) can tell. You're not allowed to be looking at a computer or mobile device while you drive; Glass would seem to count.
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.
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.
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...".
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
Not if you have normal vision. The point is that we don't consider normal glasses dangerous (otherwise glass-wearing people would be banned or at least have restrictions on driving), so why would Glass be, if it was kept off?
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?
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).
I don't know how different - if at all - it is in CA, but here in NC, a traffic violation is still, as I understand it, a criminal charge. It's just that they try to speed up the process by treating traffic charges differently, and having the first trial in front of a judge only[1], no juries and all the normal courtroom / trial trappings.
But, since it's still a criminal case, and right to trial by jury is still recognized, there is a guaranteed automatic appeal that you can invoke[2] if you aren't satisfied with the decision in district court (or magistrate court). You then get a "trial de novo"[3] or "new trial" in superior court (or district court if appealing from magistrate court). Once you get to superior court, that's where you get a jury and the whole bit. It's interesting to note that some people consider it a legal strategy to basically use the first trial as a chance to size up the State's case, so they can construct the best possible defense on appeal.
Not sure if CA has a similar notion or not, but just wanted to point out that, in at least some cases, the bar on traffic offenses is still ultimately "innocent until proven guilty" (as it should be, IMO).
I've no doubt it varies from locality to locality, but Wikipedia's generalization for the US (sure to have many counter examples) is:
"A civil infraction is violation of the law less serious than a misdemeanor, and which usually does not attach certain individual rights such as a jury trial."
True. One other interesting point about the
"trial de novo" mechanism, in states that have it,
is that the judge in a de novo trial can sometimes
(in the case of a conviction) impose a harsher
sentence than what would have been possible in
the original trial. So invoking that right, even when
you have it, does entail some additional risk as well.
That, along with the sheer inconvenience, cost, etc., is probably why few people bother doing this for traffic citations. It's easier to just pay your fine, accept the increase in your insurance premiums and go on your merry way. :-(
I mean, I've always envisioned a sort of uber-graduated license for driving with "distractions".
You're 16 and you get your license and you get a car with one seat, a speedometer, and a manual gearbox. You then can undergo additional testing/licensure that shows you can cope with additional distractions (passengers, radio, cupholder, tachometer, Google Glass).
Trouble is, I don't think many people would go for that.
One sense in which a manual gearbox might make sense for beginners is that it arguably leaves you more in tune with what's actually going on inside the car. Much like knowing assembly can guide your C.
This does not mean, however, that it actually helps with safety, and that concern should probably dominate.
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.
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?
>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.
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?
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
California has always been strict with technology usage in cars, and with good reason. There's a large amount of research that concludes that distractions make the road many times more dangerous. It's pretty much that simple.
Good! A person operating a moving vehicle should have 100% of their attention focused on the road. I have yet to see an argument to the contrary that doesn't attempt to rationalize unsafe behavior.
Any device that actively creates distractions occluding a person's field of vision should be prohibited while driving.
>Do you think that drivers should avoid listening to the radio?
Yes, radios are distracting and therefore dangerous, especially if drivers take their eyes off of the road to adjust the controls.
>Should they pull off the road before manipulating their heater? Windshield wipers?
No. It is often necessary to adjust windshield wipers and climate control systems to ensure safety, and sometimes those adjustments must be made in situations where pulling off the road is unsafe or impossible. For example, if it starts pouring rain while on a narrow bridge (no way to pull over), you will need the wipers to keep the windshield clear. The heater can be used to de-fog.
Sounds like an attempt to rationalize unsafe behavior to me. You can always roll down your window and stick your head out for an unobstructed view until you arrive at a place where you can pull over.
Operating the controls of your vehicle to respond to environmental conditions increases your safety more than it decreases it. Turning on my high beams does take a few brain cycles to flip the switch, but it also lets me spot the deer on the side of the road.
It's almost as if there are legitimate reasons not to have 100% of your attention focused on the road, that aren't simply attempts to rationalize unsafe behavior.
You cannot always. In heavy downpours your eyes will be blocked by all the water. In severe cold your eyeballs will burn from the wind. The shelter of a car's cabin serves a purpose.
Unless you have some kind of crazy zen meditation technique, getting an email alert on Google Glass is 100% certain to distract you from whatever you are doing. Your eyes will automatically focus on it for a short period of time, your brain will then spend time processing it. That's how we are wired. And you can get notifications at any time.. perhaps while you're doing something that requires extra care.
People here are doing what they do best: rationalize a situation until it somehow makes sense that they should be allowed to do what they want to do, regardless.
When I started reading this thread I thought I would not engage in a discuss where people cannot accept a distraction is a distraction is a distraction. Apparently, I'm weak in that regard.
I'm simply criticizing a person who took a completely inflexible and dogmatic position, namely that "A person operating a moving vehicle should have 100% of their attention focused on the road." And further stated that all arguments otherwise were simply attempts to rationalize unsafe behavior. All I'm doing is pointing out that this implies that arguing you should be able to e.g. turn on your headlights is "rationalizing unsafe behavior" according to that metric.
This is a pretty silly statement, because it implies that what someone could do with google glass they don't normally already do.
What about a TomTom? Is that illegal? Is it better to look at its screen wherever you positioned it in the car?
What about billboards? Aren't they there to catch your attention while driving? Are they illegal?
What about checking your speedometer or the gas level, or gas mileage?
In the future things like google glass or even active screens/windshields will be more and more able to show the same information and more, without necessarily implying any unsafe behavior on the road.
There seems to be some misguided or misinformed people in here. Or maybe people that just want to bend reality to fit their own. We have some people arguing that Glass is safer than traditional dash mounted GPS because with Glass you don't have to look away from the road like with a dash mounted GPS. But then you have other people arguing that it is safe because it doesn't block your view... it is in the upper right corner and you have to consciously look at it. I've never worn Glass... but my gut tells me that both of those arguments can't be right at the same time. Can they?
Do we really have to argue about not using entertainment video equipment while controlling over a ton of hyperaccelerated death through other peoples lives?
Well, imagine that there were no laws pertaining to driving at all. Do you think people would just stop looking where they were going in favor of watching TV from the driver's seat?
It's already been pointed out that CA law bans the driver from looking at a mobile phone. I assure you that's not making anyone any safer, because compliance is zero. What's the benefit of the law?
"I assure you that's not making anyone any safer, because compliance is zero."
That's a strong (and I believe false) claim. You think the number of instances of people wanting to look at their phones, and thinking "no, I might get ticketed, better not..." is zero? or no greater than the number of times people think "fuck the law, I'm going to look at my phone now because it's illegal when I wouldn't have otherwise!"? You don't think anyone has cut a cellphone conversation shorter partly because they didn't want a ticket? Compliance is well (well) below perfect, and it may be that the reduction isn't enough to merit added complexity and bureaucracy, but I would be flabbergasted if it hasn't at all reduced the time people spend interacting with devices while driving.
I doubt compliance is zero. Driving around in other states, you easily see many more drivers yammering on or playing with phones.
Police will stop and cite you in CA, so while not everyone complies, I'd bet the majority do. Or at least a higher percent than states without the laws.
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.
(b) Subdivision (a) does not apply to the following equipment when installed in a vehicle:
(1) A vehicle information display.
(2) A global positioning display.
(3) A mapping display.
(4) A visual display used to enhance or supplement the driver's view forward, behind, or to the sides of a motor vehicle for the purpose of maneuvering the vehicle.
(5) A television receiver, video monitor, television or video screen, or any other similar means of visually displaying a television broadcast or video signal, if that equipment satisfies one of the following requirements:
(A) The equipment has an interlock device that, when the motor vehicle is driven, disables the equipment for all uses except as a visual display as described in paragraphs (1) to (4), inclusive.
(B) The equipment is designed, operated, and configured in a manner that prevents the driver of the motor vehicle from viewing the television broadcast or video signal while operating the vehicle in a safe and reasonable manner.
[ there is more regarding displays in vehicles operated by utility companies]
Lets ignore Google Glass for a moment and realize what she was ticketed for and how it will affect anyone with a cell phone in California.
She was ticked for having a display that could show non-car related information somewhere within her field of view. Any person that has there cell phone on their center console could be ticketed under the same law. Have your cell phone mounted on your dash, your just asking for a ticket if this goes through. Cops will give whatever ticket they can because they know part of that ticket will go to their department and pay for extras they like to have. More tickets, more overtime they get to have.
I fully agree, driving while distracted it bad. Very bad. But to my knowledge they haven't outlawed drinking coffee or eating yet in the car. Far more dangerous than being responsible and having your phone mounted in a place were it doesn't take anymore eye time than your speed speedometer does.
I have my phone mounted on the dash for a simple reason, I want to know who is calling me. I limit who I take to when I'm driving. I'm not going to take work calls unless it's my boss and he's fine if I hang up on him if it's important. I'm going to take calls from my wife, because of the same. But if it's someone else, I ignore it unless I know it will be urgent and worth the risk of talking while driving. Yes, I use Bluetooth. But is talking on the phone that is dangerous, not if you are holding the phone.
And the argument that she must have been distracted by the google glasses because she passed a cop while speeding. I'm sorry, but people get ticked for speeding every second in california without google glasses on.
I'm not generally a fan of Google Glass and skeptical of its future in the form it is today. However, I see a huge potential for it as a tool for cyclists, runners, etc. and ... drivers. It can potentially improve our awareness while we're driving. I have a HUD in my new car and it's amazing in its ability to make me constantly aware of my speed and navigation without taking my eyes off the road.
This sort of idea isn't new because pilots of military helicopters and fighters have these. It improves awareness and safety.
I hope the court allows this because making it flat out illegal to have a head mounted display would kill off innovations in this area, which could save lives. Maybe we can accept some compromises like a "car mode" for these device, etc. I don't know what the right answer is but I want the possibility for these devices in the car to be left open.
Did California outlaw billboards too? How about road signs? As a Glass owner they provide the same distraction as eye glasses, virtually none. Billboards and signs take your eye off the road, not an 'off' Glass.
Yes, it is, unless the TV meets the following requirements:
(A) The equipment has an interlock device that, when the motor vehicle is driven, disables the equipment for all uses except as a visual display as described in paragraphs (1) to (4), inclusive.
(B) The equipment is designed, operated, and configured in a manner that prevents the driver of the motor vehicle from viewing the television broadcast or video signal while operating the vehicle in a safe and reasonable manner.
I got ticketed for having a GPS attached to the centre of the screen. According to the cop, all devices that obstruct the view must be removed. So, GPS is permitted on an attachment on your dash or far left corner of the windshield.
Google Glass is not a phone but an obstacle in view. Therefore, I guess that the cop decided that it should be ticketed. I think this ticket will be upheld in the court as well.
I'm guessing that the cop wrote "Driving with Monitor visible to Driver" using that language because there's a law specifically against that. If so, she might as well just pay the ticket.
Don't most patrol cars have laptops in them? Laptops that I usually see open and turned on, while the officer is driving?
I don't care what kind of special training you have, a vehicle can still pull out in front of you in less time than it takes to look at a mirror, let alone a laptop screen.
Yet police officers hand out expensive fines to citizens for doing the same. Bewildering.
"Emergency vehicles" are not required to obey the law. A friend of my was ticketed for "riding a bicycle on the sidewalk," by a police officer who was riding a bicycle on the sidewalk. The District Court ruled against my friend based on my first sentence. (True story, really.)
I really wish they would perfect a HUD display for cars that everyone wanted to use.
I wonder how many deaths could be prevented.
Oh that makes me remember that the Android app "Torque" has a nifty HUD mode that inverses the display on your phone to put speed, etc. on the windshield. I tried it once but my car doesn't have good angles for that.
You can get HUDs in cars now. My BMW has a HUD and it's hard to imagine how I used to drive without one, especially with GPS. I used to had to glance down and it felt dangerous. When I got my new car, this was the feature I wanted the most because it made navigating so much safer.
It shows the speed all the time. It shows the turn direction, distance to turn, and street when navigation is on. It works well in daylight. The only caveat is that you can't wear polarized sunglasses.
It seems odd that BMW HUDs would polarize the light. GM HUDs work fine with polarized sunglasses. Visibility on mine was good except when driving on light colored roads (low contrast) in bright sunlight.
I think that's how they got theirs to work well in daylight. My guess is that the area in front of the HUD on windshield has a reflector that only reflects light of a certain polarity. It might still work with some polarized glasses as long as the polarity matches. If I tilt my head, it looked fine... hehe
Seems pretty distracting to me - the "upcoming vector" seemed way too jumpy and kept puling my eye from the road. Surprised it's even legal with that level of detail.
Danger exists in more places than just in front of you. A proper driving education taught me to scan my whole surroundings while driving... not lock eyes with the road in front and never blink. I am not looking directly in front of me 100% of the time. I am looking front, left, right, behind, at instruments... and repeat (not exactly with any particular cadence). My eyes are always moving. Glancing at the speedo is such a minor part of it. Even with a full-on HUD, I'd still be looking left, right and behind.
EDIT: when I say "looking behind" I mean the rear view mirror. I don't physically turn my head around to look behind me. That would not be comfortable.
Unless a law to specifically disallow the use of Glass computing devices is passed, how is this cop in the right? Isn't Google Glass off unless activated which would mean you're just wearing a pair of glasses and wearing glasses is definitely not illegal while driving. Unless they can somehow prove you were using Google Glass while driving (which would be stupid in the first place) I don't see how this ticket is valid. Cecilia needs to fight this or it could set a dangerous precedent, Google needs to volunteer to pay for legal costs for her to fight the ticket, it would be in their best interests to do so.
I bet Google will pull some of their lawyers on this. The precedent that will be set by cases like this is pretty important for their technology especially while it's in its infancy.
I am pretty sure wearing/using Glass while driving will be banned in germany pretty quickly if its gets popular.
Texting while driving or talking on your phone while driving is simply banned. Even if you are not driving but the engine is running and you talk on the phone, you will get a ticket. The only thing you are allowed todo is using the speakers, but anything that takes your attention away from driving with visual information that is not related to operating your vehicle is problematic.
When someone has a head mounted display on, it is hard to tell whether they are paying attention to the display or to the outside world. That is essentially the issue here and I think that as the technology progresses this will only become more ambiguous. Drivers should have there full attention focused on the road and any ambiguity in the situation is unwanted from a law enforcement/ harm reduction perspective.
does anyone else notice that the person pulled said they were 'genuinely speeding'? as in they didn't notice the change in speed limit? personally i find the idea of that as an excuse pretty reprehensible.
its a very reasonable step to assume that a computing device attached to your face is not going to help you pay attention to such things - this one data point supports that claim (it is still one data point, but this is the only safe conclusion to draw realistically). in these cases i think 'better safe than sorry' - you will get in trouble for reading a book, using your phone or even smoking a cigarette if it is distracting you from driving. Google Glass is nothing special in this regard - aside from its popularity amongst vocal hipsters on the internet.
also, don't get me wrong, i am in favour of speeding - but i knowingly break the law when i do it and will have to live with the consequences...
still curious to see how this plays out, but utterly convinced this is a case of 'your own stupid fault for doing something stupid'.
when you run over a pedestrian or cyclist because you are distracted, I suspect the outcome will be significantly more costly, like life-altering. The data on distracted driving is incontrovertible. If you can't bear to be without your g-glass, take the bus...
I love that the law in question has a specific exemption for satellite radio devices. Maybe instead of someone like the EFF getting involved, Google should just get with Sirius and ask to borrow their lobbying team/firm for a few hours.
There should be some level of distraction while driving wearing such device. It's not like a dedicated pilot's helmet, where the UI facilitates control over the plane. Here it's the opposite - it hinders it (to some degree).
Uh, WTF? What makes you think only the driver of a vehicle would ever be using Glass? And how are hours spent on transportation not an important use case for portable electronics?
Am I the only one who is against litigation? On the off chance that we lost it would be annoying to be legally forbidden from using these devices while driving. I would just pay the ticket (which I assume is ~90$).
You would have to prove that glass was the cause which I believe you would find hard.
While inactive they're no more distracting than a pair of regular glasses and while using them for navigation they're significantly less distracting than using a traditional GPS.
Someone should pay for Jennifer Granick on this one, since she started her career defending vehicle things like DUIs, and also has the expertise in tech, which is probably a rare combination.
Your cellphone usage should be automatically linked to your car's GPS data and automatically bill you every time you use it while driving ? this is not that hard, I am sure the NSA already has all that data
sorry I was a little sarcastic... but for passengers, they can always contest their tickets later... just like they have to do with red-light camera tickets.
There are a bunch of unanswered questions (and by that I mean not yet litigated differences in opinion) with respect to glass.
For example, if you're driving and you notice you are being tailed, and you say 'Glass record' and you look down at your speedometer, and up at your rear view mirror, and then record the entire traffic stop. Is that video admissible in court? There have been stories of police officers being less than truthful in how a stop occurred, video makes that harder. There is also the infamous 'resisting arrest' charge which people of various demographics feel is used when profiling to hassle them. So if you can get it on record that it is illegal to drive with Glass, then you make it more obvious if someone reaches over and puts on their glass when they get pulled over.
Another question, is it a phone or not? It has a cellular connection capability so kind of. If its a phone are you 'texting' when it is showing text? Who knows, some would argue yes, some would argue no. Again, not yet litigated.
All these things are going to come through the courts eventually if this product gets any traction. So did the CHP tell their officers to add this if they stopped someone? I don't know but I can't think of any reason an officer would try 'watching tv' as the infraction.