Lawmakers seek to ban Google Glass on the road | Hacker News Reader

Lawmakers seek to ban Google Glass on the road

news.cnet.com

24 pointsLightning54 comments

As I've said before, maybe people should actually try one of these things before they assume they know how they work. I've seen them before. I've used them. One of my professors does research with them. In particular: A person displaying contextual task information - like GPS navigation - with a head-mounted display spends less time switching contexts, is less distracted by context switches, and is generally more focused on the task, than someone using a text-to-speech display, a piece of paper, or a conventional display. They are able to complete tasks more quickly, more precisely, and more accurately. That's not intuition or experience; that's data. PDF: http://dmrussell.net/CHI2010/docs/p1695.pdf

Politicians don't use facts to make laws, they use irrational fear. If they used facts, we would all have healthcare, no guns, prostitution and marijuana would be legal, but high fructose corn syrup, and diet soda would be illegal. And we certainly wouldn't have to take off our shoes to board and airplane.

Sarcasm? All you've done with your example is trade one set of authoritarian, capricious rules with another. How about we just stop dictating people's lives?

> How about we just stop dictating people's lives?

But then what would politicians do all day?

Seriously, "making laws that dictate people's lives" are the things they can point to to say they're doing any job at all. They have a strong incentive to make those kinds of laws. What is needed more than anything is to remove that incentive.

They have a huge incentive to sell their political power; it's their 'product'. I really don't have much hope for reforming the current system. It's too entrenched and has too much momentum.

Even if you don't think the government should be prohibiting dangerous substances, you must surely concede that prohibiting actually dangerous substances* is still better than prohibiting safe substances.

* Leaving aside that the most common artificial sweeteners aren't actually dangerous substances

>but high fructose corn syrup, and diet soda would be illegal

Might want to check those facts.

There's very little evidence that sucralose and aspartame are in any way harmful, despite a considerable search effort spanning decades. Sugar alcohols and sweeteners like acesulfame potassium have a clean record too, excepting some digestive discomfort until you build a tolerance to them. Xylitol is actually good for you.

As for HFCS, research suggests that it's only a problem because of how much of it is used. There's no good evidence that it's actually more harmful than any other simple sugar. HFCS is a problem because it's about the cheapest way to make food tastier, and eating loads of sugar is bad for you.

Agreed, I inserted my own bias from correlative studies and imposed anecdotal observations from my friends and family. I have read some convincing rat studies, but it's absolutely too soon to say that these are facts. My apologies.

There's no reason to believe that contextual task information would be the only (or even primary) use of Glass while driving. It's certainly not the only way other mobile devices are used while driving.

There's also no reason to believe that following directions is the only reason someone would read while driving, but it's not illegal to have newspaper sitting on the passenger's seat.

The regulatory reaction to Google Glass will be harsh. Something that can video tape everything and constantly interrupts the wearer's attention? You'd have to be looking through rose colored glasses to not see how that could be a problem. And Google, in typical tech industry fashion is not going to offer lawmakers a compelling counter narrative. They're going to do nothing to translate the nerd-delight of all of Google Glass's possibilities into terms my mom could understand if she were charged with regulating public safety. Which is why lawmakers will see banning them as all upside with no downside.

I think it's silly to start efforts towards this ban when none of the politicians making said efforts have even worn google glass, or, likely, seen it in person.

They're not operating within their area of expertise here, and aren't even familiar with how distracting the experience is when driving, either anecdotally or through studies/ research. They really should wait to get some data before interfering with peoples' freedoms like this.

> I think it's silly to start efforts towards this ban when none of the politicians making said efforts have even worn google glass, or, likely, seen it in person.

Not as silly as basing regulation on anecdotal evidence. Oh wait, that's already happening either way.

Anyway, I thought it has been shown that hand-free phones are only marginally less distracting than regular ones while driving? If so I see no reason not to regulate.

Ah, so Google's work on self-driving cars is just a ploy to remove one objection to Glass. These guys are playing a long game.

I'm not sure whether I'm joking or not.

Some cars already project information onto the windshield. Are they going to ban those too?

> Some cars already project information onto the windshield.

Yes - information such as speed. Driving related things which the driver would normally need to know while operating the vehicle.

Google Glass is a distraction in much the same way a mobile phone is while driving - it's removing your attention from the road to do things such as texting.

So you can't compare the two.

There's no reason to believe that google glass wouldn't be aware of the fact that you are driving (e.g. Looking at distance traveled) and tailor information accordingly (traffic reports, best path)

Does the current device actually do this? If not, I'd say that's a very good reason to believe.

Is the current device available for consumer purchase? If not , I'd say that's a very good reason to believe it is still in development and that this software feature is either provided or could be developed before google glass is released

That doesn't even make sense. "It could happen" is not a good reason--it's the absence of a reason. The list of things that could possibly be implemented is far too long to assume that all will be. You just aped my post without thinking about what you're saying.

Consider: a) Smartphones exist. b) Smartphones are technically capable of detecting that you're driving using GPS. c) Smartphones do not prevent you from texting while driving.

ATT has a program called "DriveMode" http://www.att.com/gen/press-room?pid=2964

It proactively replies to text messages if you are driving, so you don't get distracted.

How does that relate to Google Glass? All you've done is restate "it could happen". I don't know how to convey to you the extent to which that's not the point.

> Google Glass is a distraction in much the same way a mobile phone is while driving - it's removing your attention from the road to do things such as texting.

Google Glass could be a distraction in much the same way as a mobile phone is while driving, it also could be a huge help in driving. A driving app could display speed, navigation, highlight pedestrians, provide blind spot assistance, etc etc. It's really too early to tell and definitely too early to legislate.

Keep in mind that Glass doesn't provide a full overlay of a person's vison -- you need to adjust both focus and look in the corner of your field of vision.

For drivers, they need to ban make-up or nail polish, shaving, brushing teeth, changing the radio station, looking through console or briefcase, not having slept 4 or more hours the previous night, cleaning the windshield, adjusting seats or mirrors, plugging in electronic devices while moving, reading a map, entering in GPS info, using your hands while talking to a passenger, turning to address a passenger, fixing or brushing hair, opening packaging, lighting a cigarette, laughing, the sorting of papers, wearing heels or prohibitive boots, removing dust or sleep from eye, coughing or sneezing, stretching, talk radio, excessive emotion, excessive seat lean, not having two hands on the wheel, reaching that causes your torso to turn, adjusting clothing, clipping of nails, wearing an eye patch, picking your nose, eating, billboards, bumper stickers, dancing, scratching, swatting at bugs, sunglasses at dusk, and google glass

Or just use existing laws that cover these things such as reckless driving.

The reaction to Glass is somewhat ridiculous for people who have no idea how they work and have never used them. Even more ridiculous is the government trying to ban or regulate something that isn't even available yet, and might never be available, or, as the naysayers say, be a complete market failure.

while hundreds of people brainstorm ideas how google glass can enrich the driving experience

http://glass-apps.org/car-glass-app

there are always those who wants to conserve the status quo and try to find any arguement

> there are always those who wants to conserve the status quo and try to find any arguement

Driving without people being physically incapable of being distracted by their text messages is a status quo I'd like to preserve.

There are a lot of potential awesome application of Glass, including to driving, but to ignore how it would extend our current technology-while-driving-issues is simply being myopic.

We already have all the laws we need. Unsafe driving, for any reason, is punishable.

If we need a law for eye-mounted screens we'll need another law for intra-ocular implants, and exceptions for eye-taps for medical purpose, and another law forbidding thinking about fantasy football, and so forth.

Too many laws doesn't achieve the objective, it just causes lawyers.

it just causes lawyers!

Google glass is probably about as distracting as the various LED and console displays that already exist, including GPS ones

Current devices in the car cannot cover the centre of your view with some graphics. In most cases they're designed so that it's actually impossible. Can the same be guaranteed for Glass? I'm not even thinking about notifications and apps. What about a random app crash / reboot - how will that affect your visibility while driving?

> What about a random app crash / reboot - how will that affect your visibility while driving

If Google Glass crashes you just see whatever you would normally be looking at, the display is transparent.

If it crashes completely - yes. If there's a bug in the app - not necessarily.

"Current devices in the car cannot cover the centre of your view with some graphics."

Have you seen the Glass videos? The screen is on the top right of your view.

Ok, not the complete centre. The display I've seen in all videos takes up around 1/9th of the image - I'm not sure how it translates to normal field of view. But imagine that 1/9th of your view starts flickering - that would be rather annoying and noticeable, right?

oh yeah THIS is going to be enforceable.

While we're at it, let's go ahead and ban anger on the road too.

You're wearing it on your face. Anyone driving by you is going to be able to see it. How do you figure that this would be difficult to enforce?

I wear glasses - legally obliged to when I drive.

Google Glass will work eventually on prescription glasses. Those prescription glasses work even if 'turned off'.

Except regular prescription glasses will still be available. And I don't think you'll be able to convince any cop that the only pair of glasses you have available is one that costs $1,000+.

Who says Google Glass will always cost $1,000+? If it or anything similar catches on the prices will drop like a rock (see mobile phones as an example).

Or alternate approach: mandate that software must automatically disable or enter in special non-distracting mode if wearer is moving in car while sitting on driver's seat. Like TVs/players in cars usually disable video if car is moving.

It's enforceable while such a device is recognisable. I highly doubt that will remain the case permanently.

It's as enforceable as the texting-while-driving ban in effect in some states and Canada.

Because this thing that they have never used and isn't yet on the market is the most pressing threat to public safety? Methinks they just want an excuse to subpoena some devices to play with.

Or are they going to ban dashboards next, since they distract drivers from the road?

They don't give fig about playing with Glass. They care about money. It's a shake-down, don't you see?

New technology emerges, gets a lot of buzz, and catches the attention of corrupt legislators, attracting "interest" in the way a successful fruit stand on the Lower East Side would attract attention from mafia types selling "protection". Google responds by commissioning studies showing the fear is baseless and hires lobbyists to present these findings, along with large checks made out to the reelection campaigns of the legislators in question. Wash, rinse, repeat.

There's a variation on this racket in which a business with a competing product or service registers the development as a threat, commissions its own study detailing the dangers, and hires lobbyists to present these "findings" to lawmakers. And of course, these also come with checks. A skillful politico will play one side off against the other, shaking them both down for more and more contributions as the issue is "studied" in greater and more excruciating detail. Barring any reason for the general public to get involved, and start sending letters, this racket unfolds in peace, day-in-day out.

"So why", you ask, "don't we set up a system of public election finance and attack this system at the root?" Because (mumble, mumble, mumble) Freedom! Also, "Ah don whan ta see mah tax dahllers goin' to some pinko commie freak tryin' to destroy America."

Okaaay.

Which is it? Do we want laws that are so archaic they test their own relevance ... or do we want laws that adapt to the changing world in which they're designed to apply? More often than not, we see the legal system trail far behind the technological realities of the society they're intended to regulate. While I'm no fan of legislation for the sake of legislation, I'm happy to see a more forward-thinking approach to these types of things. And yes - there currently are laws on the books banning things like entertainment systems in the dashboard to help prevent distracted driving.

I would think that we want laws that react to real problems that come up, as they come up, once enough data has been collected to prove they're problems. Then, the law is enacted, the data is measured again, and we see whether the law solved the problem. :)

People should have the right to do whatever the heck they want with their property. While these "lawmakers" are at it, they should ban all of the voice-enabled cars and force people to text and hold the phone while driving.

I was driving down the road in an unfamiliar place with my iPhone and Google Maps in my lap, looking at it every now and then, and I noticed that after looking for a second I was usually half a foot in the wrong lane. I thought, "Glass would make this much safer, much easier." It would be so great to simply see where to go in the corner of your eye. I think that's the most practical feature of the first version of Glass.

In this post:

* You start with "people should have the right to do whatever the heck they want with their property"

* Provide a concrete example of why that's a bad idea

* Use that example to argue that an even more accessible distraction is a good thing

Do you not see the problem with this logic? Less distracting maps/directions definitely would be a good thing, but that is only a tiny part of Glass.

Why would they ban voice-enabled cars and force people to hold phones? That doesn't make any sense.

If you cannot comfortably see the map while driving: stop, memorise fragment, then drive. Where you cannot stop, road signs are usually available. Most automatic assistants in cars say the instructions out loud exactly so that you don't have to look at the screen.

New cars already display that kind of information on HUDs. They're usually minimal, so that you do no see the whole map.

(PS. Please do not drive with a phone in your lap. This is extremely dangerous. Just stop and find your way.)

It's called sarcasm, bro. Don't get bent out of shape. I'm criticizing lawmakers for questioning a technology that will make navigation and calling hands-free and much safer.

No, people should not, and do not, have the right to do whatever the heck they want with their property, especially when what they're doing puts other people's lives in danger. That's why we have laws against things like drinking and driving.

That's not to say that I think Glass should be outlawed while driving. But lawmakers certainly have the right and responsibility to question whether it should be.

> People should have the right to do whatever the heck they want with their property.

The fact is that your property (your car) is only useful on public property (roads). Legislators have every right to regulate what you do on public property.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com