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.
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.
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'm not sure that's actually true. Most people live in cities.
It may very well be the case, though, that most people driving need to drive to work, which is probably sufficient for your argument.
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.
If you want to be distracted and watch some YouTube videos or whatnot, then public transit would love to have you.
What happens if and when Glass-like devices become common and glasses-wearing people like me get them with prescription lenses?
Because normal glasses help you see?
That's the wrong question. The right question is: How does law enforcement prove that Glass was distracting me?
I shouldn't have to prove my innocence. They should have to prove my guilt.
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).
[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bench_trial
[2]: http://law.onecle.com/north-carolina/15a-criminal-procedure-...
"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."
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. :-(
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.
This does not mean, however, that it actually helps with safety, and that concern should probably dominate.
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.
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.
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.
I've lived in a country which forbade everything by default unless law explicitly allowed it. I guarantee you don't want to go this way.
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.