No, it isn’t much the same. Each of those systems and technologies was integrated into an automobile , and if those systems are unsafe the manufacturers are on the hook, and they know it.
Google is trying to make sure they get to do much the same thing, except stay off that hook. That’s antisocial, IMHO. Textbook corporate behavior, but it should be opposed.
I think I love you. Strangely, the text made me think of the horrible use of “smurf” as a noun/verb/adjective, etc…in that smurfing cartoon back in the 80’s.
I am disappointed I am unable to find a video of Nic Cage trying to learn to cope with his HUD by driving around with a pair of pants on his head in Wings of the Apache/Fire Birds
This’ll have to do instead.
Kinda like if the alcohol lobby brought pressure against repressive DUI legislation because, ya know, we all actually drive better after a couple.
Before we go restricting the liberties of the public with laws, shouldn’t there be some evidence that driving while wearing HUD tech is not safe? I know the military operates highly complex vehicles at ridiculous speeds and operate astoundingly dangerous weapons using HUD tech. Most of these operators are under 25.
It seems people are wanting to pass laws because of what they only imagine can happen. I would hope that the litmus test for limiting the liberties of a free society would have a higher standard than “could”, “imagine”, and “may”.
This talk about privilege is simply a passive aggressive form of jealousy. It is not privilege to use a HUD. Hopefully, the tech will drop in price to the point where anyone can afford it if that want something like that on their face.
Your irrational fear of what may happen does not trump an entire nations guaranteed liberty. Show an example of the danger and then we can talk. Otherwise it’s all rabble rousing crap.
Just let them use it. I’m sure drivers would be happy for everything to be logged, and in the event of an accident, uploaded from a blackbox.
Right?
And those soldiers were picked for those jobs based on criteria, and have all had training to do such driving, and to use such equipment, so that they’re not distracted.
I am certain that a great many people can drive safely with Google Glass. Most people can drive safely with a 0.06 BAC too.
Most.
I’m not jealous of people who can, nor those who wish to argue for the right to.
Bwahah, let’s see,
Training investment of HUD wearing military personnel - $198,000.00US (Armoured Ground) - $6,000,000.00US (Fighter Pilot)
VS.
Cost of training Joe, in Mom’s Minivan - $35.00US (Test including Booklet) - $190.00US (Lessons including Test) *varies by locale.
Most Notable - Even after ALL that training, the military doesn’t give these highly trained warriors access to Youtube. Gosh, I wonder why.
Litmus test for distracted driving = a danger to road users - Passed peer review.
Privilege - Acceptable use, as applied to an individual who believes they should be able to drive distracted while other road users know that is a danger to themselves & others.
Guaranteed Liberty - Not applicable.
Example of the danger of driving distracted - “Danger of driving distracted” Google results - 156,000,000+ 6 pages in, then I stopped, still no dumbasses claiming driving distracted is safe, that they can text/read/browse/watchTV/Guarantee that others will not do these, claim that laws restricting device usage don’t prevent harm & educate, etc. I estimate those start many pages deeper.
Main tactic of adversary - Refusing to acknowledge the potential of the device for distracted driving (pointedly not typing the words “distracted driving” too) despite obvious parallels of similar devices, past studies, mounds of evidence.
“But it’s glasses that you wear, it’s sooo different, like, it’s different, you know, because you can see right through Tony & Angela when they are arguing about who the boss is, so you almost never miss a traffic signal or stuff”
The training is for operation of the vehicle. The HUD makes those vehicles easier and safer operate, not more difficult. They invented HUD to allow operators a higher situational awareness that’s easier than trying to look away from your path and down at your instruments
The difference here is the evidence to support the assertion that driving a vehicle after drinking alcohol actually does increase traffic accidents. No such evidence exists for the use of google glass.
It’s as if we have run in to the wall of neo-luddite thinking where uninformed people fear the possibilities of new technology without actually bothering to understand whether or not those fears are based in fact or imagination. Right now, these fears are imaginary.
I’m not claiming distracted driving is safe, I’m asking for any evidence that HUD devices distract drivers any more than the radio, GPS, rear view mirror, cars with built in HUD, etc already distract them.
Google glass could just as easily enhance driving safety by highlighting potential road dangers, displaying your speed and closing speeds, providing GPS without the driver having to look away to see it. In fact, the safety possibilities are so great, lets make HUD a requirement on all new vehicles.
It seems to me that Google has a slight Segway problem with Glass. The rest of the world just isn’t willing to accommodate them enough for all the awesomeness that they imagined.
True that. Also, I do hope they continue their campaign claim that Glass won’t distract drivers, because Google doesn’t intend them to distract. It is just about as silly as the Segway campaign was disappointing.
Oh & dacree, potential matters. You don’t have to like it, but our societies public safety laws are not built solely by picking through the wreckage. The potential for abuse is as plain as the nose on your face & it is quite telling that you claim not to have one.
edit - to too two 2 lalou
That’s a pretty obvious ploy there, a backwards claim that the immense training involved didn’t include extensive training related directly to the HUD. It’s for the vehicle, the HUD made it easier" Yeah, they just slipped it on the operators head & said,
“There, now isn’t that better Billy, you can lock onto those migs now without even thinking about it, this thing operates itself, no training for the HUD, now get out there & fly, flyboy!”
You want evidence that Glass has enormous potential to distract?
Answer this question.
Does the device place content before the eyes of the user?
Now that’s an obvious ploy. I never claimed there was no HUD training. Some modern machines are so complex they require a HUD to operate effectively so yes, there is plenty of HUD training, just like there is tons of instrument training. Their HUD simply relays pertinent instrument data to a display that can be used without looking down at the instruments. It’s not magic and HUD training is just a small subset of instrument training.
But, you should already know that HUDs were invented to make operating the machine safer and easier - not more difficult. Your suggestion that operating a HUD in a car requires any training whatsoever only demonstrates you have either never encountered a vehicle with HUD equipped or that you are being intellectually dishonest for the sake of point scoring.
Your argument has no legs to stand on and you’ve simply resorted to comedy.
Everything has potential to be abused. We don’t ban activity based on the potential for abuse (when we write good law). We ban actual abuse… Before you go arresting fining people, let’s make sure there is something to worry about instead of your ‘what about the children’ argument that pre-empts good judgement and bans a thing simply based on your fear and imagination.
That’s right, the HUD you compared it to requires Extensive Training.
Addendum to the first Question. “Does the device place content before the eyes of the user?”
Answer: Unanswered.
Follow-up:
Is the content limited, by the device, to information limited to the operation of the vehicle, in a manner that requires no training to use without detracting from the vehicle operator’s ability?
Addendum to the first Question. “Does the device place content before the eyes of the user?”
Answer: Yes, the same as a road sign puts road information in front of the driver, the HUD performs the same function
Is the content limited, by the device, to information limited to the operation of the vehicle, in a manner that requires no training to use without detracting from the vehicle operator’s ability?"
Answer: No, just as billboards can display information not related to the road, vehicle, or driving conditions, the HUD can also display such info.
Wow, your strawmen are easier to knock down than most
When Billboards display targeted, personal information, full-length movies, Skype, Facebook, Boing Boing, e-books, Instagram, or texts from home, you get back with me on that comparison, okay?
Tell me again why the military doesn’t allow web content on their HUDS.
Windshield Laws.
http://blogs.cars.com/kickingtires/2012/06/what-is-your-states-windshield-law.html
This is not new ground. As radical as glass is, it does not fall between the cracks.
Contrary to what you state and apparently believe, you do not have a natural right to drive a car. Nor should you.
What you ignore is that the billboards exist in the same context as other potential road hazards; that is, billboards are typically in the normal field of view when paying attention to the road, and the road is in the typical field of view when looking at a billboard.
An image two inches from your face, however, exists in a completely different context than the road and its potential hazards. Also unlike a billboard, the point of focus with Glass does not change as a function of the change of the road and driving speed. That is to say, attention to glass is entirely different than attention to a billboard.
Sheesh, for talking about easy strawmen, you sure manage to build plenty of your own.
Because connecting a $150 million dollar F25 to the internet would be a pointless security risk and counter to the mission - much the same way your employer might block facebook and youtube.
They already display full motion video that is targeted at me, the driver of a particular road. The rest of that would definitely be a bad idea, but criminal? Driving while reading a book is distracted driving so we already have laws for that. I see no compelling argument that Google Glass or any HUD is inherently dangerous only that that can be misused.
HUD and Google glass does not obstruct the drivers view of the road.
Well, there is a school of thought that driving is a natural right since it is required for many of us to remain employed but I won’t take that route since the courts have already ruled that driving is in fact, a right. http://www.dailypaul.com/289310/uscourt-decisions-confirm-driving-a-motor-vehicle-is-a-right-not-a-govt-granted-privilege Instead, I’ll say that this is not about the liberty to drive, but the liberty to do something besides driving while driving. Listening to the radio, sipping a soda pop, keeping one eye on the kids in the back seat. All of these are permissible distractions.
No different from your GPS, instruments, radio…
Paying attention to a billboard certainly changes your focus away from the road and its hazards.
Sure, the same way your radio and instruments are different than attention to a billboard.
