Google lobbying against Glass-targeting distracted driving laws




I wonder if they would use the accelerometer/camera to disable some features while driving automatically?

Obviously could be easily broken but not bad as a default mode, also for phones...


I’ve been trying real hard for quite some time now to not slip permanently into a mindset of “Fuck Google!!!1!!”

This may just be the day that I abandon that effort.


Perfect place to beam road safety PSAs - especially for campaigns against driver distractions.


Boy, it's a good thing the newspapers are also lobbying against those restrictive laws on reading the paper while driving, and fast food places are fighting the laws against eating while driving.

Oh, wait. Food and newspapers are older than legislators and many voters, and so legislators don't fear either the device itself or the backlash from their constituents.


If everyone would just ride in their employer-paid luxury-class coach to and from their work campus arrival center then this wouldn't be such a problem.

Some people are just selfish, I guess.


And don't get me started about the makeup industry!

Boingboing: Fight the nanny state! Unless you're a corporation.

. . . I'm feeding the troll aren't I.


As a libertarian I should be against any sort of freedom impinging regulations but when it comes to driving, people should have most of their attention on the road. Every bit of distraction while driving reduces the margin for error.


Oh please, read a newspaper while driving and you get pulled over for distracted driving.

Food: A tricky one. I avoid eating behind the wheel, but generally: If you feel that you put the same amount of concentration towards eating as you do towards eating, I don't want to sit in your car.


Moronic lobbying.

Have laws against texting/anything else on a device while operating a motor vehicle dampened sales of smartphones or tablets in even ONE instance? It seems unlikely. Damned unlikely.

From the article
"While Glass is currently in the hands of a small group of Explorers," the company said, "we find that when people try it for themselves they better understand the underlying principle that it's not meant to distract but rather connect people more with the world around them."

Why, why do they think anyone gives a rat's ass about whether or not it is -meant- to distract. What on earth does that have to do with prohibiting their use while operating a vehicle? Also, this statement they gave definitively reveals that Google understands that the device can distract drivers.

Maybe the legislators, or their constituents could just tell the asshat bean-counting mercenaries at Google that such legislation will be rescinded when they finally get around to doing our driving for us. Maybe that would placate them for now & maybe even expedite the release of my fucking robot car. Instead they waste valuable resources on killing children. Fuckers need their priorities adjusted.


On the one hand, a screen in the corner of your vision should be no less distracting than the rear view mirror or the dashboard displays.

On the other hand, the fact that one can't stop people from choosing to beam TV shows over, say, a more benign gps map means that statistically people will choose the dumb thing, and that the price of a mistake is much higher at 60 mph.

My big fear, though, is that Glass is a stopgap technology with full AR being the goal. HUDs are already standard safety features in high performance vehicles and tasks, and Glass is the means by which a similar feature set will come to the general public.

In many ways, I see future versions of Glass being more safe than driving unaugmented and I would hate to see knee jerk political grandstanding keep that future from coming, especially given the paucity of data.


I don't think this is a "nanny state" issue. Read a book or a newspaper while you're driving and it's obviously that you can't see the road.

But what about if you could / when you can display emails up on your windshield to read them (effectively what Glass is doing). In theory you'd be looking straight ahead and you'd theoretically be able to see everything going on since you can "see right through" the projected text... but there's a difference between focusing 12" in front of you to read text and focusing 60' ahead of you to watch traffic.

Though I have no interest in owning one, I can't wait for cheap, self-driving cars to get here! If people would rather be doing other things than focusing on the road - let them - without endangering my safety! #dangKids!


Firstly, distraction is about the brain more than the eyes. Seeing right through an email you -are reading- & you are shaving serious time off your own ability to react to the fact that you crossed the center line.

People try that now by holding their phones up rather than lookin down. Result? Smartphones are safely ejected from the vehicle during impact, saving consumers money replacing them when they need that money for the funeral or the doctor.

& right on, self driving cars FTW Go Google! Or whoever.


Counterpoint: You want to require people to take off their glasses while driving. That's real fucking smart. Yes, there are people who need corrective lenses who saved up for Google Glass (or got it as a gift) but don't have the ready cash for a second pair of lenses and frames. You can hem and haw about how those people are silly all you want, but they still exist, and it's ridiculous to pass laws requiring them to purchase a second pair on their own dime and have to keep track of both.

Also, I would not have expected Boing Boing to be in favor of passing laws against people who kind of look like they might be thinking about committing a crime. Letting the cops hassle people for wearing Glass in their car is not that far from hassling teens for wearing trenchcoats in public.

We've already seen, from several high-profile cell-related accidents, that prosecutors are quite capable of pulling your cell records, determining that you were texting at the time of the crash, and dropping the hammer. I much prefer that to this pre-crime bullshit. How much liberty are we willing to exchange for safety?


I believe that it is reasonably obvious that checking your email while driving is a bad thing. Something that DOES lead to people getting killed. The difficulty is that you can't really tell whether somebody is actively using their google glass. So IMHO it SHOULD be illegal to be wearing one behind the wheel. "But they're my glasses, I need them," Well then you need a separate pair for driving. I certainly believe the in Maryland it is probably already illegal to wear them while driving. It is illegal to have a tv screen visible to the driver directly or by reflection.


Counter-Counterpoint. Tell me, what were these advanced tec-loving paupers wearing to see with while they scrimped & saved? Was it... something else? But Nah Naw, demands they be responsible enough to use the purchase responsibly are cruel, for they are poor, poor people & probably need that money to buy food. Are you trying to legislate hunger!?

Also, If we aren't going to legislate against teenagers pulling their trenchcoats over their eyes while driving, we can't support this either! Hold on, hold on, I'm getting a text.. so you say that is already illegal. hmm.

I say I say, let the blood flow. A large cash settlement is far more appreciated than an arm, of which you have two, one to spare, or a child, of which you can make more. Let us decide After the fact of the harm, how to punish and compensate the injured and bereaved, acting in advance of the harm is foolish! Foolish. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to drink at least a fifth of vodka before I can be comfortable with my autonomy while driving.


The way I think of these things is whether a private owner would think of doing the same. If I owned a road, would I ban Glass usage? Well, maybe, if I thought there would be wrecks, which would cost me money. Likewise, regulations on tire inflation (flat tires wear down my road faster), vehicle lights (causes wrecks which cost money), etc.

So if it's something a private owner would be concerned about, doesn't it make sense for the state to be the same way? Or does it magically only count as 'tyranny' if it's public?


Came here to post exactly this kind of response. The future of this technology is quite exciting (and I say this as an employee of a competitor).


Not sure if you're being rhetorical, but @PhasmaFelis trenchcoat illustration had to do with the Columbine shootings, I believe.


Well, yeah, pretty much. If the government tells you not to say certain things in public or you'll be jailed, that's censorship and should be condemned. If I tell you not to say certain things in my house or I'll kick you out, that's fine.