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.
True, but mirrors and dashboard displays are there to provide you with information to help you drive. YouTube doesn’t serve that same function.
Haha, while I feel my points are salient they are distributed with humour in mind 
I did get his reference, but was forced to try and jam it into the context of distracted driving/prevention of, that was the best fit.
What if you are streaming Fast & Furious 6? That could help? No, no, yo might burst into tears over the loss of such epic talent. That’s distracting.
too soon?
They probably see their product as a safer and more convenient way to get GPS directions to you. It’s a selling point.
Probably a correct one. I do think they are right to say its premature to outlaw something that hasn’t killed anyone.
I really do try to be comprehensive. My posts get longer and longer and I still keep thinking to myself, “Do I need to mention this obvious edge case? No, no, people are smart enough to figure it out for themselves.”
At this rate I’m going to be posting whole novels to Boing Boing just to avoid smug “gotcha” responses. It still probably won’t work.
Listen: glasses wear out. Lenses get scratched, frames break, prescriptions change as you age. If the only glasses you have are shitty glasses, you make do as best you can. If you’ve managed to get new glasses (whether or not they have a computer attached to them) then you would really rather avoid using the old ones that look like someone took a belt sander to them.
Here, let me offer you some suggestions as to how you can keep nitpicking this digression until Doomsday! (1) “They should have skipped the Glass and gotten new regular glasses earlier!” (2) “They should have bought anti-scratch coating on the original lenses!” (3) “There probably aren’t very many of those people, so they don’t count!” (4) “It was irresponsible of the person who got them Glass as a gift to not also get them a pair of regular glasses!”
You can think up more if you put your mind to it. And, oh God, I’m sure you will.
Here’s the one thing that needs to be stamped on every single post on this subject: WEARING GLASS IS NOT PROOF THAT YOU ARE USING GLASS AT THE MOMENT.
You’re shouting there at the end. LoL Why should I think up more when what I typed clearly stood its ground?
You make the same argument that many made against requiring hands-free devices for phone use while driving, which were designed to prevent hand & eye use for other than driving. That it was an undue burden of cost for some (few). That argument was trumped specifically because driving is a privilege, not a right, the costs of doing so safely are always the burden of the user & studies (& deaths) definitively proved that distracted diving is dangerous to all road users.
Did you know that the cost of your seatbelt is passed along to you via the manufacturer/seller?
(insert “You don’t say” image here)
As for proof of use, that is precisely why prohibiting the wearing of glass is preferable as prevention to determining the fault after the fact, see again the relative vagaries of privilege vs right. It can be a distraction in the same manner as texting/TV use while driving, it is statistically doubtless that it will be, my right to as safe a road/sidewalk/not having people drive through my house -as possible- trumps your privilege to privilege while privileging. If you simply must privilege, which is you deciding that your privilege over-rides your other need to privilege, then pull over, safely. {relevatory shouting} OH LOOK YOU CAN USE IT IN A CAR JUST LIKE A SMARTPHONE {/relevatory shouting} lol
funny thing is, I’m confident it will be added to the list of prohibited devices while driving, & I’m confident that if it will be eventually integrated into vehicles, safely, via Google+auto makers, & that eventually we will not drive ourselves at all, barring some global catastrophe.
So it makes me laugh that you’d get upset about it being barred, now, with good historical cause, & I don’t think Google+auto-makers will let it impede development one iota.
It makes me laugh that Google would foolishly lobby against distraction-free driving for the same reason.
"One can only hope that, thanks to this public lobbying, they will be held appropriately and proportionately responsible when the killings begin. The point, though, is that they know they can afford it. "
Woah, why the harshness?
As pointed out above, distracted driving is about your brain, not about whether you are viewing data on your perfectly legal SatNav or listening to your Google Glass give you the same directions.
And, no, people shouldn’t be reading emails and stuff while driving. But Google is protecting Glass for valid uses. Right now we have totally schizophrenic laws about distracted driving. Use a SatNav? No problem! Use a SatNav app on your cell phone, mounted to your dash? Illegal in California, arrest the bastard!!!
We still don’t know all the apps Glass will have, or what future versions of Glass will be, so it is perfectly reasonable for Google to want to preserve the legal right to have a head’s up display that could be safer than current heads down displays for certain applications. We already have distracted driving laws which apply to anyone who shows evidence of actually driving while distracted, I’d say there isn’t a need for Glass specific laws at this time.
When this swings around, it’ll be illegal to manually operate a motor vehicle without augmented vision and heads-up navigation and hazard displays.
Seriously, Glass and its ilk has the potential to make drivers safer and less distracted . It also has the ability to allow drivers to be stupid and read their email or something.
And as already pointed out above, if I’m wearing prescription glasses that happen to also be this kind of device, the last thing you want me to do is take them off.
(It’s also problematic to automatically block apps based on sensed velocity, because a passenger in a car, bus, train etc. should not be so restricted.)
I’d just like to say that having fiddled around with them, they are a terrible GPS device in a vehicle if only because of the machinations required to shift one’s focus to an area of focus that close. I’d much rather my displayed map be three feet out towards the front of my car in the line of travel the way they are now.
I’m surprised you didn’t throw out your back with a kneejerk reaction like that.
Just quoting for posterity. “Wasting valuable resources on killing children.” Just going to leave that there. What’s Google’s child death tool so far?
Whatever bubba, you want to try and take literally or even seriously the words that followed “fucking robot car” that’s your fucking problem.
I can’t help you dissemble hyperbolic humour, there is no way you could grasp that I find their lobbying for drivers to be able to use Glass while driving is lobbying for distracted driving without the ability to do that yourself.
Nothing about driving requires being a glasshole.
This! Next generation Glass could be combined with the tech for the Google car to either:
Google needs to make the case that this or future tech can make driving safer. Meanwhile they could provide an ‘app’ or whatever that the user can run when driving that will disable much of the features in favour of safety & navigation support, which is also provable to a police officer or whoever (you can show them when you activated the app or something).
My reaction to the proposals comes from a bit at the end of the article:
For Maryland House of Delegates member Benjamin Kramer, the San Diego traffic case shows a need for clear state laws. When a driver is pulled over, it will always be extremely difficult for law enforcement to prove whether Google Glass had been operating, said Kramer, a Democrat.
“The way to get around it is just to prohibit them altogether,” he said.
When not active, Google Glass is as “distracting” as the prescription glasses I wear. The ones that, far from being prohibited from wearing, I’m required to wear while driving because I can’t pass the mandatory vision test without them. My reaction of “Kill the proposed regulations.” is based on Kramer’s stated desire to prohibit the idea entirely because he can’t tell whether a Glass is on or not.
And even when active, I don’t think Google Glass would necessarily be a distraction. No more so than say the in-dash GPS navigation systems that’re already allowed and installed in cars (my Subaru had one as an option). Glass in fact would be less distracting since I can see it’s display without taking my eyes off the road and looking down at the dash as the in-dash system requires. We won’t even discuss having to look down to manipulate the in-dash stereo, they’re way beyond doing it by touch. All those distractions are accepted as normal and fine, so why is Glass any different?
Reading email or texts is obviously stupid and ought not happen.
However there should not be a restriction on integration with the car’s own display system. It’s much the same as a navigation display etc that many cars already have.
The devil is in the details, of course, but it would be good to find a way to use glass with the car’s systems.
So by that logic we should ban all dashboard displays because someone might display youtube on them?
Google Glass is just another display. We don’t know if it’s net positive or a net negative. It doesn’t seem like we shouldn’t go banning them preemptively. They could be displaying images of cars in fog. They could be showing your blind spot when you turn your head to see if it’s safe to change lanes. They could display your navigational map so you can glance at it easier without taking your eyes off the road.
It might be better to work with platform makers to maybe add a new app permission (“can use while driving”)? Or something. But, outright banning their use while driving before we even know what the uses are seems really short sighted.
Regarding appropriate and proportionate responsibility: surely the driver of a car bears the entire responsibility for the events caused by their driving, yes? Barring mechanical failure, of course; I should not be held responsible for a situation which is thrust upon me by another party. But no one is forcing me to wear Glass while driving. If I choose to do so, or to text while driving, or read a paper, or eat a sandwich, or perform any form of distracting action while driving, the only person who should be held responsible is me.
If the existing penalties for distracted driving (jail time, probable professional and financial ruin) are insufficient, then let’s discuss increasing them. Double fees and jail time for crimes committed while driving distracted, perhaps? That would be reasonable, though I think unnecessary. But proactive prohibition of distracted driving by itemized prohibition of potential distractions is like the UK’s porn black-list - doomed to inadequacy and prone to abuse by authorities.
Also - “killings”? That’s a strong word. Did you maybe intend to use “deaths”? Or are you suggesting that if someone gets run over by a Glass-wearing driver, their death was premeditated? Should the driver be up for Murder rather than Manslaugter?
The use of HUDs in vehicles isn’t so cut and dry.
HUDs are notorious for an effect called cognitive tunnelling. That is where a person involuntarily, and undesirably, fixes their mental resources on an information source, for some length of time, at the expense of monitoring other critical elements of the environment.
Pilots are trained to manage this stuff, drivers aren’t.
Recommended reading:
http://criticaluncertainties.com/2013/04/29/those-who-ignore-history/
I don’t know about you, but I put exactly the same amount of concentration “towards eating as you do towards eating”…
I know, smart ass response to an obvious brainfart/typo, but I couldn’t resist 
Oh please. What a load of ageist bullpucky
