You must have a very tiny car if your radio, GPS, etc. are two inches away from your face.
Also, thanks for the link. From the article you cite (emphasis mine):
1 Like
umm, No, they exist in a completely different context than the road and its potential hazardsā¦ You did read what you wrote ā¦ right?
I love this idea that something that goes between your eye and the road absolutely does not obstruct (nor distract) the drivers view of the road. What a farce.
What would there be to see, if it did not obstruct -any- of my view?
1 Like
There are concepts called translucency and transparency at work here. The glass of your windshield does not block your view of the road. Translucent data does not block it either.
In the upper right corner of your right eye you would see something like this
As you can see, the glass portion of the image allows you to see what is behind it and only exists in one eye and only in the upper right of that eye. The edges of the glass device blocks your view as much as the edge of your normal driving glasses.
Ho Ho, I never knew I could attend a school taught by Freemen on the Land. If you want to align your desire to youtube with Glass while driving with -interpretations- that, in case#1 tell us we can drive with regulation (but Freemen say it means you canāt be required to be licensed & insured in a registered vehicle!?), that in case#2 restricts municipal regulatory control of highways & roads, that in case#3 erroneously equates ādrivingā with ātravelā, that in case#4 repeats the error of case#3. Both #3 & #4 were passport issuance disputes LoL.
You go ahead and follow the law as put down by copy-paste magicians of the Free Land Under The Sun or whatever the scammers are today.
Now, mind you if we all did that then one of the accepted means of resolving a dispute over an accident involving two uninsured, unlicensed individuals might involve immediate gunplay, since we know they packing, but Iāve seen video games like that, so Why Not, right?
At least youāre not astro-turfing for pay for Google. It is quite clear that you arenāt doing that. Crystal. Clear. Haha, they have standards.
Not the least because all of the web content I mentioned simply canāt be compared to a billboard video, tho those are known to cause accidents too,
2 Likes
Oh, so it does go between my eyes and the road.
As I said, Windshield Laws. They exist. They apply. Get used to them.
1 Like
The edge of the glass is where now? 1.5cm -from- where?
Google should work to flush that image you posted, Really, they should, thatās horrible.
May I inquire if those arguing for the use of Glass have ever used Glass?
Because changing oneās focus from the roadway (20ā) to a device an inch away is more time-consuming than I would prefer if I were a passenger. If there was a way to black out the screen I would be fine with it, but it is certainly not a heads up display in the traditional sense, given the extreme change of focus required for the eye.
3 Likes
too easy. you quickly took my link and are arguing source and not content now. The truth is the truth no matter who speaks it
Your argument is that since the state can require a license or in other ways regulate driving, then it ceases to be a right and becomes a privilege to be granted by the state
Your argument fails upon scrutiny as it is predicated on the idea that licensure and regulation equates to a right becoming privilege. The states regulate many things that are fundamental rights but that doesnāt make them privileges. Voting is a fundamental right. However, you canāt vote until you are 18. We are also told where and when to vote. And if you commit some crimes there are states take will away your voting rights.
Does the regulation make the right to vote a privilege? Of course not.
Owning a gun is a fundamental right. Yet the state can issue licences and impose other regulation on firearm ownership. This does not make it a privilege, it only demonstrates that the state can regulate the activity.
Your argument also fails at the most basic level. Our government does not own the roads, we do. Just as everything the state makes belongs to us all. Take copyright for example. Government employee creations have no copyright. We all own it and using it is a right and not a privilege.
As for the image you postedā¦ notice how the top of his glasses frame is in line with the top of his eye, yeah, heās intentionally looking through the āglassā to make it more prominent in his line of sight. Your supposition here is that because it can be worn that way, it will be worn that way much as your entire argument is based on the idea that since people can make bad choices with google glass that they will make bad choices and we need a law to make sure that they donāt rather than the more reasonable position of ticketing those who drive badly.
So, by your reckoning, reading a translucently rendered book on my Glassās Kindle app while driving should be perfectly fine, right?
yes, that rendered book on your Glassās Kindle app is perfectly fine. Reading that book while driving however, is not.
All the hyperbolic scenarios here are just getting silly. My argument is that we should not pass any laws based ignorance and fear of the unknown and what might happen. That kind of thinking got us the patriot act.
So then whatās the difference?
This is not a hyperbolic scenario. People read emails on their smartphone while driving; Iāve done it before when it was legal in my jurisdiction, and Iāve seen other people do the same, in fact, pretty much everyone I know who has a smartphone and a car. Why do you think people wouldnāt do the same with their Glass? What, materially, is different from reading an email and a book on Glass while driving?
Its the same as having a book open on your dashboard while driving. Nothing wrong with that at all. But, if are reading that same book while driving, then you are distracted. Should we ban books from cars because someone can pick it up and read it while driving?
Anything can be a distraction if you let it. You canāt go around banning everything that is a potential distraction.
Before we take away someones freedom or their free speech (money is speech now) you need to demonstrate that this tech WILL cause distractions not that it CAN.
No, but we should ban holding books up in front of your face while driving (even translucent ones), even if youāre not actually reading it.
No, but you can go around banning things that are likely to be abused as distractions, particularly when they (the bans) are based on prior evidence of similar technology which has been well studied, and when the technology actually incorporates features that make it even more likely to be disruptive, such as, say, being worn in front of your eyes at all times.
LoL You have a right to travel, thatās it. I donāt believe that regulation implies privilege.
If you believed that driving were the only way to travel & you werenāt allowed to drive & thus held that the State made you stand in one place all day, why then Iād cry tears for you, I would. But you can lose the privilege of sharing the road with the rest of us & still travel wherever you want, whenever you want (EXCEPT Area 51! So get off that fence! You can go there we own it j/k!)
Absolutely I laughed out loud at the source & itās deliberately obtuse interpretations, yes, I did. I also thought less of you for it.
& when that glorious day comes, when as a nation we only make laws when something goes wrong, deliberately casting aside the old, useless tools of observation, deduction & history Iāll march right there beside you buddy, arm & arm, likely drunk, but weāll be marching, not driving.
yeah, my obtuse interpretationsā¦ and that of The Supreme Court of Virginia
āThe right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.ā
Or the Supreme Court of Illinois
āThe use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived.ā
You realize that this is about the right to travel, and not the right to drive, yes? Maybe too subtle a point?
Yes, I am also aware than the two are not different in the eyes of many supreme court judges. See my previous post for more on that.
You make a claim (that the right to travel freely equates to the right to drive in the eyes of many supreme court judges), yet you offer no proof.
Curious.
yesā¦ yes I did. Here are two.
Let me make this easy. Iāve quoted two Supreme Court opinions on the subject of driving as a right. Please offer one saying that driving is a privilege and not a right.
