Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Sunday March 02 2014, @01:30AM   Printer-friendly [Skip to comment(s)]
from the now-you-see-it,-now-you-don't dept.

Rich26189 writes:

"In a somewhat pre-emptive move Google is lobbying against state legislation that would ban drivers from using Google Glass while driving. I, for one, would like to see such legislation passed. There is enough distracted driving due to hand-held cell phones and Google Glass would just be just one more task for the brain to cope with.

This from Reuters:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/25/us-googl e-glass-lobbying-idUSBREA1O0P920140225"

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by regift_of_the_gods on Sunday March 02 2014, @01:38AM

    by regift_of_the_gods (138) on Sunday March 02 2014, @01:38AM (#9329)

    There's going to be a fender bender where the one driver goes ballistic when he sees the other guy getting out of his car wearing Google Glass.

    • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 02 2014, @02:12AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 02 2014, @02:12AM (#9346)

      piss cake, a cake made from piss, delicious

  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by edIII on Sunday March 02 2014, @02:17AM

    by edIII (791) on Sunday March 02 2014, @02:17AM (#9348)

    Distraction is just becoming ridiculous now.

    The few times I venture out into public to eat the only thing I see is entire generations plastered to little screens. I swear, it's like watching Wall-E with people that are just not as fat.

    In how many different places are these people afraid to face silence, or interacting with other people? Especially, their friends.

    I wholly support legislation to not just ban Google Glass from operation while driving, but also the right to ban it from restaurants, etc.

    People may want to live life bonded to some device and social networking, but it's certainly not safe enough to drive like that.

    --
    Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
    • (Score: 3, Funny) by frojack on Sunday March 02 2014, @02:27AM

      by frojack (1554) Subscriber Badge on Sunday March 02 2014, @02:27AM (#9352) Journal

      Prepare to be assimilated.

      --
      No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
    • (Score: 2) by chewbacon on Sunday March 02 2014, @03:55PM

      by chewbacon (1032) on Sunday March 02 2014, @03:55PM (#9632)

      Be patient. Have a large pan pizza. We'll catch up as far as being fat goes.

    • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Cyberdyne on Sunday March 02 2014, @09:59PM

      by Cyberdyne (403) on Sunday March 02 2014, @09:59PM (#9763)

      > Distraction is just becoming ridiculous now.

      So is regulation.

      • (Score: 2) by edIII on Sunday March 02 2014, @11:12PM

        by edIII (791) on Sunday March 02 2014, @11:12PM (#9812)

        Well I'm going to strongly disagree with you there.

        If we had more regulation the greedy bankers and Wall Street could have never created this Great Depression.

        I'm sure you will respond back with the inviolable ideology of Capitalism and Free-Markets, both of which are illusory though and never existed.

        There is no level playing field, and no corporation would ever seek to be fair. Greedy sociopaths that comprise the toxic corporate culture of today will do everything up to crushing puppies and setting kittens on fire, if it means gaining more wealth and power. All of it cloaked in the ideology that promotes the Share Holder as being above all else, and if it services the Share Holder, it must be right, correct, moral, and full of tasty freedom.

        Without strong regulations, and more preferably, strict super-max prison sentences for the execs, they will continue to act in the most unfair ways possible to gain whatever advantages they can.

        To state otherwise is to engage in wishful thinking and willful ignorance of the facts evident in the last 20 years in this failing country.

        No, I've been convinced beyond all doubt. Regulations are fully required, and we desperately need more of them to prevent the wholesale theft that was performed on us in the last 7 years, and is in fact, still going strong.

        Never has this country been so weak in every respect. All of it, ALL of it, could have been avoided with better regulations.

        --
        Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
    • (Score: 1) by HiThere on Monday March 03 2014, @01:09AM

      by HiThere (866) on Monday March 03 2014, @01:09AM (#9851) Journal

      Well...I'd like restaurants to ban people talking on cell phones, but I doubt that Google Glass is going to annoy me anymore than that. But wearing it while driving strikes me as dangerous...and not only to the driver.

      --
      Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
      • (Score: 2) by edIII on Monday March 03 2014, @02:23AM

        by edIII (791) on Monday March 03 2014, @02:23AM (#9875)

        I don't want Google Glass operational in restaurants due to surreptitious surveillance capabilities. It has nothing to do with the operation itself, even though I'm not a big fan of people's obsession with them.

        Taking a picture is one thing, taking a picture of your stupid food is another, and doing either and putting it in a private photo album is no concern of mine.

        Taking a picture, or video, of yourself or others and putting it in an album in the "cloud" where it's actively being processed in a multitude of Big Data systems is very much my concern.

        Google Glass makes that so easy, and most importantly, is deniable. Unless there is very very strong legislation and firmware protections that show a bright visible indication of recording, I don't want Google Glass near me.

        That's not hyperbole or tin-foil either. Pretty much everyone here will know about Big Data. We just disagree to the extent we are being abused, not that it's happening.

        I'm vehemently opposed based on my privacy views, but also because I don't want to go to the Olive Garden and then have the blaring idiot-box telling me about Prego's new roasted garlic sauce for only $3.99 at Albertson's, America's preferred grocery store at the gas station.

        We should be opposed to Google Glass because of the mass violations of privacy, those being reasonable levels we expect in public and semi-public levels of privacy.

        If you want to snap a picture with your cell phone by my guest. It doesn't affect my privacy all that much. Use Google Glass and I'm reasonably assured you just jumped up and shouted it to the world at 4000 decibels.

        So I would tell those people to shut the fuck up. Respectfully. It's a nice restaurant.

        --
        Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
  • (Score: 1) by Angry Jesus on Sunday March 02 2014, @02:35AM

    by Angry Jesus (182) on Sunday March 02 2014, @02:35AM (#9356)

    I like to think I am a very conscientious driver. I won't answer my cell while driving, hands-free or otherwise because I believe the reports that holding a conversation with someone who isn't present in the car is substantially increases your level of distraction because the other person isn't present and doesn't know when to shut up like a real passenger would.

    I think google glass is the closest chance I've got of seeing a good heads-up-display in my life time. Having my instrument panel, including GPS, directly in the field of view is my holy grail of driving.

    I'm not convinced that displaying a text message in such a way as to keep your eyes on the road is a bad thing either -- it is no where near the cognitive load of a phone call. Obviously it can't be better than never getting a text message at all, but I question whether the level of distraction caused by a text message on a HUD is even meaningful.

    If someone gets into an accident and they were watching porn on their headset, then they need to be charged with distracted driving. But the idea of outright banning the device is to throw the baby out with the bathwater. After all, in and of itself, it isn't illegal to read a map while you are driving.

    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by tftp on Sunday March 02 2014, @03:44AM

      by tftp (806) on Sunday March 02 2014, @03:44AM (#9376) Homepage

      If someone gets into an accident and they were watching porn on their headset, then they need to be charged with distracted driving. But the idea of outright banning the device is to throw the baby out with the bathwater. After all, in and of itself, it isn't illegal to read a map while you are driving.

      A good number of people are good enough drivers to not become distracted by GG when driving in good weather on a familiar road. However the laws are not written to serve best cases. The laws are written for worst cases: a novice driver, pouring rain, midnight, unfamiliar mountain road.

      One possibility would be to use self-assessment, like those speed signs with yellow background, installed near turns. They are calculated for trucks; in a car you can usually go 10 mph faster. If you tow a trailer, you'd do well going 10 mph slower.

      IMO, legislatures will not bother with delegating the responsibility to drivers, for one simple reason: there is no clear social good in allowing GG in the car. The purpose of the yellow speed sign is clear: to tell you how bad the upcoming turn is going to be. It would be not desirable to make it a mandatory white sign because different vehicles can take the turn at different speed, and there is some social good in allowing cars to go as fast as it is safe. The GG has nothing to do with a car, except the mapping display. But GG cannot be locked into that mode - and other laws already forbid video entertainment to the driver.

      • (Score: 2, Insightful) by frojack on Sunday March 02 2014, @03:56AM

        by frojack (1554) Subscriber Badge on Sunday March 02 2014, @03:56AM (#9381) Journal

        there is no clear social good in allowing GG in the car

        Assuming you meant to say On the driver instead of In the car, I'd have to agree.

        I don't think anyone has demonstrated a believable use case where Glass is more useful than a smartphone in a car mount showing maps. With all android phones offering free verbal turn by turn navigation, you really don't need a HUD except to do things you probably shouldn't be doing in the driver seat.

        Yeah, I know, HUDs are cool and all that, but verbal turn by turn is better.

        --
        No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by tftp on Sunday March 02 2014, @04:10AM

          by tftp (806) on Sunday March 02 2014, @04:10AM (#9388) Homepage

          Definitely on the driver. Passengers can use whatever they want... and the existing law does not apply to them. The driver's duty is only to drive the car. By law he is allowed to use the map, as that may be necessary for driving, but other *unnecessary* distractions are not welcome, to varying extent. Radio is a minor distraction; texting is a major one; watching video is really bad. GG is capable of all of them, and there is no easy way to lock it into the "driving" mode. If that were to be possible, I'd gladly accept GG on a driver as a replacement (or enhancement) for the map, and for the rear view mirror, and for the backup camera... maybe even a synthesized view from the top would be possible, leaving you with no blind spots. Assisted parking is yet another function; deer detector (or just a forward-facing IR camera) could be handy at night. But for that to work the GG has to have a "driver's mode" that is securely locked while you are behind the wheel. Is it practically possible to detect where you are in the car, if more than one seat is occupied?

      • (Score: 0, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 02 2014, @04:06AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 02 2014, @04:06AM (#9386)

        The GG has nothing to do with a car, except the mapping display. But GG cannot be locked into that mode...

        Nothing to do with a car except the mapping display? The mapping display is useful enough information, and I'm sure that there are tons of other useful things that Google Glass can be made to display to a driver to aid, rather than hinder the task of driving. Cannot be locked into that mode? Software can be written to do that, and to prove it has been locked into that mode during a certain period of time. I really have to wonder why so many people, including many self-described nerds and geeks at that, hate Google Glass so much. True, Google seems to be going off the deep end with their marketing of the device, but I wonder why people seem so blinded by that that no one tries to see the potential other uses for Glass. There was a story on the other site a few months ago about possible uses for Google Glass for surgeons performing operations, and there was nothing but negativity in most of the comments, never mind that it could be used to display information the surgeon would need more conveniently than alternative means. "The street finds its own uses for things," as William Gibson famously wrote, and Google for its part has placed no serious technological hurdles in the way for the street to find its own uses for Glass. They have done no churlish things such as putting a locked bootloader, or refused to publish the source code for anything needed to customise it.

        • (Score: 4, Insightful) by tftp on Sunday March 02 2014, @04:15AM

          by tftp (806) on Sunday March 02 2014, @04:15AM (#9390) Homepage

          http://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?sid=376&cid=938 8 [soylentnews.org]

          I'm open to technical use of GG, but I am concerned about the "social" use because these days that word doesn't mean what it used to mean 100 years ago. Today "social" means "open to surveillance" and "doing surveillance for others." A GG as a device is fine. A GG as a spy network is not fine.

        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by frojack on Sunday March 02 2014, @04:35AM

          by frojack (1554) Subscriber Badge on Sunday March 02 2014, @04:35AM (#9400) Journal

          Software can be written to do that, and to prove it has been locked into that mode during a certain period of time.

          Then for god's sake why doesn't Google just burn that software into the silicon and the whole issue goes away?

          Instead they spend a fortune lobbying for their special exemption and to hell with who might be killed in the mean time.

          This all goes away if Glass won't operate at above 3mph except for navigation. If you are a passenger, pull out your phone and use that instead.

          --
          No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 02 2014, @06:00PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 02 2014, @06:00PM (#9683)

            3mph? You must be a slow walker

          • (Score: 1) by zsau on Monday March 03 2014, @04:30AM

            by zsau (2642) on Monday March 03 2014, @04:30AM (#9904)

            Riding in a train? Glass is not appropriate for a car driver, any more than using a phone is. I know in America you find it much harder to ban things when driving than we do in Australia---despite almost the same car-oriented conditions---but even if Glass won't operate at over 3mph it still shouldn't be permitted to car drivers because it could be buggy, and making it acceptable to use the thing in the drivers seat is itself a bad precedent, and there are plenty of valid use cases for a Glass at over 3 miles.

            This all goes away if you treat driving a car as a privilege, not a right. It's dangerous and needs to be thought of as dangerous.

            • (Score: 2) by frojack on Monday March 03 2014, @07:14AM

              by frojack (1554) Subscriber Badge on Monday March 03 2014, @07:14AM (#9933) Journal

              Driving is already a privilege, and not a right.

              On a train why would you need glass? You could just use your phone. Or your tablet. Why would you want to peek with one eye through a tiny semi reflective mirror when you could get a clear view on a tablet?

              --
              No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
              • (Score: 1) by zsau on Monday March 03 2014, @08:58AM

                by zsau (2642) on Monday March 03 2014, @08:58AM (#9954)

                The law saying that something is a privilege not a right doesn't make it so, it's what the goverment and society do that does. Everyone gets a driver's licence. Sometimes the government takes it away as a punishment, and then the offender just drives without a licence. How else can they get around?

                I have no idea why someone would want to use Glass on a train; I have no idea why someone would want to use Glass ever.

      • (Score: 1) by Angry Jesus on Sunday March 02 2014, @09:25AM

        by Angry Jesus (182) on Sunday March 02 2014, @09:25AM (#9478)

        there is no clear social good in allowing GG in the car.

        By that logic there is no clear social good in allowing telephone use in the car either.

        I wouldn't be surprised if it becomes a generational issue - the fuddy-duddies who grew up with telephones but not the internet will say that sort of thing as rationalization to try to ban it. But the generations that have always known the net will turn it around because they have been texting since before they were teens and they will see it as such an obvious social good that it isn't even worth debating.

        • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 02 2014, @06:04PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 02 2014, @06:04PM (#9684)

          By that logic there is no clear social good in allowing telephone use in the car either.

          I agree phones shouldn't be used by the driver

        • (Score: 1) by tftp on Sunday March 02 2014, @10:21PM

          by tftp (806) on Sunday March 02 2014, @10:21PM (#9777) Homepage

          By that logic there is no clear social good in allowing telephone use in the car either.

          You are correct - there is none, unless you are calling 911. The society does not care that you are talking to your GF. The society cares that you do not flatten Little Johnny.

          • (Score: 2) by Angry Jesus on Sunday March 02 2014, @10:32PM

            by Angry Jesus (182) on Sunday March 02 2014, @10:32PM (#9786)

            You are correct - there is none, unless you are calling 911. The society does not care that you are talking to your GF.

            Of course society cares that you are talking to your girlfriend. For example, when she called you to get some medicine for her sick kid on your way home. Easy and efficient communication is a foundational social good -- that's why no state, an AFAIK, no country, has banned drivers from using cell phones. The kind of text messaging that google glass enables (eyes on the road, eyes at same focal point as the road, messages only displayed on command) is significantly less dangerous than cell phone use.

            • (Score: 1) by tftp on Sunday March 02 2014, @10:48PM

              by tftp (806) on Sunday March 02 2014, @10:48PM (#9797) Homepage

              True; but the right to use a cell phone is highly conditional (you have to have a speakerphone or BT setup, you aren't supposed to hold the phone, you aren't supposed to dial out...) It's a compromise, as many things are in this world. GG may also get a compromise if Google does their part. So far Google prefers to force their way in by trying to purchase laws.

              • (Score: 2) by Angry Jesus on Sunday March 02 2014, @10:57PM

                by Angry Jesus (182) on Sunday March 02 2014, @10:57PM (#9805)

                but the right to use a cell phone is highly conditional (you have to have a speakerphone or BT setup, you aren't supposed to hold the phone, you aren't supposed to dial out...)

                That's only true in a limited number of jurisdictions (10 states) and most of the research indicates that all the hands-free stuff makes no difference in the rate of accidents anyway. Plus, I've never heard of not being permitted to dial out.

                GG may also get a compromise if Google does their part. So far Google prefers to force their way in by trying to purchase laws.

                What is "their part?" TFA says laws are being proposed and google is responding to the proposals, they did not act first.

                • (Score: 1) by tftp on Sunday March 02 2014, @11:18PM

                  by tftp (806) on Sunday March 02 2014, @11:18PM (#9815) Homepage

                  Perhaps you live in one of those states that are a bit more free. In CA any use of handheld phones is illegal [nolo.com]. My Bluetooth speakerphone thingy (BlueAnt S4 [myblueant.com]) supports voice commands for all phone operations, including dialing a number.

                  TFA says laws are being proposed

                  When you hear passive voice, become suspicious. Nothing happens on its own. It would be too much to believe that the laws that are essential to Google just formed themselves out of thin air, entirely randomly, and that Google has nothing to do with that.

                  • (Score: 2) by Angry Jesus on Monday March 03 2014, @12:08AM

                    by Angry Jesus (182) on Monday March 03 2014, @12:08AM (#9831)

                    Perhaps you live in one of those states that are a bit more free.

                    It doesn't matter where I live, the point is that your blanket statement is actually a minority opinion. At the very least there is significant doubt.

                    When you hear passive voice, become suspicious.

                    I always like when the person on the other side of a debate is reduced to conspiracy theories, it is a face-saving admission of having been wrong. If you actually RTFA you'd see that in most of the states where these laws are being proposed, google hasn't even gotten involved. Unless of course the people proposing the laws are lying about not having heard from google. Hey, they didn't deny that aliens had asked them to write the laws, so that's on the table too. BTW, no passive voice in TFA either.

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by bigjimslade on Sunday March 02 2014, @07:26AM

      by bigjimslade (212) on Sunday March 02 2014, @07:26AM (#9438)

      ...After all, in and of itself, it isn't illegal to read a map while you are driving.

      uh, yes it is illegal if you are not driving safely. it's called distracted driving, and the police officer that pulls you over will cite you if he/she thinks you were distracted while driving. if you are in an accident and were reading a map, it's your fault, plain and simple. distracted driving. the name says it all.

      you need to pay attention to driving while driving. yes, i know it's a tall order, but we as a community of people around you that may be killed by your driving, would like you to put the fckn map down and drive. if you get lost, pull over and read the map.

      --
      Remember, Tuesday is Soylent Green Day
      • (Score: 1) by Angry Jesus on Sunday March 02 2014, @09:18AM

        by Angry Jesus (182) on Sunday March 02 2014, @09:18AM (#9474)

        > uh, yes it is illegal if you are not driving safely. it's called distracted driving,

        What is the value of misquoting me by selectively trimming my words down to remove the very point you then proceed to re-iterate? You haven't added anything new to the discussion.

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by RedBear on Sunday March 02 2014, @11:31AM

      by RedBear (1734) Subscriber Badge on Sunday March 02 2014, @11:31AM (#9525)

      I can't fathom how you can acknowledge that a phone conversation is a distraction yet fail to understand that reading text messages is just as distracting if not more so. Would you read SoylentNews while you drive, as long as it's on a HUD? I would hope your answer would be no. Every study that's been done shows humans aren't actually capable of true multi-tasking. So if you're reading a text message then you aren't paying full attention to the road. You can't do both safely at the same time. Period.

      But the main point I want to make is that a HUD needs to be integrated into your moving vehicle so that it is in the proper place(s) to never get in the way of your field of view and never be distracting you when you're trying to look at something else either in or outside the vehicle. It needs to not move. Google Glass and any other head-mounted devices beaming random things like text messages into your eyeballs no matter which way you're looking are absolutely not the same as a dash-mounted GPS display. And no matter what, it is absolute idiocy to have anything in your car randomly showing you distracting shit like text messages.

      You're driving a moving vehicle. It's dangerous. So DRIVE the fricken VEHICLE.

      --
      ¯\_ʕ◔.◔ʔ_/¯ LOL. I dunno. I'm just a bear.
      ... Peace out. Got bear stuff to do. 彡ʕ⌐■.■ʔ
      • (Score: 1, Flamebait) by Angry Jesus on Sunday March 02 2014, @12:03PM

        by Angry Jesus (182) on Sunday March 02 2014, @12:03PM (#9542)

        I can't fathom how you can acknowledge that a phone conversation is a distraction yet fail to understand that reading text messages is just as distracting if not more so.

        Here's how -- when you are on the phone the other person doesn't know when to shut up when road conditions become dangerous. Reading a text message is something you can stop doing immediately when road conditions become dangerous and because reading the text message does not require you to take your eyes off the road or even change focus (unlike looking down at your dashboard) - it isn't significantly different from reading a road sign.

        But the main point I want to make is that a HUD needs to be integrated into your moving vehicle so that it is in the proper place(s) to never get in the way of your field of view and never be distracting you when you're trying to look at something else either in or outside the vehicle. It needs to not move.

          I'd sure like to see what information you base that claim on because it seems like various militaries disagree. [wikipedia.org]

        • (Score: 2, Informative) by RedBear on Monday March 03 2014, @01:37AM

          by RedBear (1734) Subscriber Badge on Monday March 03 2014, @01:37AM (#9858)

          Military helmet mounted displays are still very much integrated into and designed for the specific vehicle you are driving, and show the pilot only what they need to see in order to effectively operate that vehicle for its designed task. Show me the military HUD or HMD that has integrated consumer Twitter and text messaging feeds. And the bulk of of the information the vehicle is giving the pilot is going to be in a non-moving dashboard or stationary HUD. What's in the military HMD is limited to very specific information like targeting information for a turret cannon. What a military HMD is showing a pilot bears very little resemblance to what Google Glass may be displaying to distract a driver.

          You fail to understand that if you are distracted by something you WON'T NOTICE when driving conditions become dangerous. That is why you are a dangerous driver. Whether it's a phone call or a text message that's distracting you doesn't much matter. I'm not talking about what's in your sight-line, I'm talking about what your BRAIN is doing, and how easy it is to keep your brain focused on the road traffic. It doesn't matter if your text messages are in a transparent HUD that lets you keep looking toward traffic, if you ever actually read that text message your brain is no longer watching traffic even if your eyes are still pointed in that general direction. For a few seconds while you read that message your brain is busy reading and interpreting text, not looking at and interpreting the road situation. Humans _cannot_ multi-task. We can only pretend to multi-task and fool ourselves into believing that we are successfully multi-tasking. Objective testing shows that we are extremely bad at actually doing true multi-tasking. You're either doing one thing with your brain's full attention, or you're doing another thing.

          I know that you and pretty much every other driver on the road _feel_ like you're an amazing driver and that you aren't significantly distracted by such things as phone calls and text messages and fiddling with your GPS map, but go take an actual objectively measured driving test while doing those things on your HUD or HMD and you will soon realize that you are a fool and a dangerous driver. If your BRAIN isn't actively paying complete attention to driving the vehicle and watching traffic, your reaction times are significantly increased, and the difference between life and death where moving vehicles are concerned is fractions of a second.

          Any device like Google Glass that is going to randomly show you things that are unrelated to driving, like text messages, is just straight up a horrible idea, especially when it's always in your field of view no matter where you're looking. But I guess since most of the drivers on the road are like you and think fiddling with Google Glass and reading text messages while driving is fine, the only real solution is to make all cars smart enough to compensate for the average driver's stupidity and distraction. So, looks like the roads are going to get more and more dangerous over the next couple of decades until the cars are truly smart enough to drive better than people. Getting the drivers to actually pay attention to driving seems like a losing battle, as your response confirms.

          Everybody is an amazing multi-tasking driver and text messages aren't distracting. Right. Whatever.

          --
          ¯\_ʕ◔.◔ʔ_/¯ LOL. I dunno. I'm just a bear.
          ... Peace out. Got bear stuff to do. 彡ʕ⌐■.■ʔ
          • (Score: 2) by Angry Jesus on Tuesday March 04 2014, @01:29AM

            by Angry Jesus (182) on Tuesday March 04 2014, @01:29AM (#10387)

            Man you are all over the place with your sanctimonious rant. You make a claim that "HUDS ... need to not move," you call it your main point even, and when it is completely disproven you just spew out anything that comes to mind. I don't have the patience to run down each and every bullshit claim you've made this time. So I'll pick the highlights and ignore as much of the self-righteous insults as possible:

            What's in the military HMD is limited to very specific information like targeting information for a turret cannon.

            You've confused a lack of capability as a design goal. That was once true, but only because older HMD's couldn't handle the entire job. Now they can. See the F-35 where the HMD fully replaces all HUD functionality, including navigation, landing and aircraft management under all flight regimes. [defencetalk.com]

            [You] _feel_ like you're an amazing driver and that you aren't significantly distracted by such things as phone calls and text messages and fiddling with your GPS map, but ... If your BRAIN isn't actively paying complete attention to driving the vehicle and watching traffic, your reaction times are significantly increased, and the difference between life and death where moving vehicles are concerned is fractions of a second.

            If the real world worked like that, the driver's seat would be in its own compartment completely isolated from the rest of the cabin. No speaker-phone. No radio to sing along with or yell at. No passengers to talk to you or piss you off by fighting with each other in the back-seat. No billboards or signs. No bumper stickers.

            But that's not the way the real world works. It's a trade off because there is a margin of safety and spending some of that margin on other things is of more utility. And as these things go, checking your instrumentation, reading text messages, getting GPS driving directions, etc all in a way doesn't take your eyes of the road, doesn't even require that you re-focus your eyes and is under your direct control, not "random," is something that is very likely going to be a net increase to that margin of safety than we have today.

            Furthermore, despite the enormous increase in cell phone and gps use in recent years, traffic fatality rates have declined more than 20% and injury rates are down more than 32% since 2000. [dot.gov]

            • (Score: 1) by RedBear on Tuesday March 04 2014, @08:46PM

              by RedBear (1734) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday March 04 2014, @08:46PM (#10943)

              I really shouldn't reply to this and the thread is so old you'll probably never see my reply anyway, but it's going to bug me until I do. The fact that you refer to my part of this discussion as "sanctimonious" certainly reconfirms my opinion of your viewpoint.

              First off, you'll notice when I said "main point" when replying to the original poster it was because my first paragraph in that reply was kind of on a tangent to what I mainly wanted to say in my reply to him, namely that between Google Glass and a stationary dashboard in a CONSUMER VEHICLE DRIVEN IN TRAFFIC ON PUBLIC ROADS the much preferable choice would be a stationary dashboard (i.e. "HUD" as he was referring to his Google Glass). Choosing when to take in information from a stationary dashboard which will only ever be displaying information relevant to driving the vehicle is far superior to having a head-mounted display that will show you things, at random times, completely unrelated to the safe driving of the vehicle.

              When I say "random", I mean that you have no control over when such notifications will be sent to you. You may choose when to actively read them, but you can't choose when they arrive at your device. I'm not sure how this was misunderstood. I know you think you are immune to the distraction of text messages, but can you really believe you won't be distracted for several seconds when your Google Glass pops up a message saying your wife was critically injured in a car accident across town? If that happens at the wrong time, instead of narrowly avoiding the stupid kid who just ran into the street in front of your car you'll go ahead and plow him down without noticing.

              Secondly, I don't feel the constant comparison to custom-designed military HUDs and HMDs makes any sense. I tried to imply this indirectly with previous comments already. Driving a consumer vehicle on public roads among pedestrians and bumper-to-bumper city/freeway traffic cannot be compared to piloting tanks, helicopters and jets which mainly occurs on wide open training ranges or battlefields that have already been cleared of most non-military personnel.

              I will grant you the full HUD in a HMD in a military vehicle, but I continue to reject the overall comparison as I did before. The display is still specifically designed to show the pilot only what they need for piloting that vehicle, they are specifically trained for many hours to pilot that vehicle using that specific HMD, and again I am certain there is no military HMD in existence that has an integrated Twitter/SMS feed to let the pilot's civilian buddies send him text messages. Because that would be idiocy of the highest order.

              Commercial jet pilots have plenty of time to drink some coffee and read the newspaper while they're on auto-pilot at cruising altitude, with no other planes within miles and the ground three miles below. But would you really want that airline pilot to be wearing his personal Google Glass type device while landing the plane? Think about it. With public road traffic in consumer vehicles, we are ALWAYS "LANDING THE PLANE". An airplane at cruising altitude can fall two miles out of the sky and still end up fine in many circumstances. If you fail to see the car ahead of you slam on the brakes at highway speeds you are dead. Many people drive in such circumstances for an hour or more every damn day!

              Thirdly, if we actually cared that much about traffic safety we would indeed isolate the driver from all distractions. But as you say, there is a practical balance between cost and what drivers are willing to put up with. But that isn't saying much. After all, the entire auto industry and nearly every driver on the road rejected the very idea of something as simple and inexpensive as seat belts for decades. Now they are standard and required by law nearly everywhere. I do not buy that checking instrumentation now and then is anywhere on the same level as reading text messages, and reading text messages has nothing to do with driving the vehicle. I'm also not sure how you believe you can read a text message on a HUD without refocusing your eyes (and more importantly BRAIN) away from traffic. That's some magical HUD.

              Lastly, even if you can point to traffic statistics showing that the remaining accidents weren't often caused by distractions like texting on phones, that proves nothing regarding something brand new and even more invasive like Google Glass which has only been in the hands of relatively few people for a couple of years. Again, take an objective driving test while being distracted by something like Google Glass and see just how wrong you are about how great a safety tradeoff it is to use such things in traffic, even at low speeds.

              My sister was rear-ended pretty good in a turning lane many years ago by some idiot who was just messing with his radio, before texting was even really a thing. Unless you have a copilot to take care of such things, it is my strongly held opinion that all such distractions should be minimized and a driver has no business taking their eyes AND ATTENTION off the road for more than a half-second even if they are on a completely empty road. Reading text messages takes far longer than that, and as everyone gets addicted to needing such constant interactions even while driving and exponentially more messages are sent it becomes statistically more and more likely that they will cause just enough distraction at the wrong moments to cause a statistically meaningful number of accidents that otherwise could have been avoided. I do not consider allowing the reading of texts and tweets while driving to be an acceptable safety tradeoff. Period.

              I'm sure a lot of this post will be seen as some kind of moving of goalposts, but I have been consistent with my own viewpoint at all times, even if I didn't successfully communicate that viewpoint from the beginning in a way that you understood. I'll try better next time.

              If you're important enough to be texting and making phone calls while driving, then you're obviously important enough to have a chauffeur to drive you while you text and make phone calls. Otherwise get the hell off the road and do such things only when safely parked out of traffic. When you drive a car, you should be DRIVING THE CAR. That is my opinion and I will never be dissuaded from it.

              • (Score: 2) by Angry Jesus on Tuesday March 04 2014, @10:21PM

                by Angry Jesus (182) on Tuesday March 04 2014, @10:21PM (#11018)

                When I say "random", I mean that you have no control over when such notifications will be sent to you. You may choose when to actively read them, but you can't choose when they arrive at your device. I'm not sure how this was misunderstood.

                You wrote "randomly displayed" that's how you were 'misunderstood.'

                Your intellectual dishonesty is waaaaay too tedious to even bother reading past that.

    • (Score: 1) by big_e on Sunday March 02 2014, @11:54AM

      by big_e (2513) on Sunday March 02 2014, @11:54AM (#9536)

      If the cops see you wearing google glass while driving, do they reserve the right to search your device to see that you were indeed using it for a legally allowed purpose? Should it be mandatory that google glass logs your app activity just in case law enforcement needs it to determine if you were engaged in distracted driving? I think that most people on Soylent would answer NO for both these questions and be screaming about their civil liberties being violated should the above happen.

      If the cops have no effective legal way of determining whether or not a device was being used for a purpose that leads to distracted driving then the law against distracted driving is completely unenforceable, thus a blanket ban does make good legal sense. At least with a Garmin it's a known single purpose device. With google glass, Its a pretty sure bet that most of the people who are using it on their daily commute are not using it for navigation.

      As far as text messaging on a HUD being safer, it's like arguing that having an open container of alcohol in the vehicle is going to happen anyway despite the laws, so if your gonna drink and drive, be safer and use a beer helmet and besides driving around with a .05% BAC is just a mild intoxication.

      • (Score: 1, Flamebait) by Angry Jesus on Sunday March 02 2014, @12:08PM

        by Angry Jesus (182) on Sunday March 02 2014, @12:08PM (#9545)

        If the cops have no effective legal way of determining whether or not a device was being used for a purpose that leads to distracted driving then the law against distracted driving is completely unenforceable

        You mean like driving while intoxicated is also undetectable?

        • (Score: 2, Interesting) by big_e on Sunday March 02 2014, @12:51PM

          by big_e (2513) on Sunday March 02 2014, @12:51PM (#9561)

          In my state, the driver is legally compelled to take a sobriety test including a breathalyzer test if they are suspected of drunken driving or their drivers license will be forfeited on the spot.

          No such forensic tool currently exists for law enforcement to analyze google glass usage by drivers to discern between GPS usage or watching movies at a particular time, nor is their any evidence that such a tool is even currently technically possible. Nor would they be legally compelled to hand over their google glass for forensics or face the loss of their drivers license. If google were to cooperate and create a tool that would enable law enforcement to do so, watch the legal challenges begin.

          • (Score: 1, Flamebait) by Angry Jesus on Sunday March 02 2014, @01:14PM

            by Angry Jesus (182) on Sunday March 02 2014, @01:14PM (#9576)

            > legally compelled to take a sobriety test including a breathalyzer

            That doesn't work for any form of intoxication other than alcohol.

            > No such forensic tool currently exists for law enforcement to analyze google glass
            > usage by drivers to discern between GPS usage or watching movies at a particular time,

            You've got exactly the same problem with people using the GPS on their phones too. [latimes.com]

            The point is that your standard for enforceability is not the only way in which laws work.

            • (Score: 1) by glyph on Sunday March 02 2014, @11:39PM

              by glyph (245) on Sunday March 02 2014, @11:39PM (#9824)

              The latest breathalyzers work for pot and amphetamines too.

              • (Score: 1) by Angry Jesus on Monday March 03 2014, @12:20AM

                by Angry Jesus (182) on Monday March 03 2014, @12:20AM (#9833)

                The latest breathalyzers work for pot and amphetamines too.

                Except they can't test for intoxication, they get positive results a day or more after use and it is just research-lab level results, not actual breathalyzers. [iop.org]

                And then there is drowsy driving. [ncsl.org]

                • (Score: 1) by glyph on Monday March 03 2014, @12:39AM

                  by glyph (245) on Monday March 03 2014, @12:39AM (#9839)

                  Okay, "breathalyzer" was a generalization. They DO have instantaneous roadside testing though, using a saliva swab.

                  As for intoxication. if they detect pot in your system they can compel a blood/piss test (generally, jurisdiction dependant) and thus prove intoxication. If they can measure MDMA in your system AT ALL you still are under the influence of it, the drug is metabolised faster than the effect wears off.

                  • (Score: 2) by Angry Jesus on Monday March 03 2014, @01:31AM

                    by Angry Jesus (182) on Monday March 03 2014, @01:31AM (#9855)

                    As for intoxication. if they detect pot in your system they can compel a blood/piss test (generally, jurisdiction dependant) and thus prove intoxication.

                    I would like to see the information you base that claim on, because it appears to be untrue: [expertpages.com]

                    "Both the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the National Institute on Drug Abuse have stated that marijuana impairment testing via blood sampling is unreliable. This determination is based on the lack of a reliable metric, and thus the inability to accurately quantitatively determine marijuana impairment."

        • (Score: 2) by VLM on Sunday March 02 2014, @12:58PM

          by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Sunday March 02 2014, @12:58PM (#9567)

          "You mean like driving while intoxicated is also undetectable?"

          That's basically true, a lot of money is made by the system by making the limits ever lower to the point of ridiculousness.

          If you read police blotter type local news, you'll see a cluster where people pulled over for bad driving or in a horrible accident inevitably blow a .2 or .3, but the profiteering stories where they incidentally busted someone are inevitably at the low end of the scale the .09 and so forth.

    • (Score: 2) by VLM on Sunday March 02 2014, @01:08PM

      by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Sunday March 02 2014, @01:08PM (#9574)

      "doesn't know when to shut up like a real passenger would."

      So, like, forbid transportation of ungagged children, and/or people without a valid drivers license, and/or young people without much experience? No transportation of housepets other than in a crate?

      Something mysterious about text messages to me, is we have a multi-billion dollar industry oriented around using text messages and very soft core pr0n on billboards along the side of the road and in a neo-puritan sense thats great, but somebody looking at their own text messages is supposedly bad.

      "If someone gets into an accident and they were watching porn on their headset, then they need to be charged with distracted driving."

      So if my wife flashes me in person thats OK and all in good fun, but the neo-puritans think posting a selfie (optimistically in private mode) would be bad, um, OK, whatever. I've been distracted while driving by women in bikinis and the like. One of my more exhibitionist neighbors used to water her lawn and garden and yardwork while wearing not much over three square inches of fabric, and she's OK, but reddit isn't, or something. There is some value in being public, so when any driver sees my neighbor showing off, any driver knows any male driver will be extremely distracted and therefore can drive somewhat more defensively.

  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by frojack on Sunday March 02 2014, @02:43AM

    by frojack (1554) Subscriber Badge on Sunday March 02 2014, @02:43AM (#9358) Journal

    Instead of lobbying for Glass to be accepted cart blanch, Google should be adding assurances that Glass will only do a certain limited set of things while it is traveling more than 3 mph, and that Glass will always have access to GPS. (to determine speed).

    Those limited things allowable while moving > 3mph would all be based on the assumption you are driving, and would include things like a highly simplified map, turn by turn directions, etc. In essence, a HUD for driving.

    If Google won't take steps to prevent distracted driving they will probably lose the fight, because people aren't all that excited to have "glassholes" (El Reg's term for Google Glass wearers) anywhere, let alone on the roads.

    We already ban texting and even phone-in-hand calling based on the ASSUMPTION that people can't do this and drive at the same time. Even if you were able to prove you CAN do this, its still not allowed.

    So if it is possible that you could be watching porn on your glass, the nanny state will simply ASSUME they you are, and that you are therefore distracted.

    I think its up to Google to offer assurances that all possible distractions would be eliminated. It would be the smart play for them to do. Otherwise even if the succeed in fighting back a ban, they will get themselves hauled into court every time there was a fender bender with a Glass in the car.

    --
    No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 02 2014, @03:08AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 02 2014, @03:08AM (#9368)

      Doing a blanket rule to make Glass go into "You're Moving Mode!" while moving at more than 3 mph is really dumb. Or any speed. What if I'm a passenger? Or on public transportation (train/bus/plane/etc)? There is no easy way, with our discrete components, to auto-block idiocy. Distracted driving laws cover this problem already, we don't need new laws to cover the same thing.

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by frojack on Sunday March 02 2014, @03:48AM

        by frojack (1554) Subscriber Badge on Sunday March 02 2014, @03:48AM (#9377) Journal

        Well, no, distracted driving laws DON'T cover this, not if Google gets its way.
        (Did you forget what the topic is about?)

        If you have your phone in your hand its easy to decide you are distracted.
        But no one can tell what you are watching on Glass.
        So if distracted driving is what you are going with, then apparently you'd be fine with Glass being banned for drivers?

        --
        No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
      • (Score: 1) by ancientt on Sunday March 02 2014, @03:52AM

        by ancientt (40) <ancientt@yahoo.com> on Sunday March 02 2014, @03:52AM (#9379) Homepage Journal

        I like the Waze approach to this, if you attempt to do something that might require more than minimal glancing, it denies you the option unless you specify that you're a passenger. As a passenger offering navigation assistance while carpooling, I find that entirely reasonable.

        I tried another app for the same purposes, but it wouldn't let me interact with it as a passenger because I was moving. I don't even remember the name of that app.

        --
        This post brought to you by Database Barbie
        • (Score: 2) by frojack on Sunday March 02 2014, @04:03AM

          by frojack (1554) Subscriber Badge on Sunday March 02 2014, @04:03AM (#9383) Journal

          As a passenger offering navigation assistance while carpooling, I find that entirely reasonable.

          I agree. But doesn't that suggest disallowing Glass for drivers? (just askin).

          As a passenger, I end up navigating a lot too, but I just use the phone for that, or turn on Google navigation and let the Google gal call the shots. You don't even have to look at the phone.

          --
          No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by big_e on Sunday March 02 2014, @12:13PM

      by big_e (2513) on Sunday March 02 2014, @12:13PM (#9546)

      We already ban texting and even phone-in-hand calling based on the ASSUMPTION that people can't do this and drive at the same time. Even if you were able to prove you CAN do this, its still not allowed.

      That is exactly the problem. There are many people who THINK they are above average drivers and can handle texting while driving, when in reality they are just as bad as the rest of us. The studies and statistics don't lie, people CAN'T text and drive safely but the person who does justifies it to themselves as being the lone exception to the rule.

      • (Score: 2) by frojack on Sunday March 02 2014, @08:56PM

        by frojack (1554) Subscriber Badge on Sunday March 02 2014, @08:56PM (#9734) Journal

        I know a woman who could carry on a conversation via sms with an old school dumb phone using only the T-9 keyboard with one hand. She typed complete sentences never once looking at the screen. She'd peek to read, but really, she never took her eyes off what she was doing. She refused to move to a smartphone.

        (Not advocating this, just pointing out absolute statements are never absolute, and also reminding you that lying with statistics is time proven art.

        --
        No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
        • (Score: 1) by zsau on Monday March 03 2014, @10:38PM

          by zsau (2642) on Monday March 03 2014, @10:38PM (#10296)

          Proves nothing. I don't need to look at the keyboard I'm typing this on (even if I did, it wouldn't help because the letters don't correspond at all to the key I want), but that doesn't mean I can pay attention to what's happening around me and to what's happening on screen.

          This is the entire point of the stats and the studies and the bans: you don't realise how much attention you're taking off the rest of the world to write something down, especially when you don't need to look at it to tell what you're doing.

          And you don't realise how long the half a second you look down at the screen is, and how quickly the half a second becomes five seconds.

  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by JimmyCrackCorn on Sunday March 02 2014, @04:07AM

    by JimmyCrackCorn (1495) on Sunday March 02 2014, @04:07AM (#9387)

    If someone driving has a wreck, and they are wearing google glasses at the time of the wreck, and the glasses were active, then maybe the driver was distracted. This would not be any different than any other distraction. Driver should be investigated, presumed innocent, for fault.

    The cost to taxpayers, and to society, for buzzword legislation is more than the cost to print and enforce the law-the cost is the degradation of common sense and laws that actually protect humans from other humans.

      Legislator egomaniacs talking stupid shit.

  • (Score: 4, Funny) by Anonoob on Sunday March 02 2014, @04:11AM

    by Anonoob (335) on Sunday March 02 2014, @04:11AM (#9389)

    Think I am going to need a car analogy for this one.

  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by krishnoid on Sunday March 02 2014, @05:41AM

    by krishnoid (1156) on Sunday March 02 2014, @05:41AM (#9415)

    If driverless cars had a 5/10/20-year head start in making it into the mainstream, would distracted driving still be a concern of the population or lawmakers? I have to think we would have moved on to other things by then.