Dev.SN ♥ developers
Sections
Dev.SN
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This discussion has been archived.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.
Lobbying Against Having Google Glass Banned While Driving
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 1000 moderator points
| 57 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
I'm not a robot like you. I don't like having disks crammed into me... unless they're Oreos, and then only in the mouth.
-- Fry
(Score: 1) by big_e on Sunday March 02 2014, @07:54AM
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, @08:08AM
(Score: 2, Interesting) by big_e on Sunday March 02 2014, @08:51AM
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, @09:14AM
> 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, @07:39PM
The latest breathalyzers work for pot and amphetamines too.
(Score: 1) by Angry Jesus on Sunday March 02 2014, @08:20PM
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 Sunday March 02 2014, @08:39PM
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 Sunday March 02 2014, @09:31PM
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, @08:58AM
"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.