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This discussion has been archived.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: 0, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 02 2014, @12:06AM
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, @12:15AM
http://dev.soylentnews.org/comments.pl?sid=376&cid=938 8 [dev.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, @12:35AM
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.
Discussion should abhor vacuity, as space does a vacuum.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 02 2014, @02:00PM
3mph? You must be a slow walker
(Score: 1) by zsau on Monday March 03 2014, @12:30AM
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, @03:14AM
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?
Discussion should abhor vacuity, as space does a vacuum.
(Score: 1) by zsau on Monday March 03 2014, @04:58AM
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.