Google Fighting Distracted Driver Laws 226
Rambo Tribble writes "Reuters reports Google has initiated lobbying efforts to stymie attempts by some states to enact distracted driver laws aimed at wearable technologies, such as Google Glass. 'Google's main point to legislators is that regulation would be premature because Google Glass is not yet widely available, the state elected officials say. Illinois state Senator Ira Silverstein, a Chicago Democrat who introduced a Google Glass restriction bill in December, responded that it was clear the merchandise was heading for the broader public.' Given the toll on our highways shown to arise from distracted drivers, is this responsible corporate behavior to protect their product, or an unethical endangering of lives?"
Bill specifically about Glass is a bad idea... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No. Bill specifically about Google Glass is an "excellent" idea.
Make a bill general enough, and the Makers will join forces to fight it.
Make a bill to every single one, one by one, and you will have to handle just one each time: you will have more profit opportunities this way,
(you don'y think they're *really" concerned about safety, do you? They want the money)
Re: (Score:3)
The issue here, as always, is training people to use new technology properly. We simply don't. We expect everyone to implicitly know when they shouldn't do something. As evidenced by the texting and driving, people aren't making proper choices. It is perfectly reasonable to text while stopped at a light, not so much while moving. (and yes arguments can be made about any situation).
Since t
Re: (Score:2)
but bills targeting (or benefiting) specific people/companies/tech/etc. are generally considered illegal no?
We have constitutional protection (pause for laughter) against Bills of Attainder - you can't write a law that targets a specific person or group for fines or other punishment. Justice in individual cases belongs in the judicial branch, not the legislative branch.
Of course, when the Congress passes a law specifically to take back 90% of bonuses paid to banking executives receiving bailouts during the crisis, no one objected, because we seem to care more about the emotion of the moment than slow-but-constan
Re: (Score:3)
That makes a bill ever so much more complicated. For example, I find myself looking away from the road fairly often to check my speedometer. Sometimes my fuel gauge at the same time. I don't feel particularly dangerous looking at the built-in GPS in cars that have them even if I'm in an area I'm not familiar with (in fact, especially in an area I'm unfamiliar with.) My car doesn't have one, so I occasionally pick up my mobile unit or phone to glance at the map (I program it ahead of time.) It seems tha
Re: (Score:2)
If you're not breaking existing laws, why create others to make sure you're less likely to? If you are breaking laws, well - There are already laws in place to enforce that.
Existing laws against reckless driving are full of vague generalities... What exactly constitutes driving with "due care and attention"? As your burrito example indicates, there's a continuum, and reasonable people can reasonably disagree on what's legal and illegal under such statures. Those sort of laws are best reserved for the extreme cases that legislators never could have imagined [wikipedia.org] up front (If that story had been real and if the guy had lived to see a courtroom). New, more targeted laws can set cons
Re: (Score:2)
It is perfectly reasonable to text while stopped at a light, not so much while moving.
No, when you're stopped at a light, you should look around yourself and be aware of the situation BEFORE the light turn green.
If you just press the go pedal a split second after the green, you're throwing yourself into the unknown (are there pedestrian runnning the red? is there an ambulance comming your way? Is there a car coming fast that you know will run the red light? That kid playing with a ball, will he run to catch it if it goes in the street?)
When you drive a car, you should drive your car and noth
Re: (Score:2)
It is perfectly reasonable to text while stopped at a light, not so much while moving.
No, when you're stopped at a light, you should look around yourself and be aware of the situation BEFORE the light turn green.
If you just press the go pedal a split second after the green, you're throwing yourself into the unknown (are there pedestrian runnning the red? is there an ambulance comming your way? Is there a car coming fast that you know will run the red light? That kid playing with a ball, will he run to catch it if it goes in the street?)
When you drive a car, you should drive your car and nothing else!
It takes me 10 minutes longer every day to get to work because of you idiots who are texting and don't know the light is green until everyone behind you is honking.
Re: (Score:2)
The issue here, as always, is training people to use new technology properly.
No it's not. That's just idiotic. The issue is the driving not any technology. How about training the idiots to drive instead?. Force people to treat driving like the exceedingly dangerous activity it is and any problems with distracted driving goes away. It's completely asinine to try to legislate control of each and every activity a person can partake in while driving and even stupider to think that you can effectively enforce such laws.
I will never understand what it is about getting in the driver's seat
Re: (Score:2)
If you're IQ is below 112
Let the stupid die away and we'll all be better off :)
your*
Also, the shift key is your friend for names like Google Glass.
Re: (Score:3)
Not sure if troll, or delicious irony...
If you're[sic] IQ is below 112, you cannot drive, you cannot breed, you cannot use google glass, become a cop, a senator, a judge, a president, etc...
Let the stupid die away and we'll all be better off :)
You do realize that IQ is a normalized measure with a mean set at 100 by nothing more than definition, right? As the "stupid die away", your IQ will drop as the average increases.
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, so we make a bill about Google Glass. And then another one about an Apple wearable computing product. And then another one about the one Samsung releases. And then one about the one Microsoft releases. And then the new Google product that is similar to but not exactly like Google Glass. And then one about.....
Before long, the laws regarding said devices will be a horrible mess. There might be instances where using Product A is legal but using the very similar Product B is illegal. People won't kn
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm not so sure I agree. I have not used Google Glass and I have not read a whole lot about it, but isn't it visually contextual, as in it can recognize certain things as it comes into the field of view? Automatically? Can Glass be modified to recognize when it's in a vehicle and somehow be designed to enhance the driving experience and safety?
To me, what BMW is doing and what Google is doing calls for safety standards, not safety regulations. A better bill in my opinion would be something that empowers
Re: (Score:2)
Heads up is always better. Of course the clutter of that interface is certainly the main point. But just like some phones have 'driving' apps that limit what you can do with your phone as well as provide quicker/easier access to the things you do need to do (like GPS), Google Glass can very plausibly be a gre
Re:Bill specifically about Glass is a bad idea... (Score:4, Insightful)
You don't get it, a heads up display is projected on to your field of vision, with Glass you have to look at the screen or at the road.
So not "heads up" at all, unless of course you meant "my heads upright but I'm still a distracted Glasshole putting everyone around me in danger"
Then yes.
Face it it's bad tech.
Re: (Score:3)
Training people to use this technology though is the problem. Give to someone without any training and you'll be getting movie watching
Re: (Score:2)
People are stupid, I see it everyday on the road, they will drive while using Glass and create misery this will be epic carnage.
Re: (Score:3)
Take an average person and have them try and use a fighter jet's HUD. They'll be overwhelmed and unable to function because they don't know how to use it. Google Glass won't be any different.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"against using digital devices"... so analog devices are okay then?
I know what you are saying, but you are having the same problem as legislators will in coming up with good language for something like this. The evidence is pretty compelling that people are more distracted by other people in the car than by people they are talking to on the phone. But we accept one risk as natural while people don't accept the other risk as being natural.
I think it is clear that it isn't risk that is being compared but
Re:Bill specifically about Glass is a bad idea... (Score:5, Informative)
All the evidence I've seen is that having a conversation with an occupant in the vehicle is much safer then using a cell phone. This is mostly due to the occupant having situational awareness so when some tricky piece of driving shows up, they shut up or at least know why you're ignoring them. On top of this is that an occupant can also point out dangerous situations such as yesterday when my wife screamed stop as someone was in my blind spot and going for the same parking spot I was.
I hate talking on the cell when in traffic as the other end has no idea of what is happening and can get uptight just by the conversation being interrupted by having to shift gears.
The dash display can be ignored whereas a heads up display can be more in your face. How often do you need to look at your dash?
Re:Bill specifically about Glass is a bad idea... (Score:5, Insightful)
Entire text of a correctly done bill here: "The use of portable electronic devices while driving a motor vehicle is prohibited".
That would ban cell phones, texting devices, google glass, and similar - but not prohibit anything built in to the car.
Re: (Score:2)
That's kind of myopic.
Imagine glasses that discretely display your speed to the side of your field of view -- instead of looking down to check your speed, you don't have to take your eyes off the road. Other data about the road ahead could be displayed too. More awesome, the device could black out the intense points of oncoming headlights. I would love that, rather than having to look off to the side of the road (which is fine for staying in the lane, but not for seeing hazards ahead), I could continue t
Re: (Score:3)
Your eyes are SUPPOSED to be taken off the road briefly and frequently. It is amazing the number of people who don't understand this simple rule. You are not supposed to sit there like a zombie looking at the same thing all the time.
Re: (Score:2)
What state do you live in? I want to make certain never to drive there.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=shou... [duckduckgo.com]
Seriously, you have some evidence for that statement?
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Bill specifically about Glass is a bad idea... (Score:5, Informative)
I see you know nothing about defensive driving. I'll make it easy for you: a driver is supposed to be AWARE of what is happening around him at all times. That means what is happening immediately in front of you, what is happening way down the road, what is happening to your rear, what is happening to your sides, what is happening with your vehicle. To do that, your eyes should be in motion at almost all times. What you should NEVER do is focus your gaze on any one spot, whether that spot is your phone, the rear of the car in front of you, a supposed 'heads up display', or anywhere else.
Re: (Score:3)
Google Glass is not a heads up display. But a real heads up display is actually really helpful. It's focused at infinity so your speed seems to be part of the world in front of you. Yes, you shouldn't focus on it; but it does allow you to keep your eyes up and looking around, not going back down to the speedo to make sure you're not more than 10 over the limit.
Re: (Score:2)
"The use of portable electronic devices while driving a motor vehicle is prohibited". That would ban cell phones, texting devices, google glass, and similar - but not prohibit anything built in to the car.
So what, exactly, is the significant difference between using a cell phone taped to the dash with a BT headphone and a cell phone built into the dash of the car? One's portable and illegal, one's not, under your perfect law.
How about my GPS? What is the significant difference between a GPS that is in a suction-cup window mount and one built into a fancy display on the dash? Other than having to pay the auto maker an exorbitant amount for the built-in one and having to buy it built into each car instead of
Re: (Score:2)
Simple laws are usually the worst. Many times they are written by ideologs who care little for the practical considerations of what they want to keep other people from doing.
So, overly complex laws that are thousands of pages long, that legislators vote on, knowing full well that none of them have read and comprehend the entire document are better? Here's a simpler law that would cover the condition above, and probably be simpler... "No driver shall allow themselves to be so distracted while in control of a vehicle as to endanger others." ... Of course that would mean allowing police, and judges to simply do their jobs (with sufficient evidence, as dash cams, and even persona
Re: (Score:2)
So, overly complex laws that are thousands of pages long, that legislators vote on, knowing full well that none of them have read and comprehend the entire document are better?
False dichotomy. Thanks for playing. Better luck next time.
Re: (Score:2)
What about GPS? What about my phone's GPS? What is fundamentally different about reading a printed map and using Google maps? Why should one be allowed and the other prohibited?
Re: (Score:2)
You do know that (in most places) reading a map while driving is illegal? Why should an exception be made for GPS?
You describe a car (Score:2)
A car is an portable electronic device. It may be powered by gas but that turns a generator which provides electricity. Many of the car components are electronic. Most cars are powered by a computer.
Also a speed limit sign is a bigger distraction than google glass ever could be and it requires you to take your eyes off the road to check to ensure that you are going the proper speed limit under penalty of law. Checking my speed got me in one accident when a driver in front came to a sudden stop far from a t
Re: (Score:3)
So in Australia, talking on your phone in a car is baned, not just texted. Although you can talk on your phone if you have a handsfree (bluetooth ear piece or built-in to the car; you can only look at your phone to answer it).
I avoid the issue entierly because I sold my car two years ago.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Riiight. Because clearly everybody that drove before 10 or 15 years ago was reading a map while driving. Yes, there were a few people that did this - they were then known (as they are now) as 'morons', the same as people who have to be looking at a fucking GPS to get anywhere.
Re: (Score:2)
However general legislation against using digital devices can be done right. The issue we start to run into is things like do touch screens built into the dashboard count or windscreen HUDs like what BMW has in the works.
I have a touch screen built into my dashboard, and I consider it amazingly distracting and dangerous. Luckily I can voice command my car to do pretty much what ever I can do on the touch screen. I really don't like doing anything on the touch screen while driving. I'm not aware of any statistics on the danger of in-dash touch screens, but I just know manipulating it distracts me personally.
However I also hate that it locks out entering of addresses for the Nav function while you are moving and both front
Re: (Score:2)
The laws aren't about safety anymore. We'd be better off abolidhing all traffic laws and treating crashes as criminal act
Re: (Score:2)
As long as a company - in this case Google, but any company - can show how their product assists the driver rather than distracting the driver, there really shouldn't be an issue. There will of course be states that want to ban HUDs, but the public will straighten them out over time. So go ahead, Google, convince us that
equal treatment (Score:2, Insightful)
There are plenty of questions about privacy and security raised by Google Glass but I think all products should be treated equally. I might be more distracted while driving by a Big Mac or a cigarette than by an image out of my field of view on Glass. This is too subjective a judgement to be made by politicians through the legislative process.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Exactly! A whining 5 year old in the back seat is more distracting than an image on Glass. You can't test every possible behavior before it is allowed in a car. The law should be that every driver is RESPONSIBLE for paying attention to the road. If I am being distracted by Glass, I have a duty to turn it off.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Every driver is not going to do that. This is evident by how many people are texting while driving. Yeah every driver should be responsible. That would be great. Then every driver would drive the limit, not tail gate, signal lane changes, not text while driving, not drink while driving. What a beautiful nirvana that would be!
But that is not reality. So we legislate laws because we have already lost way to much as a society to do otherwise.
Re: (Score:2)
However, while it's perfectly fine to remove your Google Glass while driving, leaving your screaming kid at a gas station or duct taping their mouth shut is somewhat frowned upon. The safety of Google Glass while driving is unknown at this point. And, as other commenters have pointed out, it's better to legislate distracted driving in the abstract than to try and define every instance that could cause impairment.
Re: (Score:2)
Most of the laws don't outline by product name. Their existence being prompted by Google Glass doesn't mean the text of the law includes the name "Google" anywhere. I mean, that'd be a bill of attainder, among other problems.
Re: (Score:2)
That wouldn't be a bill of attainder, that would just be a very targeted bill. A bill of attainder would be a law that says i kan read is guilty of using Google Glass and sentenced to...
A lawful conviction requires court while a bill of attainder just states that you are guilty and here's the sentence with no judicial oversight.
strawman (Score:3)
There are plenty of questions about privacy and security raised by Google Glass but I think all products should be treated equally.
RTFAS:
"aimed at wearable technologies, such as Google Glass."
Nobody's trying to specifically legislate Google Glass. They're trying to modify existing distracted-driving laws to include wearable devices.
Also, whether a Big Mac is more distracting is irrelevant to whether wearable devices are. If they are, they should not be allowed. That said, many people DO want an overhaul of
Re: (Score:2)
... I might be more distracted while driving by a Big Mac or a cigarette than by an image out of my field of view on Glass. ...
Sounds to me like you are easily distracted if seeing a Big Mac or cigarette while driving distracts you.
If we're going to ban "driving while X"... (Score:3, Insightful)
... then we need to do it rigorously.
Figure out the threshhold above which elevated risk becomes criminal (i.e. "it is illegal to drive in such a manner that you have more than X% chance of hitting someone else per mile/per minute"). This is a policy matter -- maybe it's okay to have up to double the normal risk of collision, but no more?
Then test the hell out of everything. Levels of drunkenness, of stonedness, of distraction (from "putting on makeup" to "in car with pretty girl/guy"). Being old. Being young. Being male/female/black/white/purple. Driving past flashy billboards. Driving through speed traps (speed traps cause wrecks, ban the things). Driving while tired ("nope, sorry, after your 14 hour day you can't drive; you're impaired, take a nap first").
That's really the only way to be fair with this sort of thing.
Or we could just treat people as responsible, and not worry with forms of impairment that people assume voluntarily and can do away with if they need to. Talking on the phone while driving is fine, so long as you're willing to say "In traffic now, have to go for safety."
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, because that clearly has worked so far.
Re:If we're going to ban "driving while X"... (Score:4, Insightful)
Since accident rates have been declining for decades, yeah, it looks like it has worked so far.
For all the blather about "distracted driving" due to these neat new tech-toys, we're having fewer accidents and fewer fatalities. So it's really hard to see how these new forms of "distracted driving" are causing a problem
Re: (Score:2)
We have had fewer fatalities due to safer cars etc. I'm quite dubious about your "fewer accidents" idea though.
Re: (Score:3)
So it's really hard to see how these new forms of "distracted driving" are causing a problem
That's because any self assessment of driving performance is notoriously over-optimistic. I thought exactly the same thing about mobile phones until one day (in the early 90's) when I was driving and talking on a mobile I suddenly noticed that as I was thinking about the conversation my eyes has been upturned in a subconscious effort to block out distractions from the phone conversation! I realised I had "dropped the ball" and had not been looking at the road for several seconds. At the time I had already b
Re: (Score:2)
What do you say about the stats collected and published by the NTSB that show that fatalities and injuries from auto accidents have been steadily DECLINING for the past 20 years. The statistics are on their website. Go look them up for yourself, I did.
The stats indicate that it is safer to drive now, after the widespread adoption of mobile phones, portable video, touchscreens and a myriad of other distractions. Why would it be any different with the google
Re: (Score:2)
No, they don't. OVERALL accidents have decreased. Accidents from distracted driving have INCREASED. From 2011 to 2012 there was a 9% INCREASE in distracted driving injuries (to 421,000 people).
Re: (Score:2)
Yup. In which case, if you ban Glass, you must also completely ban all windshield-mounted GPS units.
Re: (Score:2)
Is that supposed to be a bad thing?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. Lost drivers are dangerous drivers, as are drivers that swerve around because they are about to miss their exit.
Re: (Score:2)
Strange, it has been my experience that the ones swerving to make an exit are almost always the ones with a GPS mounted on the dash. Why? Well, my guess is that these idiots are so busy looking at their GPS that they don't even notice things like road signs that tell them the exit is approaching.
Re: (Score:2)
And having part of your windshield blocked is safe?
Re: (Score:2)
All of the above are perfectly safe if done at a speed that is reasonable and prudent under the circumstances including your level of attentiveness. Given a slow enough speed, even watching a movie while driving is safe as long as you periodically check the road.
In fact, there's already a law against driving faster than what is reasonable and prudent, despite what the speed limit sign says. It's called the "Basic Speed Law," and it's used mainly in times of fog or icy streets. Why can't it also be used agai
Woosh (Score:4, Insightful)
Given the toll on our highways shown to arise from distracted drivers, is this responsible corporate behavior to protect their product, or an unethical endangering of lives?
I'm glad the this is a neutrally worded question. I've got a similar one. Given the massive breach of our childrens online privacy, do you think underages should be free to visit whatever smut they want on the internet, or is it better to have the ISP install filters for all our safety?
Re: (Score:2)
Arguably, the increasing incidence of pedestrians and cyclists being injured or killed by distracted drivers [sciencedaily.com] requires a legislative effort to minimise the harm, as people cannot be trusted to act responsibly. Some people would argue the same for online pornography, given the failure of many parents to educate and monitor their children's Internet usage.
I believe the immediate danger to all road users associated with distracted driving far outweighs the largely moral issue of online pornography.
Double edged (Score:3)
Could Google glass be used in a HUD capacity to actually improve driving safety?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. Maps on Glass is already far less distracting than a windshield-mounted GPS for example, and there are also speedometer/OBD apps for Glass people are working on.
Re: (Score:2)
AdBlock Highway (Score:3, Interesting)
Google Glass could block distracting billboards.
Possibility of improved driving (Score:4, Insightful)
Car radios (Score:2)
People get into accidents all the time because they were messing with their radio when they should have had their eyes on the road. So why don't we ban car radios?
And if that seems absurd, why are we talking about banning things like texting, cell phone use, or Google Glass while driving?
Re: (Score:2)
The last accident I got into was because I was distracted by a Driver's Ed car on my street. I was keeping tabs on what they were doing so much (so as not to hit them), that I hit another car while pulling out of my driveway. Meanwhile, the other driver was keeping tabs on said driver's ed car so much (trying to drive around him) that he didn't see me pulling out of my driveway. I'd love to ban those Driver's Ed cars driving down residential streets for practice.
Nip it (Score:2)
Google's main point to legislators is that regulation would be premature because Google Glass is not yet widely available
It seems like that's the perfect reason to nip the issue in the bud. If you wait to include Glass and such in distracted driving laws, you may increase cultural resistance to the law since people will have started to expect that driving with their wearable display device should be no problem.
And how about bored drivers? (Score:2)
What will happen when a driver is bored enough? That may be even worse than chatting on the phone because a bored driver may fall asleep from boredom.
Because they still aren't smart (Score:2)
I think people have lost the entire concept of a rich vocabulary. "restrict" does not equal "ban". I'm restricted from driving without corrective eye lenses -- glasses or contacts. I'm not banned from driving.
Whether or not a device (google glass, texting, voice calls, non-hands-free calls, et cetera) is "safe" is completely and totally irrelevant. Yet another arbitrary definition of safe, another arbitrary experiment to figure it out, and now an arbitrary time to make the decision. It's all typical la
What information do you need when you're driving? (Score:2)
Do you need to know how fast you're going? Yes.
Do you need to know how your car is performing? Yes.
Do you need to know where you are and where you're going? Yes.
We already have head-up displays that show car parameters, as well as navigation systems that help you get where you're going. This could be incorporated in to an HUD ("turn here ->").
Anything more would be information overload. I do not need ads to tell me how cool the store I'm driving by is (i.e. how much they paid for the ad), nor do
Wording (Score:2)
The title suggests that Google is fighting against distracted driving laws, but when you read TFA, it sounds like they are really fighting laws that ban Glass-like devices which, depending on your point of view, might not be the same thing.
When I'm using my phone to navigate in the car, I have to glance at the phone occasionally. If I had Glass active and it was showing some of the same things, I wouldn't need to look away from the road and (in theory) could be less distracted. IMHO, I would think a blanket
Why can't we have common sense? (Score:2)
Why can't we just do a blanket ban on *anything* that is causing you to drive distracted? I don't care if it's kids screaming in the back, your mom just died, thinking about that hot chick you just banged, whatever - if you're distracted you shouldn't be driving. Conversely, if I'm talking on my phone but driving perfectly, (safe distance, speed, staying in the lane, heeding traffic, etc...) that should be fine. Why must we ban every. single. damn. stupid. tiny. thing. that. ever. gets. invented?
Re: (Score:2)
Reducing Toll on the Highways (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
That's the wrong question to be asking. Driving is dangerous enough already -- the right question to ask is what study proves that this type of technology is safe to use while driving.
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you limit this to technology? What study has shown that it is safe to drive while eating a Big Mac? Are you going to test every possible behavior before it is allowed in a car? What about holding hands while driving? What about having kids in the back seat? Isn't that a distraction? I bet google glass is less distracting than a 5 year old in the back seat who is whining constantly.
Re:Based on what study (Score:5, Interesting)
What study has shown that it is safe to drive while eating a Big Mac?
I'm pretty sure I've seen stories about people eating apples while driving being pulled over and prosecuted in my country (the UK), and our general laws against poor driving certainly cover that kind of case if the standard of driving is unacceptable as a result.
I'm in two minds about technology-specific laws. On the one hand, we introduced legislation here a few years ago against driving while using a hand-held mobile phone, which promptly led to aggressive marketing about how using a hands-free kit keeps you safe. (It doesn't; the exact same research used to justify the ban on hand-held devices showed that hands-free was almost as dangerous. It was left out of the law because of concerns over unrealistic enforcement, not because it was safe.)
On the other hand, the motivation for introducing the phone-specific law was that too many people are deluded enough to believe they can drive at their normal standard while on the phone, so they didn't think the regular laws against driving without due care and attention would apply. Every time that discussion comes up on Slashdot, plenty of people will turn up and exhibit the exact same arrogance and/or ignorance, thus proving the original motivation sound in that case. If the same is true of Google Glass or similar headsets, specific laws might be warranted in those cases as well.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that you can't eliminate all distractions does not mean you should not try to eliminate the distractions that can be eliminated.
With regard to the navigation issue, my car's nav system displays the direction of and distance to the next turn (as well as the name of the street/offramp) in a small display area separate from the fancy LCD screen, straight in front of the driver between the speedometer and tach. That and voice cues from the system make it so I never have to look at the LCD at all whil
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
You mean like driving?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In a free country the government must always defend any limitation of personal freedom. You should never have to justify it's free exercise. Anything else is not a freedom it's a privilege.
You know what? You're right about the distinction between a freedom (aka, a right) and a privilege. You know what else? Operating an automobile is a privilege, not a right. You might as well be talking about the government not interfering with your right to bear arms on commercial airline flights.
Based on stats, there is no problem (Score:2)
One of the problems here is that the government loves to fix non-existent problems, but the biggest problem may be all the hyperbole used in the "news media" to drum up attention, clicks, ratings, etc. This very article is a good example. From the summary:
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.sciencedaily.com/re... [sciencedaily.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Some already have. [ce.org]
It's not HUDs, it's what kinds of HUD (Score:3)
Don't get me wrong, having a HUD in front of your eyeballs while driving is a terrible idea
That kind of claim is why we have to be really careful about banning technologies prematurely.
If using HUDs or other kinds of electronic instruments were inherently dangerous, they wouldn't routinely be used by aircraft pilots.
The interesting questions are about what kinds of information are useful to help people drive better, and what conditions (such as a certain level of training) are necessary to enjoy those benefits.
Re:It's not HUDs, it's what kinds of HUD (Score:5, Insightful)
When you have thousands of hours of driving theory classes, simulator time and coached road driving in a vehicle where the coach can take over the vehicle in a moments notice then you can start to talk about how your driving a car compares to a pilot in a jet.
Most pilots have more time in simulators than most drivers get in their first few years of driving. Comparing the two is a joke and you know it.
Re: (Score:3)
Not to mention the fact that, while piloting a jet can be very dangerous, you rarely have to worry about other jets intersecting your flight path because you didn't see the floating stop sign while you were texting.
Piloting a jet generally means you need to keep your jet in the air. Driving a car generally means keeping your car in the correct lane, stopping and starting at the right times, making sure all drivers around you are driving in a safe manner, and taking precautions if they aren't.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course there is a huge difference between the training someone like an air force fighter pilot or the captain of a passenger airliner has had and the training an average car driver has had. There's also a huge difference between the complexity of the instruments and HUDs used on those kinds of planes and the baby steps into the field taken by the first HUDs in high-end cars today. The point wasn't to equate the two, it was to show that a blanket ban on new kinds of instrumentation when clearly at some po
Re: (Score:2)
More to the point, in a car you need to be looking outside pretty much continuously. More than about a half-second of looking away starts to get dangerous, and 2 seconds is downright negligent. But in a small airplane, you have much, much longer (on the order of about 30 seconds) of eyes-inside time - you need it to do all your planning/charts/radios/checklists/etc! And that's just for visual rules - if you're on an instrument flight, you don't even need to look outside until you're trying to land (that's t
Re: (Score:3)
That sounds 'fair' but it would essentially destroy innovation. Sure the Google's of the world could afford to do those things but the guy working in his garage never could. Its 'regulation' like this that essentially destroys the concept of a free market.
Ultimately the people who decide to 'use' a technology or device under specific conditions need to be responsible. Unless it can be show the device itself is fundamentally hazardous, like just turning it on makes it likely to catch fire or something. I
Re: (Score:2)
It's been that way for years.
Many of the posters here HATE technology. They don't want it in cars, they don't want it in classrooms, it's almost as if they'd prefer a world without any of it at all.
It's one of the reasons I don't post here much these days, too many neo-Luddites.
Re: (Score:2)
My take is that a large part of the traditional Slashdot reader base love technology and the science behind it, but dislike the impact it has on person to person relationships, social norms and society in general. So get off my lawn unless you're gonna mow it.
Re: (Score:2)
OK. http://articles.latimes.com/20... [latimes.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Not really. There are things which are obviously distracting and things that seem safe to too many drivers. That's what these specific laws are for: you don't get to argue in court whether what you were doing was distracting, the law says it is.
Best example: I've heard/read oh-so-many comments about how a phone call during driving does not impair reactions and situational awareness. People tend to think that it's just so easy, they can safely do it. And they do it A LOT. The funny thing is, they mostly do i