If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(C|Net)   Legislators look up long enough from their dash-mounted GPS systems and touch-screen environmental controls to ban use of Google Glass while driving   (news.cnet.com) divider line 59
    More: Stupid, Google Glass, Google, GPS, citizens of the United States  
•       •       •

1465 clicks; posted to Geek » on 25 Mar 2013 at 1:29 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



59 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-25 01:31:36 PM  
Why doesn't my car have a hud, anyway? fark dashboards, i want my speed displayed in line of sight.
 
2013-03-25 01:31:50 PM  
Yeah because nobody ever controlled a vehicle with information being projected into their FOV before.

www.aviationnews.eu
 
2013-03-25 01:31:56 PM  
West Virginia legislators, submitter. Considering they just got electricity last year, I don't really think they understand what Google Glass is.
 
2013-03-25 01:34:17 PM  

angrymacface: West Virginia legislators, submitter. Considering they just got electricity last year, I don't really think they understand what Google Glass is.


It's one of them fancy monocles like rich fellers wear
 
2013-03-25 01:35:05 PM  

No Such Agency: Yeah because nobody ever controlled a vehicle with information being projected into their FOV before.

[www.aviationnews.eu image 400x266]


If people were gonna use the Glass to display speed, direction, navigational info, etc, I'd agree with the sentiment, but you know damn well that people would be using the Glass to update FB/Twitter or surf porn while they were driving.
 
2013-03-25 01:36:03 PM  
So they want to pass a law against a product that doesn't exist yet for a risk that no one can quantify, but seems unfounded.

Can we outsource the government already and get it over with?
 
2013-03-25 01:39:29 PM  
No let the douchetooth 2.0 arseholes kill themselves
 
2013-03-25 01:41:44 PM  
Fano:
 want my speed displayed in line of sight.

I'd settle for "not hiding behind the arc of the steering wheel".  WTF car designers?  I'm an exactly average-height man, this shouldn't happen ever :P

Teufelaffe:
you know damn well that people would be using the Glass to update FB/Twitter or surf porn while they were driving.

Sigh... the equivalent of throwing the lawn darts at another kid's head: ruining something cool for everyone else.
 
2013-03-25 01:44:32 PM  

No Such Agency: I'd settle for "not hiding behind the arc of the steering wheel".  WTF car designers?  I'm an exactly average-height man, this shouldn't happen ever :P


Does your car not have an adjustable tilt steering column? Or is it already adjusted and it still blocks your view?
 
2013-03-25 01:46:15 PM  

Fano: Why doesn't my car have a hud, anyway? fark dashboards, i want my speed displayed in line of sight.


Mine does. It's a 2003 so it's not exactly cutting edge either.
 
2013-03-25 01:46:25 PM  

No Such Agency: I'd settle for "not hiding behind the arc of the steering wheel". WTF car designers? I'm an exactly average-height man, this shouldn't happen ever :P


OK, I'll take a guess.  Chrysler?
 
2013-03-25 01:49:39 PM  
And, of course, it will be about as effective and enforceable as the "No Texting While Driving" law.

My girlfriend got pulled over for the "no texting" thing. She had just changed the song on her very old school iPod. The cop acted like he'd never heard of a device that didn't have texting capabilities... before he let her go "with a verbal warning". Yeah, real effective. Even if it had been a iPhone with the text app open and a half-written message sitting in the field, good luck proving that is exactly what the person is doing when the police officer saw them.
 
2013-03-25 01:55:09 PM  

Treygreen13: And, of course, it will be about as effective and enforceable as the "No Texting While Driving" law.

My girlfriend got pulled over for the "no texting" thing. She had just changed the song on her very old school iPod. The cop acted like he'd never heard of a device that didn't have texting capabilities... before he let her go "with a verbal warning". Yeah, real effective. Even if it had been a iPhone with the text app open and a half-written message sitting in the field, good luck proving that is exactly what the person is doing when the police officer saw them.


In my county they would just ticket you for distracted or reckless driving. There is no need to "prove" anything. And if you want to contest the ticket the traffic court fee is larger than the ticket even if you win.
 
2013-03-25 01:57:32 PM  
The most distracting thing for a driver is not a hands free device taking up a small part of your field of view, it is that squalling brat in the back seat.
 
2013-03-25 01:58:14 PM  
I want Google Glasses to be my future Sat-Nav, so screw anyone who says ban them while driving.

My only concern is how hot my phone gets when being my sat nav, I don't fancy extremely hot glasses burning my head...
 
2013-03-25 01:58:30 PM  
They probably think they're something you drink out of.
 
2013-03-25 01:59:45 PM  

omnimancer28: Treygreen13: And, of course, it will be about as effective and enforceable as the "No Texting While Driving" law.

My girlfriend got pulled over for the "no texting" thing. She had just changed the song on her very old school iPod. The cop acted like he'd never heard of a device that didn't have texting capabilities... before he let her go "with a verbal warning". Yeah, real effective. Even if it had been a iPhone with the text app open and a half-written message sitting in the field, good luck proving that is exactly what the person is doing when the police officer saw them.

In my county they would just ticket you for distracted or reckless driving. There is no need to "prove" anything. And if you want to contest the ticket the traffic court fee is larger than the ticket even if you win.


Worth it to keep it off your record, and to further inconvenience anyone who is willing to bring a fraudulent charge against you. If I'm innocent, I fight it regardless of cost. The only thing sweeter than getting a ticket thrown out is getting it thrown out while the cop who issued it is sitting there.
 
2013-03-25 02:00:56 PM  
I am flabbergasted at the backlash against Google Glass, particularly since it doesn't farking exist yet. It's absolutely amazing.

I mean the Bar that banned them was more of a publicity stunt than anything else, but sheesh.
 
2013-03-25 02:02:26 PM  

Treygreen13: And, of course, it will be about as effective and enforceable as the "No Texting While Driving" law.

My girlfriend got pulled over for the "no texting" thing. She had just changed the song on her very old school iPod. The cop acted like he'd never heard of a device that didn't have texting capabilities... before he let her go "with a verbal warning". Yeah, real effective. Even if it had been a iPhone with the text app open and a half-written message sitting in the field, good luck proving that is exactly what the person is doing when the police officer saw them.


I got pulled over for something like that and showed the cop that not only was my phone sitting in the GPS dock with the GPS app on, it was playing music through my radio at the same time; a situation that requires two hands and leaning far forward to accomplish. I'm pretty sure had I not had my phone in that situation i would have been ticketed at the time. The only thing I can think of was maybe I was picking at the dirt under a fingernail when the cop saw me.
 
2013-03-25 02:10:31 PM  

LasersHurt: I am flabbergasted at the backlash against Google Glass, particularly since it doesn't farking exist yet. It's absolutely amazing.

I mean the Bar that banned them was more of a publicity stunt than anything else, but sheesh.


FIX OLD NO NEW
 
2013-03-25 02:10:59 PM  

Treygreen13: Worth it to keep it off your record, and to further inconvenience anyone who is willing to bring a fraudulent charge against you. If I'm innocent, I fight it regardless of cost. The only thing sweeter than getting a ticket thrown out is getting it thrown out while the cop who issued it is sitting there.


FYI, in most places around the country, the officer's word is sufficient evidence for guilt, just like failure to stop at a stop sign, etc.

Not saying you cannot win, but I will say that I see quite a few people just pleading guilty to that one here in MD.
 
2013-03-25 02:25:43 PM  

Fano: Why doesn't my car have a hud, anyway? fark dashboards, i want my speed displayed in line of sight.


I've got HUD in my '00 Grand Prix. I hate driving without it.

Got a 1990 Grand Prix Turbo that also has a HUD in it. Why it hasn't taken off in anything other than sports cars or the like is beyond me.
 
2013-03-25 02:39:22 PM  
"I am a libertarian, and government has no business protecting us from ourselves, but it does have a duty to make sure I don't injure or kill someone else,"

I wonder what his stance is on the EPA...
 
2013-03-25 02:46:54 PM  

mattharvest: Treygreen13: Worth it to keep it off your record, and to further inconvenience anyone who is willing to bring a fraudulent charge against you. If I'm innocent, I fight it regardless of cost. The only thing sweeter than getting a ticket thrown out is getting it thrown out while the cop who issued it is sitting there.

FYI, in most places around the country, the officer's word is sufficient evidence for guilt, just like failure to stop at a stop sign, etc.

Not saying you cannot win, but I will say that I see quite a few people just pleading guilty to that one here in MD.


I've learned in my time dealing with the courts that knowing the right lawyer is the key to getting into their system of dealing with the tickets. Usually the threat of "we're willing to go to court and you're going to need to actually present evidence" is enough to get it bargained down or tossed out.

Seems like most of the time even paying the lawyer is just indirectly paying the court. It's mostly a big corrupt extortion ring. Not that I'm revealing anything surprising there.
 
2013-03-25 02:56:27 PM  

omnimancer28: In my county they would just ticket you for distracted or reckless driving.


If I were a cop I'd hardly drive any miles because I'd be spending all my time writing tickets for those. And I'd use it as a starting offense to squeeze them harder.
 
2013-03-25 03:06:57 PM  

No Such Agency: Yeah because nobody ever controlled a vehicle with information being projected into their FOV before.

[www.aviationnews.eu image 400x266]


bikininerd.typepad.com

Not quite the same environment.
 
2013-03-25 03:16:02 PM  
You know people are just going to refer to their Google glasses as their "googles" or "eye-googles", right?
 
2013-03-25 03:16:17 PM  
Google glass, gas, or ass, nobody rides for free.
 
2013-03-25 03:16:26 PM  
the_sidewinder:
No Such Agency: I'd settle for "not hiding behind the arc of the steering wheel".  WTF car designers?  I'm an exactly average-height man, this shouldn't happen ever :P

Does your car not have an adjustable tilt steering column? Or is it already adjusted and it still blocks your view?


And then it'd be too high or low to be comfortable...
/ first world problems, apparently
 
2013-03-25 03:18:59 PM  
Wait, you mean there are actually noobs out there that don't have self driving cars? Pfft.
 
2013-03-25 03:50:42 PM  
"in 2015, after the raging death toll from rogue adwords popups..."
 
2013-03-25 04:03:59 PM  
Nobody can solve problems that don't yet need solving like Congress. It's like the guy helping you move that is super-eager to get started, and picks up a floor lamp.
 
2013-03-25 04:22:41 PM  

Abe Vigoda's Ghost: No Such Agency: Yeah because nobody ever controlled a vehicle with information being projected into their FOV before.

[www.aviationnews.eu image 400x266]

[bikininerd.typepad.com image 800x385]

Not quite the same environment.


It depends, I often imagine how much easier traffic would be if I was in some sort of military vehicle.
 
2013-03-25 04:43:27 PM  
Also, anyone else buying billboard space for when the google glass is more universally accepted?  I'm going to get one on a busy street or public area with a giant QR Code that when scanned opens right up to Lemon Party or Goatse.  Stick that in your eye you techno farks.
 
2013-03-25 05:04:53 PM  

logieal: Fano: Why doesn't my car have a hud, anyway? fark dashboards, i want my speed displayed in line of sight.

I've got HUD in my '00 Grand Prix. I hate driving without it.

Got a 1990 Grand Prix Turbo that also has a HUD in it. Why it hasn't taken off in anything other than sports cars or the like is beyond me.


Cadillac has been doing it for some time, and still seems to be.

Go to 1:40ish for the huds up display in the worst car tour video ever.
 
2013-03-25 06:14:39 PM  

AngryDragon: So they want to pass a law against a product that doesn't exist yet for a risk that no one can quantify, but seems unfounded.


At least they're having a debate about emerging technology, which is proper and fitting. The "ban guns" crowd wants radical abatement of technology that has been freely available in this country for hundreds of years.
 
2013-03-25 06:25:38 PM  

Triumph: At least they're having a debate about emerging technology, which is proper and fitting.


No, it's not proper and fitting.  We currently have a society in which anything not specifically prohibited, is allowed.  In order to continue in such a manner, our laws must be reactive, not proactive.  We must determine that something is actually an issue worth writing laws about before we write the laws.  To do otherwise draws us ever closer to tyranny.
 
2013-03-25 06:33:56 PM  

Harbinger of the Doomed Rat: No, it's not proper and fitting.  We currently have a society in which anything not specifically prohibited, is allowed.  In order to continue in such a manner, our laws must be reactive, not proactive.  We must determine that something is actually an issue worth writing laws about before we write the laws.  To do otherwise draws us ever closer to tyranny.


Congratulations. You just argued for closing down the FDA.
 
2013-03-25 06:40:59 PM  

LasersHurt: I am flabbergasted at the backlash against Google Glass, particularly since it doesn't farking exist yet. It's absolutely amazing.

I mean the Bar that banned them was more of a publicity stunt than anything else, but sheesh.


Yeah, it seems that a lot of people are tripping over themselves to be the one who decries the idea the fastest or the loudest.

Personally I can't see anything wrong with them whatsoever. To me they're step one. They don't have to be awesome and perfect, because they're the first step. It will improve. I can see a lot of potential for them in every part of life, just like I could in smartphones from the beginning, but the best part is the bits I didn't anticipate. I'm excited for the future. In 10 years they'll be Googly Eyes. Donate your real eyes to blind 3rd world folk, and have these implanted, and you can zoom, record video, take pictures, and analyse peoples clothing to see if it fits you.

Nice night for a walk.
 
2013-03-25 06:44:04 PM  

Slaxl: In 10 years they'll be Googly Eyes.


If they actually looked like googly eyes, I would be the first in line.
 
2013-03-25 06:44:53 PM  

Triumph: AngryDragon: So they want to pass a law against a product that doesn't exist yet for a risk that no one can quantify, but seems unfounded.

At least they're having a debate about emerging technology, which is proper and fitting. The "ban guns" crowd wants radical abatement of technology that has been freely available in this country for hundreds of years.


To be fair, it's not exactly comparable. Technologies for Murder get their own category, don't they? Shouldn't we strive for less of that?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating banning them. I'm advocating waiting a hundred years more until the last gun maniacs look like heavy-browed savages too terrified of the world to function.
 
2013-03-25 06:46:33 PM  

Triumph: Harbinger of the Doomed Rat: No, it's not proper and fitting.  We currently have a society in which anything not specifically prohibited, is allowed.  In order to continue in such a manner, our laws must be reactive, not proactive.  We must determine that something is actually an issue worth writing laws about before we write the laws.  To do otherwise draws us ever closer to tyranny.

Congratulations. You just argued for closing down the FDA.


No he didn't? Most of the FDA's work is done based on ways that people have already been hurt by unregulated product. Not to say "all," of course, but don't be fatuous.

/I get it, you're a super-freedom independent type.
 
2013-03-25 06:49:53 PM  

LasersHurt: o he didn't? Most of the FDA's work is done based on ways that people have already been hurt by unregulated product. Not to say "all," of course, but don't be fatuous.


The FDA regulates and carefully evaluates emerging technologies - specifically, new drugs. I think that's a proper role.
 
2013-03-25 06:54:39 PM  

LasersHurt: To be fair, it's not exactly comparable. Technologies for Murder get their own category, don't they? Shouldn't we strive for less of that?


So what about the emerging technology of drones? You can rig those to be deadly in any number of ways.
 
2013-03-25 06:59:11 PM  

Triumph: LasersHurt: To be fair, it's not exactly comparable. Technologies for Murder get their own category, don't they? Shouldn't we strive for less of that?

So what about the emerging technology of drones? You can rig those to be deadly in any number of ways.


Interesting points raised all round but you're all going off topic. Ultimately not everything is deserving of equal treatment in life. Somethings warrant regulation, some don't. Some warrant being checked for safety before they reach the market and some don't. It's just a simple fact of life.

Until we've seen how much of the field of view these things take up then we can't say for sure whether or not they're more or less distracting than an existing sat-nav stuck on a windscreen. No one should be regulating anything until we know.
 
2013-03-25 07:04:18 PM  

Triumph: LasersHurt: To be fair, it's not exactly comparable. Technologies for Murder get their own category, don't they? Shouldn't we strive for less of that?

So what about the emerging technology of drones? You can rig those to be deadly in any number of ways.


What about them? My larger point is "let's all strive for a world where we don't kill each other, or live in fear of being killed by eachother. Any thing designed for killing would, in some way, be related to that.

Now, granted, drones can very easily NOT be armed. Guns... less so.
 
2013-03-25 07:08:34 PM  

Slaxl: Interesting points raised all round but you're all going off topic. Ultimately not everything is deserving of equal treatment in life. Somethings warrant regulation, some don't. Some warrant being checked for safety before they reach the market and some don't. It's just a simple fact of life.

Until we've seen how much of the field of view these things take up then we can't say for sure whether or not they're more or less distracting than an existing sat-nav stuck on a windscreen. No one should be regulating anything until we know.


While WVA is making the safety argument, I agree that they should wait and see. But, I think the privacy issue is more interesting. The thing about Google glass that I wonder about is that the video camera is allegedly always sending video back to Google and that's a black hole in terms of privacy. You can see a situation where some government agency it needs "eyes" somewhere and instructs Google to let is see the feeds from all Google glasses in a certain area.
 
2013-03-25 07:20:09 PM  

Triumph: allegedly always sending video back to Google


According to whom? This sounds like exactly the kind of stuff people make up without ever having asked anyone working on the project at Google.
 
2013-03-25 07:32:16 PM  

ZeroCorpse: You know people are just going to refer to their Google glasses as their "googles" or "eye-googles", right?


I'd prefer "Googlie Eyes"
 
2013-03-25 08:13:57 PM  

LasersHurt: According to whom?


According to just about everything I've read about them. The glasses have no memory storage capacity at all. If they are on, in order for them to function, they have to send data from the glasses back to Goggle and then Google sends data back to the glasses.
 
Displayed 50 of 59 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report