More states jumping on the ban Google Glass bandwagon


As we inch closer and closer to the consumer release of Google Glass, the smart glasses have caught a lot of attention from those who concern themselves with legal issues. Particularly, Glass is being seen as a possible danger to road safety, with many folks considering the contraption too distracting to concentrate on driving.

We’ve already gotten through the first major legal hurdle, with Explorer and digital masochist Cecelia Abadie challenging a ticket that says she was driving while using an illegal monitor (said monitor being Google Glass).

That San Diego trial proved to be a half-win for the Glass-toting masses, though we were quickly reminded that the battle is far from over. While the judge ruled that it was allowable for her to wear the unit in the car, he ruled that she would be unable to use it in any way, shape or form while the vehicle is moving.

google glass titanium featured large

But now it looks like Glass is about to jump right from the frying pan and into the pits of a very hot volcano. Wyoming Senator Floyd Esquibel (D) crafted and presented a bill that would ban the use of the device while behind the wheel of a vehicle. His main weapon in the fight? The notion that “common sense” should prevail:

“Common sense would tell you that you really don’t need to look at a little computer while driving, that it endangers you, your passengers and other drivers.”

Funny, that, considering cars come with “little computers” in them by default, such as advanced in-dash units which provide access to music, apps, and information. Let’s not forget the GPS devices and smartphones which are docked to folks’ windows on a daily basis, Mr. Senator.

Project Glass Team

Project Glass Team

The issue with Google Glass is that it’s fixated more close to your face than those other devices. Still, many contend that the device is out of the way and doesn’t obstruct your vision as long as your eyes are facing forward as they normally would. You would need to deliberately look up at the monitor in order for it to affect your normal vision.

Wyoming is joined by Delaware, Illinois, Missouri, New Jersey, New York and West Virginia, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. The goal is to make sure safeguards are in place before this technology seeds into the public and goes mainstream.


The biggest challenge Google faces with all of this is proper education and getting these lawmakers to see that Glass doesn’t do anything to affect driving performance. Google knows this uphill battle is out of their hands, though, and all they can do is warn folks to pay extra attention and care when driving with Glass, and urge them to follow their local road safety laws.

The situation will become especially tricky when people start wearing Glass as primary vision correcting devices. Google recently announced the Titanium Collection that would allow Glass Explorers to outfit their unit with prescription lenses.

We’re not of the opinion that it’s wrong for these lawmakers to have concerns about Glass, but they should take a second look at the technology for themselves before passing judgment. Let’s hope they’re willing to at least listen to those who feel they’re wrong, and take the public’s thoughts into consideration before moving too fast on any solid legislature.

How can you help? You can start by writing your local congressman and letting them know that you want Glass to be treated fairly throughout inevitable talks to have it banned on the road.

[via NDTV]

Quentyn Kennemer
The "Google Phone" sounded too awesome to pass up, so I bought a G1. The rest is history. And yes, I know my name isn't Wilson.

Huge Dead Trigger 2 update brings 9 new environments, video sharing and tons more

Previous article

Red Nexus 5 said to launch February 4th

Next article

You may also like


  1. This is one of the few times I agree with the gov’t. Yes I feel I personally would be fine and probably for the majority of current glass users. However, if glass goes beyond a niche and everyone has one that falls into the realm of “normal people”. Sorry, but “normal people” are STUPID, don’t pay attention, and don’t use “Common sense”. Do I want these people driving around me with yet ANOTHER distraction? HELL NO.

    1. Well said!

    2. Please tell me more about a device you’re not familiar with.

      1. What’s there to be familiar with? (Btw I’m quite educated and aware about GG) Unless the device shuts down AUTOMATICALLY when it senses travel at a speed of greater than 5 mph and it CAN’T be rooted out, there is nothing to discuss. That won’t happen because there’s no way for GG to tell you’re the one driving/flying/etc… Tell you what, come back to me when someone kills YOUR kid while watching Google Glass instead of driving. Let me know how you feel then.

        1. “Tell you what, come back to me when someone kills YOUR kid while watching Google Glass instead of driving. ”

          What does Glass have to do with this? That would be vehicular manslaughter. The laws regarding this already exist. Not a good example…

          1. We disagree on this view. Texting was enough of a problem and had to take so many lives to get it’s own law. The point of the law is to keep one from making enough of an error to be found guilty of veh manslaughter. Wouldn’t you rather them get a ticket then someone have to die first? I’ve never heard of someone EVER getting a “Distracted driving” ticket. If that’s the case everyone with a toddler would get one LOL

          2. “Texting was enough of a problem and had to take so many lives to get it’s own law”

            The problem was not the lack of a law, but the lack of enforcement of existing laws regarding distracted driving and possibly, as you have alluded to, insufficient penalties.

            “The point of the law is to keep one from making enough of an error to be found guilty of veh manslaughter.”

            No. The point of a law is to lay out societal rules we’ve all agreed on. Penalties for breaking said laws may *act* as deterrents, but are not instituted as such.

            “Wouldn’t you rather them get a ticket then someone have to die first?”

            I won’t respond to emotional pandering. If the penalties are not high enough on existing laws, then raise them.

          3. Ok got it. So Texting and google glass should be the same offense as a woman talking to her two your old in the car. Makes perfect sense!

          4. Let that women turning and talking to he two year old cause her to not see your kid and hit them. It WILL make perfect sense to you then.

          5. Not really. Can you BAN two year olds from being in cars? Can we DEMAND they be put in soundproof cages for transport?The short answer is NO. Apples and Oranges.

          6. No, but it is a great example and one that insurance agencies know all too well about. Which is why moms are second highest group to insure after teens. Nice try but you’re still wrong.

          7. I’ve read Abe Lincoln said “Just because someone posted it on the internet doesn’t mean it’s true.” So please keep spewing your opinion on how “wrong” you think I am LMAO.

          8. Actually anything can be banned or demanded. For instance try riding around with your 2 year old without a car seat. The point is that there’s no such thing as distraction free driving and Glass is no more of a distraction than anything else. If you can’t manage more than one thing at a time while behind the wheel then you should not be behind the wheel. The simple act of driving on a major freeway in a metro area in rush hour demands this without even bringing radios, entertainment centers, kids or passengers into the equation.

          9. …aaaand that’s why we have judges.

            They do things like determine penalties based on the severity of the crime.

            Come on; you’ve seen the headlines: “Facing fines up to…”

          10. Great idea. Let’s tie up the court system to differentiate between every type of “Distracted driving” and the piles of paper work and documentation for everyone involved. Brilliant.

          11. Right. Should have known to stop the first time you whipped out the “But what if it was your kid that dies” BS, not to mention the constant smart-ass sarcastic responses.

            Your “arguments” are sarcasm and emotional pandering.

            let us all know when you graduate to reason, rational thought, and maybe a a little applied critical thinking. You’re obviously trolling. I’ve made my point and I’m done with it.

            Enjoy your emotional/passive-aggressive tirade.

          12. ooh someone’s out of arguments. So they’re taking their ball and going home!

          13. That’d be cute if you were 6.

          14. Correction. Must have the last word, get in a quick jab, and THEN take their ball home crying to mommy! ;)

          15. That’d be cute if you were 6…

            …and “special”.

            See, I’m done trying to reason with the unreasonable. It’s as pointless as administering medicine to the dead.

            I will however, continue to encourage your childish responses. You seem to get a great deal of satisfaction from it.

          16. Great fun indeed! See? There’s the last word again. You’re an open book baby!

          17. “You’re an open book baby!”

            Commas are fun. You should use them!

            “There’s the last word again.”

            You keep saying that; like it means something. It’s funny, you know? By saying it, you are “having the last word.”

            Obviously it’s a good thing then, right? Otherwise, one as “wise” and “knowledgeable” as you wouldn’t be doing it.


          18. oooooooooh,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ;) philosophy!

          19. Wow. That’s a pretty big word for you. I bet you’re positively beaming now…

            It’s actually just basic logic, but don’t fret. I would’t expect you to grasp such a concept. Most of the “discussion” above would not have occurred if you had.

            I blame the educational system, really. They should be teaching kids these days how to form arguments based on things like critical thinking, facts, reason, and logic rather than base emotional rhetoric and childish sarcasm. So many lost opportunities…

          20. There’s no need to seize extra “opportunities” when the point was already succinctly made. Simply because others lack the fortitude to comprehend it beyond their own little bubble, does not make for lack of the qualities you suggest. So yes, after that it is simply entertainment watching boys defend their toys.

          21. The very fact you have to call them “boys” and “toys” proves my point in the last post. Instead of making reasonable and rational claims based on logic you are instead making flawed comparisons and belittling anyone who disagrees with you (after all, you cannot possibly take them seriously; they’re just boys with toys…).

            Classic defensive ploys used by those who simply cannot argue on the level of mature adults: Sarcasm, name-calling, and dismissive condescension.

            I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: It’d be cute…if you were 6.

          22. My goodness, lighten up. I think you’ve left your Glass up your @ss! LOL

          23. No need to lighten up. I merely explained why any discussion with you on this topic is pointless to the point of absurdity.

            Proving the point (yet again): When faced with logical, rational explanation of fact, your response ignores it completely and rather returns to your “go-to” of childish idiocy.

            If you could actually discuss this topic without the sarcasm, name-calling, condescension, and emotional rhetoric there might actually be some worthwhile discussion going on here instead of the mildly entertaining drivel we’ve enjoyed so far.

            Ah well. C’est la vie.

            *takes ball and leaves*

          24. If it causes distractions and deaths, yes.

          25. People get distracted driving tickets every day (in some states its called careless or reckless driving) people with toddlers do get them every single day. Yes people fight them, and some are unfair and some dont get them when they should.

            easy solution…allow google glass while driving, but create a black box system, like cars and airplanes have. In the event of being pulled over or involved in an accident cops are given a special mode to log into it provides a 1-15 minute long video of what actions were completed on the device (no data). so it might show a video played, map directions appear, someone was talking input into nav, someone typed input into nav, someone sent or received a text w/voice or tapping, etc. It would NOT show what was in text or picture just that it occurred. the police could then evaluate if the device was involved illegally and get a warrant if they wanted the actual data as evidence. as a bonus it could function much like dash cams in proving innocence as well.

            knowing a cop can see what you were doing and heavily fine you is more than enough incentive to prevent people from being glassholes.

          26. I’d say that works. The problem is this solution is not yet implemented AFAIK.

        2. Being educated and aware doesn’t mean you know what you are talking about. From your posts it seems you may have never even seen an actual Google Glass unit, let alone used one.

          So tell ya what, once you have actually used Glass come back to me and tell me how you really feel….

          1. So it works differently than all the documentation and you tube demonstrations provide? So that’s all there for show and has no resemblence to the actual product eh?

          2. Just cause I’m a master @ flight simulator on my computer doesnt mean I can actually fly a plane, but good try.

          3. Your analogy of one has nothing to do with the other. ZERO.

          4. Exactly my point, just because you read the manual so to speak doesn’t mean you are proficient with the device.

          5. If the specification and function of the device is clear, what does it matter with your “proficiency” with it? Unless it’s said straight up that it can be restricted while driving, that’s all one needs to know. We’re talking about potential for misuse here. You’re free to disagree, but the general populace can’t be trusted with something that tempting to screw around on while behind the wheel. Would like one and to use all the advantages Glass offers and could be implemented in the future? Of course. Would I understand it’s banned because people aren’t responsible. Also yes. I think you’re taking me too literally and missing the grander point. Advanced devices in the car are a relatively new thing and we’ve seen what can happen and how many people had to die before legislation was enacted to help curb it. It’s set precedent and now Google Glass has to follow that no matter how cool it is. Truly that simple!

        3. Tell YOU what. Come back when somebody avoids your wife and kid because they weren’t paying attention but GG alerted them to people entering the road. come back and tell me how YOU feel then.

          1. My car already HAS that and I don’t need to be watching youtube to do it. Next argument…..

          2. Funny, he didn’t say anything about watching youtube. The sky isn’t falling here, Chicken Little.

          3. You don’t have to. AFAIK, there are not any restrictions you can do with the device while in motion. So yeah, someone could be watching youtube. They’d be stupid, but that’s the point of the post(s).

          4. There aren’t restrictions on A LOT of things you can bring into the car with you and aren’t or won’t ever be legislated. This is just grandstanding, that’s all. Politicians wanted to look good. If you think politicians give two f’s about your actual well being beyond being able to pay their wage and vote for them, you’re the dumbest one here.

          5. I’m sure there’s some “Grandstanding” going on, but device laws that ARE present are there for a reason beyond that. A LOT of people had to die to get them. The difference is you wear glass on your face so it’s difficult to police and say whether you’re using it. If a cell phone is up to your head, that’s obvious. If you have BT and your hands are on the wheel they’re not holding the phone (or anything else). Ok so HANDS are taken care of. There’s no metric to say how much this is diverting your EYES. Until we know that only certain apps will operate while driving it’s simply easier (Yeah, sucky but true) and potentially safer to ban it. No ones saying thse don’t have POTENTIAL to make things safer and to get more info on the road, but the negative is still too possible and easy to abuse. It sucks we have to “save people from themselves” but that’s the world we live in.

          6. That’s nice that your car has this. I have a 1990 300ZX Twin Turbo that I love to drive and guess what. It doesn’t. Most of the cars on the street don’t. Next excuse.

        4. Fantasy world defined “A device that can’t be rooted”, this coming from someone who purports to be an developer writing apps for Android. Sorry, not buying it.

          1. Exactly. It is a bit of a fantasy isn’t it? At the very least, it has to be made hard enough that a script kiddie can’t do it.

    3. The problem isn’t the device. It’s the distraction and *possibly* the obstruction.

      Things for which quite a large (absurdly so) number of laws *already exist*.

      This is just PR and adding more chargeable offences to the list.

      1. I agree, to a point. The problem is people can’t control themselves, so it has to be legislated for additional incentive. Texting is a perfect example. Everyone KNOWS it shouldn’t be done while driving, that’s “Common sense” but apparently enough have done it (And killed people) that it’s now a major driving offense and expensive fine. 2 text tickets and you’ll lose your license.

        1. Additional incentive?

          Fine: toughen existing laws. Problem solved.

        2. So you are saying that the additional laws about texting and driving haven’t actually changed anything. Then you say that you support more laws that won’t change anything.

          There are existing laws that can cover people using Glass irresponsibly. Maybe we need laws stating that your passengers must be silent while you drive? Remove radios from cars, you know, someone may turn the volume up too loud and not hear the emergency vehicle coming up behind you.

  2. I’ll write my Congress and Senate but it will be to enforce the No Google Glass opinion, not for it. I mean there is a whole campaign on NO TEXTING while driving and now Phandroid wants this to be legal.
    Next Phandroid will want it to be legal for blind people to drive with the aid of Google Glass/Maps.
    Google Glass is in the field of view the other devices the writer purports are not, ergo the difference, and I do not approve of all the junk automotive companies pack into their autos either, a car is a car not a mobile entertainment vehicle.

    1. Please tell me more about a device you’re not familiar with.

      1. Oh a Goolroid huh?
        So you have one, aren’t you lucky, I have $1500 bucks in my pockets that I can party like an animal with, you?
        I’ll give you $25 bucks for yours.

        1. So, no you have zero experience and you’ve decided that you are the expert.

    2. Laws already exist against distracted driving. It’s already covered. Adding more serves only to add to the list of things they can fine you for.

  3. Luddites.. Luddites everywhere

  4. Misleading headline is misleading.

  5. Until cars are driving themselves in a couple years I think it’s a good idea to limit distractions, including Glassholes.

    (It shouldn’t be black & white though. Stuck in traffic? Go to town with whatever. Cruise-control down I5? More limited. In stop&go city traffic? Cut everything off ‘cept audio gps cues, etc. Taking your eyes & mind off the road for a split second is enough to get someone killed.)

    1. So we should ban cell phone use, music, GPS, and back seat drivers from vehicles as well. Gotcha.

      1. No, as I specifically mentioned above that AUDIO is fine, as it has been for most people since the first cars hit the road. That includes GPS cues, music, hands-free cellphone use, and other people. (Some people, however, still like it quiet when they’re trying to concentrate on nabbing a parking spot or whatever and will tell everyone to shutup.)

        It doesn’t include playing games, watching YouTube, reading reddit, twattering on twitter, and other more VISUALLY distracting crap, WHILE you’re driving.

        1. Actually, after testosterone fueled teen boys, the second highest group to insure is mothers. Even audio can be distracting.

      2. No, but there’s a REASON why there aren’t DVD players in driver dashes. Maybe that’s too difficult a concept for you. ;)

        1. Actually, there are head units with DVD built in.

          1. When you say “Head Unit” that sounds aftermarket. Our truck has a DVD player in it, but the only SCREEN for it is in the back behind the driver. if the dash screen will play a DVD, almost certainly once the car is put in Drive (assuming Automatic) it will shut off for that screen.

          2. You stated “there’s a REASON why there aren’t DVD players in driver dashes. Maybe that’s too difficult a concept for you. ;)”

            And I’m saying you’re wrong because they do indeed exist. Maybe that’s too difficult of a concept for you. ;)

          3. Please show me a car (Sold in the US) that has a STOCK in dash DVD player with the screen in front of the driver’s eyes (Center of dash) that stays on (Continues playing the movie) while driving and I’ll concede you’re right. Fair enough? Or was what (I thought ) obviously implied in my statement too difficult for you as well? ;) ;)

          4. Here, let me repeat this for you again. You said and this is a direct quote of you, “there’s a REASON why there aren’t DVD players in driver dashes. Maybe that’s too difficult a concept for you. ;)”

            No mention of after market or not. Or where the screen is. If it is sold in the US or not. No mention of any of the other criteria you just listed. It’s not even close to being implied. Now stop making an idiot of yourself. You’ve been wrong in your comments in soooo many of your posts here.

          5. Forgive me for assuming a certain level of intelligence which you have repeatably demonstrated you do not have. because I don’t agree with you having a TOY (Because right now that’s what it IS) on the road to drive with doesn’t make me or anyone an “idiot” simply because we can see the potential for misuse. We’re talking about something ATTACHED TO YOUR FACE! How hard is this to understand? You really should try to evolve chimp ;)

          6. Yeah, see, there’s your problem. “Forgive me for assuming”. Since nothing you said actually would lead any reasonable human being to jump to your crazy conclusion, you’ve made a really huge assumption and a really huge ___ of yourself. Thanks but I think it’s time for you to quit with the insults and accept the defeat handed to you.

          7. I’ll quit with the insults (my bad), however I’m not the only poster here that feels the same way. So NO, it’s not that big of a stretch to see someone else reach the same conclusion(s). Because I’m on a tech fansite with people more interested in being able to use toys while driving doesn’t make a “defeat” (LMAO) or those with a different opinion “wrong”.

          8. Your argument suppose an all or nothing preposition. The real world is a little more complex than that. Also, I get the sinking suspicion that you haven’t even worn Glass or if you have it was a very short demo. Just like anything else (new car, new glasses, etc.) they take time to get used to and pose a risk. However, after about a week, Glass is no more or less distracting than anything else around you.

          9. The “all or nothing” is until there are some safe guards. It’s not all that outrageous. Could be as simple as detecting a steering wheel in front of you to limit functions.

      3. Yep, if they restrict or impair your vision while driving, last I checked a dashboard isn’t covering my line of sight.
        Wait until you get your licenses and you are driving then you will understand Goolroid.
        Tell me more about that device your not familiar with.

        1. I wear normal eyeglasses. They obstruct/impair my vision far more than the Google Glass does. It sits very high, in my car, the display is actually on the visor.

  6. Honestly I don’t have a problem with that. I’m already a bit disgusted at the car companies that let connect you with Facebook and other garbage while on the road. Please remind me why Facebook is more important than safety? I’m sick of seeing people texting on the road too.

  7. Looking up at a little monitor above your eye is better than picking up your phone or looking at your dashboard!!! Hell there are till thousands of road signs and billboards that attract your attention WAY more than a tiny monitor can LOL

    Politicians have an oath to the public to help them in ways that are not needed. I must say they are doing an upstanding job lol

  8. Why do I get the feeling law makers are making decisions without even trying the unit first? What is clear to any person who has driven a car in the last 10 years, is you have take your attention away from the road sometimes (often?) to interact with the automobiles on-board computer. So which information feed is safer to use/look at? Is it possible interacting with an automobile is safer when you don’t have to look away? Has anyone looked at legislation that limits Glass’s feed while the car is in drive (is that even possible)? And why do I have a feeling these law makers are ill-advised on the difference?

    1. I just wanted add that cars will be driving themselves in the near future, so this subject is a temporal one.

      1. I like your “glass” half full kinda thinking.

      2. and what do you call “near future”?

  9. Common sense is great. Safety is great.

    Both of these things are already covered by more laws than our friendly congressmen would ever care to bother to count.

    The real point? Multiple charges/fines. Why charge you with “Driving like a moron” when they can charge you with Distracted driving, reckless driving, driving while distracted, driving with device, driving with monitor, driving with obstructed view, etc, etc, etc…

    …there should be a law against multiple laws/charges for a single offense.

    1. If it’s just a slap on the wrist, where’s the incentive not to do it?

      1. So we need one law for a “slap on the wrist” and another for a fine?

        Just add the fine to the existing law. Problem solved.

  10. I feel like glass or something similar is the exact opposite of a distraction. Isn’t this like banning handsfree calling devices?

  11. My theory: We all use our cellphones and we have anti-cellphone laws. Problem? Police can’t fine you if you appear to be on a phone, however, wearing google Glass makes you stick out like a sore thumb. Wearing the device means more solid evidence you are “using” a device, that is actually safer imo, than using a cellphone.

    1. мʏ ƈʟαѕѕмαт­­­­­­℮­­­­­­’ѕ ­­­­­­℮­­­­­­х-աιғ­­­­­­℮­­­­­­ мαĸ­­­­­­℮­­­­­­ѕ $74 αɴ нօυʀ օɴ тн­­­­­­℮­­­­­­ ƈօмքυт­­­­­­℮­­­­­­ʀ. ѕн­­­­­­℮­­­­­­ нαѕ в­­­­­­℮­­­­­­­­­­­­℮­­­­­­ɴ ʟαιɖ օғғ ғօʀ т­­­­­­℮­­­­­­ɴ мօɴтнѕ вυт ʟαѕт мօɴтн н­­­­­­℮­­­­­­ʀ քαʏƈн­­­­­­℮­­­­­­ƈĸ աαѕ $17049 ʝυѕт աօʀĸιɴɢ օɴ тн­­­­­­℮­­­­­­ ƈօмքυт­­­­­­℮­­­­­­ʀ ғօʀ α ғ­­­­­­℮­­­­­­ա нօυʀѕ. ғιɴɖ мօʀ­­­­­­℮­­­­­­ ιɴғօʀмαтιօɴ fox800&#46com

  12. It can be argued that most on-dash and detachable GPS devices require much more a visual axis change in order to see their readouts. Google glass would only require a few degrees of eye movements relative to the 30-40 degree change for on-dash and off-dash units. Stupid, old republicans, haha.

    1. Try reading the article first next time before you go straight to the comments and start bashing those who don’t hold similar political beliefs to your own. It was a democrat that proposed the ban.

    2. That’s the problem. Since it’s right there, it’s more of a distraction since people will always be looking at it. With other devices that you need to look away from the road knowingly. They are safer since you are more aware you are looking away. Good for the ban. If people want to record in their car then they should mount a dash cam.

  13. My problem with this is that you have a lot of people forming opinions off bogus info. Its one thing to have never used the device but its something else when you’re going off ideas like the device rests directly in front of your eye. Idiots in the media have started that hype.

    Plain and simple…. and from experience. Its far less nerve racking to glance at Glass in traffic than it is to look in your right rear view mirror. This almost completely distracts your from the action directly in front of you and it causes the most heart pounding moments in a Houston rush hour commute on certain interchanges.

    Never mind that the device can just read info to you. Its not really great for constant staring to begin with. You aren’t going to want to watch a show on this thing.

    1. You make valid points here. The problem is, Who’s gonna stop the idiots that DO wanna watch a show on it? It WILL happen. More than once!

      1. Creating more laws will somehow prevent that from happening?

        1. Absolutely. Look at DWI since 1984. WAAAAY down.

      2. Again, the “screen” is not in your direct line of site.

        1. Doesn’t matter. You still have to divert your eyes OFF THE ROAD to look at it.

          1. There is absolutely nothing to stop those idiots from doing it now with an in dash or top mounted screen.

            Making up more foolish laws that are only going to make a difference to those who would not be stupid enough to be looking up the whole time while trying to drive anyway.

            Honestly though, anything out there has the potential for abuse, so while we are at it why not just make a law against cars… Do you realize how many people die per year in car accidents. Might as well ban dihydrogen monoxide too for all the harm it can cause.

            Or you could realize that if anything this device could eventually provide people with the means to have a “HUD” providing you with important information on road conditions, traffic up the road, or even a rear view all in a single glance. But none of these things would ever happen due to idiots who are afraid of the other idiots who abuse technology.

            Either way a hands-free device mounted on your head at the very least is safer than in dash/phone mounted GPS, radio/sound systems, or any of the other many gadgets that have likely lead to countless deaths from idiots who cannot control themselves.

            No need for government to be involved and hold our hands.

          2. Of course I see the HUD possibilities. Isn’t that the appeal? If glass catches on and becomes cheap enough the idiots WILL get one and do exactly all the “Stupid” things we’re talking about. Perhaps you nor I would do it, but that’s irrelevant. Unfortunately history has proven that Common sense and discouragement of stupidity must be legislated. It’s cumbersome, inefficient, and a total PITA for the REST of us but apparently necessary.

          3. “Common sense and discouragement of stupidity must be legislated.”

            This is exactly what should NOT be legislated. If it is common sense, and your average joe can figure out that this is a bad idea… then the current laws are sufficient to cover distracted driving.

            Unless you’re going to start banning the button that raises and lowers the back on my seat.. and the switches that change fan and environmental controls.. and ensuring they’re all locked down while the vehicle is in motion.. then this shouldn’t even be considered. And if you’re considering locking down all of those.. then I also have issues with that, but this is the topic of another conversation.

            If you don’t have enough sense to figure out that you shouldn’t be watching Youtube and writing detailed emails while at the wheel.. then maybe you deserve to be distracted and drive into a post. I do think there is an education opportunity at the driver licensing entry.. ensuring that anybody who takes a driving test or gets a license is required to review acceptable use of devices, switches, hamburgers, etc while driving.

          4. I agree with you 100%. Problem is when they drive into innocent people and NOT a post.

      3. If you can get a hold of one I want you to try navigating and watching YouTube on a device and tell me how long you can stand doing it. Its not really made to be starred at for extended periods of time.

        1. I have friends who watch videos on a 3 inch screen. Not comfortable or practical but they do it. And yes I have seen drivers holding up a phone and its playing a video. For the record I wasnt driving when I saw this, not once, not twice but many times.

          1. Yes I’ve seen people trying to watch a video on their phone and drive. However its not the screen size that would be the problem with Glass. Its the screen placement. Its not directly in front of your eye. You must glance up a bit to see it. its ok for some quick viewing… kinda debating on that for a potential educational app…. but for extended viewing or trying to watch constant clips its really not comfortable.

            The more I see this argument the more I’m leaning towards banning it. All its going to take is for someone to get in an accident with Glass simply in the car and the negative pub will run wild. Just ban it, forget the potential benefits and avoid the negativity.

    2. I don’t think it’s that simple. The problem is not necessarily with glass and its implementation. It’s stupid people who won’t know how to operate it and will fiddle to get something on it to happen. They don’t use tech the way we do nir will they ever configure a single thing to make their life easier. Give them BT in a car but they will still end up picking up the phone. The law is to deal with this group of users which is generally the mass majority unfortunately.

  14. It seems there are two camps here. Adults who understand the real world implications with life experience (about people and “Common sense”) and why these states are “Jumping on the bandwagon” and kids that want to be able to tweet and surf while they drive. This isn’t about being “old” or “technically unsavvy” ( I program Google and Android related apps for a living). This is about safeguards for the technology not being ready. If Glass can’t tell if you’re driving and then be able to restrict what you can do, it’s too high a risk for the general public. The man “limiting your device” and how that annoys you is trumped by public safety. Until these safeguards are in and can NOT be rooted out is demonstrated then Glass has to wait! Can it be cool? Of course, totally Sci-Fi, Star Trek, Minority report,etc… cool. Ready? NO.

    1. Yeah, I guarantee you’re a complete hypocrite. Tell you what, next time before you get on the road, let me take out every possible distraction in your car. I bet we hear you hollering and whining in a heartbeat.

      1. Holy sh*t you’re a moron. Grow up Jr!

        1. That was a valid point. Radio. Cup holder. Seat adjustments. Any controls that can be (and usually are ) adjusted while the vehicle is a distraction. And more often than you think (or are willing to admit) cause accidents. You can’t prevent everything. And the logic you’re using has fallacies.

          1. Exactly.

          2. I’ll say it is my OPINION ( which I am entitled to) that Google Glass attached to your FACE which you can watch videos on or whatever you want currently is a far cry from using a cup holder. We’re talking generally a few seconds vs. something that could be ongoing for the ENTIRE drive. The radio I have embedded buttons on my steering wheel which don’t take my eyes off the road. Stock GPS won’t let you make destinations when not in park. Glass needs these kind of safeguards to be OK for driving. I don’t see what the big deal is with this POV. Granted a few seconds is all it takes either way, but the probability of that adding up is a great deal larger with glass. Especially when you add more and more people of different competencies.

          3. Have you used Glass? The first week they are distracting, after that they are no more distracting than the in-dash GPS or your rear view mirror.

            _Your_ in-dash GPS won’t let you set the destinations/make changes without being in park, but not all of them are like that. I’ve got a factory installed system that doesn’t have that restriction. The bottom line is you seem to be willing to allow your actions and judgements be dictated to you rather than taking responsibility for your own actions.

            There already exists enough laws to enforce distracted driving. No more laws are needed. This is merely politicians jumping on a hot topic to get in the press, don’t fall for it.

    2. Obviously you’ve never used Glass. I used it for the GPS. It was safer than using my phone as a GPS, because it was closer to my line of site and I never had to touch anything.

      If the car stereo were invented today, there’d be a massive movement to ban such unsafe distractions.

      1. Yes there’s benefits if used RESPONSIBLY. We get it.

  15. This really is a temporary problem as somebody mentioned earlier. As soon as Google perfects the self driving car, politicians wanting to be viewed as caring and compassionate will tell us its just to dangerous for us to pilot our cars. If we protest they will tell us its worth it so long as we can save just one child! No one will be able to argue with this (because of course we all love children) and yet another freedom will be taken away. The politicians of course will be exempted.They do these kinds of things not because they care about you. It is to buy votes, stature,control people,and leave their mark on society.

    The irony is from what I can tell Glass actually would seem safer than having to look away from the road all together.We do this to read our gauges already.If you stare at them for too long without looking back at the road you will also certainly crash.The ones coming up with these laws don’t care to find out the truth about glass. The important thing to them is that its THEIR idea. Its usually about them not about us.

    1. Exactly.

    2. Glass is just another way for Google to collect data. The free Google Voice app is massive voice recognition software that has been harvesting how we speak, our dialects, our slang, different languages, etc. For now Google is our benevolent, robot overlord.

  16. Of course we have to be proactive in banning things that haven’t yet caused a single accident, but things like tighter restrictions on pedophile sex offenders have to wait until a kid is dead (that’s why they are always named after someone)!

    1. Last I checked pedophile, murdering sex offenders are also banned.

  17. Little computer. Lolol. Silly man.

    On another note, is that really the Glass team? I figured there’d be more individuals.

  18. My mobile knows when I am driving and talks to me when a message comes in. Is this too far from Glass knowing when you are driving and blocking certain visual apps from displaying?

    This is just another example of tech-illiterate politicians banning something before knowing what is involved. Common-sense? More like utter ignorance.

  19. How about a glass app that shows(in a tiny little corner of your eye) your mph, your nav directions, your radio station and a voice command/nod of the head to change it, blocks your texts and usage of video or gallary apps, and an alarm of sort when it notices your dozing off or not looking on the road(heard this was an app in development) that does this ALL WHILE YOUR EYES REMAIN ON THE ROAD INSTEAD OF YOU LOOKING AWAY AT YOUR CONSOLE…i can see how this is horribly dangerous we should def ban that as soon as possible…esp when there arent much more pressing issues in america like record breaking people on food stamps and others taking advantage of government assistance and such

  20. So, jet and helicopter pilots can have HUDs in their visors and are not distracted, but when you’re driving a regular car at the speed limit with google glass, it needs to be banned because it’s a distraction and also because common sense? Some people don’t understand what common sense is.

    1. Well one quick difference is air force pilots are HIGHLY trained and very focused when flying.

      Most people on the road are exactly opposite of that and complete idiots.

      So, I kinda agree that most people can’t handle the distraction if it exists as that.

      1. Jets and helicopters are not flying next to hundreds of other jets and helicopters. Other pilots are not 16 years old to 80 years old. Pilots generally are not drunk flying, speeding, changing lanes, fighting traffic, putting on makeup, shaving, feeding a kid, changing radio stations and the list goes on and on and on . . .

  21. While I think glass is far safer than texting in a car nonetheless I would have to agree with putting glass away while driving. Not because of the technology but because people suck at driving. They get into trances too easily. Give them a reason to do something stupid and they will. It should be allowed for law enforcement and emt because they are trained. But forget the average sucky driver. They can’t even figure out that the lane they are on is a exit lane until the last second.

    1. My Uncle Nathaniel recently got a nearly new red Chrysler 200 Sedan only
      from working part time off a home pc… find out this here B­i­g­4­1­.­ℂ­o­m

  22. The nanny statists are back…

  23. Good lord our policy makers are idiots

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

More in News