Google Glass U-turn in prospect as DfT considers letting drivers use tech device despite safety warnings

Government department confirms it is in talks with tech giant but road safety campaigners warn of more driver distraction

by Simon_MacMichael   January 6, 2014  

Google Glass (CC licensed by Wilbert Baan on Flickr)

The Department for Transport (DfT) has said it is looking at ways to allow Google Glass to be legally used by motorists in the UK after holding discussions with the California-based technology giant.

The news, which marks an apparent U-turn in government policy, has been greeted with dismay by road safety campaigners, who warn that the wearable technology will add to driver distraction and make Britain's roads more dangerous.

It comes on the eve of the Consumer Electronics Show (CES) in Las Vegas, the world’s largest such event, with several major carmakers due to announce how they will integrate Google Glass technology, which runs Android apps, into their vehicles.

The Sunday Times says the DfT has confirmed it is considering allowing the eyewear-based device to be used by motorists, with potential applications including satellite navigation.

A DfT spokesperson told the newspaper: “We have met with Google to discuss the implications of the current law for Google Glass.

“Google are anxious their products do not pose a road safety risk and are currently considering options to allow the technology to be used in accordance with the law.”

The statement represents an apparent change in policy since last July, when a spokesman for the DfT was unequivocal that the department would not permit motorists to use the technology while driving.

“We are aware of the impending rollout of Google Glass and are in discussion with the Police to ensure that individuals do not use this technology while driving,” he told the website, Stuff.

“It is important that drivers give their full attention to the road when they are behind the wheel and do not behave in a way that stops them from observing what is happening on the road."

He added: "A range of offences and penalties already exist to tackle those drivers who do not pay proper attention to the road including careless driving which will become a fixed penalty offence later this year." The latter came into force in August 2013.

Road safety organisations point out that existing legislation banning the use of hand-held mobile phones at the wheel were drafted more than a decade ago, and therefore could not envisage the development of technology such as Google Glass.

While it is legal for hands-free mobile phones to be used while driving, motorists can face prosecution if they are distracted, although the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (RoSPA) believes that such devices cause distraction by their very nature.

The charity’s head of road safety, Kevin Clinton, told The Sunday Times that he believed that Google Glass, which is controlled using head gestures, voice commands and touch-sensitive panels, said the latest technology posed just as great a risk.

“The government at the time didn’t envisage glasses with a heads-up display,” he said.

“All the research shows that even hands-free phones are distracting. These glasses are just as distracting and increase the risk just as much as any other hands-free device.”

Road safety charity the Institute of Advanced Motorists (IAM) has previously said that the use of smartphones while driving to check email or social media accounts is more dangerous than driving while drunk or after smoking cannabis.

It has urged that Google and companies developing similar devices should ensure that phone calls and messages are disabled while driving, or require users to manually override any such bars on their device.

“Once you start putting ‘Joe’s Diner three miles’ or Facebook updates in a driver’s field of vision, distraction creeps in,” IAM’s head of technical policy, Tim Shallcross, explained.

Google Glass is not yet available for the public to buy, although The Sunday Times says that around 10,000 prototype headsets have been sold chiefly to US-based software developers.

The technology has already attracted the attention of law enforcement agencies in Google’s home state, however.

In October last year, a California Highway Patrol officer ticketed a motorist who was driving while wearing a Google Glass device.

The officer deemed that Cecilia Abadie, a product manager at a company that makes golf simulators and who describes herself on her Google Plus profile as a “Google Glass pioneer” had her field of vision impeded by the device, in contravention of the state’s driver distraction laws.

A court in California is reportedly due to rule later this month whether that legislation does apply to Google Glass.

For its part, Google says that the technology improves road safety, because unlike a separate satellite navigation device, the driver does not need to take their eyes off the road to see the display.

The report in The Sunday Times includes a road test of the device in Seattle of by its journalist Mark Harris, who said: “Navigating with Google Glass feels easier and more natural than with a normal sat nav.

“The voice instructions are clear and checking the route visually takes no more than a split-second glance upwards. Directions arrive in plenty of time and the display switches off when there are no turns approaching.”

He noted however that it lacked some of the information found in standard satellite navigation devices, and that while there is an audible signal to denote the arrival of an email or message, it does not appear on the display unless the user physically interacts with the device; in the case of an incoming phone call, however, the caller ID is automatically displayed.

The newspaper also cites out a study published last week in the New England Journal of Medicine had found that drivers take their eyes off the road for 10 per cent of the time, and that distraction is particularly prevalent among young drivers, with Google Glass potentially adding to that.

Nevertheless, Google plus car manufacturers such as Ford and Mercedes-Benz, as well as technology firm Harman which has been working on an app in partnership with Alfa Romeo and BMW, are among those due to outline at CES their plans utilise the technology. Nissan, meanwhile, is developing its own, similar product, called 3E.

Besides developments in Google Glass itself, CES is likely to see the launch of other devices and apps for Google and Apple as the two businesses compete in a technological arms race that one analyst said would lead to cars “becoming the ultimate mobile device.”

34 user comments

Latest 30 commentsNewest firstBest ratedAll

I've used head-up displays in anger, and they are a great deal better for maintaining focus on the job in hand than head-down instrumentation. That is why, more and more, they are becoming standard fit in airliners and not just military aeroplanes. If GoogleGlass can be inhibited by design so that over, say 10mph, it displays only navigation information (no Facebook, email, Twitter etc), it's likely to be a net contribution to safety, not an additional risk.

posted by TimC340 [32 posts]
7th January 2014 - 3:42

like this
Like (18)

TimC340 wrote:
I've used head-up displays in anger, and they are a great deal better for maintaining focus on the job in hand than head-down instrumentation. That is why, more and more, they are becoming standard fit in airliners and not just military aeroplanes. If GoogleGlass can be inhibited by design so that over, say 10mph, it displays only navigation information (no Facebook, email, Twitter etc), it's likely to be a net contribution to safety, not an additional risk.

I hope that there is a massive difference in the level of training given to a pilot to that given to your average driver, including refresher training which drivers don't have. Also an airline pilot has air traffic control looking out for them and telling who else is in their bit of sky, a proportion of drivers have no idea who or what is near them when they drive. And a pilot who's caught over the limit (for instance) is banned and loses their job, we all see what happens to a large number of drivers who break the rules, nothing. There is no deterrent for poor driving and no incentive to be a good driver.

I'd not be happy for someone to Tweet 'bloodycyclists' at 9.5mph after running you over.

posted by Bagpuss [101 posts]
7th January 2014 - 8:55

like this
Like (27)

Just require a compulsory "anti-SMIDSY" app for in car use - the glass track your eyes and KNOW if you didn't look where you should have done. Or know if you did look and pulled out anyhow Wink

posted by CarlosFerreiro [56 posts]
7th January 2014 - 9:07

like this
Like (12)

If the glasses record a rolling video, then they will be perfect for 'my word against yours' situations, in this age of blame & litigation it's probably only a matter of time before they will become mandatory, especially if the government get a cash back hander.... but that won't save any lives.

My concern is that there are already far too many external distactions for motorists, especially in uk cities which are more filmed 'obstacle courses' than road networks.

We all agree keeping cyclist & motorists apart is the only acceptable way forward, glasses or no glasses....

posted by caaad10 [109 posts]
7th January 2014 - 10:21

like this
Like (25)

“Google are anxious their products do not pose a road safety risk..."

Well, if Google say so, it must be true.

posted by hoski [64 posts]
7th January 2014 - 10:32

like this
Like (23)

Neil753 wrote:
The fact that the DfT are allegedly even contemplating some sort of "compromise" is fundamentally shocking.

Google have probably feigned interest in settling their tax bill.

posted by farrell [1401 posts]
7th January 2014 - 10:34

like this
Like (16)

Neil753 wrote:
Here's a question for everyone.

How many of us have chosen to set our satnavs such that buttons cannot be pressed when the vehicle is in motion? Be honest. We all know the answer, don't we?

I have locked my satnav so I can't use it, but I do occasionally change the track on the ipod, or have a drink or eat etc etc.

The more distractions you have in a car, the worse it gets.

The sooner we have automated cars the better! If you want to travel in your living room then let someone else so the driving!

mrmo's picture

posted by mrmo [1073 posts]
7th January 2014 - 10:37

like this
Like (13)

caaad10 wrote:
We all agree keeping cyclist & motorists apart is the only acceptable way forward, glasses or no glasses....

No, "we" don't all agree, because it is impossible.

Yes there is a place for a separate cycle network, but it can never run door to door for every journey. Cars, bikes, HGVs etc will always have to cohabit some of the road network. The only solution is to ensure all parties follow the rules and that transgressions are PROPERLY policed!

mrmo's picture

posted by mrmo [1073 posts]
7th January 2014 - 10:40

like this
Like (17)

Hurrah, more deaths coming to a public highway near you soon.

posted by northstar [1100 posts]
7th January 2014 - 11:22

like this
Like (9)

TimC340 wrote:
I've used head-up displays in anger, and they are a great deal better for maintaining focus on the job in hand than head-down instrumentation. That is why, more and more, they are becoming standard fit in airliners and not just military aeroplanes. If GoogleGlass can be inhibited by design so that over, say 10mph, it displays only navigation information (no Facebook, email, Twitter etc), it's likely to be a net contribution to safety, not an additional risk.

That's all well and good as long as they're only used for navigation purposes, but there are plenty of ways of travelling over 10mph that aren't driving a car (eg being a passenger in a car, bus or train) and presumably people who want to use these at all are going to want to use them when they're moving, so there would have to be a way to override that restriction. If people can they will so if these are allowed there will be people driving around reading facebook, not concentrating on the road.

As far as I can see all Google's talk of it improving road safety is a smoke screen. They just care about selling more shiny gadgets, and don't give a stuff about the people who are going to be killed and injured by those (mis)using them. At best there'll be a "don't blame us, we were just trying to improve road safety".

posted by graham_f [95 posts]
7th January 2014 - 12:22

like this
Like (9)

What an outstandingly shite idea. Death by bookface update or twatter. Great.

Really, though?

posted by workhard [378 posts]
7th January 2014 - 12:22

like this
Like (21)

... here's a thought though, if they could be set up to automatically send the footage of the crash they've just caused by bluetooth to the mobile phone of the person lying injured in the road, at least they'd have it for evidence before the driver has a chance to say "glasses - delete video"

posted by graham_f [95 posts]
7th January 2014 - 12:25

like this
Like (9)

Utter joke. This will be exceptionally dangerous imo, as it
will massively increase the chance of a saccade, as your eye focuses on google-content instead of your surroundings.

War on the motorist? Seems the DfT and government are happy to roll over like a excitable puppy.

posted by sfichele [99 posts]
7th January 2014 - 12:36

like this
Like (13)

caaad10 wrote:
We all agree keeping cyclist & motorists apart is the only acceptable way forward, glasses or no glasses....

No we don't all agree (you can always be pretty sure of that on an Internet forum!)

This discussion is about the additional risk posed by the use of such a device on the roads and whether cyclists are on the road or not there will be PEOPLE put at additional risk if the government (as is its wont) rolls over and lets big business get away with something they wouldn't accept from the rest of us.

Yes there is a place for some segregated cycling facilities, where practical and feasible, but that should in no way preclude the option of cycling on the road to get to places where such facilities are not suitable etc.

There is however a much stronger case for making road users (including all of them - drivers, cyclists, pedestrians, motorcyclists and passengers) behave properly and make the roads safer.

I can't see a place for the Google device on safe roads.

Shay

posted by shay cycles [221 posts]
7th January 2014 - 13:05

like this
Like (11)

Neil753 wrote:
The government might be swayed by Google lobbyists...
Whenever I hear a story about the government and Google, it's not lobbying that immediately springs to mind.

Unlike any other tech giant, Google seem to have a particular love-in with our current government. Probably explained by Steven Hilton, the tories' former Head of Strategy and Cameron's speech writer, being married to a senior Google executive, who herself used to work for Michael Howard. The couple were also godparents to one of the Camerons' kids.

So yeah, lobbying accompanied by a distinct whiff of cronyism.

posted by BetterNever [10 posts]
7th January 2014 - 13:12

like this
Like (9)

The main issue is that this is not a full sat nav aid, you will be getting adverts on there, soon FB updates and the rest.

Leodis's picture

posted by Leodis [196 posts]
7th January 2014 - 15:24

like this
Like (5)

I like new technology, but, to allow vehicle drivers to wear these Google Goggles is going to cause accidents. I believe when you are driving a vehicle 100% of your attention should be on the road. The Government should instead be making Smoking, Eating & Drinking(non-alcoholic) all illegal whilst actually driving. I have seen Drivers fiddling about trying to light cigarettes, flicking their still lit dog ends out of windows (into my face!), eating sandwiches, drinking from cans of Cola (which requires you to tip your head back & eyes off the road) and on and on. It is simple really, both hands on the steering wheel, both eyes looking out the windscreen/windows and 100% concentration on the road. Enjoy your technology when you have stopped and parked up. Multi-tasking is not safe whilst driving.

Blood, Sweat & all the Gear with no Idea.

fatbastard's picture

posted by fatbastard [24 posts]
7th January 2014 - 15:43

like this
Like (14)

"If GoogleGlass can be inhibited by design so that over, say 10mph, it displays only navigation information (no Facebook, email, Twitter etc), it's likely to be a net contribution to safety, not an additional risk. "

Fair point on actual use of it but they can't / won't install this tech in smartphones to prevent people facebooking while driving so it won't happen with GG.

posted by james-o [190 posts]
7th January 2014 - 17:41

like this
Like (6)

So, they're working with the police to ensure this latest distraction...sorry, technological marvel doesn't cause any road safety issues.

Anyone want to wager this will result in yet another pointless law the police are powerless to enforce?

Of course any resulting death will then be met with an utterly patronising statement from the transport department insisting they actually give a $$$$ about public safety.

Presumably no government ministers will have their loved ones killed, just you and yours as usual.

Hating our selfish and ignorant car culture

posted by ironmancole [124 posts]
7th January 2014 - 20:59

like this
Like (3)

GoogleGlasses could make things safer for cyclists - if they yelled out a warning to drivers wearing them "danger - cyclist ahead" and "if you don't stop speeding, I'll report you to the police".

Getting serious, rather than just post comments here, e-mail your MP and politely ask them to tell the DfT to tell Google to get lost - you can find out who your highly-paid elected representative is by visiting http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/ and typing in your post code.

posted by austen.croydonc... [10 posts]
7th January 2014 - 21:10

like this
Like (9)

If any of you want to write to your MP, you can cut and paste the e-mail I sent to mine (which is a rehash of the road.cc article):

Dear ....,

I am writing to you about an article I read this evening on the road.cc
website, which caters for people interested in cycling matters.

It says that the Department for Transport is looking at ways to allow
"Google Glass" to be legally used by motorists in the UK after holding
discussions with the California-based technology giant, Google.

"Google Glass" is effectively a pair of spectacles combined with a
wearable computer with an optical head-mounted display giving
information in a smartphone-like hands-free format that can communicate
with the Internet via natural language voice commands

While the frames do not currently have lenses fitted to them, Google is
considering partnerships with sunglass retailers such as Ray-Ban, and
Google has confirmed that Glass will eventually work with frames and
lenses that match a wearer's prescription.

News of the DfT's stance, which marks an apparent U-turn in government
policy, has been greeted with dismay by UK road safety campaigners, who
warn that the wearable technology will add to driver distraction and
make Britain's roads more dangerous.

Last July, a spokesman for the DfT was unequivocal that the department
would not permit motorists to use the technology while driving, saying
at the time that “We are aware of the impending rollout of Google Glass
and are in discussion with the Police to ensure that individuals do not
use this technology while driving ... it is important that drivers give
their full attention to the road when they are behind the wheel and do
not behave in a way that stops them from observing what is happening on
the road."

From the road.cc article, it seems that the DfT is now changing its
mind.

UK road safety organisations point out that existing legislation
banning the use of hand-held mobile phones at the wheel were drafted
more than a decade ago, and therefore could not envisage the
development of technology such as Google Glass.

While it is legal for hands-free mobile phones to be used while
driving, motorists can face prosecution if they are distracted,
although the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (RoSPA)
believes that such devices cause distraction by their very nature. The
charity’s head of road safety, Kevin Clinton, told The Sunday Times
that he believed that Google Glass, which is controlled using head
gestures, voice commands and touch-sensitive panels, said the latest
technology posed just as great a risk. “The government at the time
didn’t envisage glasses with a heads-up display,” he said. “All the
research shows that even hands-free phones are distracting. These
glasses are just as distracting and increase the risk just as much as
any other hands-free device.”

Road safety charity the Institute of Advanced Motorists (IAM) has
previously said that the use of smartphones while driving to check
email or social media accounts is more dangerous than driving while
drunk or after smoking cannabis. It has urged that Google and
companies developing similar devices should ensure that phone calls and
messages are disabled while driving, or require users to manually
override any such bars on their device. “Once you start putting ‘Joe’s
Diner three miles’ or Facebook updates in a driver’s field of vision,
distraction creeps in,” IAM’s head of technical policy, Tim Shallcross,
explained.

A study published recently in the New England Journal of Medicine found
that drivers take their eyes off the road for 10 per cent of the time,
and that distraction is particularly prevalent among young drivers,
with Google Glass potentially adding to that.

In October last year, a California Highway Patrol officer ticketed a
motorist who was driving while wearing a Google Glass device. The
officer deemed that the driver had her field of vision impeded by the
device, in contravention of the state’s driver distraction laws.
California is the state in which Google is based - yet its laws and
police are clear that Google Glass is potentially dangerous if used by
drivers. I don't see why the UK should be any different.

Please can you therefore relay my concerns to the relevant minister, in
order to prevent people being killed or injured by drivers distracted
because of wearing Google Glass.

Yours sincerely,

posted by austen.croydonc... [10 posts]
7th January 2014 - 21:43

like this
Like (4)

Bagpuss wrote:
TimC340 wrote:
I've used head-up displays in anger, and they are a great deal better for maintaining focus on the job in hand than head-down instrumentation. That is why, more and more, they are becoming standard fit in airliners and not just military aeroplanes. If GoogleGlass can be inhibited by design so that over, say 10mph, it displays only navigation information (no Facebook, email, Twitter etc), it's likely to be a net contribution to safety, not an additional risk.

I hope that there is a massive difference in the level of training given to a pilot to that given to your average driver, including refresher training which drivers don't have. Also an airline pilot has air traffic control looking out for them and telling who else is in their bit of sky, a proportion of drivers have no idea who or what is near them when they drive. And a pilot who's caught over the limit (for instance) is banned and loses their job, we all see what happens to a large number of drivers who break the rules, nothing. There is no deterrent for poor driving and no incentive to be a good driver.

I'd not be happy for someone to Tweet 'bloodycyclists' at 9.5mph after running you over.


I'm well aware of the training pilots receive; I am one and have been for 37 years!

The point of head up displays is that they put all the information that previously required a look down at an instrument panel, with the consequent loss of attention on the view ahead, in front of the pilot, focussed at infinity so that there is no need for the pilot to refocuss to assimilate the information presented. It's highly likely that such technology will become part of cars' instrumentation systems, and Google Glass (or similar) may well be a very good way of delivering this technology. Far from being a distraction, it allows more attention, not less, to be applied to the business of guiding the vehicle and avoiding others.

That obviously isn't a description of GG as it stands now, and people are quite right to call attention to the potential for Google to use the device to deliver non-essential, distracting material to a driver when there are already more than enough potential distractions. Nevertheless, there is also potential for this technology to be extremely useful and a net benefit to road safety, so we must be careful not to throw the baby out with the bath water.

posted by TimC340 [32 posts]
7th January 2014 - 21:57

like this
Like (3)

It's not like we live in a country where road deaths are few and far between - especially when it comes to cyclists. And now this.

The government have made Brittain's roads unsafe.

And now they are continuing their track record.

The glass is 50% capacity.

posted by mrfree [33 posts]
7th January 2014 - 22:25

like this
Like (1)

Too much guesswork going on here for my liking. We need to see real evidence based on proper research to establish the impact of wearing devices such as Google Glass whilst driving (and maybe cycling too). The study would also need to be realistic and include users being bombarded with FB updates etc. and responding to SMS messages.

My biggest concern withthis technology is that it will come to market in a form that looks very much like a normal set of glasses/sunglases. Even if they were banned this would make enforcement almost impossible. In the case of regular glasses with this technology built-in users could also claim that the glasses are not turned on but that they need to wear them to see properly, making enforcement even more difficult.

Besides the obvious 'big business and government' situation influencing decision making it is probably fair to acqknowledge that banning the use of this technology whilst driving might be impractical anyway. Realistically the technology itself would have to be made illegal outright given the difficulties with enforcement.

posted by Matt eaton [395 posts]
8th January 2014 - 11:56

like this
Like (1)

austen.croydoncyclists wrote:
If any of you want to write to your MP, you can cut and paste the e-mail I sent to mine (which is a rehash of the road.cc article):

Some good advice about writing to your MP, but a quick word of warning to all you cycling activists out there.

Don't "cut and paste".

Certainly my MP, and maybe your MP too, uses software that deletes "cut and pasted" emails, so you may not be getting your message across.

Always rewrite any email you send, in your own words.

"Hey..... Let's be visible out there."

Neil753's picture

posted by Neil753 [451 posts]
8th January 2014 - 13:40

like this
Like (7)

Tim wrote:
The point of head up displays is that they put all the information that previously required a look down at an instrument panel, with the consequent loss of attention on the view ahead, in front of the pilot, focussed at infinity so that there is no need for the pilot to refocuss to assimilate the information presented. It's highly likely that such technology will become part of cars' instrumentation systems, and Google Glass (or similar) may well be a very good way of delivering this technology. Far from being a distraction, it allows more attention, not less, to be applied to the business of guiding the vehicle and avoiding others.

Tim, it's good to hear from a pilot who uses this technology, but this is my opinion.

When I look at a Youtube video, shot from a pilot's perspective and showing a head up display, I can't help noticing that, when I'm looking at the "data" displayed, my "situational awareness" does seem to be adversely affected.

To be frank, and to provide a hypothetical comparison with driving a car, if I was flying a plane just yards away from other planes, with more aircraft coming towards me and crossing my path, all at exactly the same altitude, at different speeds, and in a narrow corridor that forces aircraft to pass each other with just a few inches to spare, I would probably want to switch the whole head up display off, because it would be too distracting for me.

I'm sure that HUDs work fine in aircraft, because the chances of a collision are minicule when compared to car accidents (10,000, yes, ten thousand claims are processed on average every day in the UK) but the real question would be whether you would feel confident to be on your bike, with me coming up behind you in my 44 tonne artic wearing my Google Glasses.

"Hey..... Let's be visible out there."

Neil753's picture

posted by Neil753 [451 posts]
8th January 2014 - 14:08

like this
Like (5)

Can't help feeling that until we actually take away ability for drivers to do idiotic things, there will still be a few drivers who will do them, irrespective of the law.

Today, I watched a refuse lorry driver *moving* along Wigmore street (London) at lunchtime (busy time for pedestrians), 'controlling' the vehicle with his elbows and forearms while he held his A-Z map in his hands and studied it in detail. ...And he then turned left... All of this clearly illegal and stupid, but it didn't stop him.

posted by Tjuice [109 posts]
8th January 2014 - 14:54

like this
Like (3)

Just a quick update - my MP is speaking to the Minster for Transport, with a view to having a debate in the House.

"Hey..... Let's be visible out there."

Neil753's picture

posted by Neil753 [451 posts]
11th January 2014 - 15:11

like this
Like (0)

TimC340 wrote:

The point of head up displays is that they put all the information that previously required a look down at an instrument panel, with the consequent loss of attention on the view ahead, in front of the pilot, focussed at infinity so that there is no need for the pilot to refocuss to assimilate the information presented. It's highly likely that such technology will become part of cars' instrumentation systems, and Google Glass (or similar) may well be a very good way of delivering this technology. Far from being a distraction, it allows more attention, not less, to be applied to the business of guiding the vehicle and avoiding others.

That obviously isn't a description of GG as it stands now, and people are quite right to call attention to the potential for Google to use the device to deliver non-essential, distracting material to a driver when there are already more than enough potential distractions. Nevertheless, there is also potential for this technology to be extremely useful and a net benefit to road safety, so we must be careful not to throw the baby out with the bath water.

+1
It's not as black and white as commenters on either side might make out. There's pretty clear potential for misuse, and those shouldn't be waved away while going "yeah, but you can't stop the future" or whatever.
On the other hand, once you get past "People will be able to watch Youtube while driving!" then you potentially have a prototype of some things that are often mentioned in the context of safer cars and roads and it's not a bad thing that things like Glass are about to make people think about how they're actually going to work.

Not sure I entirely agree with the position the woman in the article is taking, but just banning Glass and things like it would be a knee jerk reaction IMO so it's good that the issue is getting a bit of consideration.

posted by Chuck [368 posts]
22nd January 2014 - 14:57

like this
Like (1)

TimC340 wrote:
]I've used head-up displays in anger, and they are a great deal better for maintaining focus on the job in hand than head-down instrumentation.

I simply don't accept there's any similarity at all between flying an aircraft (particularly, say, a jet fighter) and driving a car around busy urban roads. They are two totally different activities in totally different contexts. For starters, I don't ride a bike in the sky. Nor do small children run into flight paths while chasing a football.

I don't see any urgent need for 'head up displays' at the speeds and in the crowded environments, that motorised vehicles operate in. If they don't have the time to glance at a dashboard occasionally, then perhaps they shouldn't be driving at the speed of a jet fighter?

And the risk of something like Googleglass being used for damagingly distracting purposes is, given what we already see in driver behaviour, very high.

posted by FluffyKittenofT... [664 posts]
22nd January 2014 - 15:46

like this
Like (0)