[mattw]

A simple question – has anyone tried e.g. Ray-Ban (or Oakley) Meta glasses when cycling, and what did you think?

I’m considering a pair with prescription lenses for various potential applications – surveys of barriers for my war of attrition, for use when walking or cycling without a helmet, POV of walking routes so that people with mobility aids can assess accessibility, potentially (though I am not sure yet) Op SNAP, and also potentially pavement parking etc.

I’m starting to think about it, as I am up for an eye test and my annual glasses budget might be available.

All comments will be welcome.

Topic

[mattw]

Thanks, Jez, and thanks all.

[Jez Ash]

Meta Oakley Vanguard, so the second generation (not suitable for Rx lenses)

[mattw]

Thanks< Jez.

Were you reviewing Gen 1 or Gen 2 Meta glasses?

I would be on something like Wayfarer frames, as I would need the prescription lenses.

[mattw]

More food for thought – they are mainly owned by Zuckerberg.

Certainly, the negative side need to be considered.

Thanks

[Jez Ash]

I have!

Here’s my review:

Oakley Meta Vanguard smart sunglasses

Happy to try and answer any questions I didn’t cover in it.

[hawkinspeter]

I can understand that perv/smart glasses could be very useful for the visually impaired, but otherwise there’s a fair amount of distrust around them. If I were you, I’d try out a cheaper non-Meta alternative to limit any investment in tech that may be banned in the future:

https://www.smartcompany.com.au/technology/anko-smart-glasses-privacy-kmart-target-89-price/

Meta are a company that work against democracy (see the Cambridge Analytica scandal for merely one instance) and should definitely be avoided. There’s also specific apps that detect if someone near you is wearing Meta Perv glasses (e.g. https://9to5mac.com/2026/07/31/antizuck-ios-app-that-claims-to-detect-nearby-smart-glasses-tops-app-store-chart/ so I can imagine a few drivers getting enraged if they realise that they’re being recorded like that.

[mattw]

Thanks for the comment, Mr “i”, I’ll have a dig into that.

On the other side of the scale, there are also distinctive benefits not available via other routes – for example I know of a blind lady (which may mean VIP – visually impaired person) who uses them to inform her shopping, so increasing her independence. In the supermarket, she asks things such as “which of these products are vegetarian”.

The niche for me would be as driving / cycling glasses and one benefit would be the camera when I am on the folder with no helmet.

I haven’t noticed much hostility, and discussing with long term users, neither have they in general.

Much food for thought, however.

One thing I have discovered that I did not know is that both Ray Ban and Oakley are Italian owned.

[ROOTminus1]

No, and I point-blank refuse to on ethical grounds. In the EULA, images and audio recorded on the device are claimed by Meta inc, and they send snapshots of the data collected to be processed by 3rd party organisations. This is how tech workers in Kenya were forced to view images of Meta glasses users having sex, and subsequently were fired when they complained that dealing with such material was not part of their contract.

Additionally, the social baggage around these things is colossal, as the demographic championing their use is disproportionately populated with perpetrators of harassment and sexual assault, and who wants to be associated with people like that?

[Author]

Replies