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

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

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.

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.

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.

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,

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

... 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"

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

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

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

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

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....

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

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.

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? Probably none of us, because it limits our freedom and we all want to have the option of pressing buttons as we drive along if we decide to do so, and we've all decided that it is a risk we are prepared to take, even though that decision may have catastrophic consequences for another road user.

In other words, no-one will be setting their Google Glasses to optionally limit data, and other road users will not be able to tell which users have reached the point where Google Glass users are distracted sufficiently to be dangerous.

So I'm going to make a prediction; right now.

If the DfT get turned over by Google, and we allow ourselves to believe that "just a little" distraction won't affect safety, the number of KSIs will increase, particularly amongst cyclists and pedestrians.

And here's another prediction.

The government might be swayed by Google lobbyists, in the same way that the motoring lobby successfully resists moves to reduce speed limits (even though everyone knows it would cut KSIs), or the building lobby successfully resists legislation to improve insulation standards in new homes (even though everyone knows that poorly insulated homes are unsustainable); but you can be sure that insurers will not be swayed, and that will mean more legal wrangling, and higher premiums for all of us.

It's easy for us to dismiss the dangers, perhaps because we're all excited about this technology, but deep down we all know that "looking" at any "data", regardless of the way in which it is presented, will inevitably mean we're more likely to have an accident.

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