As someone who commutes on a motorbike I'd even go further and say that it should be illegal. When you're driving you need to be focused on the road, not watching your friend's facebook wall.

Hopefully soon enough we'll get fully automatic cars and this will be a problem of the past but in the meantime this seem the safest approach.

Agree 100%. Many persons are already far too cavalier about driving.

In one of the last TSA threads a few people insisted that requiring a driver's license (also) unduly restricted freedom of travel, totally disregarding that driving is different from flying because you are operating heavy machinery in public.

I think a single DWI should be an instant and permanent revocation. DW-Texting/Facebook should be at least a temporary revocation. Having a computer on your face is the same class of thing. If you're so important that you can risk other persons' lives to save your time you can afford to hire a taxi.

I don't understand being more lenient about DW-T/F than DWI, at least at a low BAC. It's comparably dangerous, and a lot harder to be mistaken. "Oops, I metabolize alcohol more slowly than I thought" vs. "Oops, I took my hands off the wheel, pulled out my phone...".

Yeah, you could argue me over to your position quite easily. My thinking is it's less dangerous because you can put it down. But I'd be fine with taking licenses away for DWT.

Hm, I guess that's a point. If you're intoxicated, you're intoxicated at the most dangerous bit of your drive. If you're playing with your phone, you might be picking relatively safe times to do so (at an extreme, I've been known to check things on my phone if traffic is literally stopped).

I disagree. Most people need to drive to work and most people need to work to eat. Permanent revocation will just create more unlicensed, uninsured drivers. This has the unintended consequence of putting more burden on regular drivers (who pay hire premiums) and the state (which has to pay for incarceration).

This is why California and Florida, places with high undocumented immigrant populations, have such high insurance rates. Not only am I paying a premium on my driving I'm also paying a premium on the guy not insured at all.

> Most people need to drive to work

I'm not sure that's actually true. Most people live in cities.

It may very well be the case, though, that most people driving need to drive to work, which is probably sufficient for your argument.

I am also a motorbike commuter and I was really looking forward to using the Google Glass for GPS navigation as I ride. It does not obstruct the main field of view, as far as I can tell it is very small and in the corner of your vision.

It is surely more dangerous to look down at a GPS while riding a bike.

I'm in Ireland and early indications make it look like it will be illegal to use while driving.

I absolutely agree.

If you want to be distracted and watch some YouTube videos or whatnot, then public transit would love to have you.

But she wasn't watching YouTube videos; the Glass was off. She was just wearing them. How is it any worse than wearing normal glasses?

What happens if and when Glass-like devices become common and glasses-wearing people like me get them with prescription lenses?

> How is it any worse than wearing normal glasses?

Because normal glasses help you see?

Not if you have normal vision. The point is that we don't consider normal glasses dangerous (otherwise glass-wearing people would be banned or at least have restrictions on driving), so why would Glass be, if it was kept off?

Because it can distract you, and the cop can't tell if it's off?

I wear glasses as well, and I agree there. But how do you want to prove that Glass was off? Should your Glass report to the Police when it's on and off?

> But how do you want to prove that Glass was off?

That's the wrong question. The right question is: How does law enforcement prove that Glass was distracting me?

I shouldn't have to prove my innocence. They should have to prove my guilt.

Standards are a bit lower for a civil infraction. Which isn't to say that this isn't a consideration, but is certainly to say that the situation is not the same as with a misdemeanor or felony the way our system currently works (and that is quite possibly appropriate).

I don't know how different - if at all - it is in CA, but here in NC, a traffic violation is still, as I understand it, a criminal charge. It's just that they try to speed up the process by treating traffic charges differently, and having the first trial in front of a judge only[1], no juries and all the normal courtroom / trial trappings.

But, since it's still a criminal case, and right to trial by jury is still recognized, there is a guaranteed automatic appeal that you can invoke[2] if you aren't satisfied with the decision in district court (or magistrate court). You then get a "trial de novo"[3] or "new trial" in superior court (or district court if appealing from magistrate court). Once you get to superior court, that's where you get a jury and the whole bit. It's interesting to note that some people consider it a legal strategy to basically use the first trial as a chance to size up the State's case, so they can construct the best possible defense on appeal.

Not sure if CA has a similar notion or not, but just wanted to point out that, in at least some cases, the bar on traffic offenses is still ultimately "innocent until proven guilty" (as it should be, IMO).

[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bench_trial

[2]: http://law.onecle.com/north-carolina/15a-criminal-procedure-...

[3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_de_novo

I've no doubt it varies from locality to locality, but Wikipedia's generalization for the US (sure to have many counter examples) is:

"A civil infraction is violation of the law less serious than a misdemeanor, and which usually does not attach certain individual rights such as a jury trial."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_infraction

True. One other interesting point about the "trial de novo" mechanism, in states that have it, is that the judge in a de novo trial can sometimes (in the case of a conviction) impose a harsher sentence than what would have been possible in the original trial. So invoking that right, even when you have it, does entail some additional risk as well.

That, along with the sheer inconvenience, cost, etc., is probably why few people bother doing this for traffic citations. It's easier to just pay your fine, accept the increase in your insurance premiums and go on your merry way. :-(

I mean, I've always envisioned a sort of uber-graduated license for driving with "distractions".

You're 16 and you get your license and you get a car with one seat, a speedometer, and a manual gearbox. You then can undergo additional testing/licensure that shows you can cope with additional distractions (passengers, radio, cupholder, tachometer, Google Glass). Trouble is, I don't think many people would go for that.

I don't understand. A manual gearbox is far more distracting from the safe piloting of the car than an automatic.

One sense in which a manual gearbox might make sense for beginners is that it arguably leaves you more in tune with what's actually going on inside the car. Much like knowing assembly can guide your C.

This does not mean, however, that it actually helps with safety, and that concern should probably dominate.

I'm sympathetic to that position, to be sure. What hesitation I have comes from potential legitimate uses (navigation, HUD for what would otherwise be on dash), and a mild leeriness around having to demonstrate that I am behaving correctly instead of simply behaving correctly. I'm not sure where I ultimately come down.

So, you'd like to have car dashboards illegal as well?

First of all, Glass could've been turned off. Second of all, she could be using it for GPS and other things.

Personally, as a driver, I'd prefer to have all my car information on some kind of a HMD, and not on the dashboard, where I have to look away from the road.

Glass is directly obstructing the field of view. It is not a defensible position to be frank. If it is turned off, well and good, but still the "eyepiece" can cause problems like glare, reflection, transparency problems. If it is turned on, no matter for what purpose, then it is a distraction and a direct one. Why do you want your one organ that is keeping you safe on road, be bombarded with information other than the one in its periphery?

>but still the "eyepiece" can cause problems like glare, reflection, transparency problems.

I'm going to go out on a limb and assume you don't drive much.

I spend a lot of time on the road (60,000+km this year). There are a multitude of things to distract you behind the wheel, from eating, phones, stereos, day-dreaming, other drivers, nature, whatever. It's endless. If having a small eye piece is distracting to you, by all means don't wear one. But don't project your inability to maintain focus on all other drivers.

A persistent illumination 2 inch in front of my eye, can be a major cause of distractin and fatigue though. Also glancing at phones do cause accidents. You are also projecting the ability to focus with an eye piece on, on all drivers. How about extensive testing before letting it on road?

The display is only on for a couple seconds at a time.

I personally fall on the other side; why not extensively test before banning. We live in a society that jumps to conclusions. I believe we should have a proper understanding of something before deciding to make laws relating to it. What about the positive benefits. Also, do you really expect them to do the research after banning it? Look how long it has taken the FAA to even start reducing the ban on mobile devices.

We already have laws relating to it - it's basically a mobile device. It's a special mobile device, and may deserve an exception, but it should be shown that it's less harmful than the other devices that were banned based on evidence.

No, it should be shown that it's just as harmful as other kinds of screens before being banned.

I've lived in a country which forbade everything by default unless law explicitly allowed it. I guarantee you don't want to go this way.

Your arguments are about as effective against sunglasses and other displays not directly in front of your eyes (others have already mentioned dashboards, but the HUDs projected on some windshields are a better analogy).

She's been cited, not convicted, so she's free to argue that it was off in court. The legality of her actions is not determined by the actions of the officer, particularly given that she cited, not arrested.

Definitely agree with you that I'd prefer a HMD or HUD in general to look-down instrumentation.

A special purpose HMD for GPS sounds great.

A general purpose head mounted entertainment system that may or may not be used to display GPS along many other things while driving is a terrible idea.

California has always been strict with technology usage in cars, and with good reason. There's a large amount of research that concludes that distractions make the road many times more dangerous. It's pretty much that simple.