News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on California woman ticketed for wearing Google Glass while driving. Parent comment

Re:California woman ticketed for wearing Google Glass while ... by calvin_c on Wednesday October 30, 2013 @10:19AM (#6640657)
But Glass doesn't project into the eye. It projects into a glass prism at the edge of a field of vision. The argument could be made that this still constitutes a distraction if it comes up, but if my phone is mounted in my car and lights up with a text, it's pretty easy for me to notice that it lights up but keep focused on the road and ignore it. I imagine a responsible Glass user could do the same.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:California woman ticketed for wearing Google Glass while ... by iamshs on Wednesday October 30, 2013 @10:23AM (#6640678)
Glass directly obstructs the view field, irregardless of where it projects. I agree with the citaion wholeheartedly. Regarding phone, see section b (11): http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d12/vc26708.htm
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:California woman ticketed for wearing Google Glass while ... by xanderstrike on Wednesday October 30, 2013 @05:32PM (#6643566)
As someone who's worn Glass, and who regularly wears thick-rimmed corrective glasses, I have to say that the frames of my glasses are a larger obstruction than Glass.

The screen on Glass actually rests outside of my normal field of view when wearing corrective glasses, it lies above where the lens would be, in an area where my vision is uncorrected and therefore useless for driving already. That's not a problem though because that area contains the sky and the roof of my car, two things mostly unimportant for driving.

Should I be cited for driving because my corrective glasses don't allow me to see with perfect clarity the area where my windshield joins with the roof? I think not.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:California woman ticketed for wearing Google Glass while ... by lnanek2 on Wednesday October 30, 2013 @01:18PM (#6641687)
The display prism sits above your line of vision (and is transparent besides). It obstructs less than the typical sun shade on the wind shield, although the roof of the car vs. a convertible is probably a more accurate comparison. During normal usage the Glass blocks out a bit of the sky you never look at anyway, it doesn't sit in front of your eye.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:California woman ticketed for wearing Google Glass while ... by iamshs on Wednesday October 30, 2013 @01:52PM (#6641910)
I have not worn one, but somebody has: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6640895
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:California woman ticketed for wearing Google Glass while ... by mindcrime on Wednesday October 30, 2013 @02:26PM (#6642175)
I have worn one. It does not impinge on your normal field of view. It's up and to the right of where you're normally looking and you have to make a conscious effort to direct your attention to it. In a car, as other people have said, the only thing it is likely to block your view of, is the inside of your car roof.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:California woman ticketed for wearing Google Glass while ... by alexpalmer on Wednesday October 30, 2013 @03:43PM (#6642807)
It must depend on the user. I have worn them daily since end of April and only ever notice when they're not on my head. I'll feel a vibration in my pocket and try to check glass. The first few times you wear them you may notice them in your peripheral vision but your brain quickly tunes them out. There is no obstruction of my view.

In my opinion, they are far safer to wear and use for the purpose of navigation than a phone or mounted GPS. They give me the necessary information quickly and don't require me to adjust my vision off the road.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:California woman ticketed for wearing Google Glass while ... by myko on Wednesday October 30, 2013 @10:39AM (#6640756)
Have you even used Glass? It doesn't obstruct my view any more than my prescription lenses.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:California woman ticketed for wearing Google Glass while ... by iamshs on Wednesday October 30, 2013 @10:59AM (#6640868)
I have not, but looks like this guy has [1]. But I would also not rely on anecdotes, and would want them to test it out comprehensively before allowing it on road. If I am commanding a 1000 ton metal hurling with a speed of 110 kmph, its better safe than sorry.

[1] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6640895

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:California woman ticketed for wearing Google Glass while ... by crymer11 on Wednesday October 30, 2013 @11:12AM (#6640932)
Considering the legal weight limit (not including special permits) for commercial vehicles, e.g. 18-wheelers, on most US roads is 80,000 lb. (36.29 metric tons), it'd be quite surprising to see anyone in a 1000 ton (metric or short) vehicle, let alone traveling at a rate of 110 km/h.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:California woman ticketed for wearing Google Glass while ... by iamshs on Wednesday October 30, 2013 @11:26AM (#6641002)
That 1000 ton was a very arbitrary spewed metric. The smallest of four wheelers is capable of much damage, which is what I was getting at.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:California woman ticketed for wearing Google Glass while ... by allc on Wednesday October 30, 2013 @04:22PM (#6643088)
minor note: you probably meant "regardless", not "irregardless", which is a double negative and not a word.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:California woman ticketed for wearing Google Glass while ... by dragonwriter on Wednesday October 30, 2013 @04:28PM (#6643139)
Dictionaries disagree with you. It is a word, but is generally not preferred in formal contexts.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irregardless http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_eng...

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:California woman ticketed for wearing Google Glass while ... by hdevalence on Wednesday October 30, 2013 @05:56PM (#6643705)
More importantly than dictionaries, usage disagrees.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:California woman ticketed for wearing Google Glass while ... by bluecalm on Wednesday October 30, 2013 @03:53PM (#6642882)
It doesn't really matter. It's easily available distraction and people will end up looking on movies instead of the road all the time. It's like with TV in your car. It's not obstructing your view on the road, it's too easy to focus attention on it thus it's illegal to have one (unless it's switched off over some speed or w/e details various countries/states implement).

>I imagine a responsible Glass user could do the same.

The problem is many users won't be responsible. Good driver who doesn't use phone when driving is focused and well trained could responsibly break speed limit very often and still drive safer than 99% of people out there. Unfortunately it's impossible to fit the law to such cases so people who pay attention are hold to the same standards as texting-while-driving morons. Same with glass - banning it is better for everybody.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:California woman ticketed for wearing Google Glass while ... by seanc722 on Thursday October 31, 2013 @12:33AM (#6645245)
Responsible drivers, even those wearing glass, would only use it for driving related tasks, if use it at all. The irresponsible drivers, the ones who would watch movies, would do it whether it is legal or not. Same people who text and drive even though it is illegal.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:California woman ticketed for wearing Google Glass while ... by archangel_one on Wednesday October 30, 2013 @05:04PM (#6643381)
> people will end up looking on movies instead of the road all the time Have you used Glass? It hardly seems likely people are going to use it for watching movies on while driving - the screen is really small and in one corner of your vision.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:California woman ticketed for wearing Google Glass while ... by hvidgaard on Thursday October 31, 2013 @03:36AM (#6645654)
The point is that is a possible distraction. You can only really thoroughly process 2-3 inputs per second. If something on Glass, no matter what, make you focus on it, you're down to 1-2 things, which might very well be the difference between a deadly accident and no accident.

I'm sure a lot of users would be able to ignore Glass when needed, but the majority wouldn't and that's why they're making laws.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:California woman ticketed for wearing Google Glass while ... by alayne on Wednesday October 30, 2013 @10:26AM (#6640694)
When I tried Glass, the display was always visible when active. At least it's physically possible to not look at your phone. The one defense I would give is that the Glass projection turns off quite quickly, presumably to save battery power. It's not an always on HUD.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:California woman ticketed for wearing Google Glass while ... by vacri on Wednesday October 30, 2013 @05:14PM (#6643452)
That prism is part of the object, and the light coming from it enters your eye. You are not viewing a screen - your retina is, in effect, the screen. It's wholly inaccurate to say it doesn't project into the eye.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:California woman ticketed for wearing Google Glass while ... by Dylan16807 on Wednesday October 30, 2013 @06:16PM (#6643832)
The prism is a mirror that lets you see the screen. But you're focusing entirely in the wrong part of this. The important thing is that it's a small display off in the corner, not blocking or overlapping what you're looking at. It's not aiming a light at your eye any more than a book would.

http://www.catwig.com/google-glass-teardown/teardown/display...

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:California woman ticketed for wearing Google Glass while ... by vacri on Wednesday October 30, 2013 @06:43PM (#6644001)
The 'screen' is projected into your eye. The mirror is a lens that helps collimate the light for this purpose. The attentional split of the device is a different argument, but I was just correcting this error that there's 'nothing projected into the eye'. If your fundamentals are wrong, chances are you aren't aware of the caveats in this field.
[ Parent | on HN ]