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.

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.

I have not worn one, but somebody has: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6640895

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.

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.

Have you even used Glass? It doesn't obstruct my view any more than my prescription lenses.

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

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.

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.

minor note: you probably meant "regardless", not "irregardless", which is a double negative and not a word.

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...

More importantly than dictionaries, usage disagrees.