Hacker News Reader

Comment by alayne | Hacker News Reader

Whether it's valid or not, something capable of projecting into your eye while you are driving seems like it is a potential danger. It is not the same as a monitor that is not directly in your line of vision or obstructing your view of the road.

My question would be what this woman was doing that attracted the attention of the police in the first place.

View on HN

It sounds like a lot of people comment don't actually own a glass. I do. It doesn't project anything into your eye and unless you tap it or use the head nod to turn it on, it doesn't display anything. And if you don't give it a command (voice or tap) then it turns off in a few seconds.

Unless she was actually watching a video on it, then it's no more distracting than the clock on your dashboard.

That's the same as a dash mounted monitor. Which is still illegal even if off.

Doesn't "is operating" mean it's only illegal if turned on?

27602. (a) A person shall not drive a motor vehicle if a television receiver, a video monitor, or a television or video screen, or any other similar means of visually displaying a television broadcast or video signal that produces entertainment or business applications, is operating and is located in the motor vehicle at a point forward of the back of the driver’s seat, or is operating and the monitor, screen, or display is visible to the driver while driving the motor vehicle.

Isn't Glass always turned on and waiting for user input? Does "is operating" mean the device is powered even if it's not doing anything?

These are some of the things the courts have to figure out.

Parent was probably referring to @outside1234's assertion that dash-mounted monitors are illegal even if turned off.

It's worth saying that some states make having a television mounted in your dash illegal. (Some states are a bit more lenient, only making it illegal for the driver to watch TV) The sensibility of those laws aside, if they exist, application to Glass isn't much of a stretch.

Anyone else really wishing for a way to quickly look up the exact text of the laws being referenced?

http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d12/vc27602.htm

This is the law relevant to the current situation. It has to do with televisions, and makes no provisions devices capable of multiple functions (for example, cellphones can be GPS devices or show movies).

bdcravens's claim was "some states" and "some states are more lenient".

So California is one state. There are 49 others to check. :(

Obviously your concern isn't the general discussion, but to establish whether I'm incorrect :-)

Like most HNers I'm checking in on stories and commenting to the best of my knowledge while working. If I can invoice you for the time, I'd be more than happy to provide you with a properly MLA formatted list of sources.

In lieu of that, I hope you'll trust that I'm not just making this up. I do recall there's a list of at least 4-6 states that are very hard-line on this issue, and probably a majority of the states have laws prohibiting the driver watching video while driving.

I'd like more information, which may or may not establish that you're correct. Or incorrect. Or wrong in a way that's subtle. Or right, despite that, because of legal precedence I'm not aware of.

I recognize that such a utility would make it harder for lawyers to make money, since a hefty chunk of their value-add is removed. I'm okay with that. It would be even awesomer when local laws aren't de facto locked away from public perusal through paywalls, though that probably doesn't apply to this particular case.

I honestly don't care if you're making it up. I want to know what's actually on the books. About 20 minutes ago, a mailing list informed me that Tetris has been used to treat flashbacks and Chess has been used to treat ADHD. A 5-second google was able to confirm that this isn't complete bullshit. Googling "states that make driving with a television illegal" gets me nothing but random things about driver's licenses and illegal immigrants.

Seriously. Full-text search on up-to-date records of law. That's all I ask.

No problem; you made it a bit clear here what you were trying to say. What you're asking for would probably make someone quite wealthy, and would be a great startup idea. In the context of the thread, it was kind of unclear if you were talking more about my comment or your idea.

I will say that if the courts uphold that law as applying to Glass, then it also bans a front-seat passenger from operating (or even having visible) a smartphone, tablet, laptop, etc.

Which is silly, but then again CA's vehicles codes always have been.

If she were watching a video, there would be no way to know. Giving her a ticket is the same as giving one for an open container, really.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

> 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.

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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

She was speeding--in the seventies while in a 65 mph zone.

Additionally, from an article on the web: "Under California rules, video screens are prohibited anywhere ahead of the front seats unless they're displaying GPS information, a map, or information about the car itself."

She was speeding.

First thing on the ticket it looks like, yep.

But she was also cited for a television screen in front of driver's view. The first citation was speeding, which probably is why she was stopped, and then she was issued second citation of driver's view obstruction by an entertainment device.

Glass isn't an 'entertainment device'.

Glass could potentially make us better drivers. One of the use cases we've looked at is wiring Glass up to alert drivers when someone is in their blind spot or someone is coming up too quickly behind them.

This citation is bogus. It's safer to look at Glass for directions than my nav system, but you wont see me get ticketed for looking at my nav system.

Glass is an entertainment device, just because it is HUD does not invalidate it having an audio visual feedback, complete with a camera. It is made for consumption, on a small and more personal scale.

Glass could potentially make us worse drivers too. Satnav systems have guidelines issued for usage. Here, we are dealing with illumination directly 2 inch in front of my eye. I will go by your data, but would rather want California DMV to test it out comprehensively.

Consumption doesn't mean entertainment, unless you think navigation and driving alerts are entertainment?

Satnav systems potentially make us worse drivers as well. If I have to look down at the system (which I do) it's much more intrusive than Glass, which only requires I look up and slightly to the right to see. It is certainly not directly in front of your eye unless you are wearing it completely incorrectly.

Have you had Glass on? It isn't as intrusive as you appear to believe.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6640694

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6640895

Two people who have tried.

Unrelated: Looks like another topic nuked: http://hnrankings.info/6640532/

I've driven with Glass and on a trip where I'm not sure of the turns, it is much safer than looking at my phone for GPS instructions.

It sits above my field of vision and is no more distracting that the frames of my glasses.

When Glass is in nav mode, that's all it does. Shows you the next turn and/or the route overview.

And to be clear, since you didn't say it, the screen is off between those turns. It also gives you audible directions just as any other GPS would, so you don't have to look at it.

Heads up displays have already been proven by the military to be much safer. They try to reduce "heads down" time for the pilots looking at their instruments as much as possible.

If you compare a GPS unit the user has to turn their head or worse look down to use vs. a Glass sitting above their vision with the directions always available at a glance, the Glass is pretty clearly superior. Realistically, many users use their phones for GPS and don't have a proper mount whereas Glass will always be properly mounted to be hands free, so it's probably even safer than the most common thing of just using your phone for directions.

> They try to reduce "heads down" time for the pilots looking at their instruments as much as possible.

Do cars integrate with Glass like this?

Slight correction - a properly designed HUD is safer, in aircraft.

Aircraft are not cars - watching for other aircraft is typically handled by air traffic controllers for most aircraft that will have HUDs, or the HUDs are capable of displaying the locations of other aircraft.

Google Glass interfaces are not designed to be HUDs to be used when driving, and there is no ATC or automatic detection of other vehicles when you're in a car.

The two use cases are quite different.

sure, but are you implying that taking your eyes off the road to look down is safer than having directions superimposed on the road, because you're driving and not flying?

Honestly, yes. You have to consciously decide to look down at an in-car UI, and change your focus to match. If something is constantly in your field of vision, it's going to consume more of your attention when you should be watching traffic around you.

My flight instructor phrased it this way. In a car in good conditions, you spend 95% of your time watching your surroundings. In an aircraft in visual conditions, you spend 70% of your time looking outside the cockpit. In an aircraft in instrument conditions, you spend maybe 5% of your time looking outside.

The pilot is focused on the hud first, the outside environment second. A car should be completely reversed from that.

Cars already exist (off the top of my head I can only think of the Corvette) with HUDs, and they don't have any legal trouble.

>Heads up displays have already been proven by the military to be much safer.

Correction: Military heads up displays have already been proven by the military to be much safer. In order for their results to apply to Google Glass, they would have to install Angry Birds, Facebook, and YouTube on those devices, too.

The military also have teams of cognitive scientists A/B testing different HUD apps. I remember seeing one paper where they were A/B testing different presentations of incoming enemy fighter craft. This stuff is tested by people who have very deep knowledge about perception and attention, and aren't just an app slapped together in spare time.

I remember from that testing that there were three ways the threat was categorised by distance: safe, lethal, very lethal - the middle one was very specifically not "kinda in danger" :)

> If you compare a GPS unit the user has to turn their head or worse look down to use vs. a Glass sitting above their vision with the directions always available at a glance, the Glass is pretty clearly superior.

My GPS (actually my phone in a special car dock) is right up on my dash/windscreen, always in my peripheral. I glance at it with ease. And while I am glancing at it, the road ahead of me is in my peripheral. That sounds a lot like what people are describing how to use Glass for GPS. Where are you mounting your GPS that it takes more than a glance to see?

> Glass is an entertainment device, just because it is HUD does not invalidate it having an audio visual feedback, complete with a camera. It is made for consumption, on a small and more personal scale.

"Consumption" != "entertainment".

A navigation system is made for consuming content, too.

'Take a photo and upload it to my social network' is an entertainment device. Sure, you could construct an argument around professional photographers blah blah, but the camera is not professional quality, and from experience, there's no way to frame the photo properly. The glass is almost entirely an entertainment device in its current form.

I agree on general grounds that the Glass is mostly for entertainment, but you argument is not a good one. That a device is not optimal for a particular kind of photography doesn't preclude someone from using it for photography artistically or professionally. Using "crappy" cameras can conceivably add to the photo; using the Glass for photo is no less valid than filming a movie with a black and white camera even though we have color cameras.

My argument that it's "not a professional photographer's tool blah blah" was intended to prevent exactly what you have just said. Yes, you can make a baroque, twisted set of circumstances in which the item might be made use of in a professional manner, but that's not how it's going to be used.

You could say the same thing of a craft knife: it's not a surgical tool. Sure, in a very particular set of circumstances, a surgeon will use one, but that's 'blah blah'. It's not the way the items is used by the vast bulk of its users.

That may be true of the unreleased Gen2 Google Glasses, which project the image directly in your field of vision, but it is most certainly not true of the Google Glass Explorers currently available, which require the user to look up at the display. In its current incarnation, Google Glass is just as distracting as looking at the radio or instruments, and should not be regarded as a HUD.

> which project the image directly in your field of vision

Really? Link?

This seems like a bad idea.

It is possible to project directly into the retina: http://www.engadget.com/2013/10/09/avegant-retinal-hmd/

Definitely dangerous but I see a lot of potential in the technology with the possibility of true retina quality resolution.

Google glass is a HUD. When it is on, it also projects directly into your eye. My honours thesis was comaparing the angle between the eyes when viewing items in a 'virtual screen' (eyepiece HUD) and a real screen (half-dome field at 3m). Glass uses the same technology as the military HUD - throwing collimated light into your eye and using your retina as the screen. Not to mention that the glass is still in your field of vision when looking elsewhere, you're just not directly focusing on it. Your field of vision is 'everything you see', not 'what you're focusing on'.

Similarly, in its current incarnation, I can watch video on Glass. My radio and instruments can't do the same.

> the unreleased Gen2 Google Glasses, which project the image directly in your field of vision

Where did you get that idea from? The pictures of the gen 2 Google Glass look almost identical to the gen 1, with the prism and all.

  A person shall not drive a motor vehicle if a television 
  receiver, a video monitor, or a television or video screen, 
  or any other similar means of visually displaying a 
  television broadcast or video signal that produces 
  entertainment or business applications

It doesn't have to be only an entertainment device. If it can produce entertainment or business applications, it's not allowed.

http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d12/vc27602.htm

There are exceptions for devices that have interlocks that allow them to act only as a GPS, map, vehicle information system, or or rear-view camera display while the vehicle is in motion. The Glass doesn't meet these criteria as it has no such interlock.

Can't you alert the driver using an audio-only system that doesn't require Glass? And aren't audio-only GPS directions safer than video-delivered directions in general? Perhaps dash-mounted GPS screens should be outlawed as well.

1. ran over a bunch of people 2. pounded rhythmically on the steering wheel while singing "bad boys, bad boys, whatcha gonna do"

Reply on news.ycombinator.com