Bike Forums

Bike Forums (http://www.bikeforums.net/forum.php)
-   Advocacy & Safety (http://www.bikeforums.net/advocacy-safety/)
-   -   Google Glass - another thing to worry about. (http://www.bikeforums.net/advocacy-safety/888309-google-glass-another-thing-worry-about.html)

ItsJustMe 05-11-13 05:46 PM

There are simply an overwhelming number of studies that show that cellphone use, even if hands-free, is distracting and increases risk of accident considerably. I'm not aware of any independent, reviewed studies that contradict this, simply anecdotes based on insufficient evidence and the wishful thinking of people who don't want to give up their phones.

agent pombero 05-11-13 05:50 PM

^^ Exactly.

What universe does ILTB live in?

agent pombero 05-11-13 05:54 PM

[h=1]Virginia bill proposes ban on Google Glass while driving[/h]
:thumb: Now make the fine $5000 for drivers disobeying the law. A second offense is a suspended license for 5 years.

FBinNY 05-11-13 05:59 PM

At the risk of starting (or fueling) a flame war, might I remind folks that just as there are distracted drivers (all types) there are comparable numbers of cyclists equally out of tune with what's happening around them. I'm always impressed with the number of folks riding on roads with ipods and earbuds.

OTOH - as bad as things are, I'd rather live with the problems of distracted drivers, then the "bikers paradise" where anything new is banned or micro-regulated by the mama state as envisioned by some of the folks here.

Don't bother flaming me, I'm not talking about you, it's others on this forum.

kalliergo 05-11-13 06:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FBinNY (Post 15615486)
At the risk of starting (or fueling) a flame war, might I remind folks that just as there are distracted drivers (all types) there are comparable numbers of cyclists equally out of tune with what's happening around them. I'm always impressed with the number of folks riding on roads with ipods and earbuds.

The latest road users I've yelled were (a) a cyclist running a red light, while talking on his cellphone, blowing through my ROW as I turned right; and (b) two roadies talking to each other who blew a 4-way stop at speed, forcing me to brake hard just as I started up after stopping on the cross street (that one was this afternoon).

All three of these cyclists responded to my rather polite chiding ("On the phone and running the light?!" and "You really should pay some attention to stop signs!") with torrents of profanity.

I would say that the average cyclist is probably even worse at road-sharing and traffic law compliance than the average motorist.

I-Like-To-Bike 05-11-13 08:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by agent pombero (Post 15615458)
^^ Exactly.

What universe does ILTB live in?

Thankfully not the "bicycling paradise" that several A&S PDX characters do that they feel must be defended with quick draw knives, scams and paranoia.

kalliergo 05-11-13 08:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by agent pombero (Post 15615409)
ILTB is not a rational person to talk with about the dangerous of cellphones or other potential distractions while driving.

Well, as I keep saying, our experiences of the roads vary wildly in the wide variety of places with which posters here may be familiar. Distracted driving probably just doesn't seem as serious an issue in a county of 42,000 residents that has been losing population since the 1970 census as it does in PDX, SFO, NYC. . .

I built some of the first cellular systems in small cities and rural areas across the US. If I had foreseen that I was going to spend the later years of my life dodging drivers, cyclists, peds, skaters. . . all with their brains connected by those systems to someone or something far, far away from here and now, I might have chosen more socially beneficial work. :(

agent pombero 05-11-13 11:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike (Post 15615808)
Thankfully not the "bicycling paradise" that several A&S PDX characters do that they feel must be defended with quick draw knives, scams and paranoia.

Ah, typical side ITLB sidestepping the issue...did you read post #50?

Matariki 05-12-13 08:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FBinNY (Post 15615486)

OTOH - as bad as things are, I'd rather live with the problems of distracted drivers, then the "bikers paradise" where anything new is banned or micro-regulated by the mama state as envisioned by some of the folks here.

I agree that banning of items has little value in the real world. The act of legislating behavior is all for show. One hopes that any ban would improve awareness of an issue, but it seems that the majority either don't get the word, don't think it applies to them, or choose to deliberately disobey. My opinion leans toward the inverse relationship of regulation vs. development of personal judgement and responsibility; however without regulations, it's hard to correct bad behavior (or punish it when correction doesn't work).

I see a "biker's paradise" as a road user's paradise where everyone thinks about the need for awareness and partnership with all other road users. How do we get there?

FBinNY 05-12-13 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matariki (Post 15616966)

I see a "biker's paradise" as a road user's paradise where everyone thinks about the need for awareness and partnership with all other road users. How do we get there?

We're already closer to it than we think. The vast majority (very vast majority) are reasonably careful, and courteous to cyclists in many areas. We tend to notice the few that aren't but have no reason to register all that are because there's nothing to note. It's like dogs, most don't bite, but the news reports that that do, especially if they're pit bulls, creating a distorted view of the world.

There are positive things that can be done. Pavement markings and signage reminding drivers to share the road, PSA's putting cyclists in a better light than just something to steer around -- we lower everybody's health care costs, the fuel we don't buy lowers oil imports, keeps fuel costs lower, and contribute to the nations economic health, cyclists reduce traffic crowding on roads. These are things that actually make things better for those who prefer driving.

Also some PSA's discussing how and when to safely pass a cyclist, and when it's better for all to wait a bit for a better opportunity.

Lastly, new road design standards, providing more room on shared lanes, and where it makes sense things like eliminating parking on one side of the road. Also better enforcement of things that help everybody, like double parking rules, providing curbside loading loading zones so trucks wouldn't have to double park.

But all in all, I don't consider myself at odds with motorists, and feel I have more common interest with them than not. We all need good, well maintained roads to promote transit and commerce. Is that so hard?

I-Like-To-Bike 05-12-13 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by agent pombero (Post 15616303)
Ah, typical side ITLB sidestepping the issue...did you read post #50?

I read the post. Please post audio copies of your reading all the references you found on the Internet indicating that YOU have read them, include in the audio your explanation of the studies' relationship to real traffic events, then I'll consider listening to what you have to say on the subject.

sudo bike 05-12-13 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FBinNY (Post 15615486)
OTOH - as bad as things are, I'd rather live with the problems of distracted drivers, then the "bikers paradise" where anything new is banned or micro-regulated by the mama state as envisioned by some of the folks here.

This.

turbo1889 05-12-13 12:53 PM

No ban or micro-regulation is needed. Simply start enforcing offenses committed with a vehicle equally the same in criminal law as offenses committed with any other weapon. Nail a few knuckle heads who play with their e-toys instead of drive correctly and cause an "accident" (in quotes for a reason) as a result with felony criminal endangerment by gross negligence and make it stick and splash it all over the news and keep it up and it won't take more then six months for 95% or more of drivers to clean up their act. A speeding car packs more lethal energy then a bullet fired from even the largest and most powerful guns that can be fired from the shoulder and don't have to be mounted. If your mis-use of such a lethal instrument causes loss of life, or injury to health or property then it is only a question of whether the act on your part as the user of such a dangerous instrument was either a deliberate criminal act or an act of criminal negligence and should be dealt with accordingly. No micro regulation or banning needed just make drivers fully responsible for their actions instead of giving them a free pass with just a slap on the wrist just because of their choice of weapon.

And, yes, cyclist who also commit acts of criminal negligence endangering the life, health, and property of others should also be held accountable in direct proportion to how substantial of a weapon they use. Two ton GVW moving at 60mph vs. 200 pound GVW moving at 25mph both carry potentially dangerous energy if they for example plow into a pedestrian legally crossing with ROW in a crosswalk. One packs a whole lot more dangerous energy then the other but never the less they both can be dangerous if mis-used just to different extents.

genec 05-12-13 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kalliergo (Post 15612770)
What we need to worry about is that humans aren't smart enough to stop themselves from building and using any technology they can contrive, regardless of the cost and consequences, and regardless of the benefits or lack thereof.

That's how we ended up with a built environment that looks like this:

http://bikeforums.net/attachment.php...hmentid=316074

Interesting picture.

Here is a interesting thought... how many humans made the decisions to build that environment? Certainly most of us end up having to deal with the results of a few. So who are those few that are constantly making decisions to modify the environment to cause it to come to something makes most of us go "whaaaa..."

I recall at one time contacting a local road engineer and berating him for designing a bike lane to the right of an on ramp... a real conflict area... His response... "I just followed the standards." Well more likely he misinterpreted the standards. I was able to get the BL fixed with help from a local advocacy group. But my point is that someone or some group has to come up with ideas first, and then build them... and often standards come later. But initially ideas and funding come from somewhere. Structures like that above (click on the link in the quoted post) don't just drop out of the air.

ItsJustMe 05-12-13 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by agent pombero (Post 15615470)
[h=1]Virginia bill proposes ban on Google Glass while driving[/h]
:thumb: Now make the fine $5000 for drivers disobeying the law. A second offense is a suspended license for 5 years.

If they make that ANY phone use, I'll go along with it. As I've said up-thread, I think Google Glass is LESS distracting than doing the same things without Google Glass, which people are already doing. Where's the $5000 fine for poking at a phone or GPS while driving?

sudo bike 05-12-13 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by turbo1889 (Post 15617449)
No ban or micro-regulation is needed. Simply start enforcing offenses committed with a vehicle equally the same in criminal law as offenses committed with any other weapon. Nail a few knuckle heads who play with their e-toys instead of drive correctly and cause an "accident" (in quotes for a reason) as a result with felony criminal endangerment by gross negligence and make it stick and splash it all over the news and keep it up and it won't take more then six months for 95% or more of drivers to clean up their act. A speeding car packs more lethal energy then a bullet fired from even the largest and most powerful guns that can be fired from the shoulder and don't have to be mounted. If your mis-use of such a lethal instrument causes loss of life, or injury to health or property then it is only a question of whether the act on your part as the user of such a dangerous instrument was either a deliberate criminal act or an act of criminal negligence and should be dealt with accordingly. No micro regulation or banning needed just make drivers fully responsible for their actions instead of giving them a free pass with just a slap on the wrist just because of their choice of weapon.

I think the problem with doing this practically is because it is hard to really crack down on driving while driving is still such a necessity for so very many people. We've made our bed, so to speak. Now, this is less of a problem with things like Google Glass, which is probably not going to be in the hands of working poor anytime soon, but it speaks to the issue of harsher punishments in general: that they will usually disproportionately affect the working poor and end up very regressive in nature.

We'll never see seriously increased driving standards in America until there are viable alternative transportation methods for most Americans. I agree that we need to take driving more seriously; after all, you're essentially guiding a giant bullet you've strapped yourself into. But I don't think we can be too effective at this when it is nearly a requirement for a decent standard of living in many places in America.

Quote:

And, yes, cyclist who also commit acts of criminal negligence endangering the life, health, and property of others should also be held accountable in direct proportion to how substantial of a weapon they use. Two ton GVW moving at 60mph vs. 200 pound GVW moving at 25mph both carry potentially dangerous energy if they for example plow into a pedestrian legally crossing with ROW in a crosswalk. One packs a whole lot more dangerous energy then the other but never the less they both can be dangerous if mis-used just to different extents.
While I don't quite agree with your weapon analogy, I completely agree that charging based on potential harm is much more smart. It would be silly to charge drivers, cyclists, bus drivers, and pilots all the same for the same issues.

mustang1 05-12-13 02:51 PM

Google Glass is awesome.

I haven't read all the posts (yet) but a few people talked about this being a new toy. Well, yes, sort of. But doesn't it take the functions of many existing toys and make the accessibility to those functions both easier and safer? The information is right there in front of you. Blink to take a photo, voice activation, seems pretty good to me. I can keep my hands on the handle bars, or the steering wheel, and continue looking in front.

A few people even mentioned we dont need many things on a car that we currently have. Air con? Keeps me safe on a hot day by allowing me to concentrate on driving safely, rather thing floosying about cooling myself down. Rain sensing wipers? Auto lights? Seem good to me. Defrosting mirrors and windows? Sure, good safety. Handfree phone, auto-dial emergency services when involved in accident? More life-saving stuff. Airbags? Ditto. Auto brakes, auto cruise, lane changing warning, sleep detectors, cyclist detectors (those pesky cyclists always doing something dopey huh?). all good for safety.

Anyway, no one needs smart phones, or dumb text messaging. How useless! And dont get me started on this silly internet business.... complete waste of time. :)

Matariki 05-12-13 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mustang1 (Post 15617717)
And dont get me started on this silly internet business.... complete waste of time. :)

Sigh...doncha know!

bjorke 07-25-13 01:58 PM

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lg...47xeo1_500.jpg
"on your left"

I wear Google Glass every day. Sometimes driving, but I almost never ever drive :) . Every day, riding on both open roads and in dense city traffic. All the criticisms I see here are armchair hang-wringing fantasy. It's fine, it's only distracting if you're foolish, and far less than putting on eye makeup, or leaning your head waaaay back to pour-in the last crumbs from the bag of Cheetos (from a bag that's covering your entire face, eyes included), or driving face-down while reading your ipad, or any of the many things I see drivers here do every.single.day.

Plus, Glass can help you share good cycling hygiene:

https://plus.google.com/_/notificati...81737193&uob=8

delcrossv 07-25-13 03:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kalliergo (Post 15612770)
What we need to worry about is that humans aren't smart enough to stop themselves from building and using any technology they can contrive, regardless of the cost and consequences, and regardless of the benefits or lack thereof.

That's how we ended up with a built environment that looks like this:

http://bikeforums.net/attachment.php...hmentid=316074

Meh. That environment shows what at a pretty large subset of humanity finds valuable. Just not the subset that resides here. Folks don't build things that don't benefit anyone. And large events require lots of people to believe that'll be benefited. Even when some nutjob terrorists build a bomb, they are thinking of the potential benefit to them. That's pretty basic philosophy. Where the issue lies is if a technology or rules set that would benefit some subset would adversely affect a much greater subset, hence regulation. I just don't see the end in sight, sorry.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:26 PM.