News4 mins ago
Should We Start Drafting A New Law Now?
5 Answers
http://
This woman is odd to say the least, wanting to wear it 12 hours a day and she clearly thinks (from the interview I saw with her) that she is very clever.
OK, assuming she is telling the truth, 1) it must be distracting and cause you not to have pure vision even if off, and 2) As you cannot see whether it is on or off surely any responsible person would remove before getting into a car.
So should we pre-empt this and draft a specific law now for this sort of thing as you can bet your bottom dollar people will use it whit driving?
This woman is odd to say the least, wanting to wear it 12 hours a day and she clearly thinks (from the interview I saw with her) that she is very clever.
OK, assuming she is telling the truth, 1) it must be distracting and cause you not to have pure vision even if off, and 2) As you cannot see whether it is on or off surely any responsible person would remove before getting into a car.
So should we pre-empt this and draft a specific law now for this sort of thing as you can bet your bottom dollar people will use it whit driving?
Answers
1 to 5 of 5
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by youngmafbog. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Not sure that we need a new law, do we? Is it not already some kind of offence to have, for example, a TV in the front whilst driving? Perhaps an amendment to the current "driving without due care" law might be required, but not a whole new law.
As for Google glasses themselves - never seen them up-close, but why do you assert that it "must be distracting even whilst off"?
Not sure about your second assertion either - who cannot see whether it is on or off? The driver/wearer will surely be able to see that.Or do you mean enforcement officers?
I would agree with you that they undoubtedly raise some issues though. I understand that some restaurants/coffee shops have already banned wearers of them over privacy issues, since they can act as a video-recorder.
As for Google glasses themselves - never seen them up-close, but why do you assert that it "must be distracting even whilst off"?
Not sure about your second assertion either - who cannot see whether it is on or off? The driver/wearer will surely be able to see that.Or do you mean enforcement officers?
I would agree with you that they undoubtedly raise some issues though. I understand that some restaurants/coffee shops have already banned wearers of them over privacy issues, since they can act as a video-recorder.
Well Fred, it would rather appear the Americans thought they had it covered too, but it appears that is not the case. Surely an amendment to specifically cover wearable technology would pre empt a lengthy case in the UK? Unless of course you are licking your lips at the money to be made from defending such action?
Lazy, the issue is that law enforcement cannot tell if you are watching, including cameras etc.
Lazy, the issue is that law enforcement cannot tell if you are watching, including cameras etc.
I'm not entirely up to speed with the septic laws but I'd imagine they have a similar problem to us, not the law but too many right on judges from the planet zog mis interpreting those laws. Frankly she's watching TV whilst driving, end of. I'm think(hope!) that in the UK this would not be allowed or we'll end up with a biblical rise in RTAs. However if we must then we should update the current statute to leave our errant judiciary in no doubt.
1 to 5 of 5
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.