IEEE Technology and Society Magazine - Summer 2014 - 24

Since a driver using a hands-free phone keeps hands on
only because of what they ask us to look at, but also
the wheel and keeps eyes pointed forward toward the
because of what they ask us to think about. We can
road, impairment must result from the mental distracthink of our minds is as organs that can only perform
tion of the conversation itself. Talking with someone not
a limited number of complex tasks at the same time.
there in the car [3], [4] drags a driver's attention toward
under this conception, we should think of driving and
that conversation, expending cognitive resources that
using a Glass application as two separate tasks, each
should be focused on the task of driving.
vying for a driver's limited stock of cognitive resources.
The response to these findings in traffic law thus far
An application that is too cognitively demanding could
has been inadequate. Seemingly guided by a
prove unsafe to access while driving.
conception of driver distraction that includes
Consider the ability to take pictures and
only the manual and visual forms, most laws
We can expect video with Glass. It is possible that perworldwide address only handheld texting, and
forming these tasks (and related tasks
these new
in some cases handheld calling (see: http://
such as scrolling through recently taken
glass-enabled photos) will draw a driver's mind away
www.cellular-news.com/car_bans/). Cogniforms to be
tive distractions generally, and the cognitive
from the road.
distractions of hands-free calling and texting
Going forward, both the policymakdangerous
in particular, remain largely unregulated. As
ers and the empirical research commuwhen used
these still-legal practices become more and
nity should keep in mind this potential
behind the
more engrained in drivers' personal and busifor cognitive distraction, even as the
wheel.
ness routines, and as industry continues to
novel and splashy visual distractions of
invest in the integration of cell phones and
Glass push to the center of the converdashboards [11], it becomes harder and harder
sation. It is reasonable to expect some
to make the case for safety.
apps to be more cognitively demanding than others.
And if it remains legal to use Glass while driving, then
Google Glass and Driving
it will be important for drivers to know which kinds
This recent history of cell phones and driving has
of apps generally, and which popular apps specifically,
direct implications for research and policy on Google
are causing the most distraction, be it of the cognitive
Glass and driving.
or visual sort.
First, it seems a safe bet that the impending debate
over the regulation of drivers' use of Glass will focus
Texting with Glass
mainly on issues of the visual distraction posed by
Second, with all of the novel things Glass will be able
a head-mounted display. Since the device is operated
to do, it is essential not to forget that it will also enable
mainly through voice command, and also through
already-contentious functions like calling and texting,
gestures such as winking, manual distraction should
if in new ways. Based on the data on cell phone callnot be an issue. The novelty of the ability to project
ing and texting while driving, we can expect these
images into the user's visual field will naturally make
new Glass-enabled forms to be dangerous when used
visual distraction the central feature of concern. On
behind the wheel. When paired with a cell phone,
the one side, those in favor of using Glass while drivGlass will allow users to scroll through a visual list of
ing will argue that since a driver's face is still pointed
contacts, and to place calls via voice command. Since
forward, visual distraction should not be a problem.
we already know hands-free phone conversation to be
They will point out that a slight glance to the display
just as dangerous as handheld calling, there is no reain the upper corner of the wearer's vision should be
son to expect Glass-mediated calls to be any different.
preferable to the visual distraction of looking down
The interesting case is texting. Glass provides
toward a smartphone screen. On the other side, safety
users with the choice to read incoming texts aloud,
advocates will raise concerns over the visual distracor to project the words into the user's field of vision.
tion of images and application readouts that Glass
It also enables users to draft text messages by voice,
could project into the driver's field of vision. This
displaying the newly drafted text into the user's visual
dynamic can already be seen in the Abadie case. In
space. This represents a new form of texting, and one
addition to speeding, Abadie was charged with operthat will have a special capacity to distract drivers. As
ating a video-display while driving.
noted, we know that handheld texting is substantially
But I am afraid that what could get lost in this debate
distracting. And it can be argued that, based on the
over the potential visual distraction of head-mounted
impairment we know to accompany hands-free calldisplays is exactly the issue shown to be so imporing, hands-free texting could also be a significant dantant in the research on hands-free calling: cognitive
ger (for this argument, see [10]). This gives us reason
distraction. The variety of applications that a wearer
to also expect that Glass-enabled texting could conmay access with Glass could pose a distraction not
stitute a significant driver distraction. The same goes
24

IEEE TECHNOLOGY AND SOCIETY MAGAZINE

SuMMEr 2014

http://http:// http://www.cellular-news.com/car_bans/

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of IEEE Technology and Society Magazine - Summer 2014