IEEE Technology and Society Magazine - Summer 2014 - 25

for the use of Glass to write and read emails, or to
attached to a driver's prescription eyeglasses [1], then
write and read social media posts. A recent American
a total Glass ban would seemingly ask a driver to
Automobile Association (AAA) study provocatively
remove her or his corrective lenses.
reveals dashboard-enabled hands-free
If Google Glass proves to be more
emailing to be even more distracting than
than a fad, then we will soon face messy
handheld and hands-free calling [12]. So
an application decisions on traffic safety. Both policythere's ample reason to be cautious about
makers and researchers must wade into
that is too
Glass-enabled writing while driving.
a rat's nest of intertwining issues, from
cognitively
Again, it's not hard to guess how
interface design, to traffic law, to drivdemanding
the debate over this issue will unfold.
ers' cognitive limitations, to user habits
Defenders of using Glass for texting,
and preconceptions.
could prove
emailing, and Facebooking will claim
unsafe to
that it will at least be safer than the alterAuthor Information
access while
native of looking down and reading a
robert rosenberger is an Assistant
driving.
smartphone screen and typing by hand;
Professor of Philosophy at the Georgia
text projected into the driver's field of
Institute of Technology in the School of
vision will enable a driver to continue to
Public Policy. He works on the philosolook forward toward the road. Critics (like me) will
phy of science and technology, with investigations
warn of the visual distraction of text appearing in
into topics such as Mars imaging, educational frog
front of the driver, and of the cognitive distraction of
dissection simulations, neurobiological sample freezholding a text-mediated conversation with someone
ing techniques, and cell phone driver distraction.
not present in the vehicle.

Complicated Enforcement and Regulation
Third, an important lesson of the recent history of
cell-phone-related driver distraction is that the job of
regulating in-cab media and communication devices
is becoming increasingly thorny. One disagreement
is between banning the use of entire devices while
driving, and the banning of only some functions of
those devices. If only one of a device's functions is
banned, then it can be difficult for law enforcement
officers to know whether a driver is using that device
for a banned purpose or a legal one. This is the case
in texting-only bans. Police officers find it difficult
to know whether a driver is illegally typing a text
message, or is instead typing into the phone in a legal
manner, such as dialing or using a navigation app.
We already saw this issue at play in the Abadie case.
While she was charged with using a video-projecting
device while driving, the case against her was dismissed in part because it was not known whether the
device was on.
The issue of regulating Glass is especially complicated because some of its applications could actually
be safety-enhancing, such as navigation applications
that do not require a driver to look down at a screen.
Some will argue that at least these safety-enhancing
apps should remain legal. And if Glass is physically

IEEE TECHNOLOGY AND SOCIETY MAGAZINE

SuMMEr 2014

References

[1] C. Cain Miller, "Google Glass to be covered by vision care insurer
VSP," New York Times. Jan. 28, 2014; http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/28/
technology/google-glass-to-be-covered-by-vision-care-insurer-vsp.html
[2] J.K. Caird, C.r. Willness, P. Steel, and C. Scialfa, "A meta-analysis
of the effects of cell phones on driver performance," Accident Analysis
and Prevention, vol. 40, pp. 1282-1293, 2008.
[3] S.G. Charlton, "Driving while conversing: Cell phones that distract
and passengers who react." Accident Analysis and Prevention, vol. 41,
pp. 160-173, 2009.
[4] F.A. Drews, M. Pasupathi, and D. L. Strayer, "Passenger and cellphone conversations in simulated driving," J. Experimental Psychology: Applied, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 392-400, 2008.
[5] F.A. Drews, H. Yazdani, C.N. Godfrey, J.M. Cooper, and D. L.
Strayer. "Text messaging during simulated driving," Human Factors,
vol. 51, no. 5, pp. 762-770, 2009.
[6] Y. Ishigami and r.M. Klein, "Is hands-free phone safer than handheld phone?," J. Safety Res., vol. 40, pp. 157-164. 2009.
[7] H. Kelly, "Ticket for driving in Google Glass dismissed," cnn.
com, Jan. 14, 2014; http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/16/tech/innovation/
google-glass-ticket-dismissed/.
[8] A.T. McCartt, L.A. Hellinga, and K.A. Bratiman. "Cell phones
and driving: review of research," Traffic Injury Prevention, vol. 7,
pp. 89-106. 2006.
[9] J.M. Owens, S.B. McLaughlin, and J. Sudweeks, "Driver performance while text messaging using handheld and in-vehicle systems,"
Accident Analysis & Prevention, vol. 43, pp. 939-947, 2011.
[10] r. rosenberger, "An argument against 'no-look' texting while driving," IEEE Technology & Society Mag., vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 53-59, 2013.
[11] r. rosenberger, "The problem with hands-free dashboard cell
phones," Commun. ACM, vol. 56, no. 4, pp. 38-40, 2013.
[12] D.L. Strayer, J.M. Cooper., J. Turrill, J. Coleman, N. MedeirosWard, and F. Biondi, "Measuring cognitive distraction in the
automobile," 2013; https://www.aaafoundation.org/sites/default/files/
MeasuringCognitiveDistractions.pdf.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/28/ http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/16/tech/innovation/ https://www.aaafoundation.org/sites/default/files/

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