Google's Glass is not even available to the general public yet, but a West Virginia lawmaker is already taking steps to ban the wearable device for people behind the wheel. Glass, which could be on the market by the end of the year, is a device that sits on the face like a pair of sunglasses. It promises to provide information, images, and video from the internet. Robert Rosenberger, assistant professor in the School of Public Policy, weighs the pros and cons of the technology and its potential effects on driving.

"Considering all that cognitive science has learned over the past decade about the dangers of using the phone while driving, it seems like a good idea to be cautious about equipping drivers with any new technology that might distract from the task of paying attention to the road. And since Google Glass will have features that include a display of images in the upper corner of the wearer’s vision, the potential for distraction is high.

"A consistent finding in the empirical research on cell phones and driving is that it is not only handheld phones, but also hands-free phone conversation, that is associated with a dangerous level of driving impairment. An important takeaway here is that drivers can be distracted by technology usage even when they stare uninterruptedly out the windshield and keep both hands on the wheel—as when they’re distracted by hands-free phones. So even though a Google Glass wearer would continue to look forward out at the road and use a hands-free voice command interface, the act of interacting with other people over the Internet through the device could still result in a dangerous level of distraction.

"It is important not to confuse this proposed ban with laws intended to protect people from themselves, like seatbelt or helmet laws. Representative Howell is right to point out that regulations on the use of communications and Internet devices are intended to protect not only the driver herself or himself, but other drivers and pedestrians.

"Critics suggest that it is narrow-minded and presumptuous to attempt to ban a product before it has even become available to the public, and before we know exactly what it is capable of and how it will be used. I disagree. If anything, our approach to the regulation of cell phone technologies thus far has been highly reactive, rather than proactive. Our laws on these issues always seem to be two steps behind the current technology. For example, it remains unclear whether the bans that many states hold on texting while driving apply to the increasingly pervasive hands-free modes of texting. So it is important to get out in front of this issue, and now is the time to start considering the safety implications of new technologies that will present complex information across our visual field.

"What complicates the case, however, is that there are surely applications of Google-Glass-style technology that could be helpful to drivers. For example, the display generated by any legal technology, from radio information to GPS directions, might be more safely presented through a heads up readout than through a dashboard-mounted screen.

"But if some uses of wearable head-mounted technologies are allowed and not others, then enforcement becomes a problem. As we’ve found with texting bans, it can be very difficult for police officers to enforce these laws since drivers remain allowed to type into and look at their handheld phones for other reasons (such as entering a phone number into the keypad to place a call). The outlaw of all handheld phone usage has proven to be much easier to enforce since police can simply pull over anyone caught holding a phone at all. A solution might be the separation of the driving benefits of wearable Internet technologies from those devices themselves. If, say, GPS applications benefit from a heads up display, then new technologies can be developed which provide this function without relying on wearable tech (with devices instead perhaps built into the dashboard or windshield). This way the wearable device, complete with its dangerously distracting features, can be outlawed for drivers in a way that police can actually enforce."

This piece was reprinted from Amplifier, a Georgia Tech blog, and can be viewed here.