6 ms·

There is potential danger with a lens that can suddenly change to a second prescription. For example: imagine you're driving and your whole field of vision sudd

There is potential danger with a lens that can suddenly change to a second prescription. For example: imagine you're driving and your whole field of vision suddenly starts flickering in and out of focus. That would be incredibly distracting and pretty dangerous. Even if they just started focusing on 1 foot away it'd be quite bad.

Nifty3929 4mo ago
These glasses address farsightedness, which doesn't apply while driving. Worst case you just take them off.
- cperciva 4mo ago
  Plenty of us are simultaneously far and near sighted. I can't drive without glasses, but until I got progressive lenses I couldn't use my phone with my glasses on.
  - WalterBright 4mo ago
    If you cannot drive without glasses, the sensible thing is to keep a backup pair in the car. After all, glasses can fall off and get lost under the seat, get stepped on, etc.
    - Noumenon72 4mo ago
      That's a smart idea, similar to how I keep a little cash in the car just in case. For example, I could get something in my eyes and have to remove my contacts, and an old pair of glasses would let me get home.
    - t-3 4mo ago
      This is why I keep a pair of prescription sunglasses in my car. Added bonus is cutting the astigmatism glare while driving at night.
    - gchamonlive 4mo ago
      Still doesn't address the fact that if the glasses fail mid drive it poses a serious security risk if you can't pull over to switch glasses. Doing so in a highway in a moving car is inadvisable regardless of the technology behind the glasses.
      - WalterBright 4mo ago
        Keep them within easy reach, like the driver door pocket.
        gchamonlive 4mo ago
        Changing glasses while driving on a high speed lane is dangerous regardless of where you put your spare glasses
        consp 4mo ago
        Considering what people do whole driving, I doubt this will add any measurable risk.
        onetokeoverthe 4mo ago
        [dead]
        gchamonlive 4mo ago
        On the contrary, if you are a perfect driver and only reach for you glasses, that adds a small risk. But this is a complex system, driving and multitasking, so added complexity surely compounds, maybe even exponentially. If you are texting, then talking to your kids, then your brother next to you starts blasting loud music on the radio, adding another task like changing glasses increases the risk of an accident a lot, because less and less you are concentrated on the traffict.
    - ChrisC-POV 4mo ago
      Similarly, if a FAA-licensed pilot requires glasses to fly, it becomes a legal requirement that they carry a readily-accessible second pair while exercising the privileges of their license. This even applies if they use contacts (and, no, extra contacts don’t count :). It is also a requirement for international flight operations under ICAO regulations. I’m pretty sure this regulation (or something close to it) is enforced by just about every flight-licensing authority worldwide. It’s plain good sense and I’m glad it’s in there. A plane cannot pull over to the side of the highway while the pilot fumbles around trying to dig his glasses out from under the seat :) (As a side note, this rule isn’t just for dropped spectacles: there have been cases where they literally get sucked out of the airplane if a cockpit window fails or where a bird strike causing facial injuries also damages the pilots glasses).
  - elzbardico 4mo ago
    According to the article the technology can be incorporated into normal prescription lenses, and when the battery is empty, it would behave as that lens without any adaption for when focusing near stuff.
- 1123581321 4mo ago
  If they are replacing bifocals, the wearer needs both a near- and far-sighted prescription. Far-sighted only would never need these. Either failure mode would be dangerous while driving because you need to be able to read your dash.
  - WalterBright 4mo ago
    It's not a crisis if you cannot read your dash. How often do you look at the oil pressure gauge, for example? As for speed, just move with the traffic.
    - bluGill 4mo ago
      I had a car with a broken dash. The only thing I missed for the month until I fixed it was the fuel gauge. I probably didn't estimate my speed very accurately but I was close enough to not get a ticket.
      - WalterBright 4mo ago
        Yes, with my old cars I've had broken dashes, too. I discovered I maintained speed by the engine pitch - because when I drove a silent car, I couldn't seem to maintain a consistent speed! As for the gas gauge, the trick is to reset the local odometer at every fillup, and you'll have an indication of the remaining fuel. Some older cars don't even have a fuel gauge, they just have a lamp that glows when it gets low.
        bluGill 4mo ago
        I my case I tore the dash apart because the speedometer wasn't working, and the odometer is connected to that. Only after tearing the dash apart could I see the cable to the transmission wasn't turning. Until I found the real problem there wasn't a hurry as I removed the cable several times before I found what was really broke.
        WalterBright 4mo ago
- m463 4mo ago
  I think the car is 100% a use case. There are plenty of driving bifocals - they address the need to see the road, but also see the dashboard and controls. Also, lots of older people get cataract surgery and can be perpetually farsighted (distance iol chosen)
onemoresoop 4mo ago
Add warning not to drive with them. Problem solved.
- DoctorOetker 4mo ago
  If it worked 99% of the time, compliance would be nil, but you don't want these drivers to be affected 1% of their commute Even if a person would be compliant, if they wore this most of the time, they wouldn't be accustomed to the varifocal lenses while driving, guaranteeing that whatever other solution than these autofocusing lenses they select for driving, they won't be adapted to them whenever they drive.
deleted 4mo ago
[deleted]
WalterBright 4mo ago
The FDA needs to make the glasses as expensive as possible.
kelnos 4mo ago
I don't think the FDA should be regulating based on whether or not it's safe to drive while using something. There are plenty of FDA-approved drugs that should not be taken while operating a motor vehicle.
- therealpygon 4mo ago
  Are those drugs required for driving by the people who use them? I would expect if so, they would be tested more thoroughly before putting people on the road with a new drug, much like I’d rather not have someone driving toward me at a combined opposing speed of 100-120mph, two feet apart, while relying on “we didn’t think it will be a problem but we didn’t bother to test”. That said, there is certainly room for an improvement in funding so that the FDA could go through processes more efficiently, but “efficiency” is rarely ever achieved by cost cutting because it confuses cause with effect.
  - jurgenburgen 4mo ago
    Or they could just ban using these glasses while driving. There’s plenty of people who don’t actually need to drive who would buy this.
    - BigGreenJorts 4mo ago
      I think enforcement would be poor and therefore abuse would be high, but it could be granted that they're not safe for driving and therefore if you own a pair, you must switch to different (your old regular dual focus lenses) when driving.
      - jurgenburgen 3mo ago
        Equally hard to enforce as people driving without their normal prescription glasses. In both cases enforcement is reactive and happens after an accident has already happened.
xp84 4mo ago
> For example: imagine you're driving and your whole field of vision suddenly starts flickering in and out of focus Imagine you're driving with regular glasses and one tiny screw gives way and they fall off. Imagine you rub your eyes and your contact falls out. Those can't be 100% ruled out either. But anyway, the FDA imposing a half decade of delays on this will do zero to prevent that from happening. The article says when unpowered they revert to being regular glasses for the main prescription. So the main reason they could glitch out like you suggest would be a software bug. After approval, a future software update could still introduce that bug anyway. So either the FDA has to find a way to review every software patch with perfect bug-detection abilities, or they are useless here and just wasting our money pretending to regulate things without adding any value. Note that I'm not saying they have no role -- though I would say they do seem to be the worst in the first world at their actually needed job of balancing risk and access in the 'actual medications' department.

Nifty3929 4mo ago

These glasses address farsightedness, which doesn't apply while driving. Worst case you just take them off.

cperciva 4mo ago
Plenty of us are simultaneously far and near sighted. I can't drive without glasses, but until I got progressive lenses I couldn't use my phone with my glasses on.
- WalterBright 4mo ago
  If you cannot drive without glasses, the sensible thing is to keep a backup pair in the car. After all, glasses can fall off and get lost under the seat, get stepped on, etc.
  - Noumenon72 4mo ago
    That's a smart idea, similar to how I keep a little cash in the car just in case. For example, I could get something in my eyes and have to remove my contacts, and an old pair of glasses would let me get home.
  - t-3 4mo ago
    This is why I keep a pair of prescription sunglasses in my car. Added bonus is cutting the astigmatism glare while driving at night.
  - gchamonlive 4mo ago
    Still doesn't address the fact that if the glasses fail mid drive it poses a serious security risk if you can't pull over to switch glasses. Doing so in a highway in a moving car is inadvisable regardless of the technology behind the glasses.
    - WalterBright 4mo ago
      Keep them within easy reach, like the driver door pocket.
      - gchamonlive 4mo ago
        Changing glasses while driving on a high speed lane is dangerous regardless of where you put your spare glasses
        consp 4mo ago
        Considering what people do whole driving, I doubt this will add any measurable risk.
        onetokeoverthe 4mo ago
        [dead]
        gchamonlive 4mo ago
        On the contrary, if you are a perfect driver and only reach for you glasses, that adds a small risk. But this is a complex system, driving and multitasking, so added complexity surely compounds, maybe even exponentially. If you are texting, then talking to your kids, then your brother next to you starts blasting loud music on the radio, adding another task like changing glasses increases the risk of an accident a lot, because less and less you are concentrated on the traffict.
  - ChrisC-POV 4mo ago
    Similarly, if a FAA-licensed pilot requires glasses to fly, it becomes a legal requirement that they carry a readily-accessible second pair while exercising the privileges of their license. This even applies if they use contacts (and, no, extra contacts don’t count :). It is also a requirement for international flight operations under ICAO regulations. I’m pretty sure this regulation (or something close to it) is enforced by just about every flight-licensing authority worldwide. It’s plain good sense and I’m glad it’s in there. A plane cannot pull over to the side of the highway while the pilot fumbles around trying to dig his glasses out from under the seat :) (As a side note, this rule isn’t just for dropped spectacles: there have been cases where they literally get sucked out of the airplane if a cockpit window fails or where a bird strike causing facial injuries also damages the pilots glasses).
- elzbardico 4mo ago
  According to the article the technology can be incorporated into normal prescription lenses, and when the battery is empty, it would behave as that lens without any adaption for when focusing near stuff.
1123581321 4mo ago
If they are replacing bifocals, the wearer needs both a near- and far-sighted prescription. Far-sighted only would never need these. Either failure mode would be dangerous while driving because you need to be able to read your dash.
- WalterBright 4mo ago
  It's not a crisis if you cannot read your dash. How often do you look at the oil pressure gauge, for example? As for speed, just move with the traffic.
  - bluGill 4mo ago
    I had a car with a broken dash. The only thing I missed for the month until I fixed it was the fuel gauge. I probably didn't estimate my speed very accurately but I was close enough to not get a ticket.
    - WalterBright 4mo ago
      Yes, with my old cars I've had broken dashes, too. I discovered I maintained speed by the engine pitch - because when I drove a silent car, I couldn't seem to maintain a consistent speed! As for the gas gauge, the trick is to reset the local odometer at every fillup, and you'll have an indication of the remaining fuel. Some older cars don't even have a fuel gauge, they just have a lamp that glows when it gets low.
      - bluGill 4mo ago
        I my case I tore the dash apart because the speedometer wasn't working, and the odometer is connected to that. Only after tearing the dash apart could I see the cable to the transmission wasn't turning. Until I found the real problem there wasn't a hurry as I removed the cable several times before I found what was really broke.
        WalterBright 4mo ago
m463 4mo ago
I think the car is 100% a use case. There are plenty of driving bifocals - they address the need to see the road, but also see the dashboard and controls. Also, lots of older people get cataract surgery and can be perpetually farsighted (distance iol chosen)

onemoresoop 4mo ago

Add warning not to drive with them. Problem solved.

DoctorOetker 4mo ago
If it worked 99% of the time, compliance would be nil, but you don't want these drivers to be affected 1% of their commute Even if a person would be compliant, if they wore this most of the time, they wouldn't be accustomed to the varifocal lenses while driving, guaranteeing that whatever other solution than these autofocusing lenses they select for driving, they won't be adapted to them whenever they drive.

deleted 4mo ago

[deleted]

WalterBright 4mo ago

The FDA needs to make the glasses as expensive as possible.

kelnos 4mo ago

I don't think the FDA should be regulating based on whether or not it's safe to drive while using something. There are plenty of FDA-approved drugs that should not be taken while operating a motor vehicle.

therealpygon 4mo ago
Are those drugs required for driving by the people who use them? I would expect if so, they would be tested more thoroughly before putting people on the road with a new drug, much like I’d rather not have someone driving toward me at a combined opposing speed of 100-120mph, two feet apart, while relying on “we didn’t think it will be a problem but we didn’t bother to test”. That said, there is certainly room for an improvement in funding so that the FDA could go through processes more efficiently, but “efficiency” is rarely ever achieved by cost cutting because it confuses cause with effect.
- jurgenburgen 4mo ago
  Or they could just ban using these glasses while driving. There’s plenty of people who don’t actually need to drive who would buy this.
  - BigGreenJorts 4mo ago
    I think enforcement would be poor and therefore abuse would be high, but it could be granted that they're not safe for driving and therefore if you own a pair, you must switch to different (your old regular dual focus lenses) when driving.
    - jurgenburgen 3mo ago
      Equally hard to enforce as people driving without their normal prescription glasses. In both cases enforcement is reactive and happens after an accident has already happened.

xp84 4mo ago

> For example: imagine you're driving and your whole field of vision suddenly starts flickering in and out of focus Imagine you're driving with regular glasses and one tiny screw gives way and they fall off. Imagine you rub your eyes and your contact falls out. Those can't be 100% ruled out either. But anyway, the FDA imposing a half decade of delays on this will do zero to prevent that from happening. The article says when unpowered they revert to being regular glasses for the main prescription. So the main reason they could glitch out like you suggest would be a software bug. After approval, a future software update could still introduce that bug anyway. So either the FDA has to find a way to review every software patch with perfect bug-detection abilities, or they are useless here and just wasting our money pretending to regulate things without adding any value. Note that I'm not saying they have no role -- though I would say they do seem to be the worst in the first world at their actually needed job of balancing risk and access in the 'actual medications' department.