California Woman Dodges Ticket for Driving While Wearing Google Glass

32

Comments

+ Add a Comment
avatar

SCSA420

Google Glass is expected to transform the way that people interact with data and communications but for one unlucky user a paranoid reaction to the device ended up becoming a huge time waster. After wearing a turned off and prescription lens-equipped model to the theater, a man had it torn from his face on suspicion he was engaging in movie piracy. Several hours later the FBI conceded they’d made a big mistake.
READ MORE HERE:

http://torrentfreak.com/fbi-drags-google-glass-man-from-theater-on-piracy-fears-140121

avatar

LatiosXT

Well let's bring the bigger issue here.

You obviously can't prove at the time a user with a HUD is lawfully using the display. Which would be a problem because how would anyone know what you're doing? So you may as well ban it preemptively, even though this has some legitimate applications.

If people here are afraid of distracted driving though... then why not just ban everything not directly related to driving?

avatar

vrmlbasic

Google could prove that it wasn't being used lawfully...

avatar

whiznot

I don't want that woman driving anywhere near me. She should've been convicted.

avatar

Hey.That_Dude

You obviously don't drive much. I've seen people do way worse than that, while driving without any distractions at all... no cell, no radio, no distractions of any kind. It's all based on the competency of the driver.
Was she speeding, Yes. Was Google Glass actually on, who knows, the cop was derelict in his duty. BUT I can say that you are a paranoid and hyper critical for saying she should have gotten a ticket for just being suspect of having Google Glass on.
Oh and on a finer point, she wouldn't have stopped driving just for those two offenses... which makes your first statement rather silly.

avatar

fellowleo

Time out - in reading the code, it sounds like it would be illegal if you had mounted your smart phone or iPod to your dash as both items can produce "entertainment or business applications".

avatar

wolfing

technology moving faster than laws again. Wearing the glasses is not a problem (even if you're actually using it, it's better than using the phone to make a call since your eyes are still on the road even if unfocused). It could even prevent accidents, again, since when using a GPS or phone you actually have to move your eyes away from the road, while with the glasses they don't).

avatar

PCLinuxguy

it's still driving distracted (if the unit is switched on and being used) Otherwise we should be allowed to watch movies with our phones hooked to our heads in some awkward contraption.

avatar

Hey.That_Dude

If the visual part is turned on... Glass has a lot of voice activated commands. Plus, you'd need to define "distractions." As where I'm from you're not allowed to have more than a certain number of people in your car until you've reached 18 as they are considered "distractions." (After that though, they magically aren't... laws are funny things made by people to affect others a much as possible and yourself a little as possible)
My Captcha for this post is: Lwnmm

avatar

PCLinuxguy

Agreed, laws are like bridge trolls as they vary a bit too much (like in your example of number of passengers being a distraction only before the age of 18). Though IMHO, with Glass resting in your eyeline, even if turned off could still detract from one's view and/or attention to the road. However that's just me. Not saying it should be illegal, but people need to grow the hell up and take responsibility for themselves and their actions and not knowingly be an idiot behind the wheel. Though I am hoping for too much perhaps.

avatar

jlh304

What if she was using it as a HUD for her speed? I saw where Hyundai was making an app to do just that with google glass. Granted she got a speeding ticket...

avatar

LatiosXT

I like how people are quick to point at the driver for being reckless. How do we know the driver even used Google Glass inappropriately? For all we know she could've had navigation up (which by the way, the exception to the California law is if said video device is used as a navigation tool).

Also speeding is technically anything over the limit. She could've been driving down at +20 over the limit or +3 over the limit. And they'll pull over anyone they damn well feel like.

avatar

Hey.That_Dude

Most states have officers tag on "reckless endangerment" after about +10 mph over the speed limit. So this was likely less than that seeing as he also wrote her a citation for the glass (meaning he was being picky).
My Captcha for this post is: 2Wj2A

avatar

WarpathPS

No they don't, when police start "tagging" on things for infractions, you quickly have a overburdened traffic court. A lawyer requesting a discovery is NOT what the courts want, they want you to pay the fine and go about your life. In many cases they are simply shaking down the public in the name of safety. "K"alifornia is a tyrannical state littered with utterly ridiculous laws that crippled freedom and industry.

avatar

Hey.That_Dude

You're right, however, the more they tag on the more it moves to criminal court. 3 Class C misdemeanors will land you on Class A misdemeanor probation (and if they can find more, you start looking at felony sentencing). Probation is way more money for the state.
So YES, they will add reckless endangerment for going +10-15 mph over the speed limit. AND YES, this is already been added into the common law system of most states and is legal AND is difficult to dispute by ANY lawyer.
As for California's other laws... this isn't a discussion forum on that. What they are, or are not, doesn't relate or in anyway effect this article in any way. This is about driving infractions.

avatar

Scatter

Sure the joint was in my mouth but I wasn't inhaling.

avatar

Hey.That_Dude

Possession either way. Which is what they would likely get charged with.

My Captcha for this post is: Pzujd

avatar

Carlidan

" For all we know she could've had navigation up (which by the way, the exception to the California law is if said video device is used as a navigation tool)."

It's says " b) Subdivision (a) does not apply to the following EQUIPMENT WHEN INSTALLED IN A VEHICLE:".
I pretty sure google glasses was not installed when you bought your car.

avatar

fellowleo

If you want to get picky about it, a Garmin GPS you get from a big box store is not installed either... but I'm sure they are legal... or are they? Gasp!

avatar

Carlidan

I wasn't being picky ... that is the California Vehicle code 27602. That is pretty good question you raised, are the GPS you in stores technically legal?

http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d12/vc27602.htm

27602. (a) A person shall not drive a motor vehicle if a television receiver, a video monitor, or a television or video screen, or any other similar means of visually displaying a television broadcast or video signal that produces entertainment or business applications, is operating and is located in the motor vehicle at a point forward of the back of the driver’s seat, or is operating and the monitor, screen, or display is visible to the driver while driving the motor vehicle.

If I'm reading correctly google glasses produces entertainment or business applications. Garmin GPS do not. And google glasses display is visible to the driver while driving the motor vehicle.

avatar

fellowleo

Sorry, when I said "you" and meant people in general, not you specifically... My old Mio GPS had MP3 capability... would that cause a violation?

avatar

Carlidan

Who knows, the laws looks like it wasn't written well.

avatar

LatiosXT

[Nothing here]

avatar

LatiosXT

If that's the case then cellphone mounts for cars should be illegal in California.

Except they're not.

avatar

Carlidan

Maybe she used that for he defense. :)

avatar

iheartpcs

So she had them on her eyes but wasn't using them?

More like she lied to a judge. She's a reckless driver with no regards for anyone but herself and now a liar too.

Why am I not surprised Google has people like this working for them?

avatar

Hey.That_Dude

You'd have to prove that in a Court of Law. Good luck. Now you've born false accusations... which makes you liable in civil court. TA-DA!

If you want to be pissed at someone be pissed at the Cop who was derelict in his duty and didn't determine if the device was ACTUALLY active.

Also, I'm unsure if the terms of agreement for testing Google Glass make you an employee of Google. If fact, there is a lot about what you posted that just seems plain wrong.

avatar

LatiosXT

"Why am I not surprised Google has people like this working for them?"

This took place in San Diego. Google has no people working for them in San Diego (and October 29th seems like an odd time to take a vacation).

avatar

iheartpcs

Where it took place is irrelevant seeing as how cars can move people to different places.

I should have said "doing work for them" Seeing as how she's apparently a software designer and Google chose her to test their gear.

avatar

LatiosXT

... And what proof do you have she's a software designer? Google opened up the program to the public and all they had to do if selected was attend an event to pick it up.

avatar

steele6

What proof do we have??? Probably something to do with the article starting with these words "A software developer who received a citation..."

avatar

Scatter

Well that didn't take long. Intelligent enough to have the latest technology. Too dumb to know when it's inappropriate to use it.