back to article Accused Glasshole driver says specs weren't even turned on for traffic stop

A California woman who was stopped by police for driving while wearing Google Glass has pleaded not guilty to charges of speeding and distracted driving. Early Glass adopter Cecilia Abadie of Temecula, California was issued a traffic citation in October under a clause in the state's vehicle code that forbids operating a motor …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Turtle

    "nothing illegal to be wearing Google Glass"... yet.

    "there is nothing illegal to be wearing Google Glass while driving your vehicle."

    There will be, though. The law will be amended to assume that anyone wearing Google glasses is actually using them. Or else everyone would use the same "Yes judge I was wearing them but they weren't turned on." Followed by "Well judge I only turned them on once I brought my vehicle to a complete halt."

    1. Thorne

      Re: "nothing illegal to be wearing Google Glass"... yet.

      The problem with the stupid reactive laws is that they will stop the technology dead in it's tracks.

      The end of this technology would be augmented reality so the driver will only see signs relevant to him, low light enhanced roadside with a thermal overlay.

      Bringing in these laws may kill off new technology that will make driving safer before it's even invented.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: "nothing illegal to be wearing Google Glass"... yet.

        But you would need special car-glasses, or you could never be sure that the light you saw from the glasses was actually road-augmentation and not My Little Pony.

      2. DougS Silver badge

        Re: "nothing illegal to be wearing Google Glass"... yet.

        How about getting the new technology to actually provide those benefits, rather than letting people do the Glasshole equivalent of texting while driving and potentially killing people while we wait for these future benefits you're talking about?

        The same argument could be made to let any self driving cars on the road today, because they'll eventually be better at driving than people are. I'd prefer that before they open the floodgates to this that they make sure the cars can do at least as good a job of driving as an average human, thanks.

        1. Def Silver badge

          Re: Self driving cars

          I'd prefer that before they open the floodgates to this that they make sure the cars can do at least as good a job of driving as an average human

          I'd prefer they wait until the cars can do a much better job at driving than the average human. Most humans I encounter on the road can't drive for shit.

          1. Danny 14 Silver badge

            Re: Self driving cars

            Granted I passed my car test close to 30 years ago and I needed to stop and apply the handbrake at a stop sign. My class A is only 20 years old and I have to stop and foot down but not necessarily transfer to foot brake as at lights.

    2. Steve Knox
      Trollface

      Re: "nothing illegal to be wearing Google Glass"... yet.

      How about making it illegal to be wearing Google Glasses because they're exactly the kind of technology only an asshat would wear?

      Hmm... I guess that law would also ban iPhones and anything from Brookstone...

      I'm liking this law more and more!

    3. DiViDeD Silver badge

      Re: "nothing illegal to be wearing Google Glass"... yet.

      "I only turned them on once I brought my vehicle to a complete halt"

      Out of interest, a 'complete halt' as opposed to what other kind of halt?

      1. Turtle

        Re: "nothing illegal to be wearing Google Glass"... yet.

        "Out of interest, a 'complete halt' as opposed to what other kind of halt?"

        The word "complete" as used therein does not add or alter semantical meaning, it serves to emphasize the point that the speaker wants to make. It's a very very commonly used device - perhaps so commonly used that it scarcely calls attention to itself - and if you look (and listen) carefully to others, you will meet with it very very often.

        1. beast666

          Re: "nothing illegal to be wearing Google Glass"... yet.

          Superb! This flipped my Mr Logic trigger and you are correct!

          +1 interwebs

      2. Nigel 11

        Re: "nothing illegal to be wearing Google Glass"... yet.

        Out of interest, a 'complete halt' as opposed to what other kind of halt?

        Stop-start nudging forwards at walking pace or less in a motorway traffic jam? Seriously, that's one situation in which I defy UK law. If the motorway has been at an all-but-standstill for >10 minutes, I'll call ahead on my mobile to let folks know I'll be late. Which is illegal, because my car isn't parked. Also difficult, because all the other cars are also doing it, and overloading the local cell!

        Not relevant to this thread, but I've also had it explained to me by a USA cop that a STOP sign means that one must bring one's vehicle to a completely stationary 0mph stop. Slowing down to less than walking pace and seeing clearly that there's no reason not to turn right (like a left in the UK) is illegal. Only reason I didn't get a ticket and fine was being a newly-arrived foreigner. The law is probably the same in the UK but here a STOP sign is used only on a junction with truly terrible visibility where you would be mad not to stop anyway. Otherwise it's just a "give way". In the USA just about every junction has a traffic light or a 4-way stop.

        1. Alan Brown Silver badge

          Re: "nothing illegal to be wearing Google Glass"... yet.

          Yup. STOP means STOP - worldwide

          As a cyclist that means "put your foot on the ground" - if you play that stupid game of wobbling and not quite stopping you can be ticketed (This was explained tto me by the friendly cop ticking off the friend I was riding with for doing that, whilst I copped a bollocking for riding no-hands.)

          As an aside I often wonder if the USA's addiction to 4-way stops goes some way to explainng their ridiculously high urban fuel consumption levels.

          1. Graham Marsden

            Re: "nothing illegal to be wearing Google Glass"... yet.

            > Yup. STOP means STOP - worldwide As a cyclist that means "put your foot on the ground" - if you play that stupid game of wobbling and not quite stopping you can be ticketed

            Really? I'd like to know where he got that idea from because the only requirement in the Road Traffic Act is that the vehicle comes to a complete stop before proceeding (ie the wheels stop rotating). There is nothing that says a cyclist or motorcyclist has to put a foot down.

            1. beast666

              Re: "nothing illegal to be wearing Google Glass"... yet.

              "... complete stop..." HaHaHa, please stop it guys, I may have to go out and buy a copy of Viz (can you completely still do that?)

            2. Steve Knox

              Re: "nothing illegal to be wearing Google Glass"... yet.

              ...a complete stop before proceeding (ie the wheels stop rotating)

              So skidding on slick roads is a complete stop?

              It's not the rotation of the wheels; it's the motion of the vehicle. Zero motion is the rule.

              The shorthand that the cyclist has to put a foot down is based on physics: balancing a bicycle without rolling forward or backward is practically impossible.

            3. Graham Marsden

              Re: "nothing illegal to be wearing Google Glass"... yet.

              So five downvotes to my post pointing out that a cyclist or motorcyclist doesn't have to put a foot down, but nobody has come up with anything to contradict that, apart from Steve Knox who asserts that "balancing a bicycle without rolling forward or backward is practically impossible" leading me to the conclusion that he doesn't ride a bicycle or motorcycle like myself and has never seen someone do (or done) exactly this.

              To quote a document from the Insitute of Advanced Motorists:

              "26. Misconception: At STOP lines the rider must place at least one foot onto

              the road surface.

              "There is no specific requirement for the rider to do so. The essential requirement is that a rider’s machine must come to a complete STOP."

              I recommend that the downvoters take some Advanced Training (or they can just downvote me again to be petty...)

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Trollface

            Re: "nothing illegal to be wearing Google Glass"... yet.

            > As an aside I often wonder if the USA's addiction to 4-way stops goes some way to explainng their ridiculously high urban fuel consumption levels.

            Nah, that's because their cars are shit.

            Actually, the 4-way (or all-way) junctions are a better alternative to the mini-roundabout as fairness is enforced by the 4-way rules, i.e. the first to arrive is the first to leave, with additional rulings for when vehicles arrive simultaneously. Busy mini-roundabouts have an alarming and annoying tendency to lock up with no-one quite sure who can go.

            1. Curtis

              Re: Re: "nothing illegal to be wearing Google Glass"... yet.

              "Nah, that's because their cars are shit."

              No, more like overloaded with safety and entertainment gadgets. And moronic regulations that emphasize less efficient fuels.

              Ignore the fact many 'Mericans are addicted to big engines, high accelerations, and vehicles that are solid enough to run roadblocks.

              "Proud to be a 'Merican, where at least I think I'm free"

            2. Marshalltown

              Re: "nothing illegal to be wearing Google Glass"... yet.

              Four-ways work atleast. Mini-roundabouts are accident generators. There's nothing like coming into one when the yahoo coming in the opposite direction decides to make a left the wrong way 'round - in the US going clockwise around the circle instead of counter-clockwise. Little aware that they are the cause, they scream about right of way, despite traveling the wrong way in the lane.

              My own favorite traffic "calming" measure is the widened divider at a non-stop intersection, which causes traffic to swerve toward the Class II bicycle lane. I call these setups "bicyclist elimination zones." It offends every traffic engineer I've tried it on too!

              1. DougS Silver badge

                Re: "nothing illegal to be wearing Google Glass"... yet.

                Mini-roundabouts are accident generators. There's nothing like coming into one when the yahoo coming in the opposite direction decides to make a left the wrong way 'round

                Have you got morons of an even higher level than the usual variety where you live? I've never seen that, and where I live in the US midwest they've been adding roundabouts here and there over the past decade. Only on those intersections not busy enough to warrant traffic lights, too busy for a two way stop, but where they don't want the traffic flow impediments of a four way stop. They published some accident figures recently, and they had fewer accidents than slightly busier four way stops did.

                I think the key to the implementation here was that the first few places they added them were three way intersections, so there were fewer directions for traffic to enter, as well as including signs that make it clear how it works. I'm sure it is still confusing for people from out of town since they are still pretty rare in most places in the US, but it hasn't been a problem.

                The signs look sort of like this: http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/80ECE784-A6A9-4A26-B1CD-FEEA44BF4C44/0/LaneControlSign.jpg

              2. Psyx

                Re: "nothing illegal to be wearing Google Glass"... yet.

                " Mini-roundabouts are accident generators."

                No, they aren't. I can't remember ever seeing an accident at one in a nation where people know how to use them.

                Four-way-stops by comparison are just slow.

          3. RaidOne

            @ Alan Brown Re: "nothing illegal to be wearing Google Glass"... yet.

            You are correct sir. I hate the 4 way stops. A lot of them can be easily replaced with roundabouts - my home town in Europe has switched almost all intersections from traffic lights to roundabouts, and now a trip across town takes 10 minutes instead of 25.

            Here in Ontario Canada it's also stop all way fest. I know though of a couple of roundabouts, and some people are still stopping in front of them, driving me nuts (no pun intended).

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: @ Alan Brown "nothing illegal to be wearing Google Glass"... yet.

              > A lot of them can be easily replaced with roundabouts - my home town in Europe has switched almost all intersections from traffic lights to roundabouts, and now a trip across town takes 10 minutes instead of 25.

              I would make a distinction between large roundabouts (the like of which we generally have in Europe) and the smaller mini roundabout. Roundabouts generally are generally much more efficient than an equivalent light controlled junction.

              However, the mini roundabout in a lot of situations is a deathtrap and a killer to traffic flow, particularly at very busy junctions where there is equal traffic density on all the approaches. Because of diver uncertainty, the traffic nearly always stops dead and there is uncertainty as to who can proceed. The mini roundabout (unlike its larger cousins) have only a 1 car capacity, so any vehicle entering the junction is immediately in conflict with every other. There's often a bit of hand waving and false starts as the drivers try to arbitrate movement. Diver uncertainty and no official way to arbitrate between drivers is the most dangerous situation to get into on the roads. For this situation, the 4-way junctions are a better bet since there are at least some basic rules that handle the simple cases of a very busy junction.

              Personally, I would rather not have any of these small junctions, but in a lot of cases, there is no option.

      3. The First Dave Silver badge

        Re: "nothing illegal to be wearing Google Glass"... yet.

        A halt is any time the vehicle is not moving; a 'complete halt' is where the vehicle has been placed in neutral, handbrake on, feet off the pedals, etc.

      4. 4d3fect

        Re: "nothing illegal to be wearing Google Glass"... yet.

        California rolling stop?

    4. SDoradus

      Re: "nothing illegal to be wearing Google Glass"... yet.

      Following which, Google will offer as an option the logging of all usage of the glasses, to certified secure serv ers whose accounts are, like bank records, exceptions to hearsay evidence in law.

      Next, Google will offer the glasses with an option to silently record video of travel while all output or playback is switched off. Thus, should a motorists be accused by vengeful police, they will be able to prove (by video record) that they were indeed travelling at less than 65 mph rather than 80 mph, as Ms Concidine is accused of doing but denies. It's worth bearing in mind that courts traditionally grant deference to the sworn statements of officers. Enough such recordings, and that will no longer be true.

    5. LarsG

      Tis but an anomaly in the Law

      Using it or not

      Switched on or not

      Wearing it is a crime against fashion and humanity

      Wearing it unnerves others

      Wearing it breaches privacy

      Minimum 10 years jail time.

      Or at least a confiscation order so that the judge can play with it.

    6. NightFox

      Re: "nothing illegal to be wearing Google Glass"... yet.

      ..."the law under which Abadie was cited forbids in-vehicle televisions and video screens mounted "at a point forward of the back of the driver's seat." It makes specific exceptions for information displays, GPS systems, mapping displays, and devices solely designed to assist in driving – such as rear-facing closed circuit camera displays – as long as these are installed in the vehicle.

      Beyond that, however, the law forbids "any other similar means of visually displaying a television broadcast or video signal that produces entertainment or business applications."

      So under the letter of the law, it's as just as equally illegal to use a GPS system running on a smartphone on two counts: 1, the smartphone isn't designed solely to assist in driving and 2, it's also capable of displaying a TV signal etc. But I'm sure doing so isn't practically deemed illegal, so why this?

    7. Psyx

      Re: "nothing illegal to be wearing Google Glass"... yet.

      I'm of the opinion that anyone driving around with a pair on that is switched off needs to be fined just as much for being a sad poser as they would be if they were driving without due care and attention with a pair switched on!

      Honestly, the defendant is either a lying butt-weasel or pretty pathetically in need of attention to be driving around with them switch off but still on her face.

    8. Nym

      Re: "nothing illegal to be wearing Google Glass"... yet.--NO!!

      'I did puff in some smoke, but believe me--I never inhaled.'

      Trust me.

  2. Steve Knox

    Not guilty plea for 80 in a 65

    I'm guessing the defense will be something along the lines of "it's southern California FFS. Kids' tricycles go over 65mph here."

    1. Mike Bell

      Re: Not guilty plea for 80 in a 65

      Mitigating circumstances, if you're playing Galaxians at the time.

    2. Joe User
      Trollface

      Re: Not guilty plea for 80 in a 65

      A common problem when playing GTA while driving....

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Can Google Glass match Jobs' rose colored glasses?

    Its big test of the Google Glass reality distortion field.

  4. dssf

    What will CA and the courts do when prescription Glass arrives?

    Reportedly, Google is in talks to produce prescription Glass in or by 2014:

    http://www.eweek.com/mobile/google-in-talks-to-make-google-glass-available-in-prescription-versions.html

    As for the cited driver, if the police would have run a court order to the signal provider, and if the GPS information shows the device was either OFF or at least not deliving live, distracting footage, and if diagnostics on the device (assume the device was seized or if remote telemetry is available in the abscence of seizure) was not running locally-displayed content, then why the court case at all?

    Besides going after drivers wearing Google Glass, why not crack down on drivers wearing earbuds in BOTH ears. I have since 1992 or so known that even then it was illegal to be driving and be wearing or having inserted TWO earbuds. It was in the CVC (California Vehicle Code) back then and I presume it still applies today. I've never driven with two earbuds in, and avoided doing so with one, just to avert issues. But, equally bad, considering the intent of the code, was drivers blasting music so loudly that it would be impossible for such a motorist to be aware of emergency sirens or other sounds of warning in the audio spectrum.

    Nowadays, drivers are tooling around with the even-more-sound-damping/dampening earbuds, the rubbery, expanding types that are good enough to replace sleepers' ear plugs in some cases. Why not crack down on drivers wearing a SINGLE, sound-damping earbud?

    Better yet, why not emergency-promulgate a law stating that police sirens activated within 500 feet of vehicles have an ability to temporarily block some features of such devices as Glass and mobile phones when the device is on and in a moving motor vehicle? It might require such drivers to PIN-activate their devices or airplane-mode them as legal safety to try to prove their devices are not involved in driving incidents, and to help reduce the risk of motorists having their devices seized. But, some card-carrying rights activitst as well as anti-rights forces would all have something to say against such technology, even if all it would do would be to scribe crawler/message into the view of the worn Glass devices.

    Ordinary motorists operating their vehicles while wearing Glass can NEVER, EVER be trusted to be as skilled as fighter pilots, specially trained vehicle/aircraft handlers, and others. So, neigher Google nor other advocate can DARE sanely try to posit such an idea, no matter how well they think they've tuned up their interfaces.

    Still, +1 for the motorist on her apparent proof that her device was turnd off. That apparent fact renders her Glass device no more distracting to her than cheap sunshades. Probably no worse than teaser earbuds (of the 1990s kind) with the audio jack clipped off and the buds incapable of delivering a legally-prosecutable distraction to a motorist or cyclist.

    Edit: appended (but did not edit the above):

    And, -1 for speeding! Speed, in many cases, especially when negligently used, KILLS, MAIMS, or DESTROYS! Speeding in any area -- schools zone, or desert, is costly. First responders still must respond even if she crashed or rolled over in a desert or dry/barren mountainside.

    1. beast666

      Re: What will CA and the courts do when prescription Glass arrives?

      So fighter pilots etc etc can wear a Glass by your argument? What about Police/Ambulance/Fire engine drivers who need up-to-date info from whatever device? Maybe we just need an extra section of the driving test to allow Glass and such things... otherwise, as per previous posters, you are going to cut off innovation and possible *improvements* to driving safety.

      1. Curtis

        Re: What will CA and the courts do when prescription Glass arrives?

        Actually, I could see an endorsement test (Similar to a motorcycle, air brake, large vehicle, or commercial passenger endorsement) to allow one the legal right to drive with a cranial mounted HUD.

        Personally, I see great promise in these devices. GPS overlay data, light amplification, vehicle information. The trick is to using it is TRAINING. And I'll bet that if you use a similar scheme to something like the "Halo" HUD, with this info in the peripheral view, many people will be able to integrate it safely and effectively.

      2. dssf

        Re: What will CA and the courts do when prescription Glass arrives?

        Can you not decipher the term "ordinary motorists"? Why did you leap that my example of fighter pilots meat to exclude specially-trained users or motorists when I allowed for such teained persons to be allowed a special exemption? As things are, MOST ordinary motorists can barely drive safely without commiting some actionable infraction of the vehicle code. Even plain optial wear takes rime adjusting to, and motorists newly adjusting to eyeglasses could statistically be found in incidents due to lack of adjustment to eyewear, especially when windows, pillars, and items on the dash and rear deck may be involved. I am not trying to be snarky or condescending. I myself earned 13 tickets n under 6 years though two of them were due to corrupt cops or CHP. Still, I managed to clean up my act and since 2000 have not had a single actionable offense levied upon me. None involved alchohol, substances, or racing others, nor reading maps, either.

  5. solo

    Why a glass then

    If you don't keep your glass (powered) on, why use it in the first place?

    Was that causing nausea? Let us know lady.

  6. mrjohn

    Her defense will be "I didn't realise I was doing 80, I was too busy watching Youtube"

  7. Ian Michael Gumby Silver badge
    Holmes

    Throw the book at her.

    How do you know that the glasses are off?

    Seriously... she could have lied or turned them off when she was pulled over.

    No excuse.

    1. Richard 12 Silver badge

      Re: Throw the book at her.

      Ok, you're going to prison Gumby.

      What do you mean "what for"? How do we know you didn't do something illegal?

      Prove you didn't, or we lock you up.

      Gumby, that's probably the stupidest thing I've seen someone write for a while. Guilty until proven innocent just means everybody goes to prison.

      If they want to convict her of this, they need to prove the Glass was active at the time - otherwise, it's just a pair of cheap sunglasses.

      1. corestore

        Re: Throw the book at her.

        Then they can also convict everyone with an operational satnav; that's a data/video display in front of the drivers seat, is it not?

        And they can bang up all the car manufacturers for conspiracy to supply at the same time.

        *faceplam* why do people suspend all logic and rational thought just because it's bloody Glass??!!

      2. Psyx

        Re: Throw the book at her.

        "What do you mean "what for"? How do we know you didn't do something illegal?

        Prove you didn't, or we lock you up."

        Reasonable doubt is grounds to ticket her in my mind. Google Glass is useless when switched off. They're not even sunglasses. So there is ZERO reason to wear a pair that are switched off in her car. Ergo, it seems reasonable that they were switched on.

        It's like getting pulled over with a balaclava, shotgun and a crowbar on your back seat. By letter of the law you haven't been proven to be planning burglary, but reasonable doubt will probably get you done for it, because the law works on the basis of common sense, and is not cast in stone in such cases.

        Of course: With an expensive lawyer they'd be able to bullshit enough to get you off under reasonable doubt, but that's why rich people don't go to jail much.

        1. Graham Dawson

          Re: Throw the book at her.

          No, the law works on the basis that a criminal conviction must be evidenced _beyond reasonable doubt_. You are talking about suspicion: your fellow with a balaclava might be arrested for suspicion of intent to commit burglary, but unless they can prove that beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law then he gets away scot free.

          Was he seen in the commission of a crime? Did he confess intent to commit a crime? Without that all they have is circumstantial evidence and suspicion, and frankly that doesn't amount to much.

          With this lass, they suspect she had them turned on. Can they prove it? If they can prove beyond doubt she was distracted then that's one thing, but if there is ANY doubt at all, if she can demonstrate that the glasses were turned off or even demonstrate that the officers in question couldn't tell if they were turned on, then she wins. A criminal sentence would be overturned on appeal faster than you can say "unsafe conviction".

          1. Psyx

            Re: Throw the book at her.

            "No, the law works on the basis that a criminal conviction must be evidenced _beyond reasonable doubt_."

            And despite the barrack-room lawyering, the authorities -who are equipped with the full facts and actually know the law better than either of us- believe they have a case.

            "You are talking about suspicion: your fellow with a balaclava might be arrested for suspicion of intent to commit burglary, but unless they can prove that beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law then he gets away scot free."

            See the other poster's comment. In short: No they don't.

            "...then she wins."

            No she doesn't, because she's still paid for her defence. Y'know... assuming they win.

        2. Def Silver badge

          Re: balaclava, shotgun and a crowbar

          Actually, even without the shotgun, you could still get done for carrying a weapon (the crowbar, we're not talking about weapons against fashion) around with you.

          Many years ago, a guy I worked with got stopped speeding to the office where we worked. It was 2 in the morning, and the security systems had been tripped - he was the emergency contact. Just in case it was a real problem, he had a baseball bat with him on the front seat. The policeman who pulled him over suggested in future he arm himself with an over sized maglite because "we can't do you for carry one of those around".

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: balaclava, shotgun and a crowbar

            I can second that, hence why I have always owned a 6 D-Cell maglite, the copper I spoke to at the time said I wouldn't be collared with that, plus if I used it in a home defense situation I could talk my way out of it in court if I'd used the maglite to batter someone into submission scare them off.

          2. Crisp Silver badge

            Re: balaclava, shotgun and a crowbar

            "balaclava, shotgun and a crowbar"

            Even without the shotgun, the police would call that going equipped.

          3. dssf

            Re: balaclava, shotgun and a crowbar

            As with all things, that depends.

            In or around 1992, I had a relative who was returning to base, and had a large MagLite under his seat. Base security was doing routine vehicle searches, found his MagLite, and questioned him. Knowing of others who'd been charged with possession of a deadly weapon or similar charges, his response was that ordinary flashlight batteries were not as useful in the dark, and if he got a flat on that long, dark drive to the base, he wanted a better amounnt of lighting in a reasonably small size. The guard/police/sentry hemmed, then returned it to him, then let him proceed on into the base. My relative was certain in his mind that saying, "In case someone tries to assault me or steal my car..." he'd have been charged by the base security on one or more charges.

            As for carrying around a baseball bat on the front seat, AFAIK, alone, the bat is a deadly weapon. To lessen or get charges tossed, when no real crime occurred, one had better also be carrying a ball, a glove/catchers' mitt, and other things just to avoid being charged at all.

            In some states, here in the USA, a bolo, or any spring-loaded/charged device can become a deadly weapon, and one can be charged if it is in possession during a fight. So, it never hurts to be a tad bit wary or paranoid of what one carries around ordinarily vs special needs. Plumbers or others with big heavy, weaponizable tools probably have less to worry about than somone unable to demonstrate a need to carry around a 15" wrench or mallet, especially if the one carrying has a past with police.

            BTW, I once was speeding, and legitimately received a ticket. I felt shitty, and after the patrolman took down another speeding motorist, I thanked him for ticketing me.

            As far as I remember, I have not seen that citation ever appear on my driving record. Just one example of around 3 times I avoided citations in the USA. Even in Canada, I avoided a citation, too. Be plausible or honest, polite, and perfunctory, and show some remorse, not indignation. Taking the high ground with/against a cop is usually a way to guarantee a citation and fine, and a way to risk increased infraction items listed.

            I don't know the play by play of her citation, but the Glass-wearing motorist either had a citing cop who had a rough day, didn't understand Glass, or she failed to convince him/her it was not operating, or somewhere along the line took the high ground, cementing the delivery of the ticket to the traffic citations department. It is NOT true that once a ticket is written it MUST be turned in. Cops are allowed some leeway, but piss them off and you get NONE (or see it retracted) even if you were initially worthy of the leeway..

      3. PatientOne

        Re: Throw the book at her.

        @Richard 12

        You missed something: Reasonable Suspicion. Gumby might have done something wrong (he probably has), but you can't just arrest him for 'something', you need to state what and give grounds for why you suspect he is guilty. Then you have to prove your case in court, and he'd win if all you're doing is saying 'well, he's guilty of something'. After all, this isn't the Victorian era!

        In the case of this woman, she was wearing the device in question. It is now for the courts to decide if she has broken the law by wearing it while driving.

        And from what I've read on said law: There's no requirement for the device to be in use. So the defence of 'it wasn't switched on' isn't going to do much good. Rather, she needs to challenge if the Glass is covered by the law.

      4. Ian Michael Gumby Silver badge

        @Richard... Re: Throw the book at her.

        First, Google glass are not prescription glasses so the driver doesn't need them on when driving.

        Second, the fact that she has them on and that they can be a distraction.

        If they were off, then why was she wearing them?

        Ooops!

        Think of it like having an open bottle of whiskey (top on) sitting on the floor on the passenger side front seat.

        (within reach)

        What to bet that the officer will want you to step out of the car... ;-)

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: @Richard... Throw the book at her.

          > Think of it like having an open bottle of whiskey (top on) sitting on the floor on the passenger side front seat.

          You're confusing things. The open bottle would be sufficient to raise suspicion.

          A quick blow in the breathalyzer would settle it.

          The objections to your point above are pointing out that opportunity to commit a crime is not the same as actually committing a crime. Some of the laws that are brought in to tackle some of the anti-social issues lately have become rather unreasonably over bearing.

          Here in BC, Canada we have recently had new laws about using handheld devices while driving. Well I've never used a device while driving, since I believe it is an unnecessary distraction. However, the law has not been framed in that way. The law here says that you can be booked if the car is "under your control". Which basically means if the engine is on and you are in the driving seat. So no pulling over the the side of the road and parking up to take a call then which is what I might have done previously. Now doing the "right thing" can get you a ticket just as easily as behaving like a twat and all good will from the driving public is sucked right out of the legislation.

          Sometimes, I have to wonder if the people making these laws has even half a brain.

    2. Dr. Mouse Silver badge

      Re: Throw the book at her.

      Throw the book at him.

      How do you know he didn't stick his dick in her?

      Seriously... he could have just pulled it out when the cops turned up.

      No excuse.

      -----------------

      Innocent unless proven guilty. Of course, if the law is so worded, it may be that just having them there is breaking the law, turned on or not, in which case ignorance is not a defence.

  8. ratfox Silver badge

    Law seems clear

    It says: "forbidden to have a screen mounted where the driver can see it. Turned on, or off. I don't see how this defense can fly.

    1. Nigel 11

      Re: Law seems clear

      "forbidden to have a screen mounted where the driver can see it. Turned on, or off. I don't see how this defense can fly.

      The Google glasses weren't mounted, your honour. They were being carried. Carried, I hasten to add, in a way which in no way impaired the ability of the accused to drive safely.

    2. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

      Re: Law seems clear

      "It says: "forbidden to have a screen mounted where the driver can see it. Turned on, or off. I don't see how this defense can fly."

      That's what lawyers and judges are for. The opposing lawyers make their interpretations based on the legal meanings of words taken individually and in groups then the judge gets to decide whose argument had the most merit.

      As Nigel already suggested, is Glass "mounted" when being worn or is it being carried?

      Likewise, is a projection onto the lens legally a "screen" in that definition? Especially if the projector is not switched on.

      1. dssf

        Re: Law seems clear

        "Your Honor, I object. Carried is not the same as worn in all circumstances. One may be carrying or wearing a purse. One is not wearing a wallet or billfold if it is in a rear pocket. One wearing a uniform is not actually "carrying it". One mounting his/her partner in a private act, likewise, cannot "carry" said partner on a "single point of contact or failure", either, Your Honor..."

        Just saying, hehehehe....

  9. Tom 7 Silver badge

    "laws is that they will stop the technology dead in it's tracks."

    unlike natural things like trees and valleys I suppose?

  10. Wizardofaus

    So lets get this straight - her defence is "I wanted to look like a self obsessed dickhead even though I wasn't using them?"

  11. Andy3

    I think most of us could see this coming a mile off. There will always be people (and there are indeed millions) who cannot and will not put their cyber tools aside when driving or even crossing a busy street. They cannot bear to be disconnected for an instant. If the lady wasn't using them, she should have removed them, simple.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Are you using your watch while driving? If not then why not remove it?

      The point of Glass if you choose to wear it is to have it with you at all times. Why should you have to remove them each time you get in and out of a car?

      Some reports from journalists *who actually have a pair* say that they don't pose a threat for driving and actually made it easier than a regular GPS.

      I will reserve judgement until a time comes if I get to try a pair rather than just decide to become hysterical about something.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        So some of the blessed few who got a pair of glasses are saying that they are really a great product - thanks oh Google for providing me with such a wonderful product!

        I'd say that hardly counts as objective information. If anyone would know which journalists look upon them favourably, it's the data-slurper Google (not the NSA, because they know no journalists really look upon them favourably).

        The difference with the watch and the glasses is quite clear, so why make the comparison at all.

        You keep distractions away from your field of vision while driving, because when you're driving you should be doing just that - and nothing else.

        Instead let's get entrepreneurial - who can be the first to market a Google Glass Holder for the car?!

      2. NumptyScrub

        quote: "The point of Glass if you choose to wear it is to have it with you at all times. Why should you have to remove them each time you get in and out of a car?"

        I wear actual glasses, and have a pair of prescription sunglasses as well (which I usually carry with me at all times, in a case inside a pocket). It is a matter of seconds to switch them when I get into a car and want the sunglasse on. Seconds. 20 at most, including removal, retrieval, replacement, and storage.

        Refusing to spends seconds to remove Google Glass(es) because you have got into a vehicle is laziness (or entitlement) an order of magnitude greater than I have ever practised, and that is saying something. It probably takes longer to turn them off than it does to physically remove them.

        All you need is a case to store them in during the journey, and you can be both fully compliant with the law, and have them protected as well as easily at hand once the journey is over.

        quote: "Some reports from journalists *who actually have a pair* say that they don't pose a threat for driving and actually made it easier than a regular GPS."

        Unfortunately journalists neither make nor enforce the law, thus the only reputable source for cofirmation of the safety and legality of their use while driving is still the statutes and/or police force. Section 27602 is pretty clear on that, the device must both be "installed" in the vehicle (I'm assuming stationary mounts count) and must satisfy either 5A or 5B in order to be exempt. Glass is not installed, therefore I would argue could not be classed as exempt.

        Note that my interpretation just as equally applies to mobile phones or handheld GPS units (with video playing functionality) which are not attached to a mount. Like any offense, just because you've not personally been ticketed for doing it does not necessarily mean it is legal to do it.

  12. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Good luck

    That's like having a cellphone in your hands when stopped and saying, but it wasn't turned on... Right.

  13. Jacksonville

    Ban 'em, I say...

    I just cannot see the justification of wearing an augmented reality device while driving.

    They'll either be on and distracting the driver, or off and therefore unecessary to wear.

    Frankly I find the damn things sinister anyway, and am looking forward to requesting that anyone I interact with removes them before I continue any conversation etc...

    1. corestore

      Re: Ban 'em, I say...

      Try a full eyetap augmented reality system with realtime data, realtime HDR imaging, thermal imaging overlay etc. etc.

      That's the way military pilots, and some civilian pilots - especially helo pilots - already fly. In a much more demanding task-loaded role than driving, even in CA.

      I think there's a lot of promise in this tech.

      Yeah some people will look at pron or cat pics and give it a bad name...

      1. Darryl

        Re: Ban 'em, I say...

        And pilots get a whole lot more training on controlling their machine, including processing all of the extra data input than your average putz driving a minivan.

    2. dssf

      Re: Ban 'em, I say... Well, what about HUD?

      http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2421431,00.asp

      http://www.slashgear.com/pioneer-navgate-hud-launches-with-on-windshield-navigation-projection-04296284/

      Earlier, I may have neglected to specifically include emergency responders, besides just stating suitably trained motorists. But, this kind of tech might be useful in the hands of some, and incredibly and unfortunately dangerous in the hands or eyesight of others. Just depends

      Now, I imagine if digital feeds or physical periscopes provide high-res detail of an obstruction 10-40 seconds ahead, and records the warnings, and a motorist tactfully esplains it to a cop about to issue a citation, the cop might reverse his/her decision if the warnings appear kewl, timely, useful, and life-saving in the context. It should not be a free ticket to read about traffic crashes or obstructions while moving the vehicle if the info is out of context, soon-expirable, or not along the driver's next-coming leg of transit. Pushing reasonableness too far might re-cement getting that ticket of a moving violation kind.

      It would be interesting to see whether such gear, Garmin, Panasonic, Google, etc, gets used in high-rise/tower construction/lifting cranes. I wonder how many licensed/certified crane operator prefer the Mark 1, Mod 0 optical device.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Mushroom

      Re: Ban 'em, I say...

      > , or off and therefore unecessary to wear.

      A free society....I remember that.

      So your argument is that she doesn't have a good reason, in your view, to be wearing it, therefore she should be banned from wearing it.

      Try explaining that to the plod that stops you to ask why you are walking down that particular street and booking you because you can't give him a good enough excuse.

      It never fails to shock me when I see people still using this kind of argument. "I can't think of a good reason why they would do this so they shouldn't be allowed." Perhaps you might apply that same argument to their unfashionable purple shirt, or their unattractive hairstyle?

  14. Rob

    Smoke and Mirrors

    Sounds like she is using the Google Glass case to divert attention from the speeding fine, which is the real reason she was pulled over in the first place. The original story states that it wasn't until the cop was talking to her and writing the ticket that the issue of the G-Glass came up.

    1. beast666

      Re: Smoke and Mirrors

      Ahhh, so the cop didn't like the fact that he *might* be being recorded...

      Makes sense. Bloody dibble don't like that sort of thing, try getting your phone out whilst being arrested...

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Smoke and Mirrors

        Yeah - go ahead and reach into your pockets while being arrested in America...

        1. dssf

          Re: Smoke and Mirrors

          No, it's about context, and where you are. I see people all the time futzing with their pockets around police, who, for all they know, could be getting seduced into a shootout. Granted, in a bad or risky neighborhood, police will at the ready if the call is dubious or they have some "bad blood" or revenge types known to live in the call area.

          Still, I take your point. I'd rather see -- to the extent possible -- with paired cops that one carries the lethal weapon and acts as backup, and one takes the LTL beanbag shotgun, and takes point in tight areas. A real shotgun might be better, indoors, too, than a 9mm pistol unless it ends up an unlucky case of drugged-up assailants not falling down even after 4 COM, grouped shots. Now, if 3 or more are closing in on someone, and no deadly weapon with reach has been observed, Taze AND beanbag the target.

          Maybe Google can get on the good side of cops by making Glass interoperate with insect-sized drones, so Cops get the upper hand, well, for the time being. Of course, it could lead to an arms race, and all users end up jamming the EM spectrum just to beat hasty retreats to regroup with IR gear on the 2nd go around....

  15. Crisp Silver badge

    I'm guessing that her defence for doing 80 in a 65 zone will be:

    If my Google Glass was turned on, I'd be able to prove that I wasn't doing 80mph.

  16. TopOnePercent Silver badge

    Driving standards

    One of the reasons for such appaling driving standard on todays roads is that people search endlessly for something to do while driving. Glassholes are just the vanguard of that group.

    We already lowered the driving test standard to a level where basically anyone can pass it, as opposed to only those that are actually any good at it. If we accepted that only the best half of a bell curve was going to be allowed to drive, not only would the roads be a much safer place, they'd also be less congested, allowing those with a higher skill level to make progress quickly & safely.

  17. corestore

    Is it legal...

    …to have a satnav screen on the dashboard?

    Yes or no?

    Is it legal to have a smartphone (which *can* also play pron videos) in use as a satnav on the dashboard?

    Yes or no?

    So exactly how in hell can it ever be illegal to use a head-mounted display as a satnav then? Just for starters… and satnav is one of the functions that works *best* on Glass at its present stage of development. It's a bloody satnav you can program with your voice and don't have to take your eyes off the road, or refocus, to use. It's the *safest* option IMHO.

    This is just some idiot cop and prosecutor deciding to make a name for themselves with a ludicrous prosecution. OF COURSE it's not illegal!

    Mike

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Is it legal...

      Of course, she's really being done for 85 in a 60 limit, the use of GG is incidental. You'd better expect that if you have a screen mounted phone or a sat nav in the middle of the screen (why do people do that?) that you'll be prosecuted for that as well as speeding, if pulled over.

      I believe the law is that you can have a dedicated information device (sat nav) but not a non-dedicated device (phone) but that if you stick it in your field of vision, rather than in the corner of the windscreen you'll get done anyway.

      1. corestore

        Re: Is it legal...

        That's certifiably insane.

        The whole POINT is that the navigation device should be in your field of vision; you need to glance at it occasionally when you're using it! How in hell do you use a satnav that is positioned where you can't SEE it??

        If you were literally correct it would mean satnavs are prohibited in CA, full stop - and never mind the poor bloody drivers, the car makers that build satnav into their cars would be on the hook big-time. That HAS to be bullshit, sorry.

  18. Herby Silver badge

    By the same logic...

    If you can't have Google Glasses turned off while driving, then an unplugged TV set that you are transporting to your home in the front seat of your car can be considered a violation as well. It meets ALL the criteria: It is a TV, and it is in the vehicle front of the drivers seat, and (duh!) it is turned off.

    It seems to me that the government is wasting LOTS of $$$ on this one.

    Then again, Google is getting LOTS of free publicity as well.

This topic is closed for new posts.

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019