18 ms·

California woman ticketed for wearing Google Glass while driving

180 points by tga 13y ago

dllthomas 13y ago
It would seem to comport with the law, as best I (as some random dude) can tell. You're not allowed to be looking at a computer or mobile device while you drive; Glass would seem to count.
- simias 13y ago
  As someone who commutes on a motorbike I'd even go further and say that it should be illegal. When you're driving you need to be focused on the road, not watching your friend's facebook wall. Hopefully soon enough we'll get fully automatic cars and this will be a problem of the past but in the meantime this seem the safest approach.
  - kolinko 13y ago
    So, you'd like to have car dashboards illegal as well? First of all, Glass could've been turned off. Second of all, she could be using it for GPS and other things. Personally, as a driver, I'd prefer to have all my car information on some kind of a HMD, and not on the dashboard, where I have to look away from the road.
    - iamshs 13y ago
      Glass is directly obstructing the field of view. It is not a defensible position to be frank. If it is turned off, well and good, but still the "eyepiece" can cause problems like glare, reflection, transparency problems. If it is turned on, no matter for what purpose, then it is a distraction and a direct one. Why do you want your one organ that is keeping you safe on road, be bombarded with information other than the one in its periphery?
      - randallsquared 13y ago
        Your arguments are about as effective against sunglasses and other displays not directly in front of your eyes (others have already mentioned dashboards, but the HUDs projected on some windshields are a better analogy).
      - onebaddude 13y ago
        >but still the "eyepiece" can cause problems like glare, reflection, transparency problems. I'm going to go out on a limb and assume you don't drive much. I spend a lot of time on the road (60,000+km this year). There are a multitude of things to distract you behind the wheel, from eating, phones, stereos, day-dreaming, other drivers, nature, whatever. It's endless. If having a small eye piece is distracting to you, by all means don't wear one. But don't project your inability to maintain focus on all other drivers.
        iamshs 13y ago
        A persistent illumination 2 inch in front of my eye, can be a major cause of distractin and fatigue though. Also glancing at phones do cause accidents. You are also projecting the ability to focus with an eye piece on, on all drivers. How about extensive testing before letting it on road?
        alexpalmer 13y ago
        The display is only on for a couple seconds at a time. I personally fall on the other side; why not extensively test before banning. We live in a society that jumps to conclusions. I believe we should have a proper understanding of something before deciding to make laws relating to it. What about the positive benefits. Also, do you really expect them to do the research after banning it? Look how long it has taken the FAA to even start reducing the ban on mobile devices.
        dllthomas 13y ago
        We already have laws relating to it - it's basically a mobile device. It's a special mobile device, and may deserve an exception, but it should be shown that it's less harmful than the other devices that were banned based on evidence.
    - simias 13y ago
      A special purpose HMD for GPS sounds great. A general purpose head mounted entertainment system that may or may not be used to display GPS along many other things while driving is a terrible idea.
    - termain 13y ago
      She's been cited, not convicted, so she's free to argue that it was off in court. The legality of her actions is not determined by the actions of the officer, particularly given that she cited, not arrested. Definitely agree with you that I'd prefer a HMD or HUD in general to look-down instrumentation.
  - blackaspen 13y ago
    I absolutely agree. If you want to be distracted and watch some YouTube videos or whatnot, then public transit would love to have you.
    - icebraining 13y ago
      But she wasn't watching YouTube videos; the Glass was off. She was just wearing them. How is it any worse than wearing normal glasses? What happens if and when Glass-like devices become common and glasses-wearing people like me get them with prescription lenses?
      - blackaspen 13y ago
        I wear glasses as well, and I agree there. But how do you want to prove that Glass was off? Should your Glass report to the Police when it's on and off?
        burntsushi 13y ago
        > But how do you want to prove that Glass was off? That's the wrong question. The right question is: How does law enforcement prove that Glass was distracting me? I shouldn't have to prove my innocence. They should have to prove my guilt.
        dllthomas 13y ago
        Standards are a bit lower for a civil infraction. Which isn't to say that this isn't a consideration, but is certainly to say that the situation is not the same as with a misdemeanor or felony the way our system currently works (and that is quite possibly appropriate).
        deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
        mindcrime 13y ago
  - dllthomas 13y ago
    I'm sympathetic to that position, to be sure. What hesitation I have comes from potential legitimate uses (navigation, HUD for what would otherwise be on dash), and a mild leeriness around having to demonstrate that I am behaving correctly instead of simply behaving correctly. I'm not sure where I ultimately come down.
  - davej 13y ago
    I am also a motorbike commuter and I was really looking forward to using the Google Glass for GPS navigation as I ride. It does not obstruct the main field of view, as far as I can tell it is very small and in the corner of your vision. It is surely more dangerous to look down at a GPS while riding a bike. I'm in Ireland and early indications make it look like it will be illegal to use while driving.
  - reginaldjcooper 13y ago
    Agree 100%. Many persons are already far too cavalier about driving. In one of the last TSA threads a few people insisted that requiring a driver's license (also) unduly restricted freedom of travel, totally disregarding that driving is different from flying because you are operating heavy machinery in public. I think a single DWI should be an instant and permanent revocation. DW-Texting/Facebook should be at least a temporary revocation. Having a computer on your face is the same class of thing. If you're so important that you can risk other persons' lives to save your time you can afford to hire a taxi.
    - dllthomas 13y ago
      I don't understand being more lenient about DW-T/F than DWI, at least at a low BAC. It's comparably dangerous, and a lot harder to be mistaken. "Oops, I metabolize alcohol more slowly than I thought" vs. "Oops, I took my hands off the wheel, pulled out my phone...".
      - reginaldjcooper 13y ago
        Yeah, you could argue me over to your position quite easily. My thinking is it's less dangerous because you can put it down. But I'd be fine with taking licenses away for DWT.
        dllthomas 13y ago
        Hm, I guess that's a point. If you're intoxicated, you're intoxicated at the most dangerous bit of your drive. If you're playing with your phone, you might be picking relatively safe times to do so (at an extreme, I've been known to check things on my phone if traffic is literally stopped).
    - yardie 13y ago
      I disagree. Most people need to drive to work and most people need to work to eat. Permanent revocation will just create more unlicensed, uninsured drivers. This has the unintended consequence of putting more burden on regular drivers (who pay hire premiums) and the state (which has to pay for incarceration). This is why California and Florida, places with high undocumented immigrant populations, have such high insurance rates. Not only am I paying a premium on my driving I'm also paying a premium on the guy not insured at all.
- bpicolo 13y ago
  California has always been strict with technology usage in cars, and with good reason. There's a large amount of research that concludes that distractions make the road many times more dangerous. It's pretty much that simple.
alayne 13y ago
Whether it's valid or not, something capable of projecting into your eye while you are driving seems like it is a potential danger. It is not the same as a monitor that is not directly in your line of vision or obstructing your view of the road. My question would be what this woman was doing that attracted the attention of the police in the first place.
- RogerL 13y ago
  She was speeding.
  - bpicolo 13y ago
    First thing on the ticket it looks like, yep.
  - iamshs 13y ago
    But she was also cited for a television screen in front of driver's view. The first citation was speeding, which probably is why she was stopped, and then she was issued second citation of driver's view obstruction by an entertainment device.
    - myko 13y ago
      Glass isn't an 'entertainment device'. Glass could potentially make us better drivers. One of the use cases we've looked at is wiring Glass up to alert drivers when someone is in their blind spot or someone is coming up too quickly behind them. This citation is bogus. It's safer to look at Glass for directions than my nav system, but you wont see me get ticketed for looking at my nav system.
      - iamshs 13y ago
        Glass is an entertainment device, just because it is HUD does not invalidate it having an audio visual feedback, complete with a camera. It is made for consumption, on a small and more personal scale. Glass could potentially make us worse drivers too. Satnav systems have guidelines issued for usage. Here, we are dealing with illumination directly 2 inch in front of my eye. I will go by your data, but would rather want California DMV to test it out comprehensively.
RogerL 13y ago
I really don't want people driving with Glass, even if it was turned off as she claims (how could a PO know?)
- XorNot 13y ago
  I really like it when people explain their statements, rather then just giving them. I for example would really like a million dollars.
- kolinko 13y ago
  How is it worse than a GPS screen on a dashboard? edit: if the PO cannot prove it was turned on, then there is such a thing as an assumption of innocence.
  - iamshs 13y ago
    California or in general road driving laws don't mess around: http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d12/vc26708.htm http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d12/vc26708.htm 12) A portable Global Positioning System (GPS), which may be mounted in a seven-inch square in the lower corner of the windshield farthest removed from the driver or in a five-inch square in the lower corner of the windshield nearest to the driver and outside of an airbag deployment zone, if the system is used only for door-to-door navigation while the motor vehicle is being operated.
    - jlgreco 13y ago
      Seems like a law that would make driving with a GPS more dangerous for many people. When I use a GPS (either dedicated, or my phone), I place it in a pocket in my center console, down below my radio / AC controls. This prevents me from constantly looking at it, as I rely solely on it's TTS feature. I consider this to be much safer, though it sounds like in California it would be forbidden.
      - tedunangst 13y ago
        You've misinterpreted the law. It's not telling you where to put your GPS; it's telling you what manner of device you may mount on top of the dash.
ck2 13y ago
I really wish they would perfect a HUD display for cars that everyone wanted to use. I wonder how many deaths could be prevented. Oh that makes me remember that the Android app "Torque" has a nifty HUD mode that inverses the display on your phone to put speed, etc. on the windshield. I tried it once but my car doesn't have good angles for that.
- blackaspen 13y ago
  Exactly the same number of deaths as could be prevented by having a proper driver's education.
  - dllthomas 13y ago
    I think you need to justify that claim.
  - ck2 13y ago
    All the education in the world doesn't seem to overcome the belief that laws are for "everyone else". But even having to look down at your speedometer or odometer can be a problem at speed, considering how much distance you cover in half a second.
    - jack-r-abbit 13y ago
      Danger exists in more places than just in front of you. A proper driving education taught me to scan my whole surroundings while driving... not lock eyes with the road in front and never blink. I am not looking directly in front of me 100% of the time. I am looking front, left, right, behind, at instruments... and repeat (not exactly with any particular cadence). My eyes are always moving. Glancing at the speedo is such a minor part of it. Even with a full-on HUD, I'd still be looking left, right and behind. EDIT: when I say "looking behind" I mean the rear view mirror. I don't physically turn my head around to look behind me. That would not be comfortable.
    - coldarchon 13y ago
      >can be a problem at speed Then don't speed, drive safely.
MrDosu 13y ago
Do we really have to argue about not using entertainment video equipment while controlling over a ton of hyperaccelerated death through other peoples lives?
- thaumasiotes 13y ago
  Well, imagine that there were no laws pertaining to driving at all. Do you think people would just stop looking where they were going in favor of watching TV from the driver's seat? It's already been pointed out that CA law bans the driver from looking at a mobile phone. I assure you that's not making anyone any safer, because compliance is zero. What's the benefit of the law?
  - dllthomas 13y ago
    "I assure you that's not making anyone any safer, because compliance is zero." That's a strong (and I believe false) claim. You think the number of instances of people wanting to look at their phones, and thinking "no, I might get ticketed, better not..." is zero? or no greater than the number of times people think "fuck the law, I'm going to look at my phone now because it's illegal when I wouldn't have otherwise!"? You don't think anyone has cut a cellphone conversation shorter partly because they didn't want a ticket? Compliance is well (well) below perfect, and it may be that the reduction isn't enough to merit added complexity and bureaucracy, but I would be flabbergasted if it hasn't at all reduced the time people spend interacting with devices while driving.
  - outericky 13y ago
    I doubt compliance is zero. Driving around in other states, you easily see many more drivers yammering on or playing with phones. Police will stop and cite you in CA, so while not everyone complies, I'd bet the majority do. Or at least a higher percent than states without the laws.
  - sanskritabelt 13y ago
    Looking at a mobile phone, or talking on one, is really freaking dangerous, and the police do enforce it.
Nate75Sanders 13y ago
More impetus for Google to hurry up and perfect self-driving cars.
hobbes300 13y ago
She should be ticketed for wearing Google Glass, regardless of whether she was driving or not.
gareim 13y ago
I got hit by a car a few months ago and painfully walked away. The car was turning and not even at a fast speed. My friend passed away a few weeks ago when she got hit by a truck. People forget just how much force is behind a vehicle moving at the speed limit. I think, I THINK, that maybe we can respect the value of a human life enough to put down our computers while we drive.
- kolinko 13y ago
  What if computers can help us drive? Imho it's less distracting to use GPS on Glass, than have to look down and off the road to find it.
  - gareim 13y ago
    Set up a route beforehand. If for some reason you have to fiddle with GPS and it's distracting, then do what people did before GPS was around: pull over and figure out your bearings. EDIT: I don't want to come off as anti-tech in cars. I definitely believe that tech can enhance road safety, although I'm more looking forward to driverless cars. I do think that Glass is more distracting than normal GPS devices because Glass has the capability to do so much more than GPS. I don't totally trust people to only use the GPS function in Glass.
    - NoPiece 13y ago
      The same people who fiddle with gps while driving would be fumbling to unfold a map while driving. The technology isn't the issue.
      - marincounty 13y ago
        Good point! I am guilty of driving while looking at a map, and it definitely dangerous.
      - __david__ 13y ago
        Yes, I remember rifling through a Thomas Guide on a trip up the California coast back in the day and suddenly realizing I had changed lanes. Luckily there was no one next to me at the time…
j_s 13y ago
From the comments: > cited for speeding (80 in 65 zone) and passing a police vehicle while speeding Once you're pulled over they can throw the book at you.
- dmckeon 13y ago
  The citation element relevant to Glass appears to be: http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d12/vc27602.htm http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d12/vc27602.htm which partially reads: Television 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. (b) Subdivision (a) does not apply to the following equipment when installed in a vehicle: (1) A vehicle information display. (2) A global positioning display. (3) A mapping display. (4) A visual display used to enhance or supplement the driver's view forward, behind, or to the sides of a motor vehicle for the purpose of maneuvering the vehicle. (5) A television receiver, video monitor, television or video screen, or any other similar means of visually displaying a television broadcast or video signal, if that equipment satisfies one of the following requirements: (A) The equipment has an interlock device that, when the motor vehicle is driven, disables the equipment for all uses except as a visual display as described in paragraphs (1) to (4), inclusive. (B) The equipment is designed, operated, and configured in a manner that prevents the driver of the motor vehicle from viewing the television broadcast or video signal while operating the vehicle in a safe and reasonable manner. [ there is more regarding displays in vehicles operated by utility companies]
hangonhn 13y ago
I'm not generally a fan of Google Glass and skeptical of its future in the form it is today. However, I see a huge potential for it as a tool for cyclists, runners, etc. and ... drivers. It can potentially improve our awareness while we're driving. I have a HUD in my new car and it's amazing in its ability to make me constantly aware of my speed and navigation without taking my eyes off the road. This sort of idea isn't new because pilots of military helicopters and fighters have these. It improves awareness and safety. I hope the court allows this because making it flat out illegal to have a head mounted display would kill off innovations in this area, which could save lives. Maybe we can accept some compromises like a "car mode" for these device, etc. I don't know what the right answer is but I want the possibility for these devices in the car to be left open.
pseudometa 13y ago
As a user of Google Glass, driving with it is idiotic. It is great when walking or riding the bus/subway. Having anything except critical driving information such as speed presented in a Heads Up Display fashion is a distraction. Especially when going 80mph with other vehicles on the road. Book her!
- alexeisadeski3 13y ago
  >Having anything except critical driving information such as speed presented in a Heads Up Display fashion is a distraction The HUD is less distracting than the alternatives.
  - EpicEng 13y ago
    You seem to be ignoring one alternative; no distractions whatsoever.
    - alexeisadeski3 13y ago
      In what universe are vehicles sold without dash mounted radios and nav systems? Those are dramatically more distracting than a HUD, as they require the user to avert their eyes from the road for use.
    - chc 13y ago
      I was recently shopping for a car, and I will tell you now, I did not see a single one that had a front seat with no displays or controls besides the steering wheel, pedals and speedometer.
      - sliverstorm 13y ago
        It's true, cars have headlight switches, tachometers, gas gauges and electronic mirror controls. The horror. The only devices that can actively command your attention are the gauges & lights in the instrument cluster (which are all important to driving safely) and possibly the screen on your radio. Speaking of which, I hated the old radio on my old car, because it was too bright and had too much activity on the display.
jack-r-abbit 13y ago
There seems to be some misguided or misinformed people in here. Or maybe people that just want to bend reality to fit their own. We have some people arguing that Glass is safer than traditional dash mounted GPS because with Glass you don't have to look away from the road like with a dash mounted GPS. But then you have other people arguing that it is safe because it doesn't block your view... it is in the upper right corner and you have to consciously look at it. I've never worn Glass... but my gut tells me that both of those arguments can't be right at the same time. Can they?
gohrt 13y ago
Glass could (perhaps should) be built so that its motion sensor system shuts it down or forced into GPS-only mode when operating at high speeds. Would be tricky for use on trains and airplanes, though (but is that an important use case?)
- nknighthb 13y ago
  Uh, WTF? What makes you think only the driver of a vehicle would ever be using Glass? And how are hours spent on transportation not an important use case for portable electronics?
ChuckMcM 13y ago
One wonders if this was staged. And by staged I mean if there was a note out to officers saying "If you pull over someone for a violation add this charge if they are wearing Google Glass." There are a bunch of unanswered questions (and by that I mean not yet litigated differences in opinion) with respect to glass. For example, if you're driving and you notice you are being tailed, and you say 'Glass record' and you look down at your speedometer, and up at your rear view mirror, and then record the entire traffic stop. Is that video admissible in court? There have been stories of police officers being less than truthful in how a stop occurred, video makes that harder. There is also the infamous 'resisting arrest' charge which people of various demographics feel is used when profiling to hassle them. So if you can get it on record that it is illegal to drive with Glass, then you make it more obvious if someone reaches over and puts on their glass when they get pulled over. Another question, is it a phone or not? It has a cellular connection capability so kind of. If its a phone are you 'texting' when it is showing text? Who knows, some would argue yes, some would argue no. Again, not yet litigated. All these things are going to come through the courts eventually if this product gets any traction. So did the CHP tell their officers to add this if they stopped someone? I don't know but I can't think of any reason an officer would try 'watching tv' as the infraction.
- scrabble 13y ago
  For example, if you're driving and you notice you are being tailed, and you say 'Glass record' and you look down at your speedometer, and up at your rear view mirror, and then record the entire traffic stop. Is that video admissible in court? I wouldn't think so. It's a very short distance from here to "notice you are being tailed, slow down, say 'Glass record'"
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
- dctoedt 13y ago
  > Is that video admissible in court? Yes, assuming the recording can be authenticated. Typically this is done by having the person who made the recording testify under oath, for example, that 1) she was there and witnessed what happened; 2) she made the video recording (explaining how); and 3)the video recording is an accurate representation of she witnessed. This is a routine practice in trials, mainly with respect to photographs [1] but also videos such as surveillance recordings [2]. [1] http://apps.americanbar.org/lpm/lpt/articles/tch06061.shtml http://apps.americanbar.org/lpm/lpt/articles/tch06061.shtml [2] http://goo.gl/awjn8V http://goo.gl/awjn8V
nosage 13y ago
Did California outlaw billboards too? How about road signs? As a Glass owner they provide the same distraction as eye glasses, virtually none. Billboards and signs take your eye off the road, not an 'off' Glass.
- fourstar 13y ago
  Yeah for like a split second (even if that). Do you actually hold a conversation with and/or get immersed in a billboard?
xacaxulu 13y ago
Tickets for wearing them while driving is a good start, but when are we going to start cracking down on GlassHoles in public?
- woofyman 13y ago
  I saw my first Google Glass wearer in public. It looked ridiculous to me.
btbuildem 13y ago
Wow, her feed is such an echo chamber.. pretty much everyone's profile pic there features them wearing Glass. She passed a cop doing 80 in a 65, I wonder what was so distracting that you'd miss a cruiser one lane over..
- the_watcher 13y ago
  People miss them all the time, while not wearing Glass.
- guyzero 13y ago
  Doing 80 in a 65 is the entirety of the 101 and 280, outside of rush hour, when it's 20 in a 65.
  - ZanyProgrammer 13y ago
    That's the bog standard response when anyone gets pulled over for speeding.
    - Sambdala 13y ago
      And the reason for that response is that US speed limits tend to be unreasonably low for a given road when driving a modern car.
      - ZanyProgrammer 13y ago
        And I suppose like every good software engineer on HN, you are an expert in civil and transportation engineering?
        sp332 13y ago
        What's engineering got to do with it? Maximum speed limits are set by law, not by science. Heck, sometimes road engineers push for higher speed limits. http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2011/09/be-safe-break-the-law.html http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2011/09/be-...
outside1234 13y ago
Thank you CHP! I think completely makes sense - its illegal to mount a video screen on your dash, so why should it be legal to have over your eye?
- lawnchair_larry 13y ago
  No it isn't.
  - epmatsw 13y ago
    Yes, it is, unless the TV meets the following requirements: (A) The equipment has an interlock device that, when the motor vehicle is driven, disables the equipment for all uses except as a visual display as described in paragraphs (1) to (4), inclusive. (B) The equipment is designed, operated, and configured in a manner that prevents the driver of the motor vehicle from viewing the television broadcast or video signal while operating the vehicle in a safe and reasonable manner.
    - lawnchair_larry 13y ago
      Right, so as I said, it's not illegal to have a screen on your dash.
joshfraser 13y ago
I bet Google will pull some of their lawyers on this. The precedent that will be set by cases like this is pretty important for their technology especially while it's in its infancy.
- camus2 13y ago
  to do what ? it's not Google's problem,it's the glass user's problem.
  - alayne 13y ago
    Google wants to maximize the size of their market.
brudgers 13y ago
Passed a cruiser while speeding. To those saying Glass is not a distraction: sarcasm is the lowest form of wit.
- qq66 13y ago
  What's the highest form of wit?
  - scott_s 13y ago
    Brevity.
tripngroove 13y ago
Good! A person operating a moving vehicle should have 100% of their attention focused on the road. I have yet to see an argument to the contrary that doesn't attempt to rationalize unsafe behavior. Any device that actively creates distractions occluding a person's field of vision should be prohibited while driving.
- RuggeroAltair 13y ago
  This is a pretty silly statement, because it implies that what someone could do with google glass they don't normally already do. What about a TomTom? Is that illegal? Is it better to look at its screen wherever you positioned it in the car? What about billboards? Aren't they there to catch your attention while driving? Are they illegal? What about checking your speedometer or the gas level, or gas mileage? In the future things like google glass or even active screens/windshields will be more and more able to show the same information and more, without necessarily implying any unsafe behavior on the road.
- mikeash 13y ago
  Do you think that drivers should avoid listening to the radio? Should they pull off the road before manipulating their heater? Windshield wipers? I ask because I kind of doubt you truly mean "100%", but you insult anyone going for anything less.
  - oftenwrong 13y ago
    >Do you think that drivers should avoid listening to the radio? Yes, radios are distracting and therefore dangerous, especially if drivers take their eyes off of the road to adjust the controls. >Should they pull off the road before manipulating their heater? Windshield wipers? No. It is often necessary to adjust windshield wipers and climate control systems to ensure safety, and sometimes those adjustments must be made in situations where pulling off the road is unsafe or impossible. For example, if it starts pouring rain while on a narrow bridge (no way to pull over), you will need the wipers to keep the windshield clear. The heater can be used to de-fog.
    - 13y ago
ranman 13y ago
Am I the only one who is against litigation? On the off chance that we lost it would be annoying to be legally forbidden from using these devices while driving. I would just pay the ticket (which I assume is ~90$).
- sanskritabelt 13y ago
  Actually I hope she sues and loses.
- crpatino 13y ago
  As long as you agree to make hitting someone while wearing glass == 2nd degree murder.
  - alexpalmer 13y ago
    You would have to prove that glass was the cause which I believe you would find hard. While inactive they're no more distracting than a pair of regular glasses and while using them for navigation they're significantly less distracting than using a traditional GPS.
Zoomla 13y ago
Your cellphone usage should be automatically linked to your car's GPS data and automatically bill you every time you use it while driving ? this is not that hard, I am sure the NSA already has all that data
- jlgreco 13y ago
  Have you ever heard of this new thing called "passengers"? They're all the rage these days.
  - Zoomla 13y ago
    sorry I was a little sarcastic... but for passengers, they can always contest their tickets later... just like they have to do with red-light camera tickets.
diceless 13y ago
Lets ignore Google Glass for a moment and realize what she was ticketed for and how it will affect anyone with a cell phone in California. She was ticked for having a display that could show non-car related information somewhere within her field of view. Any person that has there cell phone on their center console could be ticketed under the same law. Have your cell phone mounted on your dash, your just asking for a ticket if this goes through. Cops will give whatever ticket they can because they know part of that ticket will go to their department and pay for extras they like to have. More tickets, more overtime they get to have. I fully agree, driving while distracted it bad. Very bad. But to my knowledge they haven't outlawed drinking coffee or eating yet in the car. Far more dangerous than being responsible and having your phone mounted in a place were it doesn't take anymore eye time than your speed speedometer does. I have my phone mounted on the dash for a simple reason, I want to know who is calling me. I limit who I take to when I'm driving. I'm not going to take work calls unless it's my boss and he's fine if I hang up on him if it's important. I'm going to take calls from my wife, because of the same. But if it's someone else, I ignore it unless I know it will be urgent and worth the risk of talking while driving. Yes, I use Bluetooth. But is talking on the phone that is dangerous, not if you are holding the phone. And the argument that she must have been distracted by the google glasses because she passed a cop while speeding. I'm sorry, but people get ticked for speeding every second in california without google glasses on.
coley 13y ago
Don't most patrol cars have laptops in them? Laptops that I usually see open and turned on, while the officer is driving? I don't care what kind of special training you have, a vehicle can still pull out in front of you in less time than it takes to look at a mirror, let alone a laptop screen. Yet police officers hand out expensive fines to citizens for doing the same. Bewildering.
- jmerton 13y ago
  "Emergency vehicles" are not required to obey the law. A friend of my was ticketed for "riding a bicycle on the sidewalk," by a police officer who was riding a bicycle on the sidewalk. The District Court ruled against my friend based on my first sentence. (True story, really.)
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
ktd 13y ago
Good. Wearing Google Glass while driving should be banned. The people using cell phones while driving are bad enough.
- V-2 13y ago
  Perhaps it should be banned, but it hasn't been banned yet. On what grounds did she get a ticket then?
shmerl 13y ago
There should be some level of distraction while driving wearing such device. It's not like a dedicated pilot's helmet, where the UI facilitates control over the plane. Here it's the opposite - it hinders it (to some degree).
hgibbs 13y ago
When someone has a head mounted display on, it is hard to tell whether they are paying attention to the display or to the outside world. That is essentially the issue here and I think that as the technology progresses this will only become more ambiguous. Drivers should have there full attention focused on the road and any ambiguity in the situation is unwanted from a law enforcement/ harm reduction perspective.
azifali 13y ago
I got ticketed for having a GPS attached to the centre of the screen. According to the cop, all devices that obstruct the view must be removed. So, GPS is permitted on an attachment on your dash or far left corner of the windshield. Google Glass is not a phone but an obstacle in view. Therefore, I guess that the cop decided that it should be ticketed. I think this ticket will be upheld in the court as well.
- mtdewcmu 13y ago
  I'm guessing that the cop wrote "Driving with Monitor visible to Driver" using that language because there's a law specifically against that. If so, she might as well just pay the ticket.
rdxm 13y ago
when you run over a pedestrian or cyclist because you are distracted, I suspect the outcome will be significantly more costly, like life-altering. The data on distracted driving is incontrovertible. If you can't bear to be without your g-glass, take the bus...
rdl 13y ago
Someone should pay for Jennifer Granick on this one, since she started her career defending vehicle things like DUIs, and also has the expertise in tech, which is probably a rare combination.
kayoone 13y ago
I am pretty sure wearing/using Glass while driving will be banned in germany pretty quickly if its gets popular. Texting while driving or talking on your phone while driving is simply banned. Even if you are not driving but the engine is running and you talk on the phone, you will get a ticket. The only thing you are allowed todo is using the speakers, but anything that takes your attention away from driving with visual information that is not related to operating your vehicle is problematic.
DigitalSea 13y ago
Unless a law to specifically disallow the use of Glass computing devices is passed, how is this cop in the right? Isn't Google Glass off unless activated which would mean you're just wearing a pair of glasses and wearing glasses is definitely not illegal while driving. Unless they can somehow prove you were using Google Glass while driving (which would be stupid in the first place) I don't see how this ticket is valid. Cecilia needs to fight this or it could set a dangerous precedent, Google needs to volunteer to pay for legal costs for her to fight the ticket, it would be in their best interests to do so.
tommoor 13y ago
Side note... almost every person in the comment thread on that page is wearing Glass in their profile picture rolleyes.
benjamincburns 13y ago
I love that the law in question has a specific exemption for satellite radio devices. Maybe instead of someone like the EFF getting involved, Google should just get with Sirius and ask to borrow their lobbying team/firm for a few hours.
GFischer 13y ago
She's Uruguayan, she had been demonstrating Google Glass here, so media is all over the thing :) She says they were not on while she was driving.
jheriko 13y ago
does anyone else notice that the person pulled said they were 'genuinely speeding'? as in they didn't notice the change in speed limit? personally i find the idea of that as an excuse pretty reprehensible. its a very reasonable step to assume that a computing device attached to your face is not going to help you pay attention to such things - this one data point supports that claim (it is still one data point, but this is the only safe conclusion to draw realistically). in these cases i think 'better safe than sorry' - you will get in trouble for reading a book, using your phone or even smoking a cigarette if it is distracting you from driving. Google Glass is nothing special in this regard - aside from its popularity amongst vocal hipsters on the internet. also, don't get me wrong, i am in favour of speeding - but i knowingly break the law when i do it and will have to live with the consequences... still curious to see how this plays out, but utterly convinced this is a case of 'your own stupid fault for doing something stupid'.

180 points by tga 13y ago

It would seem to comport with the law, as best I (as some random dude) can tell. You're not allowed to be looking at a computer or mobile device while you drive; Glass would seem to count.

simias 13y ago
As someone who commutes on a motorbike I'd even go further and say that it should be illegal. When you're driving you need to be focused on the road, not watching your friend's facebook wall. Hopefully soon enough we'll get fully automatic cars and this will be a problem of the past but in the meantime this seem the safest approach.
- kolinko 13y ago
  So, you'd like to have car dashboards illegal as well? First of all, Glass could've been turned off. Second of all, she could be using it for GPS and other things. Personally, as a driver, I'd prefer to have all my car information on some kind of a HMD, and not on the dashboard, where I have to look away from the road.
  - iamshs 13y ago
    Glass is directly obstructing the field of view. It is not a defensible position to be frank. If it is turned off, well and good, but still the "eyepiece" can cause problems like glare, reflection, transparency problems. If it is turned on, no matter for what purpose, then it is a distraction and a direct one. Why do you want your one organ that is keeping you safe on road, be bombarded with information other than the one in its periphery?
    - randallsquared 13y ago
      Your arguments are about as effective against sunglasses and other displays not directly in front of your eyes (others have already mentioned dashboards, but the HUDs projected on some windshields are a better analogy).
    - onebaddude 13y ago
      >but still the "eyepiece" can cause problems like glare, reflection, transparency problems. I'm going to go out on a limb and assume you don't drive much. I spend a lot of time on the road (60,000+km this year). There are a multitude of things to distract you behind the wheel, from eating, phones, stereos, day-dreaming, other drivers, nature, whatever. It's endless. If having a small eye piece is distracting to you, by all means don't wear one. But don't project your inability to maintain focus on all other drivers.
      - iamshs 13y ago
        A persistent illumination 2 inch in front of my eye, can be a major cause of distractin and fatigue though. Also glancing at phones do cause accidents. You are also projecting the ability to focus with an eye piece on, on all drivers. How about extensive testing before letting it on road?
        alexpalmer 13y ago
        The display is only on for a couple seconds at a time. I personally fall on the other side; why not extensively test before banning. We live in a society that jumps to conclusions. I believe we should have a proper understanding of something before deciding to make laws relating to it. What about the positive benefits. Also, do you really expect them to do the research after banning it? Look how long it has taken the FAA to even start reducing the ban on mobile devices.
        dllthomas 13y ago
        We already have laws relating to it - it's basically a mobile device. It's a special mobile device, and may deserve an exception, but it should be shown that it's less harmful than the other devices that were banned based on evidence.
  - simias 13y ago
    A special purpose HMD for GPS sounds great. A general purpose head mounted entertainment system that may or may not be used to display GPS along many other things while driving is a terrible idea.
  - termain 13y ago
    She's been cited, not convicted, so she's free to argue that it was off in court. The legality of her actions is not determined by the actions of the officer, particularly given that she cited, not arrested. Definitely agree with you that I'd prefer a HMD or HUD in general to look-down instrumentation.
- blackaspen 13y ago
  I absolutely agree. If you want to be distracted and watch some YouTube videos or whatnot, then public transit would love to have you.
  - icebraining 13y ago
    But she wasn't watching YouTube videos; the Glass was off. She was just wearing them. How is it any worse than wearing normal glasses? What happens if and when Glass-like devices become common and glasses-wearing people like me get them with prescription lenses?
    - blackaspen 13y ago
      I wear glasses as well, and I agree there. But how do you want to prove that Glass was off? Should your Glass report to the Police when it's on and off?
      - burntsushi 13y ago
        > But how do you want to prove that Glass was off? That's the wrong question. The right question is: How does law enforcement prove that Glass was distracting me? I shouldn't have to prove my innocence. They should have to prove my guilt.
        dllthomas 13y ago
        Standards are a bit lower for a civil infraction. Which isn't to say that this isn't a consideration, but is certainly to say that the situation is not the same as with a misdemeanor or felony the way our system currently works (and that is quite possibly appropriate).
        deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
        mindcrime 13y ago
- dllthomas 13y ago
  I'm sympathetic to that position, to be sure. What hesitation I have comes from potential legitimate uses (navigation, HUD for what would otherwise be on dash), and a mild leeriness around having to demonstrate that I am behaving correctly instead of simply behaving correctly. I'm not sure where I ultimately come down.
- davej 13y ago
  I am also a motorbike commuter and I was really looking forward to using the Google Glass for GPS navigation as I ride. It does not obstruct the main field of view, as far as I can tell it is very small and in the corner of your vision. It is surely more dangerous to look down at a GPS while riding a bike. I'm in Ireland and early indications make it look like it will be illegal to use while driving.
- reginaldjcooper 13y ago
  Agree 100%. Many persons are already far too cavalier about driving. In one of the last TSA threads a few people insisted that requiring a driver's license (also) unduly restricted freedom of travel, totally disregarding that driving is different from flying because you are operating heavy machinery in public. I think a single DWI should be an instant and permanent revocation. DW-Texting/Facebook should be at least a temporary revocation. Having a computer on your face is the same class of thing. If you're so important that you can risk other persons' lives to save your time you can afford to hire a taxi.
  - dllthomas 13y ago
    I don't understand being more lenient about DW-T/F than DWI, at least at a low BAC. It's comparably dangerous, and a lot harder to be mistaken. "Oops, I metabolize alcohol more slowly than I thought" vs. "Oops, I took my hands off the wheel, pulled out my phone...".
    - reginaldjcooper 13y ago
      Yeah, you could argue me over to your position quite easily. My thinking is it's less dangerous because you can put it down. But I'd be fine with taking licenses away for DWT.
      - dllthomas 13y ago
        Hm, I guess that's a point. If you're intoxicated, you're intoxicated at the most dangerous bit of your drive. If you're playing with your phone, you might be picking relatively safe times to do so (at an extreme, I've been known to check things on my phone if traffic is literally stopped).
  - yardie 13y ago
    I disagree. Most people need to drive to work and most people need to work to eat. Permanent revocation will just create more unlicensed, uninsured drivers. This has the unintended consequence of putting more burden on regular drivers (who pay hire premiums) and the state (which has to pay for incarceration). This is why California and Florida, places with high undocumented immigrant populations, have such high insurance rates. Not only am I paying a premium on my driving I'm also paying a premium on the guy not insured at all.
bpicolo 13y ago
California has always been strict with technology usage in cars, and with good reason. There's a large amount of research that concludes that distractions make the road many times more dangerous. It's pretty much that simple.

alayne 13y ago

Whether it's valid or not, something capable of projecting into your eye while you are driving seems like it is a potential danger. It is not the same as a monitor that is not directly in your line of vision or obstructing your view of the road. My question would be what this woman was doing that attracted the attention of the police in the first place.

RogerL 13y ago
She was speeding.
- bpicolo 13y ago
  First thing on the ticket it looks like, yep.
- iamshs 13y ago
  But she was also cited for a television screen in front of driver's view. The first citation was speeding, which probably is why she was stopped, and then she was issued second citation of driver's view obstruction by an entertainment device.
  - myko 13y ago
    Glass isn't an 'entertainment device'. Glass could potentially make us better drivers. One of the use cases we've looked at is wiring Glass up to alert drivers when someone is in their blind spot or someone is coming up too quickly behind them. This citation is bogus. It's safer to look at Glass for directions than my nav system, but you wont see me get ticketed for looking at my nav system.
    - iamshs 13y ago
      Glass is an entertainment device, just because it is HUD does not invalidate it having an audio visual feedback, complete with a camera. It is made for consumption, on a small and more personal scale. Glass could potentially make us worse drivers too. Satnav systems have guidelines issued for usage. Here, we are dealing with illumination directly 2 inch in front of my eye. I will go by your data, but would rather want California DMV to test it out comprehensively.

RogerL 13y ago

I really don't want people driving with Glass, even if it was turned off as she claims (how could a PO know?)

XorNot 13y ago
I really like it when people explain their statements, rather then just giving them. I for example would really like a million dollars.
kolinko 13y ago
How is it worse than a GPS screen on a dashboard? edit: if the PO cannot prove it was turned on, then there is such a thing as an assumption of innocence.
- iamshs 13y ago
  California or in general road driving laws don't mess around: http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d12/vc26708.htm http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d12/vc26708.htm 12) A portable Global Positioning System (GPS), which may be mounted in a seven-inch square in the lower corner of the windshield farthest removed from the driver or in a five-inch square in the lower corner of the windshield nearest to the driver and outside of an airbag deployment zone, if the system is used only for door-to-door navigation while the motor vehicle is being operated.
  - jlgreco 13y ago
    Seems like a law that would make driving with a GPS more dangerous for many people. When I use a GPS (either dedicated, or my phone), I place it in a pocket in my center console, down below my radio / AC controls. This prevents me from constantly looking at it, as I rely solely on it's TTS feature. I consider this to be much safer, though it sounds like in California it would be forbidden.
    - tedunangst 13y ago
      You've misinterpreted the law. It's not telling you where to put your GPS; it's telling you what manner of device you may mount on top of the dash.

ck2 13y ago

I really wish they would perfect a HUD display for cars that everyone wanted to use. I wonder how many deaths could be prevented. Oh that makes me remember that the Android app "Torque" has a nifty HUD mode that inverses the display on your phone to put speed, etc. on the windshield. I tried it once but my car doesn't have good angles for that.

blackaspen 13y ago
Exactly the same number of deaths as could be prevented by having a proper driver's education.
- dllthomas 13y ago
  I think you need to justify that claim.
- ck2 13y ago
  All the education in the world doesn't seem to overcome the belief that laws are for "everyone else". But even having to look down at your speedometer or odometer can be a problem at speed, considering how much distance you cover in half a second.
  - jack-r-abbit 13y ago
    Danger exists in more places than just in front of you. A proper driving education taught me to scan my whole surroundings while driving... not lock eyes with the road in front and never blink. I am not looking directly in front of me 100% of the time. I am looking front, left, right, behind, at instruments... and repeat (not exactly with any particular cadence). My eyes are always moving. Glancing at the speedo is such a minor part of it. Even with a full-on HUD, I'd still be looking left, right and behind. EDIT: when I say "looking behind" I mean the rear view mirror. I don't physically turn my head around to look behind me. That would not be comfortable.
  - coldarchon 13y ago
    >can be a problem at speed Then don't speed, drive safely.

MrDosu 13y ago

Do we really have to argue about not using entertainment video equipment while controlling over a ton of hyperaccelerated death through other peoples lives?

thaumasiotes 13y ago
Well, imagine that there were no laws pertaining to driving at all. Do you think people would just stop looking where they were going in favor of watching TV from the driver's seat? It's already been pointed out that CA law bans the driver from looking at a mobile phone. I assure you that's not making anyone any safer, because compliance is zero. What's the benefit of the law?
- dllthomas 13y ago
  "I assure you that's not making anyone any safer, because compliance is zero." That's a strong (and I believe false) claim. You think the number of instances of people wanting to look at their phones, and thinking "no, I might get ticketed, better not..." is zero? or no greater than the number of times people think "fuck the law, I'm going to look at my phone now because it's illegal when I wouldn't have otherwise!"? You don't think anyone has cut a cellphone conversation shorter partly because they didn't want a ticket? Compliance is well (well) below perfect, and it may be that the reduction isn't enough to merit added complexity and bureaucracy, but I would be flabbergasted if it hasn't at all reduced the time people spend interacting with devices while driving.
- outericky 13y ago
  I doubt compliance is zero. Driving around in other states, you easily see many more drivers yammering on or playing with phones. Police will stop and cite you in CA, so while not everyone complies, I'd bet the majority do. Or at least a higher percent than states without the laws.
- sanskritabelt 13y ago
  Looking at a mobile phone, or talking on one, is really freaking dangerous, and the police do enforce it.

Nate75Sanders 13y ago

More impetus for Google to hurry up and perfect self-driving cars.

hobbes300 13y ago

She should be ticketed for wearing Google Glass, regardless of whether she was driving or not.

gareim 13y ago

I got hit by a car a few months ago and painfully walked away. The car was turning and not even at a fast speed. My friend passed away a few weeks ago when she got hit by a truck. People forget just how much force is behind a vehicle moving at the speed limit. I think, I THINK, that maybe we can respect the value of a human life enough to put down our computers while we drive.

kolinko 13y ago
What if computers can help us drive? Imho it's less distracting to use GPS on Glass, than have to look down and off the road to find it.
- gareim 13y ago
  Set up a route beforehand. If for some reason you have to fiddle with GPS and it's distracting, then do what people did before GPS was around: pull over and figure out your bearings. EDIT: I don't want to come off as anti-tech in cars. I definitely believe that tech can enhance road safety, although I'm more looking forward to driverless cars. I do think that Glass is more distracting than normal GPS devices because Glass has the capability to do so much more than GPS. I don't totally trust people to only use the GPS function in Glass.
  - NoPiece 13y ago
    The same people who fiddle with gps while driving would be fumbling to unfold a map while driving. The technology isn't the issue.
    - marincounty 13y ago
      Good point! I am guilty of driving while looking at a map, and it definitely dangerous.
    - __david__ 13y ago
      Yes, I remember rifling through a Thomas Guide on a trip up the California coast back in the day and suddenly realizing I had changed lanes. Luckily there was no one next to me at the time…

j_s 13y ago

From the comments: > cited for speeding (80 in 65 zone) and passing a police vehicle while speeding Once you're pulled over they can throw the book at you.

dmckeon 13y ago
The citation element relevant to Glass appears to be: http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d12/vc27602.htm http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d12/vc27602.htm which partially reads: Television 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. (b) Subdivision (a) does not apply to the following equipment when installed in a vehicle: (1) A vehicle information display. (2) A global positioning display. (3) A mapping display. (4) A visual display used to enhance or supplement the driver's view forward, behind, or to the sides of a motor vehicle for the purpose of maneuvering the vehicle. (5) A television receiver, video monitor, television or video screen, or any other similar means of visually displaying a television broadcast or video signal, if that equipment satisfies one of the following requirements: (A) The equipment has an interlock device that, when the motor vehicle is driven, disables the equipment for all uses except as a visual display as described in paragraphs (1) to (4), inclusive. (B) The equipment is designed, operated, and configured in a manner that prevents the driver of the motor vehicle from viewing the television broadcast or video signal while operating the vehicle in a safe and reasonable manner. [ there is more regarding displays in vehicles operated by utility companies]

hangonhn 13y ago

I'm not generally a fan of Google Glass and skeptical of its future in the form it is today. However, I see a huge potential for it as a tool for cyclists, runners, etc. and ... drivers. It can potentially improve our awareness while we're driving. I have a HUD in my new car and it's amazing in its ability to make me constantly aware of my speed and navigation without taking my eyes off the road. This sort of idea isn't new because pilots of military helicopters and fighters have these. It improves awareness and safety. I hope the court allows this because making it flat out illegal to have a head mounted display would kill off innovations in this area, which could save lives. Maybe we can accept some compromises like a "car mode" for these device, etc. I don't know what the right answer is but I want the possibility for these devices in the car to be left open.

pseudometa 13y ago

As a user of Google Glass, driving with it is idiotic. It is great when walking or riding the bus/subway. Having anything except critical driving information such as speed presented in a Heads Up Display fashion is a distraction. Especially when going 80mph with other vehicles on the road. Book her!

alexeisadeski3 13y ago
>Having anything except critical driving information such as speed presented in a Heads Up Display fashion is a distraction The HUD is less distracting than the alternatives.
- EpicEng 13y ago
  You seem to be ignoring one alternative; no distractions whatsoever.
  - alexeisadeski3 13y ago
    In what universe are vehicles sold without dash mounted radios and nav systems? Those are dramatically more distracting than a HUD, as they require the user to avert their eyes from the road for use.
  - chc 13y ago
    I was recently shopping for a car, and I will tell you now, I did not see a single one that had a front seat with no displays or controls besides the steering wheel, pedals and speedometer.
    - sliverstorm 13y ago
      It's true, cars have headlight switches, tachometers, gas gauges and electronic mirror controls. The horror. The only devices that can actively command your attention are the gauges & lights in the instrument cluster (which are all important to driving safely) and possibly the screen on your radio. Speaking of which, I hated the old radio on my old car, because it was too bright and had too much activity on the display.

jack-r-abbit 13y ago

There seems to be some misguided or misinformed people in here. Or maybe people that just want to bend reality to fit their own. We have some people arguing that Glass is safer than traditional dash mounted GPS because with Glass you don't have to look away from the road like with a dash mounted GPS. But then you have other people arguing that it is safe because it doesn't block your view... it is in the upper right corner and you have to consciously look at it. I've never worn Glass... but my gut tells me that both of those arguments can't be right at the same time. Can they?

gohrt 13y ago

Glass could (perhaps should) be built so that its motion sensor system shuts it down or forced into GPS-only mode when operating at high speeds. Would be tricky for use on trains and airplanes, though (but is that an important use case?)

nknighthb 13y ago
Uh, WTF? What makes you think only the driver of a vehicle would ever be using Glass? And how are hours spent on transportation not an important use case for portable electronics?

ChuckMcM 13y ago

One wonders if this was staged. And by staged I mean if there was a note out to officers saying "If you pull over someone for a violation add this charge if they are wearing Google Glass." There are a bunch of unanswered questions (and by that I mean not yet litigated differences in opinion) with respect to glass. For example, if you're driving and you notice you are being tailed, and you say 'Glass record' and you look down at your speedometer, and up at your rear view mirror, and then record the entire traffic stop. Is that video admissible in court? There have been stories of police officers being less than truthful in how a stop occurred, video makes that harder. There is also the infamous 'resisting arrest' charge which people of various demographics feel is used when profiling to hassle them. So if you can get it on record that it is illegal to drive with Glass, then you make it more obvious if someone reaches over and puts on their glass when they get pulled over. Another question, is it a phone or not? It has a cellular connection capability so kind of. If its a phone are you 'texting' when it is showing text? Who knows, some would argue yes, some would argue no. Again, not yet litigated. All these things are going to come through the courts eventually if this product gets any traction. So did the CHP tell their officers to add this if they stopped someone? I don't know but I can't think of any reason an officer would try 'watching tv' as the infraction.

scrabble 13y ago
For example, if you're driving and you notice you are being tailed, and you say 'Glass record' and you look down at your speedometer, and up at your rear view mirror, and then record the entire traffic stop. Is that video admissible in court? I wouldn't think so. It's a very short distance from here to "notice you are being tailed, slow down, say 'Glass record'"
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
dctoedt 13y ago
> Is that video admissible in court? Yes, assuming the recording can be authenticated. Typically this is done by having the person who made the recording testify under oath, for example, that 1) she was there and witnessed what happened; 2) she made the video recording (explaining how); and 3)the video recording is an accurate representation of she witnessed. This is a routine practice in trials, mainly with respect to photographs [1] but also videos such as surveillance recordings [2]. [1] http://apps.americanbar.org/lpm/lpt/articles/tch06061.shtml http://apps.americanbar.org/lpm/lpt/articles/tch06061.shtml [2] http://goo.gl/awjn8V http://goo.gl/awjn8V

nosage 13y ago

Did California outlaw billboards too? How about road signs? As a Glass owner they provide the same distraction as eye glasses, virtually none. Billboards and signs take your eye off the road, not an 'off' Glass.

fourstar 13y ago
Yeah for like a split second (even if that). Do you actually hold a conversation with and/or get immersed in a billboard?

xacaxulu 13y ago

Tickets for wearing them while driving is a good start, but when are we going to start cracking down on GlassHoles in public?

woofyman 13y ago
I saw my first Google Glass wearer in public. It looked ridiculous to me.

btbuildem 13y ago

Wow, her feed is such an echo chamber.. pretty much everyone's profile pic there features them wearing Glass. She passed a cop doing 80 in a 65, I wonder what was so distracting that you'd miss a cruiser one lane over..

the_watcher 13y ago
People miss them all the time, while not wearing Glass.
guyzero 13y ago
Doing 80 in a 65 is the entirety of the 101 and 280, outside of rush hour, when it's 20 in a 65.
- ZanyProgrammer 13y ago
  That's the bog standard response when anyone gets pulled over for speeding.
  - Sambdala 13y ago
    And the reason for that response is that US speed limits tend to be unreasonably low for a given road when driving a modern car.
    - ZanyProgrammer 13y ago
      And I suppose like every good software engineer on HN, you are an expert in civil and transportation engineering?
      - sp332 13y ago
        What's engineering got to do with it? Maximum speed limits are set by law, not by science. Heck, sometimes road engineers push for higher speed limits. http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2011/09/be-safe-break-the-law.html http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2011/09/be-...

outside1234 13y ago

Thank you CHP! I think completely makes sense - its illegal to mount a video screen on your dash, so why should it be legal to have over your eye?

lawnchair_larry 13y ago
No it isn't.
- epmatsw 13y ago
  Yes, it is, unless the TV meets the following requirements: (A) The equipment has an interlock device that, when the motor vehicle is driven, disables the equipment for all uses except as a visual display as described in paragraphs (1) to (4), inclusive. (B) The equipment is designed, operated, and configured in a manner that prevents the driver of the motor vehicle from viewing the television broadcast or video signal while operating the vehicle in a safe and reasonable manner.
  - lawnchair_larry 13y ago
    Right, so as I said, it's not illegal to have a screen on your dash.

joshfraser 13y ago

I bet Google will pull some of their lawyers on this. The precedent that will be set by cases like this is pretty important for their technology especially while it's in its infancy.

camus2 13y ago
to do what ? it's not Google's problem,it's the glass user's problem.
- alayne 13y ago
  Google wants to maximize the size of their market.

brudgers 13y ago

Passed a cruiser while speeding. To those saying Glass is not a distraction: sarcasm is the lowest form of wit.

qq66 13y ago
What's the highest form of wit?
- scott_s 13y ago
  Brevity.

tripngroove 13y ago

Good! A person operating a moving vehicle should have 100% of their attention focused on the road. I have yet to see an argument to the contrary that doesn't attempt to rationalize unsafe behavior. Any device that actively creates distractions occluding a person's field of vision should be prohibited while driving.

RuggeroAltair 13y ago
This is a pretty silly statement, because it implies that what someone could do with google glass they don't normally already do. What about a TomTom? Is that illegal? Is it better to look at its screen wherever you positioned it in the car? What about billboards? Aren't they there to catch your attention while driving? Are they illegal? What about checking your speedometer or the gas level, or gas mileage? In the future things like google glass or even active screens/windshields will be more and more able to show the same information and more, without necessarily implying any unsafe behavior on the road.
mikeash 13y ago
Do you think that drivers should avoid listening to the radio? Should they pull off the road before manipulating their heater? Windshield wipers? I ask because I kind of doubt you truly mean "100%", but you insult anyone going for anything less.
- oftenwrong 13y ago
  >Do you think that drivers should avoid listening to the radio? Yes, radios are distracting and therefore dangerous, especially if drivers take their eyes off of the road to adjust the controls. >Should they pull off the road before manipulating their heater? Windshield wipers? No. It is often necessary to adjust windshield wipers and climate control systems to ensure safety, and sometimes those adjustments must be made in situations where pulling off the road is unsafe or impossible. For example, if it starts pouring rain while on a narrow bridge (no way to pull over), you will need the wipers to keep the windshield clear. The heater can be used to de-fog.
  - 13y ago

ranman 13y ago

Am I the only one who is against litigation? On the off chance that we lost it would be annoying to be legally forbidden from using these devices while driving. I would just pay the ticket (which I assume is ~90$).

sanskritabelt 13y ago
Actually I hope she sues and loses.
crpatino 13y ago
As long as you agree to make hitting someone while wearing glass == 2nd degree murder.
- alexpalmer 13y ago
  You would have to prove that glass was the cause which I believe you would find hard. While inactive they're no more distracting than a pair of regular glasses and while using them for navigation they're significantly less distracting than using a traditional GPS.

Zoomla 13y ago

Your cellphone usage should be automatically linked to your car's GPS data and automatically bill you every time you use it while driving ? this is not that hard, I am sure the NSA already has all that data

jlgreco 13y ago
Have you ever heard of this new thing called "passengers"? They're all the rage these days.
- Zoomla 13y ago
  sorry I was a little sarcastic... but for passengers, they can always contest their tickets later... just like they have to do with red-light camera tickets.

diceless 13y ago

Lets ignore Google Glass for a moment and realize what she was ticketed for and how it will affect anyone with a cell phone in California. She was ticked for having a display that could show non-car related information somewhere within her field of view. Any person that has there cell phone on their center console could be ticketed under the same law. Have your cell phone mounted on your dash, your just asking for a ticket if this goes through. Cops will give whatever ticket they can because they know part of that ticket will go to their department and pay for extras they like to have. More tickets, more overtime they get to have. I fully agree, driving while distracted it bad. Very bad. But to my knowledge they haven't outlawed drinking coffee or eating yet in the car. Far more dangerous than being responsible and having your phone mounted in a place were it doesn't take anymore eye time than your speed speedometer does. I have my phone mounted on the dash for a simple reason, I want to know who is calling me. I limit who I take to when I'm driving. I'm not going to take work calls unless it's my boss and he's fine if I hang up on him if it's important. I'm going to take calls from my wife, because of the same. But if it's someone else, I ignore it unless I know it will be urgent and worth the risk of talking while driving. Yes, I use Bluetooth. But is talking on the phone that is dangerous, not if you are holding the phone. And the argument that she must have been distracted by the google glasses because she passed a cop while speeding. I'm sorry, but people get ticked for speeding every second in california without google glasses on.

coley 13y ago

Don't most patrol cars have laptops in them? Laptops that I usually see open and turned on, while the officer is driving? I don't care what kind of special training you have, a vehicle can still pull out in front of you in less time than it takes to look at a mirror, let alone a laptop screen. Yet police officers hand out expensive fines to citizens for doing the same. Bewildering.

jmerton 13y ago
"Emergency vehicles" are not required to obey the law. A friend of my was ticketed for "riding a bicycle on the sidewalk," by a police officer who was riding a bicycle on the sidewalk. The District Court ruled against my friend based on my first sentence. (True story, really.)

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

ktd 13y ago

Good. Wearing Google Glass while driving should be banned. The people using cell phones while driving are bad enough.

V-2 13y ago
Perhaps it should be banned, but it hasn't been banned yet. On what grounds did she get a ticket then?

shmerl 13y ago

There should be some level of distraction while driving wearing such device. It's not like a dedicated pilot's helmet, where the UI facilitates control over the plane. Here it's the opposite - it hinders it (to some degree).

hgibbs 13y ago

When someone has a head mounted display on, it is hard to tell whether they are paying attention to the display or to the outside world. That is essentially the issue here and I think that as the technology progresses this will only become more ambiguous. Drivers should have there full attention focused on the road and any ambiguity in the situation is unwanted from a law enforcement/ harm reduction perspective.

azifali 13y ago

I got ticketed for having a GPS attached to the centre of the screen. According to the cop, all devices that obstruct the view must be removed. So, GPS is permitted on an attachment on your dash or far left corner of the windshield. Google Glass is not a phone but an obstacle in view. Therefore, I guess that the cop decided that it should be ticketed. I think this ticket will be upheld in the court as well.

mtdewcmu 13y ago
I'm guessing that the cop wrote "Driving with Monitor visible to Driver" using that language because there's a law specifically against that. If so, she might as well just pay the ticket.

rdxm 13y ago

when you run over a pedestrian or cyclist because you are distracted, I suspect the outcome will be significantly more costly, like life-altering. The data on distracted driving is incontrovertible. If you can't bear to be without your g-glass, take the bus...

rdl 13y ago

Someone should pay for Jennifer Granick on this one, since she started her career defending vehicle things like DUIs, and also has the expertise in tech, which is probably a rare combination.

kayoone 13y ago

I am pretty sure wearing/using Glass while driving will be banned in germany pretty quickly if its gets popular. Texting while driving or talking on your phone while driving is simply banned. Even if you are not driving but the engine is running and you talk on the phone, you will get a ticket. The only thing you are allowed todo is using the speakers, but anything that takes your attention away from driving with visual information that is not related to operating your vehicle is problematic.

DigitalSea 13y ago

Unless a law to specifically disallow the use of Glass computing devices is passed, how is this cop in the right? Isn't Google Glass off unless activated which would mean you're just wearing a pair of glasses and wearing glasses is definitely not illegal while driving. Unless they can somehow prove you were using Google Glass while driving (which would be stupid in the first place) I don't see how this ticket is valid. Cecilia needs to fight this or it could set a dangerous precedent, Google needs to volunteer to pay for legal costs for her to fight the ticket, it would be in their best interests to do so.

tommoor 13y ago

Side note... almost every person in the comment thread on that page is wearing Glass in their profile picture rolleyes.

benjamincburns 13y ago

I love that the law in question has a specific exemption for satellite radio devices. Maybe instead of someone like the EFF getting involved, Google should just get with Sirius and ask to borrow their lobbying team/firm for a few hours.

GFischer 13y ago

She's Uruguayan, she had been demonstrating Google Glass here, so media is all over the thing :) She says they were not on while she was driving.

jheriko 13y ago

does anyone else notice that the person pulled said they were 'genuinely speeding'? as in they didn't notice the change in speed limit? personally i find the idea of that as an excuse pretty reprehensible. its a very reasonable step to assume that a computing device attached to your face is not going to help you pay attention to such things - this one data point supports that claim (it is still one data point, but this is the only safe conclusion to draw realistically). in these cases i think 'better safe than sorry' - you will get in trouble for reading a book, using your phone or even smoking a cigarette if it is distracting you from driving. Google Glass is nothing special in this regard - aside from its popularity amongst vocal hipsters on the internet. also, don't get me wrong, i am in favour of speeding - but i knowingly break the law when i do it and will have to live with the consequences... still curious to see how this plays out, but utterly convinced this is a case of 'your own stupid fault for doing something stupid'.