9 ms·

California woman who drove with Google Glass beats traffic ticket

62 points by kjhughes 13y ago

bedhead 13y ago
If this works, why isn't this same argument used for challenging tickets for using a phone while driving? All the same logic still applies.
- pmorici 13y ago
  Because if you are holding a phone to your ear you are by definition using it. Glasses could be just hanging out on your head though. Perhaps if you drove around with your phone strapped to your head with a sweat band you could make the same argument.
  - bedhead 13y ago
    No, I could be holding it to my ear despite it being turned off, as stupid as that sounds. The point is, in the case of the phone, the officer never has proof that the phone was on. And if driving with Glass while it's on is illegal, shouldn't those dash mounts for phones be illegal too??
    - cbr 13y ago
      No, I could be holding it to my ear despite it being turned off, as stupid as that sounds. The point is, in the case of the phone, the officer never has proof that the phone was on. It is customary to wear Glass with the screen off but not to do the equivalent with a phone. The law is not like software; the judge can consider the case and make the sensible ruling.
    - kps 13y ago
      > in the case of the phone, the officer never has proof that the phone was on. The phone company does.
      - Karunamon 13y ago
        No, the phone company has evidence that it communicated with tower within some period of time. The phone could still be powered up in a disconnected state, or communicating with the same tower before the driver got into the car, or.. (insert 20 other possible mitigating circumstances) It's not that simple. Which is one of the reasons it's a good thing this was dismissed.
        iends 13y ago
        Well, his implication was that if you're talking on the phone to somebody the phone company knows (or if you just sent a text, for example).
        vacri 13y ago
        The expense of pulling phone records will outweigh the traffic ticket anyway, and neither party would be particularly interested in going that way.
      - gaius 13y ago
        So does the NSA.
    - davorak 13y ago
      It is the distraction to driving that illegal. All forms of distracted driving are illegal, at least that is my understanding of the law in Colorado and Texas USA. So purposely taking 2 second blinks, driving with one of two good eyes closed, driving with your knees, etc is a ticketable offense. Driving while holding a phone to your ear would fall into this category. Wearing google glass while off does not seem to. Additional laws exist probably to increase the fine or the ease of enforcement of various distractions like using a phone.
Zikes 13y ago
> Odle said he had not been planning to cite Abadie for wearing Google Glass, but that he did so because of her reaction to his questions. "She got a little argumentative about whether or not it was legal for her to wear them," he said. At first this sounded pretty vindictive, as though I could hear the officer ending the argument with "fine, we'll let the judge decide!" But after a little thought that sounds like a rather reasonable reaction. Clearly there was some confusion about the legality and technically it did qualify as a "monitor", so some sort of legal precedent would be necessary to adequately end that argument, and the only way to get it into the courts was to issue a citation.
- martypitt 13y ago
  I think you're giving the officer a very generous amount of "benefit of the doubt". He didn't say "I wasn't sure about the legality, so I referred it to a judge", rather saying he cited her because she got argumentative. ie., "Don't challenge me if you disagree, otherwise I'll treat you as though you've broken the law." That's pretty crappy behaviour on the officer's behalf IMHO.
  - Pxtl 13y ago
    Yeah, sounds like Contempt of Cop.
  - Karunamon 13y ago
    Pretty typical, unfortunately..
  - droopybuns 13y ago
    If we have to choose between a cop and a glasshole for douchebaggery, we all lose.
  - EpicEng 13y ago
    If you're going to argue with someone who has the power to make your life difficult then, well, prepare for your life to get a bit more difficult. The cop didn't do anything illegal. Under the law I believe he can cite her (the whole "monitor" thing), but he has discretion. The law is a bit vague, enforcement will be up to the judge. Regardless, it sounds like she was argumentative. That's fine, but accept the consequences. Like I said, he is free to cite her, and I don't necessarily blame him for doing so given what I've read.
dhruvmittal 13y ago
Some research needs to be done on how distracting Glass is to drivers. I'm particularly interested in comparing the distraction caused by using Glass to navigate compared to the typical built-in navigation systems that ship with most cars today. I suspect that Glass would beat out the Garmins and Tomtoms.
- ben1040 13y ago
  If you're using Glass for navigation, it generally stays out of the way. If you're approaching a turn you're due to make, it will beep at you and a voice will tell you what to do. Only at that point does the screen come on, and displays a fairly simple map drawing. Once you take the turn, the screen fades off. If you're wearing Glass properly, the screen is also up at an angle above your eye. If you're sitting in the driver's seat of a vehicle and looking forward, the display would be about at the area where your sun visor would be if it were flipped down over the top of your windshield.
- vacri 13y ago
  Giving our office's Glass to people to test, they're so distracted that they'll walk into things. Sometimes these things are pillars clearly visible at eye level. I personally hate the idea of drivers wearing these things. My undergraduate was in psychology, neurophysiology, and hence I've been formally trained in attention and perception - I've got a better idea than layfolk on how these are compromised, though I'm not a professional in the field. In my opinion, the Glass is a significant attentional split - which is bad for driving. One example: say voice control is working fine (it doesn't always). You still have to take your eyes off the road, target a small reticle, make sure the glass is responding correctly. Even after that, there's still issues like just having a phone call in the car, which regardless of the device is a driving-performance-reducing attentional split. Glass really, really impresses me as a technological feat; as a product I think it's a solution looking for a problem; and as a social phenomenon, I think it's quite dangerous when mixed with common activities like driving.
  - chii 13y ago
    i expect driving to become automated sooner or later tho. I think human driving is the major cause of accidents, and automating it is really the best way to save lives, create better traffic conditions for smoother transportation, and also relieve the time required for the driver, so that other activities can be engaged. Think about the avg hourly commute to work - how useful would it be if that time could be used for something else!
sheetjs 13y ago
> Blair also dismissed a speeding ticket against Abadie, because an expert did not appear to testify to the calibration on the officer's speedometer. Blair said there was a lack of evidence to establish Abadie's driving speed. This still happens? I thought it was pretty standard for officers to calibrate and maintain written records (at least, it's standard in new york)
- sahaskatta 13y ago
  Similar situation happened to me 2 years ago and I was dismissed in part because of the lack of evidence to back the calibration of a radar gun. Link: http://skatter.com/2011/02/how-my-smart-phone-got-me-out-of-a-speeding-ticket-in-traffic-court/ http://skatter.com/2011/02/how-my-smart-phone-got-me-out-of-...
- bagels 13y ago
  Most people just pay regardless, so it's not really a priority for them to keep calibrations up to date, or to show up for court. It's pretty easy to win a speeding ticket case this way.
whalesalad 13y ago
Highway Patrol Officer Keith Odle testified that he estimated Abadie had been driving her Toyota Prius at 85 miles per hour (137 km/h) in a 65 mph (105 km/h) zone when he pulled her over. Case dismissed. Oh and Officer you're being suspended without pay for falsifying evidence, everyone knows a Prius can't go that fast.
- was_hellbanned 13y ago
  "Woz gets $700 speeding ticket for doing 104 MPH in Toyota Prius" (http://macdailynews.com/2007/08/21/woz_gets_700_speeding_ticket_for_doing_104_mph_in_toyota_prius/ http://macdailynews.com/2007/08/21/woz_gets_700_speeding_tic...)
  - eps 13y ago
    That's no stock firmware.
- bagels 13y ago
  Google says that the top speed for a Prius is 112. There are few if any cars that can't reach 85 mph sold in the last decade in California.
- jmspring 13y ago
  I've been lectured by the wife for driving her pod car...err...prius at speeds she doesn't appreciate. That speed was somewhere between said post and what Woz was cited for. It it possible, though in general they prefer to stay in the #1 lane at below the posted speed limit.
- viraptor 13y ago
  No. You can easily do over 100mph.
geetee 13y ago
How is the Glass' HUD any different than the ones that get projected on windshields?[1] [1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCTrsQaiD-0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCTrsQaiD-0
- btgeekboy 13y ago
  Glass will play, amongst other things, video. It doesn't have the built in protections that video-playing car stereos have for not showing video while the vehicle is in motion.
- Crito 13y ago
  Glass does not provide a HUD. It is more like gluing a smartphone to your rear view mirror.
m_mueller 13y ago
Does Google Glass have some visible indicator whether it's on, similar to webcams? If not I think this should be added as soon as possible, in fact I believe it should be the law for any video camera switched on in public places.
- vacri 13y ago
  You can see that there's an image on the glass if you're facing the user, but you have to be fairly close.
tgraham 13y ago
She didn't beat a ticket; the state had no evidence to present to the court that proved she'd done any thing wrong; a neat side step by the judge.
xiongwei_13 13y ago
So, must used Google Glass with Google Driverless Car.
guydropingout 13y ago
Wow!
NameNickHN 13y ago
> Developers are already crafting apps [..] Sounds grand if you phrase it like that.
sushirain 13y ago
You can't use a monitor while driving? The law says it's legal to use a mapping display while driving in California: http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d12/vc27602.htm http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d12/vc27602.htm
olalonde 13y ago
In the future, people will pay a few cents to upload a hash of their video into the Bitcoin blockchain to prove the video was taken before a given date.
- sentenza 13y ago
  Seriously. That is an interesting application of bitcoin. Does that work with Bitcoin, or would it be neccessary to construct another "Coin" specifically for that purpose? I'm highly sceptical of Bitcoin as currency, since there are so many conflicts between the technical properties of Bitcoin and the economics of currencies, but de-centralized verification of events and dates? _That_ sounds interesting.
  - olalonde 13y ago
    It's actual possible today: http://www.proofofexistence.com/ http://www.proofofexistence.com/. It should work with other forks of Bitcoin as well.
Tehnix 13y ago
> "As a hands-free device it is safer than a cell phone." According to studies[0] hands-free devices aren't as safe as you'd think. I can't argue whether they are safer, but at least "safer" isn't just enough in itself to justify it. Also, from personal experience I have to agree with the study. The fact that my one hand is either up against my ear holding a device, or if the device is lying somewhere; the former doesn't require much extra of my attention than the latter. It is the talking and thinking of different things itself that takes away my attention from the road. Not saying one can't talk and drive (it's quite easy), but since the line is already drawn, it has to be uphold. I haven't personally tried Google Glass', but could imagine it interferes with your vision a bit. It might be necessary for this to be subject for investigation as to the legality in the future. [0] http://unews.utah.edu/news_releases/hands-free-talking-texting-are-unsafe/ http://unews.utah.edu/news_releases/hands-free-talking-texti...

62 points by kjhughes 13y ago

If this works, why isn't this same argument used for challenging tickets for using a phone while driving? All the same logic still applies.

pmorici 13y ago
Because if you are holding a phone to your ear you are by definition using it. Glasses could be just hanging out on your head though. Perhaps if you drove around with your phone strapped to your head with a sweat band you could make the same argument.
- bedhead 13y ago
  No, I could be holding it to my ear despite it being turned off, as stupid as that sounds. The point is, in the case of the phone, the officer never has proof that the phone was on. And if driving with Glass while it's on is illegal, shouldn't those dash mounts for phones be illegal too??
  - cbr 13y ago
    No, I could be holding it to my ear despite it being turned off, as stupid as that sounds. The point is, in the case of the phone, the officer never has proof that the phone was on. It is customary to wear Glass with the screen off but not to do the equivalent with a phone. The law is not like software; the judge can consider the case and make the sensible ruling.
  - kps 13y ago
    > in the case of the phone, the officer never has proof that the phone was on. The phone company does.
    - Karunamon 13y ago
      No, the phone company has evidence that it communicated with tower within some period of time. The phone could still be powered up in a disconnected state, or communicating with the same tower before the driver got into the car, or.. (insert 20 other possible mitigating circumstances) It's not that simple. Which is one of the reasons it's a good thing this was dismissed.
      - iends 13y ago
        Well, his implication was that if you're talking on the phone to somebody the phone company knows (or if you just sent a text, for example).
      - vacri 13y ago
        The expense of pulling phone records will outweigh the traffic ticket anyway, and neither party would be particularly interested in going that way.
    - gaius 13y ago
      So does the NSA.
  - davorak 13y ago
    It is the distraction to driving that illegal. All forms of distracted driving are illegal, at least that is my understanding of the law in Colorado and Texas USA. So purposely taking 2 second blinks, driving with one of two good eyes closed, driving with your knees, etc is a ticketable offense. Driving while holding a phone to your ear would fall into this category. Wearing google glass while off does not seem to. Additional laws exist probably to increase the fine or the ease of enforcement of various distractions like using a phone.

Zikes 13y ago

> Odle said he had not been planning to cite Abadie for wearing Google Glass, but that he did so because of her reaction to his questions. "She got a little argumentative about whether or not it was legal for her to wear them," he said. At first this sounded pretty vindictive, as though I could hear the officer ending the argument with "fine, we'll let the judge decide!" But after a little thought that sounds like a rather reasonable reaction. Clearly there was some confusion about the legality and technically it did qualify as a "monitor", so some sort of legal precedent would be necessary to adequately end that argument, and the only way to get it into the courts was to issue a citation.

martypitt 13y ago
I think you're giving the officer a very generous amount of "benefit of the doubt". He didn't say "I wasn't sure about the legality, so I referred it to a judge", rather saying he cited her because she got argumentative. ie., "Don't challenge me if you disagree, otherwise I'll treat you as though you've broken the law." That's pretty crappy behaviour on the officer's behalf IMHO.
- Pxtl 13y ago
  Yeah, sounds like Contempt of Cop.
- Karunamon 13y ago
  Pretty typical, unfortunately..
- droopybuns 13y ago
  If we have to choose between a cop and a glasshole for douchebaggery, we all lose.
- EpicEng 13y ago
  If you're going to argue with someone who has the power to make your life difficult then, well, prepare for your life to get a bit more difficult. The cop didn't do anything illegal. Under the law I believe he can cite her (the whole "monitor" thing), but he has discretion. The law is a bit vague, enforcement will be up to the judge. Regardless, it sounds like she was argumentative. That's fine, but accept the consequences. Like I said, he is free to cite her, and I don't necessarily blame him for doing so given what I've read.

dhruvmittal 13y ago

Some research needs to be done on how distracting Glass is to drivers. I'm particularly interested in comparing the distraction caused by using Glass to navigate compared to the typical built-in navigation systems that ship with most cars today. I suspect that Glass would beat out the Garmins and Tomtoms.

ben1040 13y ago
If you're using Glass for navigation, it generally stays out of the way. If you're approaching a turn you're due to make, it will beep at you and a voice will tell you what to do. Only at that point does the screen come on, and displays a fairly simple map drawing. Once you take the turn, the screen fades off. If you're wearing Glass properly, the screen is also up at an angle above your eye. If you're sitting in the driver's seat of a vehicle and looking forward, the display would be about at the area where your sun visor would be if it were flipped down over the top of your windshield.
vacri 13y ago
Giving our office's Glass to people to test, they're so distracted that they'll walk into things. Sometimes these things are pillars clearly visible at eye level. I personally hate the idea of drivers wearing these things. My undergraduate was in psychology, neurophysiology, and hence I've been formally trained in attention and perception - I've got a better idea than layfolk on how these are compromised, though I'm not a professional in the field. In my opinion, the Glass is a significant attentional split - which is bad for driving. One example: say voice control is working fine (it doesn't always). You still have to take your eyes off the road, target a small reticle, make sure the glass is responding correctly. Even after that, there's still issues like just having a phone call in the car, which regardless of the device is a driving-performance-reducing attentional split. Glass really, really impresses me as a technological feat; as a product I think it's a solution looking for a problem; and as a social phenomenon, I think it's quite dangerous when mixed with common activities like driving.
- chii 13y ago
  i expect driving to become automated sooner or later tho. I think human driving is the major cause of accidents, and automating it is really the best way to save lives, create better traffic conditions for smoother transportation, and also relieve the time required for the driver, so that other activities can be engaged. Think about the avg hourly commute to work - how useful would it be if that time could be used for something else!

sheetjs 13y ago

> Blair also dismissed a speeding ticket against Abadie, because an expert did not appear to testify to the calibration on the officer's speedometer. Blair said there was a lack of evidence to establish Abadie's driving speed. This still happens? I thought it was pretty standard for officers to calibrate and maintain written records (at least, it's standard in new york)

sahaskatta 13y ago
Similar situation happened to me 2 years ago and I was dismissed in part because of the lack of evidence to back the calibration of a radar gun. Link: http://skatter.com/2011/02/how-my-smart-phone-got-me-out-of-a-speeding-ticket-in-traffic-court/ http://skatter.com/2011/02/how-my-smart-phone-got-me-out-of-...
bagels 13y ago
Most people just pay regardless, so it's not really a priority for them to keep calibrations up to date, or to show up for court. It's pretty easy to win a speeding ticket case this way.

whalesalad 13y ago

Highway Patrol Officer Keith Odle testified that he estimated Abadie had been driving her Toyota Prius at 85 miles per hour (137 km/h) in a 65 mph (105 km/h) zone when he pulled her over. Case dismissed. Oh and Officer you're being suspended without pay for falsifying evidence, everyone knows a Prius can't go that fast.

was_hellbanned 13y ago
"Woz gets $700 speeding ticket for doing 104 MPH in Toyota Prius" (http://macdailynews.com/2007/08/21/woz_gets_700_speeding_ticket_for_doing_104_mph_in_toyota_prius/ http://macdailynews.com/2007/08/21/woz_gets_700_speeding_tic...)
- eps 13y ago
  That's no stock firmware.
bagels 13y ago
Google says that the top speed for a Prius is 112. There are few if any cars that can't reach 85 mph sold in the last decade in California.
jmspring 13y ago
I've been lectured by the wife for driving her pod car...err...prius at speeds she doesn't appreciate. That speed was somewhere between said post and what Woz was cited for. It it possible, though in general they prefer to stay in the #1 lane at below the posted speed limit.
viraptor 13y ago
No. You can easily do over 100mph.

geetee 13y ago

How is the Glass' HUD any different than the ones that get projected on windshields?[1] [1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCTrsQaiD-0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCTrsQaiD-0

btgeekboy 13y ago
Glass will play, amongst other things, video. It doesn't have the built in protections that video-playing car stereos have for not showing video while the vehicle is in motion.
Crito 13y ago
Glass does not provide a HUD. It is more like gluing a smartphone to your rear view mirror.

m_mueller 13y ago

Does Google Glass have some visible indicator whether it's on, similar to webcams? If not I think this should be added as soon as possible, in fact I believe it should be the law for any video camera switched on in public places.

vacri 13y ago
You can see that there's an image on the glass if you're facing the user, but you have to be fairly close.

tgraham 13y ago

She didn't beat a ticket; the state had no evidence to present to the court that proved she'd done any thing wrong; a neat side step by the judge.

xiongwei_13 13y ago

So, must used Google Glass with Google Driverless Car.

guydropingout 13y ago

Wow!

NameNickHN 13y ago

> Developers are already crafting apps [..] Sounds grand if you phrase it like that.

sushirain 13y ago

You can't use a monitor while driving? The law says it's legal to use a mapping display while driving in California: http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d12/vc27602.htm http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d12/vc27602.htm

olalonde 13y ago

In the future, people will pay a few cents to upload a hash of their video into the Bitcoin blockchain to prove the video was taken before a given date.

sentenza 13y ago
Seriously. That is an interesting application of bitcoin. Does that work with Bitcoin, or would it be neccessary to construct another "Coin" specifically for that purpose? I'm highly sceptical of Bitcoin as currency, since there are so many conflicts between the technical properties of Bitcoin and the economics of currencies, but de-centralized verification of events and dates? _That_ sounds interesting.
- olalonde 13y ago
  It's actual possible today: http://www.proofofexistence.com/ http://www.proofofexistence.com/. It should work with other forks of Bitcoin as well.

Tehnix 13y ago

> "As a hands-free device it is safer than a cell phone." According to studies[0] hands-free devices aren't as safe as you'd think. I can't argue whether they are safer, but at least "safer" isn't just enough in itself to justify it. Also, from personal experience I have to agree with the study. The fact that my one hand is either up against my ear holding a device, or if the device is lying somewhere; the former doesn't require much extra of my attention than the latter. It is the talking and thinking of different things itself that takes away my attention from the road. Not saying one can't talk and drive (it's quite easy), but since the line is already drawn, it has to be uphold. I haven't personally tried Google Glass', but could imagine it interferes with your vision a bit. It might be necessary for this to be subject for investigation as to the legality in the future. [0] http://unews.utah.edu/news_releases/hands-free-talking-texting-are-unsafe/ http://unews.utah.edu/news_releases/hands-free-talking-texti...