Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Google Glass User Fights Speeding Ticket, Saying She's Defending the Future

samzenpus posted about 9 months ago | from the fight-the-power dept.

Google 464

Nerval's Lobster writes "A California software developer dubbed an explorer by Google and a scofflaw by the California Highway Patrol appeared in court to fight over the purpose and usage of wearable electronics. Cecilia Abadie denies she was doing 80 mph in a 65 mph zone when she was pulled over by the CHP Oct. 29 of last year, but proudly admits wearing her early edition of Google's Google Glass augmented-reality goggles. She just doesn't agree with the CHP's contention that Google Glass is a television. Abadie, who works at virtual-reality sports software developer Full Swing Golf and was one of the first 'explorers' chosen by Google as early testers of Google Glass before they were released, wears the goggles for as long as 12 hours per day, using them both as a way to pull email, driving directions and other information into her view and to push pictures, Tweets, updates and other information out to professional and social networks in a process she describes as 'living in transparency.' The California Highway Patrol, unfortunately for Abadie, considered wearing Google Glass to be the same as watching television while driving. One of the two citations Abadie was given was for speeding; the other was for 'driving with a monitor visible in violation of California Vehicle Code 27602.' Fighting that perception in court is 'a big responsibility for me and also for the judge who is going to interpret a very old law compared with how fast technology is changing,' Abadie told the Associated Press for a Jan. 16 story." A court commissioner in San Diego dismissed the Google Glass ticket, saying he could find no evidence that the device was in use while Abadie was driving.

cancel ×

464 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Reinforcing the term (5, Funny)

jmhobrien (2750125) | about 9 months ago | (#45982127)

glasshole.

slash-hole (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45982141)

1. WTF is this slashdot datacenter bullshit?
2. Was the broad speeding?

Re:Reinforcing the term (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45982199)

That's nothing. Just last week I beat a ticket for wearing an Occulus Rift while doing 90 in a school zone in Florida. Told the judge that the cop was a "faggot" (a very specific piece of legal jargon) and he agreed, so I got off free. So forget this bitch, I'm the defender of the future. I'm plan on raise awareness on this subject, so please feel free to donate some money this way.

Re:Reinforcing the term (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45982403)

You mean there are cops on Harleys now?

Re:Reinforcing the term (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45982429)

Yeah, well I was in Texas and I got 1st degree murder charges dismissed from when I was drunk and high on meth and killed 12 school children, because I pointed out that the arresting officer was a nigger.

Re:Reinforcing the term (5, Insightful)

Penguinisto (415985) | about 9 months ago | (#45982255)

With that defense, yeah - a total douche. She isn't "defending the future", she's trying to dodge the speeding ticket, with a twist that she was caught what the state of California (IMHO rightly) defines as a monitor. They didn't say it was a "television", and neither does the citation.

Sorry, ma'am, but even if you manage to get the law itself changed, you're still guilty of violating it.

Re:Reinforcing the term (5, Insightful)

AK Marc (707885) | about 9 months ago | (#45982311)

So a legal GPS is an illegal monitor as well? I've never seen a definition of "monitor" that didn't make GPS illegal if it made DVD watching illegal (but I have seen laws that indicate that a monitor used for GPS was legal, but never a distinction in what a "monitor" was).

Re:Reinforcing the term (2)

Penguinisto (415985) | about 9 months ago | (#45982339)

So a legal GPS is an illegal monitor as well?

Depends on the law in question, but I suspect it's part of why most GPS units have voice directions in addition to the map.

Re:Reinforcing the term (5, Informative)

hawguy (1600213) | about 9 months ago | (#45982393)

Here's the relevant California Law, there's a specific exemption for GPS devices:

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

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 othersimilar 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.

Sounds like Google Glass would fall under this definition since it displays a "video signal that produces entertainment or business applications"

Re:Reinforcing the term (0)

AK Marc (707885) | about 9 months ago | (#45982441)

So most GPS systems are illegal, as most are not "installed", and a dash-mounted tablet used exclusively for GPS is illegal, as it doesn't have an interlock device.

Most GPS systems are "installed" so far as they are clipped into a holder, as people tend to remove them often to prevent theft.

Re:Reinforcing the term (3, Interesting)

perryizgr8 (1370173) | about 9 months ago | (#45982495)

"installed" means kept, nothing more. and a dash mounted tablet is legal as long as you keep it in car mode, and don't get caught watching youtube on it while driving. google glass is clearly a huge distraction while driving. if talking on a cellphone is illegal, then wearing google glass should also be illegal.

Re:Reinforcing the term (3, Insightful)

hawguy (1600213) | about 9 months ago | (#45982501)

So most GPS systems are illegal, as most are not "installed", and a dash-mounted tablet used exclusively for GPS is illegal, as it doesn't have an interlock device.

Most GPS systems are "installed" so far as they are clipped into a holder, as people tend to remove them often to prevent theft.

I don't know the legal definition of "installed", so I don't know if a GPS suction cupped to the window or to a dash mount is "installed" or not. There is a separate CVC section that covers where a GPS can be mounted.

But it's true that using a phone or tablet as a GPS can get you into trouble - cell phone tickets have been issued to people while using their cell phone only as a GPS device, if it's not a dedicated GPS unit, then it's not a GPS.

Re:Reinforcing the term (2)

SQLGuru (980662) | about 9 months ago | (#45982507)

Item (b)(2) allows GPS navigation screens. End of statement. Item (b)(5) brings items that were excluded in (a) as long as they meet (b)(5)(A) or (b)(5)(B). Those two clauses are only needed for items such as TVs and DVD players.....or laptops.....or what have you.

[Of course, there is an argument to be made that the cop who wrote the ticket very likely had a dash mounted laptop which violates the law in question.]

Re:Reinforcing the term (3)

hawguy (1600213) | about 9 months ago | (#45982585)

[Of course, there is an argument to be made that the cop who wrote the ticket very likely had a dash mounted laptop which violates the law in question.]

I didn't post the entire CVC section since I didn't think the rest pertained to the case in question, but there's an exception for police and other "authorized emergency vehicles":

(c) Subdivision (a) does not apply to a mobile digital terminal installed in an authorized emergency vehicle or to a motor vehicle providing emergency road service or roadside assistance.

Re:Reinforcing the term (1, Interesting)

xvan (2935999) | about 9 months ago | (#45982565)

What if you say that you the glass is your GPS, has an android "driving lock" that disables its use for anything else?
Not that I defend glassholes , but enjoy finding workarounds to the law.

Re:Reinforcing the term (1)

hawguy (1600213) | about 9 months ago | (#45982627)

What if you say that you the glass is your GPS, has an android "driving lock" that disables its use for anything else?

Not that I defend glassholes , but enjoy finding workarounds to the law.

I think you'd have to convince a judge that the "driving lock" was active and there's no way to bypass it. People have unsuccessfully tried to argue [cbslocal.com] that using their phone as a GPS doesn't violate the law against using cell phones while driving, so the "driving lock" would probably have to be a built-in Android feature that the user can't disable (though rooting your phone may cloud the issue)

Re:Reinforcing the term (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45982639)

Friendly suggestion: Rather than taking the approach of wanting to grossly twist the law to a purpose you think is good, an alternative is to just accept that sometimes an existing law squarely blocks something that you perceive as good and the alternatives are to either suck it up or change the law.

Like if a meteor strikes your car before you have arranged insurance. Are you going to attempt to construe that somehow you were insured because you had decided to buy car insurance? Or just accept that sometimes shitty fortune strikes?

Don't be absurd. It isn't a monitor. (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45982357)

And truth be told, the sooner HUDs are moved into the driving experience, the better. It's just that at certain speeds particular features should likely be disabled.

Bad Headline (1)

johosaphats (1082929) | about 9 months ago | (#45982153)

Google Glass is irrelevant to the speeding ticket, she's "defending the future" as part of her fight against the other ticket...another solid performance, Slashdot.

Like 100 years ago... (2, Insightful)

ackthpt (218170) | about 9 months ago | (#45982155)

You're guilty because we think you look guilty, now just sit there quietly while we figure out what you are guilty of.

Re:Like 100 years ago... (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45982163)

If you are using Google Glass while driving, you ARE distracted. There is no guess work or assumptions here. If the device is OFF, then you might as well take it off, and then there would be no problem.

Re:Like 100 years ago... (0, Flamebait)

para_droid (92566) | about 9 months ago | (#45982211)

Isn't that like saying a pilot is distracted by having his HUD turned on?

Re:Like 100 years ago... (5, Insightful)

Dan Askme (2895283) | about 9 months ago | (#45982235)

Isn't that like saying a pilot is distracted by having his HUD turned on?

Pilots are trained to use Huds.
A google glass user assumes they are trained, because their ego is bigger than anyone around them.

Re:Like 100 years ago... (2, Interesting)

AK Marc (707885) | about 9 months ago | (#45982333)

So what about the cars with HUDs in them? No special training, and so far, no legal assertions that they are illegal.

My fedora makes me a GOD. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45982343)

Yes, I wear a fedora hat. Yes, I have multiple Apple devices. Yes, I use Ruby on Rails and Node.js. Yes, I refuse to learn SQL. And, yes, I would wear Google Glass glasses constantly if I had a pair.

These things are the essence of life. They are what make me a GOD among men. They are what elevate me above and beyond all that is human.

My ego is not big because it is large in size. My ego is big because I own the high-tech gadgets needed by a GOD. My ego is big because I use the technologies used by a GOD. My ego is big because I AM A GOD.

Re:Like 100 years ago... (1)

meerling (1487879) | about 9 months ago | (#45982535)

No they aren't. They are trained to read their instruments and indicators, of which these days, some of those are made available through the HUD so they don't have to take their eyes off where their going just to glance at an instrument.
Can you say that when you're driving you don't look down at the speedometer to check your speed, despite the fact that it takes your eyes off of where you are going?

Re:Like 100 years ago... (4, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | about 9 months ago | (#45982275)

If she can show me that her Google Glasses provided information that is vital or at the very least helpful to driving a car instead of, at best, a distraction, we can talk.

Re:Like 100 years ago... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45982323)

I think she can live without your approval, though it is generous of you to theoretically offer it, if she can meet your standard of proof.

Re:Like 100 years ago... (3, Interesting)

DexterIsADog (2954149) | about 9 months ago | (#45982341)

Seeing the turn by turn navigation directions without looking away to the dashboard display is not "helpful"?

Re:Like 100 years ago... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45982371)

In this case, no, since It was turned off.

Re:Like 100 years ago... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45982375)

riiiiight... so having them persistently obstruct your field of view is better? Hint: the images in glass move with your head so they are always present in the viewer's FOV, unlike a dashboard navigation system.

Re:Like 100 years ago... (4, Insightful)

sjames (1099) | about 9 months ago | (#45982369)

Wouldn't it be the prosecution's duty to show that it wasn't?

Given a choice between the driver looking at the GPS or seeing it on a HUD, the latter seems safer.

Re:Like 100 years ago... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45982591)

Neither seems particularly safe to me. How about *listening* to the GPS?

Re:Like 100 years ago... (1)

meerling (1487879) | about 9 months ago | (#45982543)

Can you show that the driver was playing Angry Birds or Texting, or even streaming Gilligans Island from Netflix while driving?

Re:Like 100 years ago... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45982289)

No, not at all.

1. Although it's possible to be a distraction, a pilot's HUD is specifically designed for the safe operation of the aircraft.
2. Although there may be useful and pertinent information available, google glass is primarily designed for entertainment consumption. There is currently no information on google glass that would be of comparable use to the safe operation of a motor vehicle as that on the pilot's HUD.

Re:Like 100 years ago... (0)

bloodhawk (813939) | about 9 months ago | (#45982299)

A HUD shows information directly related to the task of flying and a pilot has to be trained to utilise the hud without getting excessively distracted.

Re:Like 100 years ago... (5, Insightful)

Penguinisto (415985) | about 9 months ago | (#45982307)

As someone who used to work on Heads-Up Displays, I can tell you that there is a vast difference between the two.

First off, aircraft don't follow each other in the sky at distances of around 3 airplane-lengths apart. They also aren't confined to just two dimensions. Outside of ATC control zones, they don't have speed limits. Pilots in aircraft with HUDs are highly-trained (think very-high-end commercial jets, fighter jets, etc.) The HUD is specifically built and engineered to assist the pilot, and nothing else. Finally, unless it's a fighter jet, the HUD doesn't swallow the entire pilot's field-of-view. HUD gear is certified by the FAA before use on a given model/type of aircraft.

Notice that Google Glass on some douchebag's face while driving his/her car is the polar fucking opposite of all these things. :/

Re:Like 100 years ago... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45982337)

Are you really comparing flying a fighter with driving a damn car? Pilots train with a HUD, drivers do not. The distraction added by the HUD is compensated by allowing the pilot to fly with a much lower chance of crashing (too much info to handle), whereas in a car being able to read your email while driving only helps to distract you from that child that came out of nowhere.

If this thing is to be allowed it must first be proven safe. Driving tons of metal at high speeds near other people is not a right, evidenced by blind people not being allowed to drive. If you want to add unnecessary risk for no reason you're free to do it in your own property.

Re:Like 100 years ago... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45982459)

Isn't that like saying a pilot is distracted by having his HUD turned on?

Google Glass is not an instrument which aids driving like an aircraft's heads-up display,
you fucking moronic subhuman cock-gobbling retard.

Re:Like 100 years ago... (1)

meerling (1487879) | about 9 months ago | (#45982569)

That is something that would be rather easy to develop.
I'm pretty sure it could current use navigation software to help.
Of course, there's no indication that it was actively doing anything, kind of like the phone in your pocket.

Re:Like 100 years ago... (4, Insightful)

vux984 (928602) | about 9 months ago | (#45982479)

Isn't that like saying a pilot is distracted by having his HUD turned on?

Does a pilot's HUD send and receive display SMS messages? Facebook updates? Twitter feeds? Does it answer inane trivia that you ask it like "How long is the average intestine?" or "What's the word for chicken in chinese?" If you ask a pilot's hud to show you a funny lol-cat will it?

Or does it just show you highly flying relevant info graphics and information like the horizon, airspeed, altitude, rate of descent...?

Yeah, they are totally the same thing, right?

Re:Like 100 years ago... (0)

perryizgr8 (1370173) | about 9 months ago | (#45982499)

google glass is not an hud for the car, unlike those used by pilots.

HUD are for Situational Awareness. (2)

couchslug (175151) | about 9 months ago | (#45982669)

"Isn't that like saying a pilot is distracted by having his HUD turned on?"

NO, it obviously is not. WTF, over?

HUD are designed to make aircraft operation SAFER by maintaining pilot situational awareness. They put information relevant to operating the aircraft in his field of vision so he doesn't have to scan down/sideways as often to read MFDs and instruments.

Now what tech-illiterates modded that post up? That's a disgraceful display of cluelessness.

See the HUD example. Read what the display depicts:

http://falcon4.wikidot.com/avionics:hud [wikidot.com]

Watch the HUD video to see why this display is important especially when under G's:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHx-OWdHqf8 [youtube.com]

Note the absence of Tweets, email, and office-related correspondence.

Re:Like 100 years ago... (2)

tftp (111690) | about 9 months ago | (#45982237)

With GG turning on and off easily, or on its own, there is no way to prove guilt - not without forensic examination of the log. This means that GG is a wide open door to texting and browsing Web from behind the wheel. Mere wearing it proves nothing - until the legislature says something about that.

With regard to having GG off while driving, this is not viable because recording, or taking still pictures, while driving is a valid use (as long as you do it by voice, which GG is designed for.) It's certainly more valid than wearing it in crowd.

Re:Like 100 years ago... (1)

Colin Castro (2881349) | about 9 months ago | (#45982247)

Actually a heads up display for your map/speed/etc would cause less distractions since your eyes are still catching the road in the background.

Re:Like 100 years ago... (2)

AK Marc (707885) | about 9 months ago | (#45982327)

Who said she was "using" it while driving? Having it on your head is proof it was in use?

Re:Like 100 years ago... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45982421)

She's guilty of speeding. What part of that don't you understand liberal idiot?

Re:Like 100 years ago... (-1, Flamebait)

meerling (1487879) | about 9 months ago | (#45982615)

Nobody is arguing about the speeding, though the cops around here like to tack on an extra 10 or 20 mph when they think they can get away with it.
It's about being persecuted over outdated and inappropriately applied laws, especially since there is no proof that the device was even in use, just that it existed.

Your phone probably has a camera. If you were on a phone call with your friend, and Alex Baldwin walked up and punched you for taking pictures of him, would it be right? Having the capability to perform an action with a device does not indicate that said action is being performed despite the existence of the device.

You might want to ask yourself that question you posed.

Re:Like 100 years ago... (1)

RussellTheMuscle (2783037) | about 9 months ago | (#45982449)

If the pilot's plane were within one wingspan of the other distracted pilots, and he was expected to keep that distance for the entire flight (Thunderbirds/Blue Angels?), and there weren't a second set of highly trained eyes on the controls, and the pilot was supposed to be diligently looking for external traffic signs for how he was supposed to be modifying his current flight tragectory/ speed...then this might be an issue. As a driver her job was simple: DRIVE.

Re:Like 100 years ago... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45982485)

two things....

For one she was clocked going 80mph, now either her speedometer needs re-calibrated, or she shouldn't be driving if she too distracted with Gaagle Ass.
And I find it strange the police nor the Judge tried to find any video evidence from device to see if she ever looked at her speed, or if there was video evidence she did and was in fact speeding.

' Fighting that perception in court is 'a big responsibility for me and also for the judge who is going to interpret a very old law compared with how fast technology is changing,' Abadie said... And of course the Judge cannot determine by his or hers own thinking that using the device takes away from your reaction time, you inability to watch what the fuck your doing while driving a 2000+ lbs accident waiting to happen.

Just another dinghy broad, who isn't really helping out other smart women trying to get to prove they are fit for tech jobs, but then again guys act the same moronic way and dominate the industry???

Re:Like 100 years ago... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45982529)

... dinghy broad

Uhhhhhh small boat?

story? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45982173)

She was wearing them, but no indication they were on. What's the story again?

Re:story? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45982203)

So if I rob you at gun point with an unloaded gun, there is no crime, right?

Re:story? (2)

Garridan (597129) | about 9 months ago | (#45982229)

If you shoot your victim to death, and there's no evidence that their participation wasn't consentual, then it wasn't murder, right?

Re:story? (1)

Colin Castro (2881349) | about 9 months ago | (#45982241)

It would be more equivilent to say, "You were walking down the street carrying a gun and I gave you a ticket for shooting it into the air, but I can't prove you were shooting it into the air and you say you weren't and there was no sound or smoke or anything."

Re:story? (0)

exomondo (1725132) | about 9 months ago | (#45982379)

So if I rob you at gun point with an unloaded gun, there is no crime, right?

Of course there is, you robbed somebody, the gun is irrelevant.

Re:story? (1)

SQLGuru (980662) | about 9 months ago | (#45982527)

Actually, the presence of the gun raises the severity of the crime ---- whether it was fired or not. But yes, his analogy was flawed.

Re:story? (1)

sjames (1099) | about 9 months ago | (#45982407)

No. That (unlike google glasses) has been explicitly legislated. If the victim had reason to believe that the weapon was loaded and capable of firing, it's treated the same as a weapon that was actually loaded and firable. The reason is that you imply the weapon will fire by brandishing it and in so doing create the same fear and compliance an actually functional weapon would. In many jurisdictions it has been further legislated (explicitly) that even claiming to have a gun is the same as actually having a gun.

To my knowledge, there has been no legislation WRT to Google glasses that are turned off.

Re:story? (1)

meerling (1487879) | about 9 months ago | (#45982649)

That kind of gun stuff is insane. Using threat of harm to induce compliance during a robbery is pretty much a requirement, otherwise it's just a weird form of panhandling. The use of a real gun indicates the willingness to use lethal force in the commission of a crime. The usage of a fake gun or non-existent gun is indication of an unwillingness to use lethal force, though being a robbery, and can only be considered the same by incompetent morons. Of course, we are probably talking about politicians here.

Some places have passed laws specifically banning google glasses, something that is definitely overboard. Since the person in the article was charged with using a monitor, that is obviously not one of those places.

The future of the human race (2, Informative)

Dan Askme (2895283) | about 9 months ago | (#45982213)

Just look at this page:
https://plus.google.com/+CeciliaAbadie/posts [google.com]

That right there is the future of the human race.
A self obsessed, attention seeking, ignorant person who thinks she can drive with a HUD. Maybe she can, but until she has trained in the army to use HUD's whilst driving, take the bloody thing off, for once, think of other people!

This single woman has basically enabled the world to drive with google glass. All those future accidents, waiting to happen, are on you Cecilia.

Re:The future of the human race (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45982277)

Wow, does she look slutty!

Re:The future of the human race (4, Funny)

DexterIsADog (2954149) | about 9 months ago | (#45982359)

Holy shit! This is awful! Do you KNOW what she's DONE?

She made me look at a Google+ page! There are things you just cannot unsee.

Re:The future of the human race (3, Insightful)

AK Marc (707885) | about 9 months ago | (#45982373)

There are plenty of cars available now with legal HUDs, no training required. Your arguement doesn't work.

Re:The future of the human race (1)

Dan Askme (2895283) | about 9 months ago | (#45982445)

There are plenty of cars available now with legal HUDs, no training required. Your arguement doesn't work.

(b) No person shall drive any motor vehicle upon a highway with any object so placed or suspended in or upon the vehicle so as to obstruct the driver's clear view through the front windshield.
346.88(3)(c)
http://statutes.laws.com/wisconsin/346/346.88 [laws.com]

(2) A person shall not drive any motor vehicle with any object or material placed, displayed, installed, affixed, or applied in or upon the vehicle that obstructs or reduces the driver’s clear view through the windshield or side windows.
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d12/vc26708.htm [ca.gov]

Re:The future of the human race (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45982541)

That pretty much says most GPS are illegal. I don't own a Google Glass, but it seems obvious to me it would be safer to use than a regular GPS. Even changing station on a car radio is more dangerous than using Google Glass and last time I checked car radio were not illegal.

Basically, the law is idiotic and must be changed.

Re:The future of the human race (2)

AK Marc (707885) | about 9 months ago | (#45982551)

And the fact that none of those have been applied to the current HUD equipped cars in the US supports my argument, not yours.

Re:The future of the human race (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45982579)

There are plenty of cars available now with legal HUDs, no training required. Your arguement doesn't work.

(b) No person shall drive any motor vehicle upon a highway with any object so placed or suspended in or upon the vehicle so as to obstruct the driver's clear view through the front windshield.
346.88(3)(c)
http://statutes.laws.com/wisconsin/346/346.88 [laws.com]

(2) A person shall not drive any motor vehicle with any object or material placed, displayed, installed, affixed, or applied in or upon the vehicle that obstructs or reduces the driver’s clear view through the windshield or side windows.
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d12/vc26708.htm [ca.gov]

So... sun visors are illegal.

Re:The future of the human race (2)

Hal_Porter (817932) | about 9 months ago | (#45982443)

#googlepaidmylegalcosts #igotawaywithspeeding

What the hell happened to Silicon Valley? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45982473)

Silicon Valley used to be a truly remarkable place. It was where industry and the future truly did collide head-on. And because of this, great things happened there.

Hewlett-Packard. Fairchild Semiconductor. Xerox PARC. Intel. Sun Microsystems. Cisco Systems.

Those were the kind of names we came to associate with very advanced technological achievement. They earned our respect with the tremendous advances they made.

But then something happened. Silicon Valley ceased to be about a productive, beneficial future. It became about a shitty, rotten future. It became about "social media". It became about advertising. It became about a disturbing level of data collection and mining.

The Silicon Valley of today is a mere shell of what it once was. Clad in fedora hats and rampant hipsterism, Silicon Valley of today is a sissified, degenerate place. Gone are the real scientists and engineers who advanced technology for all of mankind. Gone are their advances. Gone are the hope they brought.

I weep for Silicon Valley. It truly does make me quite distraught to think about what has happened to it. One of the greatest intellectual creations ever to existed has been crushed by men who wear tight jeans and glasses without lenses. It has been dragged through the mud by overweight, unshaven manchildren wearing stained shirts with shitty Japanese drawings on them. It has been shit upon repeatedly by self-styled "entrepreneurs" and "engineers" whose only talent is unjustifiable self promotion.

It is too late to save Silicon Valley. But other technologically-inclined regions should take note of what happened there. Keep away the hipsters. Keep away the bearded manchildren. Keep away the "entrepreneurs" and "engineers" who spew forth about Ruby on Rails. These people are an infection, and this infection will destroy even the most robust of technological and industrial communities. Do not let them ruin your community like they ruined Silicon Valley's.

Sad Day for San Diego... and Drivers in General (4, Insightful)

GoCats1999 (936745) | about 9 months ago | (#45982215)

As a resident of San Diego, I hope to goodness that I don't run into her... or to be more literal, that she doesn't physically run into me or anyone in my family.

To weasel out of an everyday traffic ticket is one thing... but to say that she's "defending the future" is an affront to the public servants and to regular drivers and citizens who are just trying to make our roads safe.

At 80mph, you travel over 117 feet *per second*. (She may have denied it, but I'm pretty sure the cop was right and that she was going 80, or at least close to it — this is San Diego, and pretty much everyone drives at around 75 - 80). Using Glass, it's very easy and conceivable to focus on the image for a second or two. You could almost clear an entire football field in that amount of time.

While there may be marginal gains of utility and efficiency by using a product like Google Glass while driving, I am very hard pressed to hear that it would actually make anyone safer... and of course, time will likely show that products like this (just like with cell phone use and texting) will actually make drivers less aware of the road, and thus, more dangerous and more prone to accidents.

At some point, we need to just label "idiotic" for what it is, and admit that some "causes" are just that.

Re:Sad Day for San Diego... and Drivers in General (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45982253)

lol u dum

Re:Sad Day for San Diego... and Drivers in General (0)

AK Marc (707885) | about 9 months ago | (#45982381)

Using Glass, it's very easy and conceivable to focus on the image for a second or two.

She wasn't "using" glass. And why does that matter when staring at a GPS for 10 seconds at 55 mph is legal (and therefore safe, according to many)?

Re:Sad Day for San Diego... and Drivers in General (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45982461)

It's not legal, at least not in california

Re:Sad Day for San Diego... and Drivers in General (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about 9 months ago | (#45982557)

All GPS is legal in CA? I hadn't heard that. Last I was there, I saw plenty in use.

Re:Sad Day for San Diego... and Drivers in General (1)

KingOfBLASH (620432) | about 9 months ago | (#45982595)

In use, and legal, are two completely separate things. Just look at the war on drugs.

Re:Sad Day for San Diego... and Drivers in General (-1, Flamebait)

defaria (741527) | about 9 months ago | (#45982419)

So I guess you're also against HUDs like I had in my last two cars.

Have you seen what distractions cops drive around with?!?

Seems to me the only idiot here is you!

Re:Sad Day for San Diego... and Drivers in General (0)

vux984 (928602) | about 9 months ago | (#45982521)

So I guess you're also against HUDs like I had in my last two cars.

Did your vehicle HUDs show you pictures of lol cats when you asked them to? Did they show you facebook updates or SMS messages? Could you ask them inane trivia questions about vegetables?

Yeah, I'm not sure these two things are really the same.

Seems to me the only idiot here is you!

And yet I'm not the one comparing a vehicle hud to having twitter projected in front of you while you drive.

Re:Sad Day for San Diego... and Drivers in General (2)

LordLucless (582312) | about 9 months ago | (#45982447)

From the summary

A court commissioner in San Diego dismissed the Google Glass ticket, saying he could find no evidence that the device was in use while Abadie was driving.

She wasn't ticketed for using Glass, she was ticketed for Glass being there.

Re:Sad Day for San Diego... and Drivers in General (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45982513)

If you're in san diego, you're just as likely to get hit by someone *not* wearing google glass. I cant count how many times I've almost had my ass run over while walking there.

Re:Sad Day for San Diego... and Drivers in General (1)

MrEricSir (398214) | about 9 months ago | (#45982531)

...this is San Diego, and pretty much everyone drives at around 75 - 80

Somehow that sounds a lot more dangerous than one person with Google Glass.

Re:Sad Day for San Diego... and Drivers in General (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45982607)

So you don't see that the Google Glass infringement and the speeding infringement are two separate things? The Google Glass issue is the one under discussion here, the one that was thrown out and has nothing to do with the alleged speeding violation. The 'defending the future' remark is nothing to do with speeding.

Using Glass, it's very easy and conceivable to focus on the image for a second or two.

Just as you could with any information presented to you in your vehicle.

Incompetent, Irrelevant and Immaterial (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45982243)

It's irrelevant that there is "no evidence" Glass was being used while driving. The fact of the matter is Abadie was wearing Glass while driving and California law prohibits driving even with a computer sitting closed on the front passenger seat or anywhere in the front of the car.

Re:Incompetent, Irrelevant and Immaterial (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about 9 months ago | (#45982313)

So having a cell phone in my pocket would violate that law? That's tough...

Re:Incompetent, Irrelevant and Immaterial (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45982389)

So having a cell phone in my pocket would violate that law? That's tough...

Tell the officer it isn't a cellphone, you're just happy to see him.

Re:Incompetent, Irrelevant and Immaterial (0)

AK Marc (707885) | about 9 months ago | (#45982391)

So ever driver with a cell phone in their pocket or a Casio watch is breaking the law in CA. That says more about the law than her actions.

Re:Incompetent, Irrelevant and Immaterial (1)

hawguy (1600213) | about 9 months ago | (#45982423)

It's irrelevant that there is "no evidence" Glass was being used while driving. The fact of the matter is Abadie was wearing Glass while driving and California law prohibits driving even with a computer sitting closed on the front passenger seat or anywhere in the front of the car.

Have a citation for that? The CVC section banning TV's bans only *operating* displays, not displays that are turned or not visible to the driver.

Case has been dropped (5, Informative)

margeman2k3 (1933034) | about 9 months ago | (#45982249)

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/16/us-usa-googleglass-trial-dismissal-idUSBREA0F1XR20140116 [reuters.com]

A San Diego court commissioner dismissed a traffic ticket on Thursday against a California woman who drove with Google Glass, a tiny computer mounted on an eyeglass frame. Court Commissioner John Blair said he was dismissing the citation against Cecilia Abadie on the grounds there was no proof her Google Glass was operating when she was pulled over in October by a California Highway Patrol officer

Re:Case has been dropped (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45982405)

Translation: Oh crap, an activist. Better get rid of her quietly before this turns into a media circus!

Re:Case has been dropped (1)

defaria (741527) | about 9 months ago | (#45982425)

Finally some common sense!

Re:Case has been dropped (1)

DigiShaman (671371) | about 9 months ago | (#45982621)

Isn't speeding and wearing the GG two entirely separate things? Are you telling me that I can drive 120Mph in a 65Mph (and be clocked on the radar as proof), and yet get this ticket dropped so long as I'm wearing GG?!!! Yes, I had it turned off. Now fuck you, you can ticket me!!! Sounds like the commissioner turned to jello at the idea of pissing off Google. Fucking coward!

Advice to the defendant (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45982271)

The future is guaranteed to arrive without Cecilia Abadie's help. Not just in the trivial sense that the calendars will turn over, but in the sense that almost anyone alive today is going to find some of the broad social and technological changes tough to get used to.

Standard Equipment (1)

dingo217 (786854) | about 9 months ago | (#45982365)

What about the 6" touch screen radio head unit that came standard on my '13 Tacoma? Is that a video screen and I can receive a ticket for that? What about my digital odometer read out in my dash? That's about the same size as Google Glass and actually requires me to look down and away from the road (along with the speedometer and all the other gauges). This just seems like over-extension of an existing law originally passed to keep people from watching DVD movies on those 6" pop-up screens you could get installed at Best Buy.

Pay attention, or be ready to face financial ruin (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45982435)

Sooner or later insurance companies are not going to indemnify
a drivers who was distracted by using a device which was illegal
to use while driving.

One of you fools out there ( you know who you are ) might just end
up being the test case.

Visualize living in a shopping cart and having your wages garnished for the rest of your
miserable life. Sooner or later it will happen to one of you idiots who drive while engaging
in distracting behavior. You will lose in court and you will be ruined financially,
and you will goddamned well deserve your live being ruined.

Lucky he wasn't an ex-cop (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45982451)

She's just lucky that the cop wasn't an ex-cop and that she didn't try to throw a bad of popcorn at the officer.

People have been shot for less than using Google Glass while driving.

No, judge, I wasn't illegally downloading movies (1)

jennatalia (2684459) | about 9 months ago | (#45982463)

I was defending the future and paving the way for others.

Why are speeds not downloaded from the computer? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45982465)

No need of arguing about speeding, check the recording on the various devices, phones, car computer, glass, etc.

Would of been impressed if (4, Interesting)

Nyder (754090) | about 9 months ago | (#45982493)

I would of been more impressed if she used the google glasses to prove she wasn't speeding.

This woman is a .... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45982537)

This woman is a ---- with a capital "C". I hope she doesn't kill anyone.

Breaking News! (3, Insightful)

Irate Engineer (2814313) | about 9 months ago | (#45982581)

Rich entitled-feeling woman with new shiny toy feels she is above the law, news at 11.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?