Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Google Crime Transportation

Google Glass User Fights Speeding Ticket, Saying She's Defending the Future 464

Posted by samzenpus
from the fight-the-power dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

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

Comments Filter:
  • by ackthpt (218170) on Thursday January 16, 2014 @11:11PM (#45982155) Homepage Journal

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

  • by GoCats1999 (936745) on Thursday January 16, 2014 @11:23PM (#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.

  • by Dan Askme (2895283) on Thursday January 16, 2014 @11:27PM (#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.

  • by Penguinisto (415985) on Thursday January 16, 2014 @11:29PM (#45982255) Journal

    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.

  • by Opportunist (166417) on Thursday January 16, 2014 @11:32PM (#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.

  • by Penguinisto (415985) on Thursday January 16, 2014 @11:37PM (#45982307) Journal

    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. :/

  • by AK Marc (707885) on Thursday January 16, 2014 @11:38PM (#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).
  • by sjames (1099) on Thursday January 16, 2014 @11:44PM (#45982369) Homepage

    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.

  • by AK Marc (707885) on Thursday January 16, 2014 @11:45PM (#45982373)
    There are plenty of cars available now with legal HUDs, no training required. Your arguement doesn't work.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 17, 2014 @12:06AM (#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.

  • by vux984 (928602) on Friday January 17, 2014 @12:08AM (#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?

  • by hawguy (1600213) on Friday January 17, 2014 @12:14AM (#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.

  • Breaking News! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Irate Engineer (2814313) on Friday January 17, 2014 @12:26AM (#45982581)
    Rich entitled-feeling woman with new shiny toy feels she is above the law, news at 11.
  • by VortexCortex (1117377) <VortexCortex AT ... trograde DOT com> on Friday January 17, 2014 @12:52AM (#45982705)

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

    Unless it was being used as a "vehicle information display", right? I mean, just like the magic of 'on a computer' turns mathematics into an invention, the display of information transforms a device into a "vehicle information display". The reason this must be true is because you can not find me a GPS that I can not hack and put Tetris on, or a digital speedometer I can not hack to be a stock ticker. So, the information displayed must transform the device.

    Due to the fact that (A) I can bypass the interlock, and that no one on this planet can (B) design anything in any way as to "prevent the driver" (me) from operating it however I please, or even determine that my operation and viewing thereof is NOT in a "safe and reasonable manner", and beyond these: The fact that all raster displays are video signals, including some in-dash information displays (speedometers, odometers, fuel, etc), Section A and B are so unenforcable that they do in-fact hinder the future development of automotive technology. I don't know about you, but I'd love to be able to (slowly) drive in a dense fog, or blizzard using a computer generated "video feed" of EXTERNAL information (as distinguished from vehicle information) on my HUD.

  • by jklovanc (1603149) on Friday January 17, 2014 @12:55AM (#45982723)

    Vehicle huds do not display emails, text messages, etc that Glass does. They are also exempt from the law as they are vehicle information displays. The problem with Glass is that it takes the driver's mind off driving at random times and that distraction can cause accidents. Multitasking is a myth. Some people can task switch faster than others but doing multiple things with the eyes (reading a text message and watching traffic at the same time) is nearly impossible.

  • by Dahamma (304068) on Friday January 17, 2014 @01:15AM (#45982801)

    Yes, they are. The simulators can have the same HUD as the real thing. That, and the HUD is designed specifically to be used in the few situations it's actually needed on a plane (mostly on approach and landing). A HUD *designed* for a car that just shows the speed, etc, would be fine, and exists in some models. One that shows you your friends' latest Facebooks posts and your dinner shopping list is NOT.

    And to be honest, a commercial airline pilot is lucky (or unlucky, really) to have to make more than a few quick decisions in his entire CAREER. And that's for someone with thousands of hours of required training for one task. On the other hand, the average driver has to do it multiple times a day, and the minimum requirements for a drivers license (in the US, at least) are terrifyingly low.

  • Dumb bitch. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 17, 2014 @01:25AM (#45982833)

    Were you using a distracting device? Yes.
    Were you speeding? Yes.
    Are you now wasting MY tax money and the courts time? Yes.

    Throw the bitch in jail for a month. I don't mind paying for THAT.

    You are not 'defending the future' you are defending being a self absorbed twat. And *I* don't want you to win and cause more of that.

    Personally i'd ban the use of cellphones while the car is in motion. Most of them now have accelerometers. Use it. Disable the phone if the car is moving.
    Less distracted morons on the road is good for everyone. Oh you're a passenger? We'll have passenger mode.
    Get caught driving with your phone in passenger mode? $10,000 fine and a month in jail.
    We'll put a stop to driving while distracted real quick. At least for phones. Is it perfect? Nope. But it's a good start.

    Letting people be the cause of 30,000 deaths on the road per year because you don't want to infringe their 'rights' is bullshit. We stripped away more rights for 3000 deaths on 9-11. If we're going to keep losing rights. Lets at least put their loss to some use that actually prevents deaths.

  • by mjwx (966435) on Friday January 17, 2014 @01:25AM (#45982835)

    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.

    This,

    My experience with driving in the US (specifically California) is that if she wasn't doing 80+ in a 65 zone the cops would have picked someone who was, they wouldn't have had to wait long at all. She was caught speeding and is trying to make a spectacle out of it in order to get off.

    Whether Google Glass can be classed as a drivers aid is a different issue entirely. Personally I think drivers need to be taught properly in the first place, rather than relying on devices to compensate for their lack of skill (a lack of skill that is obvious enough in Australian drivers, but American drivers make Australians look good).

    Secondly, the Google Glasses have GPS, so they could have been recording her speed. This is one of the reasons I have a dashcam, more specifically a dashcam that also records my speed. Few cops in Australia will outright lie (as in make up a charge), but a lot will inflate a speed figure if their pissed off, so an alleged 8 over becomes a 12 over and the fine is doubled (and you get more demerit points).
     

  • by GauteL (29207) on Friday January 17, 2014 @03:24AM (#45983349)

    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.

    No. As stated by others, there are laws against monitors while driving on a public road. There are specific exemptions (essentially a whitelist) when they have been tested and considered safe. Google Glass (or any wearable HUD-type tech) has not yet been tested and approved for driving but she decided to use it anyway. She is a douche and endangering others and should be prosecuted as such.

    The most important consideration about driving: driving on public roads is a privilege, not a right. Driving on them comes with conditions set and enforced by the public. This should be kept in mind when discussing "driver's rights". Whenever Slashdot discusses things like random breathalyzer tests someone always brings up the constitution and inaliable rights. Surely the consitution says nothing about rights of access to public highways? If you refuse to take a breathalyzer test, I'm sure the state could ban you from driving on its roads without breaking any amendment.

  • by Rockoon (1252108) on Friday January 17, 2014 @08:23AM (#45984599)

    If everyone drives 80 in a 65 zone, maybe the zone is marked incorrectly.

    Its marked perfectly to maximize revenue. The traffic police never have downtime waiting for a violation.

  • by NeutronCowboy (896098) on Friday January 17, 2014 @11:21AM (#45986095)

    I don't think I've ever read a more angst-ridden, afraid-of-the-future, and everyone-but-me-sucks post. And I've read Katz's posts.

    There is a ton of engineering and cool stuff still happening. If you think that it's all just Google, Facebook and hipsters - you need to stop hanging out with hipsters and actually take a look at the companies that are there. Tesla alone makes the area cool again.

"More software projects have gone awry for lack of calendar time than for all other causes combined." -- Fred Brooks, Jr., _The Mythical Man Month_

Working...