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This discussion has been archived.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 jmhobrien (2750125) on Thursday January 16, 2014 @11:06PM (#45982127)

    glasshole.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 16, 2014 @11:20PM (#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.
    • 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 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).
        • 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.

        • by hawguy (1600213) on Thursday January 16, 2014 @11:48PM (#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"

          • by VortexCortex (1117377) <VortexCortexNO@S ... t-retrograde.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 hawguy (1600213)

              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.

              Yes, the information currently provided on the display transforms the display, no magic needed - if it's showing a GPS display, it's a GPS, if it's showing a Justin Bieber video, it's an entertainment device. Some cars have large GPS displays that can show entertainment videos while the car is in park -- when it's used in GPS mode, the law considers it a GPS, and since the interlock prevents it from being used for entertainment while driving, it's perfectly legal.

              Due to the fact that (A) I can bypass the interlock,

              If you can easily bypass the interlock, like

            • by Miseph (979059)

              "(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."

              Wow, it's almost as if they thought of that and included a clause addressing it. Weird.

          • by pahles (701275)

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

            No, it doesn't: it IS CAPABLE OF displaying a "video signal that produces entertainment or business applications".

            • by hawguy (1600213)

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

              No, it doesn't: it IS CAPABLE OF displaying a "video signal that produces entertainment or business applications".

              Right, and that's why its not allowed while driving -- it has no known interlock preventing it from displaying such video while driving, therefore, it's not allowed to be used while driving - not even if you put it into "GPS mode" and promise not to use it to check texts - without an interlock you're not allowed to use Google Glass while driving.

              • by Talderas (1212466) on Friday January 17, 2014 @08:43AM (#45984667)

                Which leads me to a question.

                At what point would it be satisfactory that a google glass could be used while operating a motor vehicle? I can't see any point where it would be as long as the law is actively enforced rather than passively enforced as an "extra" after an accident occurs. As long as the device is sold independently of vehicles and not integrated there's no way to ensure or tell which drivers are or are not interlocked with the operation of the vehicle.

        • by icebike (68054) on Friday January 17, 2014 @01:59AM (#45983021)

          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).

          Nope, there is a special exemption in California law for GPS or Navigation only devices.
          There didn't use to be such an exemption, and Garmin and Tom Tom users could get cited.
          Those two companies got together and lobbied for a change in the law.

          There was one other state where GPS was illegal, and they changed their law too.

      • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 16, 2014 @11:43PM (#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.

      • by Albanach (527650)

        With that defense, yeah - a total douche. She isn't "defending the future", she's trying to dodge the speeding ticket,

        She tried to dodge the speeding ticket with a defense that the state had insufficient evidence that she was speeding. The Government were required to present evidence that the officer's speedometer was properly calibrated and therefore accurate. Reuters reports [reuters.com] that the government expert did not appear at trial to give the required evidence.

        Why should anyone be found guilty of a crime if the

      • by Dahamma (304068) on Friday January 17, 2014 @01:04AM (#45982753)

        If your name isn't "Sarah Connor", you are not defending the future.

      • 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).
         

        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          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.

          I see what you did there

      • by troll -1 (956834)
        Oh I respectfully disagree. It specifically says "television" in the law's title right here: http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d12/vc27602.htm [ca.gov]

        It always happens that old laws need to be revised to accommodate new ideas and technology. Google Glass may turn out to be widely useful and who knows if in some way it won't ultimately save lives by disseminating the power of information. The California legislature may pass some crackpot laws occasionally but I have a hard time believing they're anti-technology. T
  • 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 Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 16, 2014 @11:13PM (#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.

      • by tftp (111690)

        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

      • by AK Marc (707885)
        Who said she was "using" it while driving? Having it on your head is proof it was in use?
  • 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.

    • by DexterIsADog (2954149) on Thursday January 16, 2014 @11:43PM (#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.
    • 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.
    • #googlepaidmylegalcosts #igotawaywithspeeding

    • 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 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.

  • 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.

    • 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.

    • by MrEricSir (398214)

      ...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.

    • an affront to the public servants and to regular drivers and citizens who are just trying to make our roads safe.

      Back to the gulag for you, scum. We're just trying to make our roads safe. It's good for you, trust us.

    • by mjwx (966435)

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

      This,

      Call a spade a spade, a lot of people are just idiots when driving. I'm all for protecting and advancing freedoms, but in the grand scheme of things, the freedom for some moron to smack into people at high speed on the motorway is so far down the list of priorities it's not funny.

      The only way to fix bad drivers is by better training. The Nordic nations have extremely low road tolls despite a prevalent drinking culture and a lot of icy roads. It might have something to do with their rigorous drive

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 16, 2014 @11:27PM (#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.

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

    • by hawguy (1600213)

      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.

  • by margeman2k3 (1933034) on Thursday January 16, 2014 @11:28PM (#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

    • 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!

  • by Nyder (754090) on Friday January 17, 2014 @12:12AM (#45982493) Journal

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

    • by jklovanc (1603149)

      Which ticket should she take? The speeding ticket or the using Google Glass ticket? She can't use Glass to disprove the speeding ticket unless she admits she was using Glass. It's an interesting question.

    • by Solandri (704621)
      Catch-22.

      - If she uses Google Glass to prove she was driving within the speed limit, she proves she was using a monitor while driving and has to pay that fine.
      - If she doesn't use Google Glass to prove she was driving within the speed limit, she can't disprove the speeding charge and has to pay that fine.
  • 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.
  • 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 addie (470476) on Friday January 17, 2014 @09:09AM (#45984797)

      Clearly dumb, entitled, arrogant, whatever. But why do you have to use the word bitch or twat? Using an insult that is specific to her gender suggests that part of her behaviour is defined by that gender.

      So many of us claim that we're not sexist, and feminism has done its work, but we still don't realize that the way we use language degrades women in ways that it simply doesn't if we were talking about a man. And no, "asshole" is not a gendered insult. We've all got one.

  • ... these things are wired directly to the brain, and you don't even need to wear anything that obscured your vision? Still a distraction, of course... but is it still "watching a monitor" when it's inside of your own head?

The flow chart is a most thoroughly oversold piece of program documentation. -- Frederick Brooks, "The Mythical Man Month"

Working...