Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
Google Crime Transportation

Google Glass User Fights Speeding Ticket, Saying She's Defending the Future 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.
This discussion has been archived.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 Dan Askme ( 2895283 ) on Thursday January 16, 2014 @11:23PM (#45982213) Homepage

    Just look at this page: []

    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 margeman2k3 ( 1933034 ) on Thursday January 16, 2014 @11:28PM (#45982249) []

    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

  • 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: []

    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 Anonymous Coward on Friday January 17, 2014 @02:13AM (#45983089)

    Yeah, this.

    Unless you're flying formation, or taking off or landing, there's a ton of empty space around you when you're flying. Even flying VFR a pilot is going to be constantly scanning the instruments, tuning comm and nav instruments, and reading/updating his navigation charts. That's not distracted flying, that's part of the job. But the "road" is straight and clear, with nothing likely to jump out from behind a tree in front of you. I've flown long (6-hour legs) solo cross-countries in pre-GPS days. It's not that hard.

    I've also flown in formations, with a few yards between planes. That's like driving a crowed highway with everyone going above the speed limit. Unless you're the lead plane, you don't hardly look at anything except your relation to the other guys' plane(s).

  • 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.

If you think nobody cares if you're alive, try missing a couple of car payments. -- Earl Wilson