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.
Reinforcing the term (Score:5, Funny)
glasshole.
Re:Reinforcing the term (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Reinforcing the term (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
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 (Score:5, Informative)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
"(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.
Re: (Score:2)
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".
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re:Reinforcing the term (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re:Reinforcing the term (Score:4, Interesting)
"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 (Score:5, Interesting)
There's nothing "clearly" about it. It entirely depends on what, if anything, the Glass is displaying.
GPS, navigation: Far less distracting then a traditional GPS unit as your eyes don't need to leave the road.
Vehicle information: Far less distracting then even the built in speedometers and such, again because your eyes need not leave the road. For example, Glass linked up with http://www.automatic.com/ [automatic.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We don't hate the device, we just hate the people using it in public.
Re:Reinforcing the term (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
I think any lawyer worth $0.02 would get that argument thrown out in court. The law does not stipulate that the device must ONLY be capable of those things.
Re: (Score:3)
I think any lawyer worth $0.02 would get that argument thrown out in court. The law does not stipulate that the device must ONLY be capable of those things.
A California Superior Court disagrees with you.
http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2013/04/09/court-rules-using-cell-phone-for-gps-violates-hands-free-driving-laws/ [cbslocal.com]
Re: (Score:3)
> holding a phone while driving is a violation
That's about *holding* the device in your hand, not dash-mounted - and I assume head-mounted is the issue in question.
Re: (Score:3)
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 (Score:4)
[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: (Score:2)
That would be an incorrect reading of the law.
Most GPS systems are NOT illegal, because they fall under 27602(b)1. The only things that need an interlock are devices that conform only to 27602(b)5.
The law stipulates "installed", not permanently installed, nor professionally installed. Clipped, taped, or just leaning on the dashboard would be "installed" in the car.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3)
What about the DVD driving lock? Can be easily tampered so it's up to the user to respect the law... why should a mobile phone be different?
Feel free to explain that to the judge "Your honor, I admit that I was using my phone as as GPS while driving, which is a clear violation of the law against cell phone use while driving, but since the interlock on in-car DVD players are easily (and illegally) tampered with, I obviously should not have gotten that ticket. Hey, I'm defending our future here, and who wants a future where drivers can't use their phones while driving!?"
Re:Reinforcing the term (Score:4)
"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?"
Apples and oranges. Meteors are not under our control, laws and judgements are. Laws don't fit every situation that's why we have judges otherwise just save to cost of judges and have enforcers. "No rule is as simple as a rulebook." Riker -- st:tng
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Does that have the force of law? I can't find anything in the California Code (http://www.ca.gov/about/government/state/lawsandregs.html) that looks like it establishes any laws or authorizes any any agencies to create regulations regarding the operation of a motor vehicle.
There's a section under motor vehicles for computer crime, though, for some reason - Title 13, Division 2, section 12. Interestingly, the CCR page is the second application I've ever seen that uses silverlight.
I'm not sure I understand your question. Are you looking for some loophole that says that the California Vehicle Code is not the law, or do you not understand that the CVC *is* the law?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Vehicle_Code [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Second one. I wasn't looking in the right place, apparently. Motor Vehicle code and Streets and Highways didn't have what I was looking for. I didn't see the Vehicle code section until after I posted.
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm, I think I found the speed laws. In the Constitution and Laws section as I should've expected, not in the code and regulations section. I find it interesting California actually has coded speed limits (as opposed to merely considering certain speeds as prima facie evidence of being in violation of a requirement to drive safely that some states have).
And this:
22353. When conducting an engineering and traffic survey, the City of Norco, in addition to the factors set forth in Section 627, may also consider equestrian safety.
What's special about Norco that they get their very own law in the vehicle code? Are their horses especially fragile?
Re:Reinforcing the term (Score:4)
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.
Don't be absurd. It isn't a monitor. (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re:Reinforcing the term (Score:5, Funny)
If your name isn't "Sarah Connor", you are not defending the future.
Re:Reinforcing the term (Score:4, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:3)
Um, while I support your use of the dash-cam, I see it this way. If they are inflating the numbers at all, they are lying, guilty of violating their oath of service (Australia does have those right?) and corrupt. Being pissed off simply shows they aren't mature and have no business being a cop. This isn't you capped my partner in a drug sting or punched me while I arrested you for stealing object. This is a frigging traffic ticket. There is NO excuse.
Whist there is an obligation to behave as a police officer and punishments for breaking the rules, we all know that the world does not always conform exactly to those rules. The sad thing is that you get these little napoleons in all professions that get a tiny taste of power and go mad. The Australian police forces are pretty good at keeping them out (and when they fail, a royal commission works).
Things work a bit differently in Australia. When you mouth off to a cop, he might up your ticket from a 8 KM
Re: (Score:2)
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
Like 100 years ago... (Score:3, Insightful)
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... (Score:4, Interesting)
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: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Like 100 years ago... (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Like 100 years ago... (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
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... (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Like 100 years ago... (Score:5, Insightful)
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... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
But it has cameras so it can do augmented reality, though doesn't it?
Re: (Score:3)
They obstruct your FOV much like the roof of your car does. You actually have to look very far upwards to see the display in google glass, so far up, they you are now more than likely looking at the roof of your car.
Re:Like 100 years ago... (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
That would be great if there was an interlock to ensure that mapping information was the only thing that was displayed. Provisions for those kind of interlocks are in the cited law. That interlock does not yet exist so the Glass can still display distracting information such as text messages. Sure the driver could turn off the distracting information but how often will the driver "forget" to do it?
Re: (Score:2)
About a often a they 'forget' that they shouldn't be staring down at the phone in their lap to text while they are driving. But at least they won't be looking down.
Re:Like 100 years ago... (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, since TFA, the court decided that the prosecution had to prove the glasses were turned on and displaying something.
But there i a real question if a HUD counts a a monitor. A key feature of a monitor is that you aren't looking at the road if you are looking at the monitor. That i the promary reason for laws against it. That characteristic i not necessarily true for a HUD.
As for the breathalyzer, yes, because there i a law that says so. They don't use sophistry to prove that not taking a brethalyse
Re: (Score:3)
As stated by others, there are laws against monitors while driving on a public road.
The law in question bans the use of a smartphone by a passenger in the front seat. Read it. Any monitor of any kind forward of the rear of the driver's seat is banned. Presumably you can put the super bowl on in the back seat if you watch it through the rear view mirror though.
The most important consideration about driving: driving on public roads is a privilege, not a right.
I'd like you to find that in the Constitution somewhere. I'll raise you the 9th amendment. Just because cars didn't exist in the 1700s doesn't mean that people are less free to operate them than colonialists were to operate horse
Re: (Score:2)
Have you ever tried following a GPS based just on listening to it?
It's much harder than you might think (although that probably depends on the specific GPS unit because of the varied detail of instructions).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Like 100 years ago... (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Informative)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Except google glass doesn't swallow the entire pilot's field-of-view either.
Re:Like 100 years ago... (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
HUD are for Situational Awareness. (Score:3)
"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:// [wikidot.com]
Re: (Score:2)
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.
The future of the human race (Score:2, Informative)
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 (Score:5, Funny)
She made me look at a Google+ page! There are things you just cannot unsee.
Re:The future of the human race (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
#googlepaidmylegalcosts #igotawaywithspeeding
What the hell happened to Silicon Valley? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:What the hell happened to Silicon Valley? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Sad Day for San Diego... and Drivers in General (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
Somehow that sounds a lot more dangerous than one person with Google Glass.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In use, and legal, are two completely separate things. Just look at the war on drugs.
Incompetent, Irrelevant and Immaterial (Score:3, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
So having a cell phone in my pocket would violate that law? That's tough...
Re: (Score:2)
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 (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Only the Glass ticket was dismissed; The speeding tickets was not dismissed.
Would of been impressed if (Score:5, Interesting)
I would of been more impressed if she used the google glasses to prove she wasn't speeding.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
- 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)
Dumb bitch. (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Dumb bitch. (Score:4)
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.
So what do they do when.... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Technically, its all on one ticket:
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-wGWz67UiN0g/UnCHBioxUSI/AAAAAAAAY60/FwnoTiWm69g/w609-h520-no/Ticket+Google+Glass.png [googleusercontent.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
So
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3)
Thing is, as the judge noted there wasn't any evidence she was using the Glass at the time. Her argument will continue to work as long as the cops can't produce any evidence to support the charge. And despite the claims, it is not illegal to drive while wearing Glass, any more than it's illegal to drive with one of those in-dash touchscreen entertainment systems installed. It's only illegal to drive with them operating. And unlike the in-dash systems it's virtually impossible to tell whether Glass is operat