
California woman who drove with Google Glass beats traffic ticket - kjhughes
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/17/us-usa-googleglass-trial-dismissal-idUSBREA0F1XR20140117
======
Zikes
> Odle said he had not been planning to cite Abadie for wearing Google Glass,
> but that he did so because of her reaction to his questions. "She got a
> little argumentative about whether or not it was legal for her to wear
> them," he said.

At first this sounded pretty vindictive, as though I could hear the officer
ending the argument with "fine, we'll let the judge decide!" But after a
little thought that sounds like a rather reasonable reaction.

Clearly there was some confusion about the legality and technically it did
qualify as a "monitor", so some sort of legal precedent would be necessary to
adequately end that argument, and the only way to get it into the courts was
to issue a citation.

~~~
martypitt
I think you're giving the officer a very generous amount of "benefit of the
doubt".

He didn't say "I wasn't sure about the legality, so I referred it to a judge",
rather saying he cited her because she got argumentative.

ie., "Don't challenge me if you disagree, otherwise I'll treat you as though
you've broken the law."

That's pretty crappy behaviour on the officer's behalf IMHO.

~~~
Shivetya
I will side with the cop here. Knowing a few who are in this line of work I am
more than amazed at what they put up with. Put it to you this way, your not
being pulled over because they don't like you, your not being pulled over
because they are having a bad day, your being pulled over because you flagged
yourself; speeding, running a stop sign, tail light out, etc.

There is no reason to get argumentative with someone doing their job, let
alone a traffic cop. All that while they are working on your incident they
have to watch out for traffic, your actions, and ensuring you don't get so
excited your a threat to yourself or them.

More than likely, being familiar with "our type"; techies, she came off as a
pretentious twit and treated him with contempt for being an ignorant cop.

~~~
wavefunction
I've been pulled over for a "crack in the windshield" which wasn't visible
from where the police officer's patrol car was sitting. I know because I went
back and checked from his vantage point.

I get that you're trying to provide some nuance here, but let's not pretend
that all police officers are honest and decent individuals just doing
everything by the book. It goes both ways.

~~~
Anderkent
Wait, so was your windshield cracked or not? The way you said it seems it was;
in which case I don't see what was wrong?

~~~
wavefunction
It was, maybe 3 inches lengthwise, about 2 inches off the edge along the
bottom with a black background. My real contention was that I was pulled over
for being poor (in my hoopty '90 626 at the time) and he saw the crack when he
approached. He also didn't mention the crack until he had spent the previous
25 minutes threatening and cajoling me to tell him if I had been drinking or
drugging and driving.

I wouldn't have minded this if I were pulled over for speeding and he noticed
and added it to the ticket but to get pulled over for being poor, harassed and
then written a ticket for the windshield crack...

Maybe that's an acceptable way for the police to pull anyone they feel like
over, but there should be some sort of suspicion required. I know this is the
everyday experience of a lot of people but I don't think it's acceptable for
it to happen to them either.

~~~
QuantumGood
Citing for something found isn't bad practice per se, nor is pulling over
searching for statistically likely infractions. But too many officers use this
argument as an excuse for bad behavior.

I've been abused in a similar manner, versus given a warning and relevant
"counselling" (how to not get pulled over) from an officer with a more
mentoring style.

------
dhruvmittal
Some research needs to be done on how distracting Glass is to drivers. I'm
particularly interested in comparing the distraction caused by using Glass to
navigate compared to the typical built-in navigation systems that ship with
most cars today.

I suspect that Glass would beat out the Garmins and Tomtoms.

~~~
vacri
Giving our office's Glass to people to test, they're so distracted that
they'll walk into things. Sometimes these things are pillars clearly visible
at eye level.

I personally hate the idea of drivers wearing these things. My undergraduate
was in psychology, neurophysiology, and hence I've been formally trained in
attention and perception - I've got a better idea than layfolk on how these
are compromised, though I'm not a professional in the field. In my opinion,
the Glass is a significant attentional split - which is bad for driving. One
example: say voice control is working fine (it doesn't always). You still have
to take your eyes off the road, target a small reticle, make sure the glass is
responding correctly. Even after that, there's still issues like just having a
phone call in the car, which regardless of the device is a driving-
performance-reducing attentional split.

Glass really, really impresses me as a technological feat; as a product I
think it's a solution looking for a problem; and as a social phenomenon, I
think it's quite dangerous when mixed with common activities like driving.

~~~
chii
i expect driving to become automated sooner or later tho. I think human
driving is the major cause of accidents, and automating it is really the best
way to save lives, create better traffic conditions for smoother
transportation, and also relieve the time required for the driver, so that
other activities can be engaged.

Think about the avg hourly commute to work - how useful would it be if that
time could be used for something else!

~~~
gaius
Like consuming media laced with advertising!

------
sheetjs
> Blair also dismissed a speeding ticket against Abadie, because an expert did
> not appear to testify to the calibration on the officer's speedometer. Blair
> said there was a lack of evidence to establish Abadie's driving speed.

This still happens? I thought it was pretty standard for officers to calibrate
and maintain written records (at least, it's standard in new york)

~~~
sahaskatta
Similar situation happened to me 2 years ago and I was dismissed in part
because of the lack of evidence to back the calibration of a radar gun.

Link: [http://skatter.com/2011/02/how-my-smart-phone-got-me-out-
of-...](http://skatter.com/2011/02/how-my-smart-phone-got-me-out-of-a-
speeding-ticket-in-traffic-court/)

------
whalesalad

      Highway Patrol Officer Keith Odle testified that he estimated Abadie
      had been driving her Toyota Prius at 85 miles per hour (137 km/h)
      in a 65 mph (105 km/h) zone when he pulled her over.
    

Case dismissed. Oh and Officer you're being suspended without pay for
falsifying evidence, everyone knows a Prius can't go that fast.

~~~
was_hellbanned
"Woz gets $700 speeding ticket for doing 104 MPH in Toyota Prius"
([http://macdailynews.com/2007/08/21/woz_gets_700_speeding_tic...](http://macdailynews.com/2007/08/21/woz_gets_700_speeding_ticket_for_doing_104_mph_in_toyota_prius/))

~~~
eps
That's no stock firmware.

------
geetee
How is the Glass' HUD any different than the ones that get projected on
windshields?[1]

[1][https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCTrsQaiD-0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCTrsQaiD-0)

~~~
btgeekboy
Glass will play, amongst other things, video. It doesn't have the built in
protections that video-playing car stereos have for not showing video while
the vehicle is in motion.

------
olalonde
In the future, people will pay a few cents to upload a hash of their video
into the Bitcoin blockchain to prove the video was taken before a given date.

~~~
sentenza
Seriously. That is an interesting application of bitcoin. Does that work with
Bitcoin, or would it be neccessary to construct another "Coin" specifically
for that purpose?

I'm highly sceptical of Bitcoin as currency, since there are so many conflicts
between the technical properties of Bitcoin and the economics of currencies,
but de-centralized verification of events and dates? _That_ sounds
interesting.

~~~
olalonde
It's actual possible today:
[http://www.proofofexistence.com/](http://www.proofofexistence.com/). It
should work with other forks of Bitcoin as well.

------
Tehnix
> "As a hands-free device it is safer than a cell phone."

According to studies[0] hands-free devices aren't as safe as you'd think. I
can't argue whether they are _safer_ , but at least "safer" isn't just enough
in itself to justify it.

Also, from personal experience I have to agree with the study. The fact that
my one hand is either up against my ear holding a device, or if the device is
lying somewhere; the former doesn't require much extra of my attention than
the latter. It is the talking and thinking of different things itself that
takes away my attention from the road. Not saying one can't talk and drive
(it's quite easy), but since the line is already drawn, it has to be uphold.

I haven't personally tried Google Glass', but could imagine it interferes with
your vision a bit. It might be necessary for this to be subject for
investigation as to the legality in the future.

[0] [http://unews.utah.edu/news_releases/hands-free-talking-
texti...](http://unews.utah.edu/news_releases/hands-free-talking-texting-are-
unsafe/)

------
NameNickHN
> Developers are already crafting apps [..]

Sounds grand if you phrase it like that.

------
bedhead
If this works, why isn't this same argument used for challenging tickets for
using a phone while driving? All the same logic still applies.

~~~
pmorici
Because if you are holding a phone to your ear you are by definition using it.
Glasses could be just hanging out on your head though. Perhaps if you drove
around with your phone strapped to your head with a sweat band you could make
the same argument.

~~~
bedhead
No, I could be holding it to my ear despite it being turned off, as stupid as
that sounds. The point is, in the case of the phone, the officer never has
_proof_ that the phone was on.

And if driving with Glass while it's on is illegal, shouldn't those dash
mounts for phones be illegal too??

~~~
kps

      > in the case of the phone, the officer never has proof that the phone was on.
    

The phone company does.

~~~
Karunamon
No, the phone company has evidence that it communicated with tower within some
period of time. The phone could still be powered up in a disconnected state,
or communicating with the same tower before the driver got into the car, or..
(insert 20 other possible mitigating circumstances)

It's not that simple. Which is one of the reasons it's a good thing this was
dismissed.

~~~
vacri
The expense of pulling phone records will outweigh the traffic ticket anyway,
and neither party would be particularly interested in going that way.

------
sushirain
You can't use a monitor while driving? The law says it's legal to use a
mapping display while driving in California:

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

------
m_mueller
Does Google Glass have some visible indicator whether it's on, similar to
webcams? If not I think this should be added as soon as possible, in fact I
believe it should be the law for any video camera switched on in public
places.

~~~
vacri
You can see that there's an image on the glass if you're facing the user, but
you have to be fairly close.

------
tgraham
She didn't beat a ticket; the state had no evidence to present to the court
that proved she'd done any thing wrong; a neat side step by the judge.

------
xiongwei_13
So, must used Google Glass with Google Driverless Car.

------
guydropingout
Wow!

