
California woman ticketed for wearing Google Glass while driving - tga
https://plus.google.com/+CeciliaAbadie/posts/Kofr18UWLfc
======
ChuckMcM
One wonders if this was staged. And by staged I mean if there was a note out
to officers saying "If you pull over someone for a violation add this charge
if they are wearing Google Glass."

There are a bunch of unanswered questions (and by that I mean not yet
litigated differences in opinion) with respect to glass.

For example, if you're driving and you notice you are being tailed, and you
say 'Glass record' and you look down at your speedometer, and up at your rear
view mirror, and then record the entire traffic stop. Is that video admissible
in court? There have been stories of police officers being less than truthful
in how a stop occurred, video makes that harder. There is also the infamous
'resisting arrest' charge which people of various demographics feel is used
when profiling to hassle them. So if you can get it on record that it is
illegal to drive with Glass, then you make it more obvious if someone reaches
over and puts on their glass when they get pulled over.

Another question, is it a phone or not? It has a cellular connection
capability so kind of. If its a phone are you 'texting' when it is showing
text? Who knows, some would argue yes, some would argue no. Again, not yet
litigated.

All these things are going to come through the courts eventually if this
product gets any traction. So did the CHP tell their officers to add this if
they stopped someone? I don't know but I can't think of any reason an officer
would try 'watching tv' as the infraction.

~~~
wil421
Depending on the State it may also be illegal to film an officer who is
stopping you.

~~~
chrismcb
No, no it isn't.

~~~
wil421
It may not be illegal but you still can get arrested.

[http://www.infowars.com/illinois-citizens-still-being-
arrest...](http://www.infowars.com/illinois-citizens-still-being-arrested-for-
filming-cops-despite-court-ruling-which-blocked-unconstitutional-law/)

------
gareim
I got hit by a car a few months ago and painfully walked away. The car was
turning and not even at a fast speed. My friend passed away a few weeks ago
when she got hit by a truck.

People forget just how much force is behind a vehicle moving at the speed
limit.

I think, I THINK, that maybe we can respect the value of a human life enough
to put down our computers while we drive.

~~~
grecy
I am a firm believer that everyone should have to do the following things
before getting a drivers license:

1\. Spend a month in an accident recovery unit, seeing first hand victims of
MVAs.

2\. Be in a crash. Somehow this would have to be simulated, at a speed that
won't cause injury, but will shock. (I was in a simulated 15mph crash at a
fair - it HURT!)

~~~
adrr
It doesn't hurt the first day, it hurts the next day after the adrenaline
wears off. I got TBoned by who ran a red light because he was texting, he hit
me at 35. He never hit the brakes. Funny thing if you believe in karma, is
that his air bag shoved the cell phone into his face and knocked him out.

------
alayne
Whether it's valid or not, something capable of projecting into your eye while
you are driving seems like it is a potential danger. It is not the same as a
monitor that is not directly in your line of vision or obstructing your view
of the road.

My question would be what this woman was doing that attracted the attention of
the police in the first place.

~~~
ripter
It sounds like a lot of people comment don't actually own a glass. I do. It
doesn't project anything into your eye and unless you tap it or use the head
nod to turn it on, it doesn't display anything. And if you don't give it a
command (voice or tap) then it turns off in a few seconds.

Unless she was actually watching a video on it, then it's no more distracting
than the clock on your dashboard.

~~~
bdcravens
It's worth saying that some states make having a television mounted in your
dash illegal. (Some states are a bit more lenient, only making it illegal for
the driver to _watch_ TV) The sensibility of those laws aside, if they exist,
application to Glass isn't much of a stretch.

~~~
saraid216
Anyone else _really_ wishing for a way to quickly look up the exact text of
the laws being referenced?

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

This is the law relevant to the current situation. It has to do with
televisions, and makes no provisions devices capable of multiple functions
(for example, cellphones can be GPS devices or show movies).

~~~
saraid216
bdcravens's claim was "some states" and "some states are more lenient".

So California is _one_ state. There are 49 others to check. :(

~~~
bdcravens
Obviously your concern isn't the general discussion, but to establish whether
I'm incorrect :-)

Like most HNers I'm checking in on stories and commenting to the best of my
knowledge while working. If I can invoice you for the time, I'd be more than
happy to provide you with a properly MLA formatted list of sources.

In lieu of that, I hope you'll trust that I'm not just making this up. I do
recall there's a list of at least 4-6 states that are very hard-line on this
issue, and probably a majority of the states have laws prohibiting the driver
watching video while driving.

~~~
saraid216
I'd like more information, which may or may not establish that you're correct.
Or incorrect. Or wrong in a way that's subtle. Or right, despite that, because
of legal precedence I'm not aware of.

I recognize that such a utility would make it harder for lawyers to make
money, since a hefty chunk of their value-add is removed. I'm okay with that.
It would be even awesomer when local laws aren't _de facto_ locked away from
public perusal through paywalls, though that probably doesn't apply to this
particular case.

I honestly don't care if you're making it up. I want to know what's actually
on the books. About 20 minutes ago, a mailing list informed me that Tetris has
been used to treat flashbacks and Chess has been used to treat ADHD. A
5-second google was able to confirm that this isn't complete bullshit.
Googling "states that make driving with a television illegal" gets me nothing
but random things about driver's licenses and illegal immigrants.

Seriously. Full-text search on up-to-date records of law. That's all I ask.

~~~
bdcravens
No problem; you made it a bit clear here what you were trying to say. What
you're asking for would probably make someone quite wealthy, and would be a
great startup idea. In the context of the thread, it was kind of unclear if
you were talking more about my comment or your idea.

------
pseudometa
As a user of Google Glass, driving with it is idiotic.

It is great when walking or riding the bus/subway. Having anything except
critical driving information such as speed presented in a Heads Up Display
fashion is a distraction. Especially when going 80mph with other vehicles on
the road.

Book her!

~~~
alexeisadeski3
>Having anything except critical driving information such as speed presented
in a Heads Up Display fashion is a distraction

The HUD is less distracting than the alternatives.

~~~
EpicEng
You seem to be ignoring one alternative; no distractions whatsoever.

~~~
chc
I was recently shopping for a car, and I will tell you now, I did not see a
single one that had a front seat with no displays or controls besides the
steering wheel, pedals and speedometer.

~~~
sliverstorm
It's true, cars have headlight switches, tachometers, gas gauges and
electronic mirror controls. The horror.

The only devices that can actively command your attention are the gauges &
lights in the instrument cluster (which are all important to driving safely)
and possibly the screen on your radio. Speaking of which, I hated the old
radio on my old car, because it was too bright and had too much activity on
the display.

~~~
chc
> It's true, cars have headlight switches, tachometers, gas gauges and
> electronic mirror controls. The horror.

You forgot climate control, cruise control, a confusing array of wiper
settings, CD controls, radio, bluetooth, GPS, fuel efficiency feedback and
probably a few others I didn't think of right off the top of my head. The
point is not that cars are insanely distracting, but just that Glass is
probably not the most distracting thing in your car.

~~~
sliverstorm
Many of these have similar risk cost vs. risk reward tradeoffs. Climate
control helps keep you focused (I know I have a hard time focusing on the road
when it's 40F in my car) and cruise control helps keep you predictable to
other drivers.

Bluetooth integration assumes people are going to use their phones either way,
and thus handsfree is the safer choice. GPS informs drivers in advance so they
don't have to swerve across seven lanes of traffic to make their exit.

My point is, what problem does Glass solve that makes it worth the risk?

~~~
alexeisadeski3
If future iterations of Glass are able to incorporate existing dash functions,
thus making them safer to access by not having to take one's eyes off the
road, then the benefits are obvious.

~~~
sliverstorm
Future iterations of Glass are still exactly that- in the future.

------
btbuildem
Wow, her feed is such an echo chamber.. pretty much everyone's profile pic
there features them wearing Glass.

She passed a cop doing 80 in a 65, I wonder what was so distracting that you'd
miss a cruiser one lane over..

~~~
guyzero
Doing 80 in a 65 is the entirety of the 101 and 280, outside of rush hour,
when it's 20 in a 65.

~~~
ZanyProgrammer
That's the bog standard response when anyone gets pulled over for speeding.

~~~
Sambdala
And the reason for that response is that US speed limits tend to be
unreasonably low for a given road when driving a modern car.

~~~
ZanyProgrammer
And I suppose like every good software engineer on HN, you are an expert in
civil and transportation engineering?

~~~
sp332
What's engineering got to do with it? Maximum speed limits are set by law, not
by science. Heck, sometimes road engineers push for _higher_ speed limits.
[http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2011/09/be-...](http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2011/09/be-
safe-break-the-law.html)

~~~
vacri
Engineers design roads around traffic speeds - a higher intended traffic speed
has ramifications for how the road is designed and built.

------
RogerL
I really don't want people driving with Glass, even if it was turned off as
she claims (how could a PO know?)

~~~
kolinko
How is it worse than a GPS screen on a dashboard?

edit: if the PO cannot prove it was turned on, then there is such a thing as
an assumption of innocence.

~~~
iamshs
California or in general road driving laws don't mess around:
[http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d12/vc26708.htm](http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d12/vc26708.htm)

12) A portable Global Positioning System (GPS), which may be mounted in a
seven-inch square in the lower corner of the windshield farthest removed from
the driver or in a five-inch square in the lower corner of the windshield
nearest to the driver and outside of an airbag deployment zone, if the system
is used only for door-to-door navigation while the motor vehicle is being
operated.

~~~
jlgreco
Seems like a law that would make driving with a GPS _more_ dangerous for many
people. When I use a GPS (either dedicated, or my phone), I place it in a
pocket in my center console, down below my radio / AC controls. This prevents
me from constantly looking at it, as I rely solely on it's TTS feature. I
consider this to be much safer, though it sounds like in California it would
be forbidden.

~~~
tedunangst
You've misinterpreted the law. It's not telling you where to put your GPS;
it's telling you what manner of device you may mount on top of the dash.

~~~
jlgreco
Well in that case I don't see how that law is applicable to Glass at all,
since Glass is not mounted on top of the dash.

~~~
tedunangst
Maybe it's not the law the woman violated. Naturally, she posted a blurry
picture that makes it hard to read, on top of which google plus has decided I
shouldn't be able to zoom in, so I can't quite make out the citation number.

------
dllthomas
It would seem to comport with the law, as best I (as some random dude) can
tell. You're not allowed to be looking at a computer or mobile device while
you drive; Glass would seem to count.

~~~
simias
As someone who commutes on a motorbike I'd even go further and say that it
_should_ be illegal. When you're driving you need to be focused on the road,
not watching your friend's facebook wall.

Hopefully soon enough we'll get fully automatic cars and this will be a
problem of the past but in the meantime this seem the safest approach.

~~~
kolinko
So, you'd like to have car dashboards illegal as well?

First of all, Glass could've been turned off. Second of all, she could be
using it for GPS and other things.

Personally, as a driver, I'd prefer to have all my car information on some
kind of a HMD, and not on the dashboard, where I have to look away from the
road.

~~~
iamshs
Glass is directly obstructing the field of view. It is not a defensible
position to be frank. If it is turned off, well and good, but still the
"eyepiece" can cause problems like glare, reflection, transparency problems.
If it is turned on, no matter for what purpose, then it is a distraction and a
direct one. Why do you want your one organ that is keeping you safe on road,
be bombarded with information other than the one in its periphery?

~~~
onebaddude
>but still the "eyepiece" can cause problems like glare, reflection,
transparency problems.

I'm going to go out on a limb and assume you don't drive much.

I spend a lot of time on the road (60,000+km this year). There are a multitude
of things to distract you behind the wheel, from eating, phones, stereos, day-
dreaming, other drivers, nature, whatever. It's endless. If having a small eye
piece is distracting to you, by all means don't wear one. But don't project
your inability to maintain focus on all other drivers.

~~~
iamshs
A persistent illumination 2 inch in front of my eye, can be a major cause of
distractin and fatigue though. Also glancing at phones do cause accidents. You
are also projecting the ability to focus with an eye piece on, on all drivers.
How about extensive testing before letting it on road?

~~~
alexpalmer
The display is only on for a couple seconds at a time.

I personally fall on the other side; why not extensively test before banning.
We live in a society that jumps to conclusions. I believe we should have a
proper understanding of something before deciding to make laws relating to it.
What about the positive benefits. Also, do you really expect them to do the
research after banning it? Look how long it has taken the FAA to even start
reducing the ban on mobile devices.

~~~
dllthomas
We already have laws relating to it - it's basically a mobile device. It's a
special mobile device, and may deserve an exception, but it should be shown
that it's less harmful than the other devices that were banned based on
evidence.

~~~
kolinko
No, it should be shown that it's just as harmful as other kinds of screens
before being banned.

I've lived in a country which forbade everything by default unless law
explicitly allowed it. I guarantee you don't want to go this way.

------
tripngroove
Good! A person operating a moving vehicle should have 100% of their attention
focused on the road. I have yet to see an argument to the contrary that
doesn't attempt to rationalize unsafe behavior.

Any device that actively creates distractions occluding a person's field of
vision should be prohibited while driving.

~~~
mikeash
Do you think that drivers should avoid listening to the radio? Should they
pull off the road before manipulating their heater? Windshield wipers?

I ask because I kind of doubt you truly mean "100%", but you insult anyone
going for anything less.

~~~
oftenwrong
>Do you think that drivers should avoid listening to the radio?

Yes, radios are distracting and therefore dangerous, especially if drivers
take their eyes off of the road to adjust the controls.

>Should they pull off the road before manipulating their heater? Windshield
wipers?

No. It is often necessary to adjust windshield wipers and climate control
systems to ensure safety, and sometimes those adjustments must be made in
situations where pulling off the road is unsafe or impossible. For example, if
it starts pouring rain while on a narrow bridge (no way to pull over), you
will need the wipers to keep the windshield clear. The heater can be used to
de-fog.

~~~
mikeash
Sounds like an attempt to rationalize unsafe behavior to me. You can always
roll down your window and stick your head out for an unobstructed view until
you arrive at a place where you can pull over.

~~~
sliverstorm
Operating the controls of your vehicle to respond to environmental conditions
increases your safety more than it decreases it. Turning on my high beams
_does_ take a few brain cycles to flip the switch, but it also lets me spot
the deer on the side of the road.

~~~
mikeash
It's almost as if there are legitimate reasons not to have 100% of your
attention focused on the road, that aren't simply attempts to rationalize
unsafe behavior.

------
jack-r-abbit
There seems to be some misguided or misinformed people in here. Or maybe
people that just want to bend reality to fit their own. We have some people
arguing that Glass is safer than traditional dash mounted GPS because with
Glass you don't have to look away from the road like with a dash mounted GPS.
But then you have other people arguing that it is safe because it doesn't
block your view... it is in the upper right corner and you have to consciously
look at it. I've never worn Glass... but my gut tells me that both of those
arguments can't be right at the same time. Can they?

------
MrDosu
Do we really have to argue about not using entertainment video equipment while
controlling over a ton of hyperaccelerated death through other peoples lives?

~~~
thaumasiotes
Well, imagine that there were no laws pertaining to driving at all. Do you
think people would just stop looking where they were going in favor of
watching TV from the driver's seat?

It's already been pointed out that CA law bans the driver from looking at a
mobile phone. I assure you that's not making anyone any safer, because
compliance is zero. What's the benefit of the law?

~~~
dllthomas
_" I assure you that's not making anyone any safer, because compliance is
zero."_

That's a strong (and I believe false) claim. You think the number of
_instances_ of people wanting to look at their phones, and thinking _" no, I
might get ticketed, better not..."_ is zero? or no greater than the number of
times people think "fuck the law, I'm going to look at my phone now _because_
it's illegal when I wouldn't have otherwise!"? You don't think anyone has cut
a cellphone conversation shorter partly because they didn't want a ticket?
Compliance is well ( _well_ ) below perfect, and it _may_ be that the
reduction isn't enough to merit added complexity and bureaucracy, but I would
be flabbergasted if it hasn't at all reduced the time people spend interacting
with devices while driving.

------
j_s
From the comments:

    
    
      > cited for speeding (80 in 65 zone) and passing a police vehicle while speeding
    

Once you're pulled over they can throw the book at you.

~~~
dmckeon
The citation element relevant to Glass appears to be:

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

which partially reads:

 _Television

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
other similar 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._

[ there is more regarding displays in vehicles operated by utility companies]

------
diceless
Lets ignore Google Glass for a moment and realize what she was ticketed for
and how it will affect anyone with a cell phone in California.

She was ticked for having a display that could show non-car related
information somewhere within her field of view. Any person that has there cell
phone on their center console could be ticketed under the same law. Have your
cell phone mounted on your dash, your just asking for a ticket if this goes
through. Cops will give whatever ticket they can because they know part of
that ticket will go to their department and pay for extras they like to have.
More tickets, more overtime they get to have.

I fully agree, driving while distracted it bad. Very bad. But to my knowledge
they haven't outlawed drinking coffee or eating yet in the car. Far more
dangerous than being responsible and having your phone mounted in a place were
it doesn't take anymore eye time than your speed speedometer does.

I have my phone mounted on the dash for a simple reason, I want to know who is
calling me. I limit who I take to when I'm driving. I'm not going to take work
calls unless it's my boss and he's fine if I hang up on him if it's important.
I'm going to take calls from my wife, because of the same. But if it's someone
else, I ignore it unless I know it will be urgent and worth the risk of
talking while driving. Yes, I use Bluetooth. But is talking on the phone that
is dangerous, not if you are holding the phone.

And the argument that she must have been distracted by the google glasses
because she passed a cop while speeding. I'm sorry, but people get ticked for
speeding every second in california without google glasses on.

------
brudgers
Passed a cruiser while speeding.

To those saying Glass is not a distraction: sarcasm is the lowest form of wit.

~~~
qq66
What's the highest form of wit?

~~~
scott_s
Brevity.

------
hangonhn
I'm not generally a fan of Google Glass and skeptical of its future in the
form it is today. However, I see a huge potential for it as a tool for
cyclists, runners, etc. and ... drivers. It can potentially improve our
awareness while we're driving. I have a HUD in my new car and it's amazing in
its ability to make me constantly aware of my speed and navigation without
taking my eyes off the road.

This sort of idea isn't new because pilots of military helicopters and
fighters have these. It improves awareness and safety.

I hope the court allows this because making it flat out illegal to have a head
mounted display would kill off innovations in this area, which could save
lives. Maybe we can accept some compromises like a "car mode" for these
device, etc. I don't know what the right answer is but I want the possibility
for these devices in the car to be left open.

------
nosage
Did California outlaw billboards too? How about road signs? As a Glass owner
they provide the same distraction as eye glasses, virtually none. Billboards
and signs take your eye off the road, not an 'off' Glass.

~~~
fourstar
Yeah for like a split second (even if that). Do you actually hold a
conversation with and/or get immersed in a billboard?

------
outside1234
Thank you CHP! I think completely makes sense - its illegal to mount a video
screen on your dash, so why should it be legal to have over your eye?

~~~
lawnchair_larry
No it isn't.

~~~
epmatsw
Yes, it is, unless the TV meets 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.

~~~
lawnchair_larry
Right, so as I said, it's not illegal to have a screen on your dash.

------
azifali
I got ticketed for having a GPS attached to the centre of the screen.
According to the cop, all devices that obstruct the view must be removed. So,
GPS is permitted on an attachment on your dash or far left corner of the
windshield.

Google Glass is not a phone but an obstacle in view. Therefore, I guess that
the cop decided that it should be ticketed. I think this ticket will be upheld
in the court as well.

~~~
mtdewcmu
I'm guessing that the cop wrote "Driving with Monitor visible to Driver" using
that language because there's a law specifically against that. If so, she
might as well just pay the ticket.

------
coley
Don't most patrol cars have laptops in them? Laptops that I usually see open
and turned on, while the officer is driving?

I don't care what kind of special training you have, a vehicle can still pull
out in front of you in less time than it takes to look at a mirror, let alone
a laptop screen.

Yet police officers hand out expensive fines to citizens for doing the same.
Bewildering.

~~~
jmerton
"Emergency vehicles" are not required to obey the law. A friend of my was
ticketed for "riding a bicycle on the sidewalk," by a police officer who was
riding a bicycle on the sidewalk. The District Court ruled against my friend
based on my first sentence. (True story, really.)

------
ck2
I really wish they would perfect a HUD display for cars that everyone wanted
to use.

I wonder how many deaths could be prevented.

Oh that makes me remember that the Android app "Torque" has a nifty HUD mode
that inverses the display on your phone to put speed, etc. on the windshield.
I tried it once but my car doesn't have good angles for that.

~~~
blackaspen
Exactly the same number of deaths as could be prevented by having a proper
driver's education.

~~~
ck2
All the education in the world doesn't seem to overcome the belief that laws
are for "everyone else".

But even having to look down at your speedometer or odometer can be a problem
at speed, considering how much distance you cover in half a second.

~~~
jack-r-abbit
Danger exists in more places than just in front of you. A proper driving
education taught me to scan my whole surroundings while driving... not lock
eyes with the road in front and never blink. I am not looking directly in
front of me 100% of the time. I am looking front, left, right, behind, at
instruments... and repeat (not exactly with any particular cadence). My eyes
are always moving. Glancing at the speedo is such a minor part of it. Even
with a full-on HUD, I'd still be looking left, right and behind.

EDIT: when I say "looking behind" I mean the rear view mirror. I don't
physically turn my head around to look behind me. That would not be
comfortable.

------
hobbes300
She should be ticketed for wearing Google Glass, regardless of whether she was
driving or not.

------
DigitalSea
Unless a law to specifically disallow the use of Glass computing devices is
passed, how is this cop in the right? Isn't Google Glass off unless activated
which would mean you're just wearing a pair of glasses and wearing glasses is
definitely not illegal while driving. Unless they can somehow prove you were
using Google Glass while driving (which would be stupid in the first place) I
don't see how this ticket is valid. Cecilia needs to fight this or it could
set a dangerous precedent, Google needs to volunteer to pay for legal costs
for her to fight the ticket, it would be in their best interests to do so.

------
joshfraser
I bet Google will pull some of their lawyers on this. The precedent that will
be set by cases like this is pretty important for their technology especially
while it's in its infancy.

~~~
camus2
to do what ? it's not Google's problem,it's the glass user's problem.

~~~
alayne
Google wants to maximize the size of their market.

------
kayoone
I am pretty sure wearing/using Glass while driving will be banned in germany
pretty quickly if its gets popular.

Texting while driving or talking on your phone while driving is simply banned.
Even if you are not driving but the engine is running and you talk on the
phone, you will get a ticket. The only thing you are allowed todo is using the
speakers, but anything that takes your attention away from driving with visual
information that is not related to operating your vehicle is problematic.

------
Nate75Sanders
More impetus for Google to hurry up and perfect self-driving cars.

------
hgibbs
When someone has a head mounted display on, it is hard to tell whether they
are paying attention to the display or to the outside world. That is
essentially the issue here and I think that as the technology progresses this
will only become more ambiguous. Drivers should have there full attention
focused on the road and any ambiguity in the situation is unwanted from a law
enforcement/ harm reduction perspective.

------
jheriko
does anyone else notice that the person pulled said they were 'genuinely
speeding'? as in they didn't notice the change in speed limit? personally i
find the idea of that as an excuse pretty reprehensible.

its a very reasonable step to assume that a computing device attached to your
face is not going to help you pay attention to such things - this one data
point supports that claim (it is still one data point, but this is the only
safe conclusion to draw realistically). in these cases i think 'better safe
than sorry' \- you will get in trouble for reading a book, using your phone or
even smoking a cigarette if it is distracting you from driving. Google Glass
is nothing special in this regard - aside from its popularity amongst vocal
hipsters on the internet.

also, don't get me wrong, i am in favour of speeding - but i knowingly break
the law when i do it and will have to live with the consequences...

still curious to see how this plays out, but utterly convinced this is a case
of 'your own stupid fault for doing something stupid'.

------
tommoor
Side note... almost every person in the comment thread on that page is wearing
Glass in their profile picture _rolleyes_.

------
xacaxulu
Tickets for wearing them while driving is a good start, but when are we going
to start cracking down on GlassHoles in public?

~~~
woofyman
I saw my first Google Glass wearer in public. It looked ridiculous to me.

------
ktd
Good. Wearing Google Glass while driving should be banned. The people using
cell phones while driving are bad enough.

~~~
V-2
Perhaps it should be banned, but it hasn't been banned yet. On what grounds
did she get a ticket then?

------
rdxm
when you run over a pedestrian or cyclist because you are distracted, I
suspect the outcome will be significantly more costly, like life-altering. The
data on distracted driving is incontrovertible. If you can't bear to be
without your g-glass, take the bus...

------
benjamincburns
I love that the law in question has a specific exemption for satellite radio
devices. Maybe instead of someone like the EFF getting involved, Google should
just get with Sirius and ask to borrow their lobbying team/firm for a few
hours.

------
shmerl
There should be some level of distraction while driving wearing such device.
It's not like a dedicated pilot's helmet, where the UI facilitates control
over the plane. Here it's the opposite - it hinders it (to some degree).

------
gohrt
Glass could (perhaps should) be built so that its motion sensor system shuts
it down or forced into GPS-only mode when operating at high speeds.

Would be tricky for use on trains and airplanes, though (but is that an
important use case?)

~~~
nknighthb
Uh, WTF? What makes you think only the driver of a vehicle would ever be using
Glass? And how are hours spent on transportation not an important use case for
portable electronics?

------
ranman
Am I the only one who is against litigation? On the off chance that we lost it
would be annoying to be legally forbidden from using these devices while
driving. I would just pay the ticket (which I assume is ~90$).

~~~
crpatino
As long as you agree to make hitting someone while wearing glass == 2nd degree
murder.

~~~
alexpalmer
You would have to prove that glass was the cause which I believe you would
find hard.

While inactive they're no more distracting than a pair of regular glasses and
while using them for navigation they're significantly less distracting than
using a traditional GPS.

------
rdl
Someone should pay for Jennifer Granick on this one, since she started her
career defending vehicle things like DUIs, and also has the expertise in tech,
which is probably a rare combination.

------
GFischer
She's Uruguayan, she had been demonstrating Google Glass here, so media is all
over the thing :)

She says they were not on while she was driving.

------
Zoomla
Your cellphone usage should be automatically linked to your car's GPS data and
automatically bill you every time you use it while driving ? this is not that
hard, I am sure the NSA already has all that data

~~~
jlgreco
Have you ever heard of this new thing called "passengers"? They're all the
rage these days.

~~~
Zoomla
sorry I was a little sarcastic... but for passengers, they can always contest
their tickets later... just like they have to do with red-light camera
tickets.

