Slashdot Mirror
Drive With Google Glass: Get a Ticket
mrspoonsi writes "Engadget reports 'California is technology's spiritual home in the US, where Teslas roam free, and Google Glass is already a social norm. Well, unless you're a member of the San Diego law enforcement that is — as one unlucky driver just found out. That commuter was Cecilia Abadie, and she's (rather fittingly) taken to Google+ after being given a ticket for driving while wearing her Explorer Edition.'"
No texting while driving and no checking Wikipedia.
....she didn't see it coming.... ba dum tss!
What is best in life? To crush your enemies, to see them driven before you and to hear the lamentations of their women.
What punishment could the court possibly inflict that would compare to the shame of wearing them in the first place?
The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
So wearing something which deliberately obstructs your field of vision, distracts your concentration and defeats your autofocus is considered dangerous?
Seems about right to me.
Click on the "one unlucky driver...." link and laugh at all the extreme glassHOLE commentary. The silly self-entitled so-and-so was stopped for SPEEDING, and the Google Glass thing was secondary... given the comments, me thinks perhaps some C.O.P.-- contempt of police- attitude may have played a part here as to the reason for the cop deciding to throw on the Glass obstruction of view thing. What purpose is served by wearing this thing while driving, if it is off? Cause it's too much trouble to take off and put back on when you stop the car?
Pilots in the virtually empty air != drivers in SIlicon Valley
Note she was cited for speeding and a second violation. Wearing Glass was the third violation on the image of the ticket she posts. Speeding while distracted by a web enabled heads up display - how bad would she have felt if she'd killed someone.....
The first line in the violations section contains "65 mph" but I can't read the rest, so it looks like that was the main reason for stopping. The next line starts with 27602 which is the code for driving with a TV or monitor visible to the driver.
Two issues with that line of thought -
1. Military pilots (and pilots in general) get a HECK of a lot more training than any person driving on the public road does, including a massive amount of training to handle that helmet mounted display without distraction. When Google Glass comes with a 6 month intensive training course to allow you to drive with it, then you can make that comparison.
2. There's a lot less to run into in the air, even when flying in tight formation.
Not only was she doing 80, but he got her via the "PACE" method. This kind of implies that she wasn't paying much attention, or she probably would have seen the cop car tailing her.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Glass's display provides an image like 25-inch screen at 8 feet of distance somewhere above and to the right of your eyeline. It's not a heads-up display. It's more like having an iPhone glued to the corner of the sun visor.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
One of her own comments is: "Glass was not on and I honestly don't use it much while driving..."
But you do use it, right?
No sig today...
Yeah most people really need GPS on their daily commute, otherwise they would get completely lost. I can guarantee that most people wearing google glass while driving are not using it as a navigation aid. HUD displays for military aircraft are purpose built for the function of flying the aircraft only. They don't have games or a twitter app on military HUD displays.
If the cops in CA are anything like the MD/DC cops, PACE method means they get to make up whatever they want about how fast you were going.
I'm starting to think GNU is the problem with "GNU/Linux" these days.
Military HUDs only display information to improve situational awareness. Not facebook, twitter or wikipedia.
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
She says in the comments, "The speeding was justified as I was in a 65 mph zone and thought I was on a 75mph zone, I always feel like I need some software to alert me when zones change ... is that only me??" Actually California does have an "app" to alert you when zones change, it involves physical displays of the current speed limit that come into eyesight as you physically approach them
I think the issue is they (police) do not know what else you are doing, such as playing tetris at a stop light
More to the point, the police can make a safe bet that whatever's being displayed in Google Glass is completely unrelated to the safe operation of a motor vehicle. Whereas the contents of a HUD in a warplane is 100% concerned with the operation of the aircraft. No "Words With Friends" plugin there, and aircrews already have perfectly usable hands-off voice comm to eliminate texting.
The comparison fails at the most fundamental level: a HUD is constrained to the mission, but a Google Glass is open-ended within its capabilities (comparable to a smartphone). Which means that Glassing while driving is almost certainly a distraction, not an enhancement, because of all the things it can do, only a couple might be legitimate at the wheel (like GPS, for instance).
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
Just because the information is in your line of sight does not mean that it is in your focus. You have to shift focus to see information in the near plane. And there is a reason HUDs use graphic icons, they are faster for the brain to process. And the plane HUD displays information directly relevant to the successful operation/survival of the aircraft. Reading text takes several orders of magnitude longer to process. If you are traveling at 30mph (slow residential speed) and you read a text for 5 seconds, you have traveled 77 yards, nearly a football field, and you then have to refocus on the outside and scan for any new threats, which will take additional time.
If I was to tell you that I would drive down your street at 30 mph once a day with my eyes closed for a 100 yard section, and I was to do it when you little brother/ daughter/insert loved one was out playing would you be as cavalier about the costs of distracted driving?
or, to answer you question, no I would not inform the world's air forces that you don't understand the difference between a military HUD and a recreational distraction.
Highly trained and disciplined Pilots in the virtually empty air != drivers in SIlicon Valley
FTFY.
Nevermind the fact the sky is damn near empty; remember what your driving test entailed? Zero comparison between that and the training military pilots go through.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Even if you account for the increase in speed, planes are still surrounded by mostly nothing when not taking off or landing. Cars, however, are essentially *always* taking off or landing.
Furthermore, there's only one night out of the year that pilots need to watch out for deer while cruising, and that's not until late December.
simmer down, internet. I got this one. from AAA website:
California
It is unlawful to drive a motor vehicle equipped with a television receiver, a video monitor, or a television or video screen, or any other similar means of usually displaying a television broadcast if the receiver is located in the vehicle at any point forward of the back of the driver’s seat.
so it's not the san diego PD being google haters or anti-technology, they're just enforcing existing laws about monitors viewable to the driver. nothing to see here.