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.'"
....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.
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.
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.....
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...
No, but you'll quite rightly get one over here (UK) if you're holding it in your hand while driving.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
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.
Holding a phone while operating a motor vehicle is not a basic human right. Driving is a privilege not a right. Since we cannot differentiate between someone holding a phone while driving at 75 mph down the interstate and someone texting with a phone while driving at 75 mph down the interstate, both should be disallowed. There is absolutely no reason you can't set your phone down for the drive, and it does not infringe on your rights one bit to tell you not to pick it up. When you operate a vehicle you are saying to society: yes, I will play by the rules of the road. If those rules include not holding a phone, then it is not "rights infringement". You tacitly agreed to it by getting behind the wheel. You can choose to take the bus or walk if you want to use your phone. This is the same reason that breathalyzers are compulsory. You have a right not to self incriminate and you have a right not to take a breathalyzer if you are in your home or walking down the street, but by getting behind the wheel and exercising the privilege of driving (that's why you need a license, after all) you tacitly agree to abide by a more restrictive set of regulations. In other words, by driving YOU consent to give up rights while you are behind the wheel.
What in FSM's name are you talking about? There is no basic human right to hold a cellphone in the hand while driving. In fact there is no basic human right driving a motor vehicle on a public road, it is a privelege. Otherwise you would not need a driving license.
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
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.