Slashdot Mirror


Google Glass User Fights Speeding Ticket, Saying She's Defending the Future

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.

11 of 464 comments (clear)

  1. Reinforcing the term by jmhobrien · · Score: 5, Funny

    glasshole.

    --
    Where is moderation: -1 False?
    1. Re:Reinforcing the term by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      That's nothing. Just last week I beat a ticket for wearing an Occulus Rift while doing 90 in a school zone in Florida. Told the judge that the cop was a "faggot" (a very specific piece of legal jargon) and he agreed, so I got off free. So forget this bitch, I'm the defender of the future. I'm plan on raise awareness on this subject, so please feel free to donate some money this way.

    2. Re:Reinforcing the term by Penguinisto · · 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.

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    3. Re:Reinforcing the term by AK+Marc · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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).

    4. Re:Reinforcing the term by hawguy · · 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

      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"

    5. Re:Reinforcing the term by Dahamma · · Score: 5, Funny

      If your name isn't "Sarah Connor", you are not defending the future.

  2. Re:Like 100 years ago... by danknight48 · · 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.

  3. Case has been dropped by margeman2k3 · · Score: 5, Informative
    http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/16/us-usa-googleglass-trial-dismissal-idUSBREA0F1XR20140116

    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

  4. Re:Like 100 years ago... by Penguinisto · · 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. :/

    --
    Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
  5. Don't be absurd. It isn't a monitor. by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

  6. What the hell happened to Silicon Valley? by Anonymous Coward · · 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.