Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Input Devices

Drive With Google Glass: Get a Ticket 638

Posted by Unknown Lamer
from the no-hud-for-you dept.
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.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Drive With Google Glass: Get a Ticket

Comments Filter:
  • Good (Score:5, Insightful)

    by lxs (131946) on Wednesday October 30, 2013 @08:58AM (#45278915)

    No texting while driving and no checking Wikipedia.

    • Obviously you shouldn't do those things while driving. The article isn't about a situation where we think a person might have been doing that. It was about having a personal computer screen which may, or may not, be illegal to have in a car.

      It'll come down to technicalities in the wording in the law in question, bizarre precedents made up by previous judges, etc.

      What the driver was doing on their computer, isn't said and probably can't be proven either way. So if the law turns out to involve how the de

  • by brunokummel (664267) on Wednesday October 30, 2013 @08:59AM (#45278923) Journal
    ....she didn't see it coming.... ba dum tss!
  • by TWiTfan (2887093) on Wednesday October 30, 2013 @09:01AM (#45278937)

    What punishment could the court possibly inflict that would compare to the shame of wearing them in the first place?

  • by mrspoonsi (2955715) on Wednesday October 30, 2013 @09:03AM (#45278955)
    Given that helmet mounted HUDs are good enough for military pilots [wikipedia.org], how does having a GPS in your field of vision whilst driving a car, impair you? It sure beats looking down at a fixed display to view the GPS map (often not in the best location).

    I think the issue is they (police) do not know what else you are doing, such as playing tetris at a stop light.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 30, 2013 @09:08AM (#45278997)

      Pilots in the virtually empty air != drivers in SIlicon Valley

    • by Richard_at_work (517087) <richardprice&gmail,com> on Wednesday October 30, 2013 @09:14AM (#45279051)

      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.

    • by Sockatume (732728) on Wednesday October 30, 2013 @09:15AM (#45279057)

      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.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 30, 2013 @09:18AM (#45279083)

      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.

    • by Talderas (1212466)

      A pilot's HUD only displays information relevant to the operation of the aircraft. Google Glass can display information irrelevant to the operation of a motor vehicle.

    • by smash (1351) on Wednesday October 30, 2013 @09:29AM (#45279191) Homepage Journal
      Military HUDs only display information to improve situational awareness. Not facebook, twitter or wikipedia.
    • by idontgno (624372) on Wednesday October 30, 2013 @09:38AM (#45279295) Journal

      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).

    • by nukenerd (172703)
      mrspoonsi wrote :-

      Given that helmet mounted HUDs are good enough for military pilots, how does having a GPS in your field of vision whilst driving a car, impair you? It sure beats looking down at a fixed display to view the GPS map (often not in the best location).

      1) I don't look down at my GPS when driving. I go by its voice instructions and it surprises me that not everyone does this.

      2) Pilots are looking at HUDs to get info relevant to the flying of the plane. Someone with Google Glass could be reading the New York Times.

  • Good. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Joining Yet Again (2992179) on Wednesday October 30, 2013 @09:06AM (#45278981)

    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.

    • The problem here is the total impact is unknown. It's unknown if something in your field of vision is actually going to impact your driving. A HUD with e-mail on it might impair driving less than, say, checking your speedometer--I've almost caused a collision twice on the highway for taking one or two seconds to check my speed when it seemed fast (driver ahead of me took that time to brake, and I had to re-assess when I looked back up and didn't realize cruising at 65 was suddenly a bad thing).

      People l

      • Re:Good. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Joining Yet Again (2992179) on Wednesday October 30, 2013 @09:27AM (#45279155)

        But since current understanding is that all the features of HUD glasses make driving more dangerous, it would require a goodly quantity of new, independent research to establish that we have an exception

        It's not about being frightened by new things - that's the typical strawman response to rational caution. It's about examining the familiar features of new scenarios and taking them as a starting point, rather than resorting to child-like optimism (which may be beautiful but is entirely unscientific).

        • But since current understanding is that all the features of HUD glasses make driving more dangerous

          Based on what evidence?

      • Re:Good. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by smash (1351) on Wednesday October 30, 2013 @09:37AM (#45279285) Homepage Journal

        It's not the vision impairment that is the problem, as demonstrated by comparisons of hands-free calls vs. people holding the phone and talking. They both registered similar impairment to BAC of 0.08.

        The issue is what the person is focused on with their mind.

        It's different to talking to someone sitting next to you as your brain has to work harder to judge response, etc. when the person is not there for you to see. Also, most passengers there in person have sense to STFU if traffic looks like it is going to be a problem.

        TLDR: we don't need (more) asshats checking twitter while on the road. The fact that it is a HUD is likely to be little different to doing the same thing on a mobile phone. Unless the device locks out all non-driving relevant functionality while driving, its use should be prohibited just like any other mobile internet device.

      • by faffod (905810)
        A HUD with email might be less of an impairment than reading a speedometer for 1-2 seconds? Really. We need to spend how much money doing studies to find out that reading text
        a) takes longer
        b) longer distraction times will be more distracting

        No. A hud with email or text will be a distraction to driving far worse than looking at the speedometer - which you've already established a upper threshold of how much distraction to allow. Ban the crap out of this until a reliable study shows that this really isn'
      • by ApplePy (2703131)

        I've seen it go as far as people wanting to ban manual transmission because it takes your mind off the road and you need both hands on the wheel--while statistics show that manual transmission drivers are better drivers

        I would love to see those statistics -- just to back me up. The idea just seems logical. If you can manage to use both hands and both feet to accomplish something, it would seem to indicate good motor skills. Consider the safest class of drivers on the road -- pros who drive tractor-trailer rigs, which almost universally have manual transmissions.

        Most of the worst driving I see on the highways are vehicles that don't come with a manual option, like large SUVs. It would seem more likely that driving a ve

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 30, 2013 @09:07AM (#45278989)

    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?

    • by gatzke (2977)

      Maybe google should have selected users based on pretentiousness? This glasshole thing may limit their adoption long-term more than any technology issue.

      Not sure what to blame the g+ failure on. I went to check that wasteland again today. After the reader debacle I have lost a lot of faith.

      Maybe I start the bing? Does it work with the tubes?

  • by GAATTC (870216) on Wednesday October 30, 2013 @09:12AM (#45279035)
    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.....
    • by swampfriend (2629073) on Wednesday October 30, 2013 @09:31AM (#45279207)

      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

      • by hawguy (1600213)

        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

        Actually, I can understand what she's talking about - the signs are not always there and/or are can be obscured by other traffic. I specifically purchashed a GPS with a speed limit display so even if I miss a sign I know what the speed limit is. And I've found that on highways, the speed limit display is surprisingly accurate -- usually it changes at the exact point where I'm passing a new speed limit sign.

        Also, many municipalities assume that you know what their blanket speed limit is and don't post any s

    • by inicom (81356)

      Came to say this - she was trying to make this about google glass, when it was about her speeding. She and/or the officer were being dickish and thus the google glass part of the ticket, but she was stopped and ticketed for speeding. The infraction for the glass would undoubtably get thrown out if she goes before a judge.

  • by PhilHibbs (4537) <snarks@gmail.com> on Wednesday October 30, 2013 @09:13AM (#45279039) Homepage Journal

    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 [ca.gov].

    • by Joce640k (829181)

      I'm guessing the fact that the cop was tailing her and she didn't notice might have influenced his decision that something was distracting her.

  • Might be legal (Score:4, Interesting)

    by crmanriq (63162) on Wednesday October 30, 2013 @09:28AM (#45279163)

    It looks like she might be able to claim an exception under 27602(2) or (3):

    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.
    (6) A mobile digital terminal that is fitted with an opaque covering that does not allow the driver to view any part of the display while driving, even though the terminal may be operating, installed in a vehicle that is owned or operated by any of the following:
    (A) An electrical corporation, as defined in Section 218 of the Public Utilities Code.
    (B) A gas corporation, as defined in Section 222 of the Public Utilities Code.
    (C) A sewer system corporation, as defined in Section 230.6 of the Public Utilities Code.
    (D) A telephone corporation, as defined in Section 234 of the Public Utilities Code.
    (E) A water corporation, as defined in Section 241 of the Public Utilities Code.
    (F) A local publicly owned electric utility, as defined in Section 224.3 of the Public Utilities Code.
    (G) A city, joint powers agency, or special district, if that local entity uses the vehicle solely in the provision of sewer service, gas service, water service, or wastewater service.
    (c) Subdivision (a) does not apply to a mobile digital terminal installed in an authorized emergency vehicle or to a motor vehicle providing emergency road service or roadside assistance.
    (d) Subdivision (a) does not apply to a mobile digital terminal installed in a vehicle when the vehicle is deployed in an emergency to respond to an interruption or impending interruption of electrical, natural gas, telephone, sewer, water, or wastewater service, and the vehicle is owned or operated by any of the
    following:
    (1) An electrical corporation, as defined in Section 218 of the Public Utilities Code.
    (2) A gas corporation, as defined in Section 222 of the Public Utilities Code.
    (3) A sewer system corporation, as defined in Section 230.6 of the Public Utilities Code.
    (4) A telephone corporation, as defined in Section 234 of the Public Utilities Code.
    (5) A water corporation, as defined in Section 241 of the Public Utilities Code.
    (6) A local publi

    • Re:Might be legal (Score:4, Insightful)

      by js3 (319268) on Wednesday October 30, 2013 @09:31AM (#45279223)

      And the reason why it won't is because

      "(a) does not apply to the following equipment when installed in a vehicle:"

      Google glass is not installed in the vehicle.

    • by smash (1351)

      (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.

      (6) A mobile digital terminal that is fitted with an opaque covering that d

    • by Sockatume (732728)

      You would have to define "global positioning display" carefully. I suspect that most courts would conclude that multifunction devices do not fall under the exemption, or that the device would have to be demonstrably in that mode at the time of the incident for the exemption to apply.

  • I went to that first link and had a look at some of the clowns commenting on the G+ thread. Even the typical /. crowd would shun these people as dorks. Google Glass could cure cancer and make you able to fly, and they are NEVER going to sell these things when that is the face of the product.
  • ... and the argument that if HUDs don't interfere with jet pilots, they shouldn't pose a problem for automobile drivers, where in the article does it mention that she was actually using it in that capacity?

    I firmly suspect she was not....

    But on that point.... if merely "driving with a monitor visible to the driver" is illegal, then wouldn't a completely integrated HUD system in an advanced vehicle also be illegal?

    • But on that point.... if merely "driving with a monitor visible to the driver" is illegal, then wouldn't a completely integrated HUD system in an advanced vehicle also be illegal?

      It's not "merely" driving with a monitor visible to driver. That was my first thought too, but after checking the full text of the Section, it includes a pretty comprehensive list of exceptions including vehicle info display and GPS, under which an integrated HUD system would definitely be covered.

  • This is exactly what cops have always wanted. If only there was a way to identify self-important, stuck up assholes who think they're better than everyone else and are thus speeding. Oh wait! See if they're wearing Google glass.
  • Get a Ticket With Google Glass: Get a Slightly Larger Ticket (maybe)

  • by nukenerd (172703) on Wednesday October 30, 2013 @09:47AM (#45279411)
    FTFA "-

    California ...... where .... Google Glass is already a social norm.

    Citation?

  • The cop was obviously giving her a ticket for looking like a dork to other drivers.

  • by Aidtopia (667351) on Wednesday October 30, 2013 @11:44AM (#45281031) Homepage Journal

    Here in California, we've got a law [ca.gov] that says you can't have a video display operating anywhere the driver might see it, with exceptions for dedicated GPS/Nav/vehicle status displays.

    A friend of mine used to have an online store for GPS navigation devices. Many of the manufacturer's had "California" versions of the ROMs that he was required to ship to customers in California. The difference is that all the non-nav-related features (like games, calendar apps, etc.) were disabled when the device was in motion. This was to comply with the aforementioned law. While this was a long time ago, and the law has been amended substantially since then, I believe it still applies to this situation, but, of course, I am not a lawyer.

1: No code table for op: ++post

Working...