Drive With Google Glass: Get a Ticket 638
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.'"
Good (Score:5, Insightful)
No texting while driving and no checking Wikipedia.
Impaired Driving Abilities? (Score:3, Insightful)
I think the issue is they (police) do not know what else you are doing, such as playing tetris at a stop light.
Good. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Impaired Driving Abilities? (Score:5, Insightful)
Pilots in the virtually empty air != drivers in SIlicon Valley
Re:Impaired Driving Abilities? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Impaired Driving Abilities? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Good (Score:1, Insightful)
Just wearing Google Glass does not mean you are texting or checking wikipedia. Should you get a ticket just for having your cellphone in the car because it has the capability to text and check the internet?
Re:inb4 (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Good. (Score:5, Insightful)
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).
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
No, but you'll quite rightly get one over here (UK) if you're holding it in your hand while driving.
Re:Check the ticket: she was doing 80 (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Impaired Driving Abilities? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Wearing Glass was the third violation on ticket (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Re:Might be legal (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:inb4 (Score:4, Insightful)
There are far fewer things to hit at an aircraft's usual altitude. A pilot's HUD can obscure small parts of the view without significant risk. There's also the small detail that pilots are far better-trained than most drivers.
Re:Good. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Impaired Driving Abilities? (Score:5, Insightful)
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).
Re:inb4 (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Impaired Driving Abilities? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:inb4 (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe she uses it for GPS? How do you know she uses it for something that takes her attention away from driving?
How about the fact that a cop was tailing her for a while and she didn't even notice him?
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
"Quite rightly"? Seriously, WTF damage do you Brits have when it comes to pissing away your basic human rights without a second thought?
I guess holding a cellphone while driving can only be considered a "basic human right" in a country that signed away all other human rights, like free speech, protection from warrantless search and wiretapping...
Re: utter nonsense (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
How do you know they don't plan to use that fork to murder someone? That cup of coffee doesn't contain illegal drugs? Their wallet doesn't contain leaked NSA secret documents?
Under conventional Western-style rule-of-Law, we have a presumption of innocence until proven guilty. I realize the UK has a slightly different take on that than the US, but I believe you still have the same general principle.
Make no mistake, you know when someone has their attention on their phone rather than the road. The little telltale signs give it away - Looking at their lap instead of forward, swerving all over the place, complete failure to pick a speed and stay there.
Defining a million and one "proxy" crimes only leads to less and less respect for the law as a whole.
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you seriously believe that "right to travel" means "right to drive", or "right to fly a helicopter" and that kind of thing?
Freedom of movement, mobility rights or the right to travel is a human right concept that the constitutions of numerous states respect. It asserts that a citizen of a state in which that citizen is present has the liberty to travel, reside in, and/or work in any part of the state where one pleases within the limits of respect for the liberty and rights of others,[1] and to leave that state and return at any time.
there are some houses near me that are only accessible by Interstate
It seems rather unlikely that you couldn't get to those places by foot. But why would someone who can't drive even buy their house there? Are taxis unavailable in your area? Usually people with such low user IDs make a bit more sense, but your post comes across more as trolling and/or lack of coffee.
Re:Not, however, if it's handsfree (Score:1, Insightful)