30
Oct
nexusae0_image_thumb49

Last night, Glass Explorer Cecilia Abadie shared a post asking fellow Google+ users for some advice. Abadie had been given a traffic ticket "for wearing Google Glass while driving" and wondered if the cop was wrong, or if driving with Glass is already illegal in California.

Accompanying the post, Abadie shared a photo of the ticket itself.

Screen Shot 2013-10-29 at 11.08.32 PM

It’s easy to be angry that the cop would choose to list wearing Google Glass while driving as an infraction, but it’s also important to note that the ticket in question lists a speeding infraction as well. Specifically, it indicates that Abadie was going approximately 80mph, in what she says was a 65mph zone.

The infraction which the officer specifically related to Glass was for "Driving with monitor visible to driver," citing section 27602 which you can read here.

Here’s the meat of 27602:

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.

This would suggest drivers simply aren't allowed to have monitors or displays visible to them, but - other than exceptions for utility workers - there are some exceptions for everyday drivers:

(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.

Along with several other exceptions for devices that keep the driver from using them while driving or are displaying information but which have an opaque cover.

So, who's right? In all likelihood, Glass' display was not visible to Abadie, since the device's screen spends most of its time off to conserve precious battery power.

That said, 27602 is nothing if not a little fuzzy. It describes a display that is "operating ... or operating and the monitor ... is visible to the driver while driving the motor vehicle," which could mean a device that's operating but not currently displaying anything, or one which is displaying and operating. The only certain thing about that portion of the law is that it shouldn’t be located forward of the back of the driver’s seat. Even with that ephemeral moment of clarity, the question of whether a new technology like Glass is exempt from this law remains.

Glass doesn't automatically activate its display to show notifications, even if you're navigating (though it does flick on for each new direction), but California does have laws dictating how and where GPS or navigation devices can be used in a car, and the user's eyeball isn't an explicitly provided-for location. At any rate, it's clear the law wasn't written with Glass accounted for.

The fact that the ticket's first infraction is speeding an apparent 15mph over the limit is still important to consider - while the law cited in relation to Glass is certainly not crystal clear, Abadie will also be up against a speeding infraction, which will make her case that much harder.

If the ticket were solely written for Abadie wearing Glass, I’d be more inclined to think of it as an important case in the life of Google’s nascent wearable. As it stands, if Abadie decides to fight the ticket, it’s hard to see how it would have any significant impact on wearable technology. To assume it would is also to make the assumption that the addition of “(Google Glass)” to the ticket is significant to the judge and that a traffic court case will influence California law, or that this case will escalate to a more influential court.

Source: Google+

Liam Spradlin
Liam loves Android, design, user experience, and travel. He doesn't love ill-proportioned letter forms, advertisements made entirely of stock photography, and writing biographical snippets.

  • RDPG

    So your radio is a screen as well? Good ole ambiguous laws.

    • abqnm

      Yes, but one of the provided exemptions under the law.

    • Danny Davis

      Did you read the law that was post?

  • Kevin Collins

    Good - you look stupid enough with Glass on when not driving - take them off when driving. Nobody gives a shit what the world looks like to you when you're driving.

    • Bob

      Not as stupid as you sound pecking away on your keyboard to make an idiotic statement that has nothing to do with this article

      • Kevin Collins

        How does it not have anything to do with the article? You sure took that personally. Were you the idiot who got the ticket? Or just the idiot walking around with Glass on all the time? I'll let you in on a little secret - everyone thinks you look like a 'tard wearing them, and nobody cares what the world looks like through your eyes.

    • jesuguru

      If nobody (including you) cares, why are you posting?

    • firesoul453

      "Good - you look stupid enough with Glass on when not driving - take them off when driving. Nobody gives a shit what the world looks like to you when you're driving."

      Thats not the issue here at all.

  • abqnm

    Odds are, after going to court, the speeding will be upheld and the video monitor charge will be dropped either directly or in some sort of a plea bargain. It would likely be easy to argue it as a hands free device. Then again, it is California, so they may try to make an example of the case.

    • http://www.androidpolice.com/ David Ruddock

      Hands-free has nothing to do with the violation she was cited for. It is a video monitor citation, not a cell phone citation.

      • abqnm

        I realize the charge and the specifics of it. All I am saying is that it could be possible to argue that it is a hands free device rather than a monitor. It would obviously depend on a lot of factors including the prosecuting attorney and if it got to the judge, his or her position as well. It is legal to have a video monitor in view of the driver as long as it is not operating while the vehicle is in motion. It would likely be pretty difficult for the prosecution to prove that the display was operating while she was driving.

        Either way it will be interesting to see the result.

        • http://www.androidpolice.com/ David Ruddock

          Hands-free devices do not display video. Glass is capable of displaying video. It's pretty cut and dry, I'd say. The law obviously isn't worded well to the technology at play, but Glass clearly has more distraction potential than a BT headset.

          • abqnm

            Certainly. I am not arguing the potential for distraction. My gun has the potential to be fired as well, but simply possessing it does not make me guilty of firing it. Just because it can, doesn't mean it was. And considering the size of the display it will be pretty tough to prove that the officer saw it in operation. It isn't cut and dry like when a cop pulls up and you are watching a dvd on your in-dash monitor. That is clearly obvious.

          • Cherokee4Life

            I would agree with you before Google Glass was invented. a Hands Free device would be a device that you do not have to use your hands for so there by not further distracting you. Which I don't fully understand. If I have a Bluetooth headset and i'm talking on the phone I am still distracted by talking and driving holding the phone between my head and shoulder doesn't distract me anymore then a Bluetooth headset.

            That being said Google Glass is a device that is hands free. I would call it a Hands-Free Device.

    • Frekko

      i think that women did it on purpose, just to see what will happen

    • Rickrau5

      You've obviously never been ticketed in California..

      • abqnm

        NorCal but only once. Speeding and improper lane change. They dismissed the second one on a plea for the speeding. Deferred sentence on the speeding. Given I am an out of state resident so that may help but who knows.

  • Danny Davis

    Should not had been speeding.

    • http://www.androidpolice.com/ Artem Russakovskii

      That's off-topic.

      • Danny Davis

        Really. The whole reason she was pulled over was for speeding. Had she not been speeding cop wouldn't have gave a flying fuck about the glass.

        • http://www.androidpolice.com/ Artem Russakovskii

          Still off-topic. She could have been pulled over for a broken tail light and still gotten that ticket. There are separate charges, and one has nothing to do with the other.

          • Danny Davis

            Lmao. Ok. Didn't know you enforced what can and can't be talked about

          • Freak4Dell

            Yeah, who does this Artem guy think he is, anyway? The owner of a privately owned website called Android Police or something? How ridiculous.

          • Danny Davis

            Ok? That name has little to no concern to me.

          • Ian Santopietro

            Dude, calm down. He's just saying it's useless to speculate on hypotheticals.

          • http://www.androidpolice.com/ Artem Russakovskii

            Oh, I am not trying to enforce what can and can't be talked about, I guess a better word would have been "irrelevant." You are free to disagree and discuss as you see fit, of course, as long as it's civil.

          • Danny Davis

            Can't even really call it irrelevant. I look at it as a cause and effect situation. That's like if I'm blowing weed doing a 100 and get arrested, i put myself in a cause in effect situation. Now for the record I think her getting a ticket for it is BS. BUT she put herself, however it may be, in a situation that caused her to get pulled over. You can't just say it's irrelevant or off topic because its tied in. Its not like she just got pulled over because of the glasses alone. So it goes back to my initial statement, shouldn't had been speeding.

          • SickoPsycho

            I would say we dont have enough information to make that call. How do you know that the officer didnt see her at a red light with the Glass on and start following her only to see her speed to 80mph? The initial cause could have been the Glass. eh? eh?

          • Danny Davis

            Because if you look at the ticket her ass passed the officer at 80 and he paced her at that speed before pulling over.

          • drawkcaB

            This isnt morals and ethics 101 its android police, a tech blog. it is irrelevant because the topic being approached is where glass lies in regards to motoring law. Yes people shouldnt be speeding but we are talking about the fine regarding the display.

          • Danny Davis

            Lol y'all people are silly.

  • AmicusBrief

    You could also apply such a violation to the Samsung Gear.

    • HopelesslyFaithful

      or the radio?

    • mustbepbs

      Wearing Galaxy Gear is a crime against fashion.

      • AmicusBrief

        Clearly, a capital offense.

    • http://www.androidpolice.com/ David Ruddock

      You probably could, actually. Though arguably it is a potentially dangerous distraction.

      • AmicusBrief

        There's "probably" a lot of things you could get away with absent law enforcement's observation. However, the plain language of the statute is unambiguous. The form and function of the Gear clearly falls within the confines of the construction of the CA statute.

        • Freak4Dell

          Seems like the way the law is written, a passenger sitting next to you using a cell phone is also illegal.

  • Sam

    California and its ambiguous "laws"

  • AmicusBrief

    I can't wait to see what happens when prescription Glass hits the roads. The ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act will be implicated and the courts will go nuts balancing the law.

  • andy_o

    I drive every day with my phone on my dash mount with the GPS on. This law is pretty ambiguous, forget about Glass, it doesn't even consider how you can use a smartphone GPS. I was at a red light once changing a podcast to be played, and a cop creeped up to my side on his motorcycle, knocked on my window: "what are you doing?" I just told him "I'm playing my music, I'm done", and he just went off.

    • http://www.androidpolice.com/ David Ruddock

      There is a CA law allowing use of phones for GPS / GPS units so long as they are mounted in the correct position.

      • andy_o

        I would assume so, but what I meant is if I can use it for other things that you can use other devices for. For instance, I don't have a radio unit in my car anymore, but I use my phone (mounted of course) to play music. Until now I'd just assumed it was OK, so when the cop asked, I just said it confidently. I'm wondering if he could have ticketed me had he wanted.

        I see that my post above said "smartphone GPS" explicitly, but this is what I meant, sorry for the confusion.

        • http://www.androidpolice.com/ David Ruddock

          I actually don't see any issue with using it in that manner since in that respect (music) it's a vehicle control display, since it's controlling your vehicle's audio system. I think they're more concerned with texting / email / web / YouTube etc. I guarantee there are plenty of morons streaming YT or watching Netflix on their "GPS" mounts in vehicles.

      • fzammetti

        Fucking California.

        That is all.

  • Jon

    The way I read this, it seems like it would therefore be illegal for the front seat passenger to play with a smartphone. It's a screen, it's forward of the back seat, and it's likely somewhere in the driver's peripheral vision...

    • http://www.androidpolice.com/ David Ruddock

      Technically, yes, but I doubt any cop would ever write a ticket for a passenger watching YouTube while someone else drives, unless it was obvious the passenger was getting them to watch the video (eg leaning over to the driver's side).

      • fzammetti

        You say that until it actually happens.

        We shouldn't have laws that we "doubt any cop would ever write a ticket for"... instead, JUST DON'T HAVE THAT LAW. Having the law opens up the possibility of abuse... albeit, this isn't something that would be a major abuse by most measures, but could be seen as an abuse none the less (I highly suspect the driver who found the ONE cop that WOULD write a ticket for that would feel it's an abuse).

  • FrillArtist

    80mph in a 65mph zone? The only terrible thing the officer did was not to arrest her. I'm sick of reckless idiots like her.

    • Danny Davis

      That's what gets me. Reckless driving and she's worried about getting ticketed for Glasses. I don't even understand why this is making internet news.

    • uniquename72

      On highways in Vegas, the speed limit is 65 and the flow of traffic is between 75 and 85. This is true in parts of Cali as well, unless it's rush hour.

      It's generally safer to drive with the flow of traffic than to drive significantly slower.

      Unless of course, you were being sarcastic, in which case, please learn to use the internet. /s

    • HopelesslyFaithful

      your an idiot. At least in IL if i recall you have to be breaking 35-45 over for it to be considered reckless driving. Hell even on i88 people drive 75-85 on a regular basis and the speed is 55...nothing dangerous about it...how about you quit being a little ninny. Lets have a even bigger brother trolling out lives while we are at it./s

      • TheKoala

        In Illinois you have to go over 85 for it to be reckless (speed limit is 55 near Chicago and 65 elsewhere). 294 is worse people are usually up in the 90s but still driving with the flow of traffic is safer than driving the speed limit

        • HopelesslyFaithful

          well i once got a ticket for 90 so it is above 35. I think it was 40 but i think they lowered it in the last decade.

      • Cherokee4Life

        What is reckless driving is IL on i88 and 294 and such is when everyone is speeding by 20mph and you have the one dumbass who is going the speed limit which is unsafe and reckless. I know peer pressure is bad and all but if you are the only one NOT going with the flow of traffic you are a danger to the road and yes the police could arrest you for reckless driving. Unlike some trolls here I took Drivers Ed and driving safety

        • MSfan2

          You might want to research that. Driver's Ed. and Traffic School instructors don't know every law and you can bet they throw a couple of opinions out there every once in a while. If it sounds stupid, (getting a ticket for obeying the law because everyone else is breaking it) then it probably is false. If it happened to you, then either you weren't smart enough to fight the ticket or smart enough to convince the judge. Arrested for reckless driving, going the speed limit, stupid. Only if you were going to fast.

          • Freak4Dell

            It wouldn't be reckless, I don't think, but laws against impeding the flow of traffic are definitely real and necessary. I don't think you can technically get one for going the speed limit (though I firmly believe you should if everyone else is going faster...not to mention the speed limit should be reevaluated at that point), but going slower than the speed limit runs you the risk of a ticket. Some states have minimum speeds, and going slower will definitely get you a ticket if a cop sees.

          • Cherokee4Life

            your not thinking it through or you don't know what you are talking about. If the flow of traffic is going a certain pace, (I mean everyone but you, rare but possible) You "can" be pulled over and ticked for reckless driving. Just because you go the speed limit doesn't mean you can't get pulled over. I'm not saying this happens every day but it is the grey area in the law where if a cop wants to go that route it is possible

          • MSfan2

            Show me the law. If this were the case the court would have to throw out every ticket. You can not get out of a speeding ticket by saying you were just driving with the flow of traffic. The max speed is the max speed, if you go over it, you are breaking the law. There really is nothing to think through here.

        • FrillArtist

          Going the speed limit is not unsafe and reckless. Going over the speed limit is reckless and unsafe. Typically, there's that one clown in his beat up Malibu or '95 Mustang driving 20 over the speed limit and weaving through lanes. Those are the unsafe and reckless drivers.

          • Cherokee4Life

            I am not saying everyone should go 20mph over the limit. I understand that is not safe BECAUSE you are going faster than everyone else. But the reverse can be said to. If the Speed Limit is 50mph and everyone is going 50 except 1 person who is going 20mph that person going 20mph is by the law "reckless driving". The same if it's up-scaled. I don't condone speeding but just pointining out a fact that if 1 person is going significantly lower speed than the rest of the people on the road (and a busy road) it is reckless. It seems everyone forgets even if you are going under the speed limit you can still get ticket. Not for speeding obviously.

          • Cherokee4Life

            and I am not saying Cops will always pull you over or you will always get a ticket, I am just solely stating that it is possible. Quick frankly anything is possible with cops and "moving violations" these days.

      • FrillArtist

        Yes, you can go at the same speed as other cars except the other cars probably weren't going at 80 or else the cop probably wouldn't have pulled her over. A ticket well deserved.

        • Cherokee4Life

          What's the point of arguing about punctuation? What does that prove? Does it make you feel better that you attempted to feel better about yourself because you were trying to put someone down based on the punctuation they used on a tech news site? And I like the logic you put behind what defines an idiot. You really should take your research and submit to the WHO.

    • pfmiller

      Never driven on a freeway in California (or elsewhere), I take it. 80 is pretty close to normal unless there is traffic.

      • FrillArtist

        It's not just on freeways. On residential streets, you see these clowns hitting 50mph in a 25mph zone. I know the police department is on a cutback but it's good to see one of them get caught once in a while.

        • pfmiller

          You're comparing apples to oranges. Driving 50 in a 25 zone on a residential street is a clearly a hazard. Driving 80 on the freeway is not and I see nothing wrong with it.

        • Evan Knofsky

          As pfmiller said, if the traffic is moving at 80 on the highway it is unsafe to be going 65. That doesn't mean she would be speeding on residential streets.

          • FrillArtist

            Except the traffic wasn't moving at 80 otherwise, the cop wouldn't have stopped her. She was going over the speed limit and practicing debatable unsafe behavior in the car.

          • Evan Knofsky

            Must be nice not having cops do that, here in Western PA even if the traffic is all moving at 80 the state cops will gladly stop as many people as the can.

          • FrillArtist

            Same in Ohio. They're ruthless about the speed limit.

    • xHabeasCorpusx

      You must not live in California... 80 is the norm speed as uniquename72 said even though it says 65. If you are not going 80 in the left two lanes of a four lane highway, YOU become a hazard. Southern Calif roadways do not see snow and rarely see rain... 80 is very reasonable.

      Again I can't tell if you are being sarcastic... If you are, I apologize.

  • Tolstoy

    She will be able to fight the infractions separately. Just because she is likely to lose on the speeding aspect will not affect her (lawyer's) ability to argue the use of Glass.

  • HopelesslyFaithful

    a the little USSR of the US of A at it again :P

  • Mark

    Surely the cop would need to know that Glass wasn't displaying a map, as if it was, it's perfectly legal to use...

    • http://AndroidPolice.com/ Liam Spradlin

      That's still kind of a gray area, as I understand it. California has certain restrictions for where smartphones/nav devices can be placed in your car, and Glass wasn't really a consideration yet at the time those rules were decided.

    • Danny Davis

      Very true. The case is so vague that could get thrown out. That fact her dumb ass was 15 over speed limit doesn't help her arguement.

      • Cherokee4Life

        Did you take Driving Safety or Drivers Ed? You do know that for the safety of others and yourself if you are on a highway and everyone is speeding by 20MPH and you are going to speed limit it is unsafe and possible illegal?

        • Tolstoy

          While impeding the flow of traffic is an actual law, you will NEVER be ticketed for driving at the speed limit unless you are in the left hand lane of a left hand lane pass state.

          Impeding the flow of traffic is used for situations such as driving significantly below the speed limit, such as 40 in a 65.

          • Cherokee4Life

            So you can't say never. I agree that you will never get a speeding ticket for driving the speed limit. But if you get a cop that is feeling a little but grumpy that day and you are clearly causing danger while not going the flow of traffic you can receive a ticket. Because if you will NEVER get a ticket then I need to go back a fight a ticket I got a few years ago..

          • Tolstoy

            Re-read what I posted.

            "You will NEVER get a ticket for driving AT THE SPEED LIMIT (in the context of Impeding the flow of traffic)" Even driving in the left hand lane would not be ticketed as "Impeding the flow of traffic," but instead the "Left hand lane only pass" law.

            Impeding is used in the situations I described above.

          • Cherokee4Life

            fair enough. What I should have said is "If someone is going the speed limit and the rest of the people on a very busy road are all going 40mph over the speed limit it is a POSSIBILITY to get a ticket, I do not know the exact verbage of the ticket as it changes in states but it is still POSSIBLE to get a ticket."

          • Andrew

            My parents actually got a ticket in Miami in the 80's for going the speed limit. The Miami Harold published an article that stated low grade speeders were more dangerous than high grade speeders. It was thrown out of court.

          • Andrew

            We have signs in Florida that state the Minimum Speed in many places. The speed is too low, though. I believe 40mph is the stated minimum speed on our 70 mph zones... thats just asking to cause a fatality.

          • Tolstoy

            I agree that they are too low (I'm in Florida as well, it's 50 in a 70 FYI), but as you pointed out in your other comment, issuing a ticket outside the scope of the law would not survive a court challenge.

            Specifically, "Impeding" in Florida would be a violation of FS 316.183 (5), but could not violate FS 316.183 (2), which establishes speed limits (both upper and lower).

        • Danny Davis

          Yes i understand that. Do you understand that if everyone is going the same speed the cop wont pull over one person? Don't lecture me about driving when i work around it daily.

          • Cherokee4Life

            Well then I guess the laws in Illinois are different then where you live because I have been apart of this and see this all the time. I wish I lived where you do and if multiple people are committing an illegal action the police officers just refuse to do anything...

          • Danny Davis

            Hate to be you.

          • Cherokee4Life

            Being me is not all it's cracked up to be... believe me :)

    • AmicusBrief

      I disagree. Whether a map was displayed on the Glass is irrelevant since the device could not be "installed" in the vehicle.

      • http://www.androidpolice.com/ David Ruddock

        Correct. Using your phone as a GPS requires a vehicle mount in a specific part of the dash.

        • Cherokee4Life

          really? did not know that. If you have a stand-a-lone GPS unit does it require a mount as well?

      • Freak4Dell

        That's pretty ambiguous, too. How good does an installation have to be in order to be considered "installed"? I have a phone holder taped to my dash...is that installed, or do I need to have it molded into the dash or something? Does a windshield suction cup mount count as installed?

        • AmicusBrief

          The CA courts will determine the context and definition of "installed", if they haven't already. I'm too lazy to fire up WestLaw to find out.

  • Aric Braun

    For those who don't live in California. 80 in a 65 is actually very very normal. 65 is the Hwy speed limit but you'll have people on your butt if you are only going 80 in the fast lane. I can see why she is complaining, unless she was weaving through traffic the cop pulled her over for the glasses.

    • http://www.androidpolice.com/ David Ruddock

      Yeah, you'll still get ticketed if you're in a speed trap, though. I got one for 85 in a 70 (Interstate 5, getting close to the grapevine in Kern Co), even though the road was absurdly empty. It was night, so I didn't even have a chance of seeing the cop. At least he didn't write me up as doing 86, or that would have been one pricey ticket.

      • Rickrau5

        Basic speed law..if.everyone is going 80, then you should be going with the flow of traffic

    • Andrew

      Same here in South Florida. For most of the state, I-95 and the Turnpike at 70 mph zones. In South Florida, they are both 65mph for most of it (not all, some places they are 70, other places like downtown Miami, I-95 is obviously less). Its not uncommon for me to go over 75 mph on my commute to work and still get passed, no matter what lane I'm in.

      • Freak4Dell

        I honestly can't think of anywhere I've been where this isn't true. It seems to be more pronounced in southern and western states, but the eastern states still do it. Even in NY, where the speed limits on all the highways I've seen so far is 55, and people just drive a lot slower in general, the flow of traffic still seems to go at 10mph or so above the limit.

        The entire country should just raise speed limits.

    • MeCampbell30

      I did 100 in a 65 and got the 80mph cite. Most of the time they jus write it for 15mph over because the penalties get very dramatic.

    • gargamel

      you think he saw and recognized Glass while driving at 80?? Wow, cops in the US are amazing

  • Tom Campbell

    XM Radio and even standard digital radio often displays information about the song being played or the news being reported. Therefore, any radio with an alpha-numeric display could cause an infraction of this law.
    Good intentions - from a different era.

    • http://www.androidpolice.com/ David Ruddock

      Incorrect. These are exempted under the law as vehicle information displays (they're part of the audio / radio system, which is a vehicle control).

      • Tom Campbell

        Not to be obstinate, but stock prices and sports scores are business and entertainment, And both are available on screen with an XM Radio device. If push came to shove, it would be hard to defend these as "Vehicle Control".

        "Stock Price DisplayXM Satellite Radio broadcasts information, such as sports scores, stocks, and other features. XpressR can track up to 20 of your favorite stock symbols, displaying the price and daily movement on the display."

        • http://www.androidpolice.com/ David Ruddock

          Yeah, I guess if they're displaying scores / stock tickers, that would potentially be a source for citation, though I highly doubt it's ever happened.

          • Andrew

            They are static though. You don't have a stock ticker running across your screen. You also don't see the plays that happen in the sporting events. A quick glance over is a lot safer than watching a movie. Apple and oranges. I am one to say that I believe this woman is in the wrong (unless she was using the map function) and I think Google should make an example out of her by revoking her explorer privileges (I don't think they will do it). Actions like this pose a significant threat to their program.

          • Danny Davis

            OR this could be an opportunity for Google to create a driving mode for glasses. Identify driving behind a wheel and initiate driving mode restricted only to gps or speedometer.

          • Andrew

            I thought about making an app that turned off radio functions at speeds in excess of 20 mph for parents to install on their kid's phones a few years ago. The key would be naming it something obscure and having no icon/user interface or having a way to prevent someone from uninstalling it from the market/phone.

    • Danny Davis

      The law clearly states video entertainment

  • http://www.facebook.com/robertlyon.author Robert Lyon

    It's a new revenue generator. Politicians and cops will both like that.

  • bat0nas

    If the guy was ticketed just wearing Glass... guys with Oculus Rift are screwed completely ;)

  • Guest

    I would like to suggest a MediaFire mirror on all APK download, please.

    • http://www.androidpolice.com/ Artem Russakovskii

      .............

    • Cherokee4Life

      I agree.....

  • redfox

    Until she shows up to court with glass video footage of not going the speed the speed he claims and of him ticketing her...

    • Danny Davis

      Wouldn't that be ironic

  • Danny Davis

    I think what's amazing is the the cop even knowing what the Glasses was.

    • tomn1ce

      The cop was probably pissed off that he/she doesn't have one and was just hating on the driver o_0

      • abqnm

        Maybe she should invite the cop with one of her invitations in the coming weeks.

    • David Spivey

      Well, this is in California. Everyone in California knows what Google does, right?

  • A

    The fact of the matter is that she had a SCREEN in front of her face (or part of it). Yes, that screen may be capable of showing directions, but it's also capable of text and images. As cool as GGs are, they shouldn't be used while driving, the same way that phones shouldn't.

    • http://www.twitter.com/ninjustin ninjustin

      Do you use your phone for navigation I sure do? I really don't see a difference if you are using them for navigation purposes.

      • koki

        the law does not agree with you. Read it. She had a monitor in front of her eyes, it doesn't matter if it was on or off (because it is so easy to turn any monitor off when being pulled)

        • http://www.twitter.com/ninjustin ninjustin

          Read the second quote the exceptions are:

          (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.

  • Yono

    This officer sounds like a dick.

  • Nicklas

    Some cops are just assholes.

  • Chris Laudermilk

    For one, it was speeding that got her caught. Yes, 80mph is common on CA freeways, but you can still get pulled over for it even while in a group all going the same speed--I have. >:( The second infraction for the Glass was just an add-on since she was already stopped. From reading that law, it may be a little fuzzy but I think it will be upheld. Video device NOT installed in the vehicle within the driver's view.

  • James Sloat

    One other possible argument could be the future, and in some current cases, the use of HUD technology in the automobile industry. Google glass could be argued as tecnically a form of HUD technology. Other than the speeding portion of this citation, this will be an interesting case to follow.

  • fzammetti

    Hell, she should call Google to get some legal defense... I mean, seems like they would have a vested interest in the outcome of this case one way or another, no? It's even a limitation to the usage of their product that they'll have to account for (whether that means design decisions to allow it or just some legalese out of the box to indemnify themselves) or it could be a sales point if it's decided Glass is okay for this usage. Either way, they might be willing to foot the legal bill for her challenging the citation (well, aside from the speeding portion of course, that part she's on the hook for it seems).

  • firesoul453

    So do smart watches and watches of any kind count? Can I get pulled over for checking the time on a watch?

    • Cherokee4Life

      I hope this goes to court and gets fought out in a lengthy battle so all of these things can be brought up and a precedent can be set. There is to much grey area on this matter and so much speculation that the government needs to either amend current laws or create new ones to apply to all of the new technology that is coming.

      • firesoul453

        I know. its dumb. Seems like they can't even think ahead a few years in technology. Google glasses are being tried out and now we are having all kinds of legal issue that should have been thought of a long while ago.

        • Cherokee4Life

          I mean I get it, there is no sense in writing laws for technology that may not come to production and such but this is going to open the flood gates I think.

  • AmicusBrief

    The truth being, if this woman had a screaming 3 year old in the back seat it would've been far more distracting than the Glass. Or, how about the Goodyear blimp flashing an advertisement 1000 ft over the 405?

  • The_16th_Doctor

    Thing is, there is no proof that she was wearing Glass while driving. After she pulled over, she could have put on Glass before the officer came up to her window. It is virtually impossible to see that with the naked eye, especially if she was 15 over.

  • Brian

    I think she got the ticket because of the combination of speeding and the glasses. My commute to work is from the south into silicon valley. Multiple times a chp has pulled over someone going the same speed as me, but talking or texting on a cell phone. They can give a crap less about the speeding, but they get you for the speeding plus distracted driving and they get 2 pts closer to their quota and can spend the rest of the day sleeping in their car under an overpass.

  • Anonymous of courase

    The ticket can easily be beaten in court in different ways. The officer has no proof that the device was in use or covering the eye while driving. The car was in motion and there for hard for the officer to see what was displayed on a tinny lens from distance, and while pointing and watching the radar gun (which might not have been calibrated right in the first place.) Also the ticket is missing the time. That's another dismissal approach right there. Last time I've got a texting ticket, I started a legal argument with the cop right on the spot for like 10 minutes. He was embarrassed to show up in court later. Those tickets are easy.

    • Danny Davis

      Yep. Laws put out bait. They hope you bite and don't challange the ticket. Some are harder than others. But I just beat a ticket last week for "failure to matain assured distance". Cop couldn't "recall" but really had no case.

  • biggerguysf

    Honestly, do we need one more way for drivers to be distracted and cause damage, injury, and death on the roads...all in the name of "It was just my Google Glass?"

  • gargamel
  • Derrick Hodges

    She possibly put them on to record the officer.

Quantcast