Highway Patrol Officer Keith Odle testified that he estimated Abadie
had been driving her Toyota Prius at 85 miles per hour (137 km/h)
in a 65 mph (105 km/h) zone when he pulled her over.
California woman who drove with Google Glass beats traffic ticket
11–20 of 80 posts
Re: California woman who drove with Google Glass beats traffic ticket
#12> Odle said he had not been planning to cite Abadie for wearing Google Glass, but that he did so because of her reaction to his questions. "She got a little argumentative about whether or not it was legal for her to wear them," he said. At first this sounded pretty vindictive, as though I could hear the officer ending the argument with "fine, we'll let the judge decide!" But after a little thought that sounds like a…
I think you're giving the officer a very generous amount of "benefit of the doubt".
He didn't say "I wasn't sure about the legality, so I referred it to a judge", rather saying he cited her because she got argumentative.
ie., "Don't challenge me if you disagree, otherwise I'll treat you as though you've broken the law."
That's pretty crappy behaviour on the officer's behalf IMHO.
Re: California woman who drove with Google Glass beats traffic ticket
#13Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because if you are holding a phone to your ear you are by definition using it. Glasses could be just hanging out on your head though. Perhaps if you drove around with your phone strapped to your head with a sweat band you could make the same argument.
No, I could be holding it to my ear despite it being turned off, as stupid as that sounds. The point is, in the case of the phone, the officer never has proof that the phone was on. And if driving with Glass while it's on is illegal, shouldn't those dash mounts for phones be illegal too??
> in the case of the phone, the officer never has proof that the phone was on.
Re: California woman who drove with Google Glass beats traffic ticket
#14> Odle said he had not been planning to cite Abadie for wearing Google Glass, but that he did so because of her reaction to his questions. "She got a little argumentative about whether or not it was legal for her to wear them," he said. At first this sounded pretty vindictive, as though I could hear the officer ending the argument with "fine, we'll let the judge decide!" But after a little thought that sounds like a…
I think you're giving the officer a very generous amount of "benefit of the doubt". He didn't say "I wasn't sure about the legality, so I referred it to a judge", rather saying he cited her because she got argumentative. ie., "Don't challenge me if you disagree, otherwise I'll treat you as though you've broken the law." That's pretty crappy behaviour on the officer's behalf IMHO.
Yeah, sounds like Contempt of Cop.
Re: California woman who drove with Google Glass beats traffic ticket
#15Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, I could be holding it to my ear despite it being turned off, as stupid as that sounds. The point is, in the case of the phone, the officer never has proof that the phone was on. And if driving with Glass while it's on is illegal, shouldn't those dash mounts for phones be illegal too??
> in the case of the phone, the officer never has proof that the phone was on. The phone company does.
No, the phone company has evidence that it communicated with tower within some period of time. The phone could still be powered up in a disconnected state, or communicating with the same tower before the driver got into the car, or.. (insert 20 other possible mitigating circumstances)
It's not that simple. Which is one of the reasons it's a good thing this was dismissed.
Re: California woman who drove with Google Glass beats traffic ticket
#16Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because if you are holding a phone to your ear you are by definition using it. Glasses could be just hanging out on your head though. Perhaps if you drove around with your phone strapped to your head with a sweat band you could make the same argument.
No, I could be holding it to my ear despite it being turned off, as stupid as that sounds. The point is, in the case of the phone, the officer never has proof that the phone was on. And if driving with Glass while it's on is illegal, shouldn't those dash mounts for phones be illegal too??
It is the distraction to driving that illegal. All forms of distracted driving are illegal, at least that is my understanding of the law in Colorado and Texas USA. So purposely taking 2 second blinks, driving with one of two good eyes closed, driving with your knees, etc is a ticketable offense. Driving while holding a phone to your ear would fall into this category. Wearing google glass while off does not seem to.
Additional laws exist probably to increase the fine or the ease of enforcement of various distractions like using a phone.
Re: California woman who drove with Google Glass beats traffic ticket
#17> Odle said he had not been planning to cite Abadie for wearing Google Glass, but that he did so because of her reaction to his questions. "She got a little argumentative about whether or not it was legal for her to wear them," he said. At first this sounded pretty vindictive, as though I could hear the officer ending the argument with "fine, we'll let the judge decide!" But after a little thought that sounds like a…
I think you're giving the officer a very generous amount of "benefit of the doubt". He didn't say "I wasn't sure about the legality, so I referred it to a judge", rather saying he cited her because she got argumentative. ie., "Don't challenge me if you disagree, otherwise I'll treat you as though you've broken the law." That's pretty crappy behaviour on the officer's behalf IMHO.
Pretty typical, unfortunately..
Re: California woman who drove with Google Glass beats traffic ticket
#18> Odle said he had not been planning to cite Abadie for wearing Google Glass, but that he did so because of her reaction to his questions. "She got a little argumentative about whether or not it was legal for her to wear them," he said. At first this sounded pretty vindictive, as though I could hear the officer ending the argument with "fine, we'll let the judge decide!" But after a little thought that sounds like a…
I'm going to say that it is entirely unreasonable for the police to be ignorant of the law.
Re: California woman who drove with Google Glass beats traffic ticket
#19> Odle said he had not been planning to cite Abadie for wearing Google Glass, but that he did so because of her reaction to his questions. "She got a little argumentative about whether or not it was legal for her to wear them," he said. At first this sounded pretty vindictive, as though I could hear the officer ending the argument with "fine, we'll let the judge decide!" But after a little thought that sounds like a…
I'm going to say that it is entirely unreasonable for the police to be ignorant of the law.
Law is complicated. No one has full knowledge of it. Even lawyers and judges need to look stuff up.
Re: California woman who drove with Google Glass beats traffic ticket
#20How is the Glass' HUD any different than the ones that get projected on windshields?[1]