Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

California woman who drove with Google Glass beats traffic ticket

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 80 posts

Re: California woman who drove with Google Glass beats traffic ticket

#31

Post by bagels »

sheetjs wrote: post #7

> Blair also dismissed a speeding ticket against Abadie, because an expert did not appear to testify to the calibration on the officer's speedometer. Blair said there was a lack of evidence to establish Abadie's driving speed. This still happens? I thought it was pretty standard for officers to calibrate and maintain written records (at least, it's standard in new york)

Most people just pay regardless, so it's not really a priority for them to keep calibrations up to date, or to show up for court. It's pretty easy to win a speeding ticket case this way.

Re: California woman who drove with Google Glass beats traffic ticket

#32

Post by droopybuns »

martypitt wrote: post #12
Zikes wrote: post #3

> 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.

If we have to choose between a cop and a glasshole for douchebaggery, we all lose.

Re: California woman who drove with Google Glass beats traffic ticket

#33

Post by jfoster »

rhizome wrote: post #21
jfoster wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Law is complicated. No one has full knowledge of it. Even lawyers and judges need to look stuff up.

That's why police officers aren't Judge Dredd. It's really a character question whether a police officer subjects someone to defending themselves in a case like this, especially as part of a speeding ticket . Wait until there's an accident or something where it might play a role. That is, if they can keep their ego in check.

I'd like the principle to be that police should enforce the laws they know, and leave alone (or check) anything they're not sure about.

In this case I think it would've been most reasonable for the officer to ignore the fact that she was wearing Google Glass, and then check whether they should issue tickets for that in the future.

Re: California woman who drove with Google Glass beats traffic ticket

#34

Post by jmspring »

whalesalad wrote: post #11

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. Case dismissed. Oh and Officer you're being suspended without pay for falsifying evidence, everyone knows a Prius can't go that fast.

I've been lectured by the wife for driving her pod car...err...prius at speeds she doesn't appreciate. That speed was somewhere between said post and what Woz was cited for. It it possible, though in general they prefer to stay in the #1 lane at below the posted speed limit.

Re: California woman who drove with Google Glass beats traffic ticket

#36

Post by chii »

vacri wrote: post #25
dhruvmittal wrote: post #5

Some research needs to be done on how distracting Glass is to drivers. I'm particularly interested in comparing the distraction caused by using Glass to navigate compared to the typical built-in navigation systems that ship with most cars today. I suspect that Glass would beat out the Garmins and Tomtoms.

Giving our office's Glass to people to test, they're so distracted that they'll walk into things. Sometimes these things are pillars clearly visible at eye level. I personally hate the idea of drivers wearing these things. My undergraduate was in psychology, neurophysiology, and hence I've been formally trained in attention and perception - I've got a better idea than layfolk on how these are compromised, though I'm…

i expect driving to become automated sooner or later tho. I think human driving is the major cause of accidents, and automating it is really the best way to save lives, create better traffic conditions for smoother transportation, and also relieve the time required for the driver, so that other activities can be engaged.

Think about the avg hourly commute to work - how useful would it be if that time could be used for something else!

Re: California woman who drove with Google Glass beats traffic ticket

#37

Post by saulrh »

dhruvmittal wrote: post #5

Some research needs to be done on how distracting Glass is to drivers. I'm particularly interested in comparing the distraction caused by using Glass to navigate compared to the typical built-in navigation systems that ship with most cars today. I suspect that Glass would beat out the Garmins and Tomtoms.

Here's some research from Thad Starner, who is actually the person in charge of the Glass project over at Google: Citation: http://dmrussell.net/CHI2010/docs/p1695.pdf. He studied the performance of people doing a warehouse box-filling task using orders given on paper in a couple of forms, spoken, or presented through a head-mounted display like Glass. Summary was that workers using HDMs are more focused, work faster, and commit fewer errors overall, mostly because they spend less time switching contexts and have the information much more available.

Re: California woman who drove with Google Glass beats traffic ticket

#39

Post by EpicEng »

martypitt wrote: post #12
Zikes wrote: post #3

> 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.

If you're going to argue with someone who has the power to make your life difficult then, well, prepare for your life to get a bit more difficult. The cop didn't do anything illegal. Under the law I believe he can cite her (the whole "monitor" thing), but he has discretion. The law is a bit vague, enforcement will be up to the judge.

Regardless, it sounds like she was argumentative. That's fine, but accept the consequences. Like I said, he is free to cite her, and I don't necessarily blame him for doing so given what I've read.

Re: California woman who drove with Google Glass beats traffic ticket

#40

Post by eps »

was_hellbanned wrote: post #28
whalesalad wrote: post #11

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. Case dismissed. Oh and Officer you're being suspended without pay for falsifying evidence, everyone knows a Prius can't go that fast.

"Woz gets $700 speeding ticket for doing 104 MPH in Toyota Prius" ( http://macdailynews.com/2007/08/21/woz_gets_700_speeding_tic... )

That's no stock firmware.
Post reply on HN