Wow!
California woman who drove with Google Glass beats traffic ticket
41–50 of 80 posts
Re: California woman who drove with Google Glass beats traffic ticket
#42> Developers are already crafting apps [..]
Sounds grand if you phrase it like that.
Re: California woman who drove with Google Glass beats traffic ticket
#43Highway 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.
No. You can easily do over 100mph.
Re: California woman who drove with Google Glass beats traffic ticket
#44Earlier 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.
So does the NSA.
Re: California woman who drove with Google Glass beats traffic ticket
#45Some 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.
Anecdotal evidence for you. I've tried driving in it a few times and wearing Glass wile driving is very distracting during the night time. Even when the glass was switched off every light was reflecting on the sides, it was distracting me from driving and in around twenty minutes (I was driving to Tahoe) I've started getting a headache and felt slightly nauseated (not normal for me, I can read in the car fine, without feeling any nausea). It all right during daytime, you barely notice when Glass is off and using navigation during daytime is also Ok (better than looking at a cellphone, worse than having voice-guided navigation).
Re: California woman who drove with Google Glass beats traffic ticket
#46You can't use a monitor while driving? The law says it's legal to use a mapping display while driving in California:
Re: California woman who drove with Google Glass beats traffic ticket
#47> 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.
It is clearly stated that using visual monitors while driving is against the law in the state.
Re: California woman who drove with Google Glass beats traffic ticket
#48In the future, people will pay a few cents to upload a hash of their video into the Bitcoin blockchain to prove the video was taken before a given date.
Re: California woman who drove with Google Glass beats traffic ticket
#49Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 fo…
Like consuming media laced with advertising!
Re: California woman who drove with Google Glass beats traffic ticket
#50Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 conseq…
What you are describing is exactly wrong behavior. You may think that most people become petty tyrants when placed in positions of minor authority (and there is some experimental support for this idea), but that doesn't mean that it is right. Given that their job requires that they be given the legal ability to do a lot of things that would be illegal for a non-police citizen to do, I believe that police officers should be given very little leeway for acting in bad faith (honest mistakes are a different story: I feel like most people are already quite intolerant of honest police mistakes, probably too much so).