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

51–60 of 80 posts

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

#51

Post by sentenza »

olalonde wrote: post #48

In 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.

Seriously. That is an interesting application of bitcoin. Does that work with Bitcoin, or would it be neccessary to construct another "Coin" specifically for that purpose?

I'm highly sceptical of Bitcoin as currency, since there are so many conflicts between the technical properties of Bitcoin and the economics of currencies, but de-centralized verification of events and dates? _That_ sounds interesting.

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

#52

Post by olalonde »

sentenza wrote: post #51
olalonde wrote: post #48

In 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.

Seriously. That is an interesting application of bitcoin. Does that work with Bitcoin, or would it be neccessary to construct another "Coin" specifically for that purpose? I'm highly sceptical of Bitcoin as currency, since there are so many conflicts between the technical properties of Bitcoin and the economics of currencies, but de-centralized verification of events and dates? _That_ sounds interesting.

It's actual possible today: http://www.proofofexistence.com/. It should work with other forks of Bitcoin as well.

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

#53

Post by Shivetya »

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.

I will side with the cop here. Knowing a few who are in this line of work I am more than amazed at what they put up with. Put it to you this way, your not being pulled over because they don't like you, your not being pulled over because they are having a bad day, your being pulled over because you flagged yourself; speeding, running a stop sign, tail light out, etc.

There is no reason to get argumentative with someone doing their job, let alone a traffic cop. All that while they are working on your incident they have to watch out for traffic, your actions, and ensuring you don't get so excited your a threat to yourself or them.

More than likely, being familiar with "our type"; techies, she came off as a pretentious twit and treated him with contempt for being an ignorant cop.

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

#55

Post by Tehnix »

jfoster wrote: post #33
rhizome wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Or, instead of letting a "crime" skate by, he could let the judge decide whether it's illegal or not.

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

#56

Post by Tehnix »

> "As a hands-free device it is safer than a cell phone."

According to studies[0] hands-free devices aren't as safe as you'd think. I can't argue whether they are safer, but at least "safer" isn't just enough in itself to justify it.

Also, from personal experience I have to agree with the study. The fact that my one hand is either up against my ear holding a device, or if the device is lying somewhere; the former doesn't require much extra of my attention than the latter. It is the talking and thinking of different things itself that takes away my attention from the road. Not saying one can't talk and drive (it's quite easy), but since the line is already drawn, it has to be uphold.

I haven't personally tried Google Glass', but could imagine it interferes with your vision a bit. It might be necessary for this to be subject for investigation as to the legality in the future.

[0] http://unews.utah.edu/news_releases/hands-free-talking-texti...

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

#57

Post by marvin »

saulrh wrote: post #37
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 faste…

A warehouse job doesn't require constant attention and have moving hazards randomly show up, though. I don't think this research generalizes to driving a car.

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

#58

Post by wavefunction »

Shivetya wrote: post #53
martypitt wrote: post #12

Earlier 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.

I will side with the cop here. Knowing a few who are in this line of work I am more than amazed at what they put up with. Put it to you this way, your not being pulled over because they don't like you, your not being pulled over because they are having a bad day, your being pulled over because you flagged yourself; speeding, running a stop sign, tail light out, etc. There is no reason to get argumentative with someon…

I've been pulled over for a "crack in the windshield" which wasn't visible from where the police officer's patrol car was sitting. I know because I went back and checked from his vantage point.

I get that you're trying to provide some nuance here, but let's not pretend that all police officers are honest and decent individuals just doing everything by the book. It goes both ways.

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

#59

Post by gretful »

marvin wrote: post #57
saulrh wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 faste…

A warehouse job doesn't require constant attention and have moving hazards randomly show up, though. I don't think this research generalizes to driving a car.

wow, you've never worked in a warehouse have you? People die in warehouses due to not paying attention.

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

#60

Post by Zikes »

Tehnix wrote: post #55
jfoster wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Or, instead of letting a "crime" skate by, he could let the judge decide whether it's illegal or not.

I don't think it was a matter of whether or not it was a crime per se, but that if it did fall afoul of the "monitor in view" law then it meant that there was a potential danger in its continued use.

It's not difficult to infer that the officer initially intended to issue a warning to the woman about wearing Glass while driving, and that she argued the point saying it was not illegal. Her argument definitely would've signaled her intent to continue driving while wearing Glass, which the officer would have construed as a potential safety risk.

The officer really had no choice in the matter at that point, I'd say.

Post reply on HN