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

71–80 of 80 posts

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

#71

Post by EpicEng »

rhizome wrote: post #66
EpicEng wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you saying that the cop was wrong and that the citation was unwarranted under the law ? If so, and if that is true, then I agree with you. However, that's not obvious as far as I know. Glasses which are essentially monitors are a pretty new thing, and California has existing law which states that "monitors" within the view of the driver (an exception is provided for mounted GPS) are illegal. What I'm saying is th…

What I'm saying is that I believe the cop was within his rights to issue a citation. Not if he didn't even try to discern whether it was being used for navigation. You ask whether the citation was unwarranted, but I think that betrays an authoritarian attitude. Was the citation warranted? The judge says no.

It was dismissed because there was no proof that they were turned on at the time. How in the hell a cop could ever prove that is beyond me.

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

#72

Post by rhizome »

EpicEng wrote: post #71
rhizome wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What I'm saying is that I believe the cop was within his rights to issue a citation. Not if he didn't even try to discern whether it was being used for navigation. You ask whether the citation was unwarranted, but I think that betrays an authoritarian attitude. Was the citation warranted? The judge says no.

It was dismissed because there was no proof that they were turned on at the time. How in the hell a cop could ever prove that is beyond me.

Even better.

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

#73

Post by EpicEng »

rhizome wrote: post #72
EpicEng wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was dismissed because there was no proof that they were turned on at the time. How in the hell a cop could ever prove that is beyond me.

Even better.

Right... until some guy watching a video on his glasses while driving plows into you and your family.

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

#74

Post by rhizome »

EpicEng wrote: post #73
rhizome wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even better.

Right... until some guy watching a video on his glasses while driving plows into you and your family.

And then it becomes an issue. Am I missing part of the logic here?

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

#75

Post by wavefunction »

Anderkent wrote: post #62
wavefunction wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Wait, so was your windshield cracked or not? The way you said it seems it was; in which case I don't see what was wrong?

It was, maybe 3 inches lengthwise, about 2 inches off the edge along the bottom with a black background. My real contention was that I was pulled over for being poor (in my hoopty '90 626 at the time) and he saw the crack when he approached. He also didn't mention the crack until he had spent the previous 25 minutes threatening and cajoling me to tell him if I had been drinking or drugging and driving.

I wouldn't have minded this if I were pulled over for speeding and he noticed and added it to the ticket but to get pulled over for being poor, harassed and then written a ticket for the windshield crack...

Maybe that's an acceptable way for the police to pull anyone they feel like over, but there should be some sort of suspicion required. I know this is the everyday experience of a lot of people but I don't think it's acceptable for it to happen to them either.

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

#76

Post by EpicEng »

rhizome wrote: post #74
EpicEng wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right... until some guy watching a video on his glasses while driving plows into you and your family.

And then it becomes an issue. Am I missing part of the logic here?

I believe you are missing a fair amount of logic...

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

#78

Post by rhizome »

EpicEng wrote: post #39
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.

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…

Just because the cop didn't do anything illegal doesn't mean he wasn't being a dick.

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

#79

Post by QuantumGood »

wavefunction wrote: post #75
Anderkent wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait, so was your windshield cracked or not? The way you said it seems it was; in which case I don't see what was wrong?

It was, maybe 3 inches lengthwise, about 2 inches off the edge along the bottom with a black background. My real contention was that I was pulled over for being poor (in my hoopty '90 626 at the time) and he saw the crack when he approached. He also didn't mention the crack until he had spent the previous 25 minutes threatening and cajoling me to tell him if I had been drinking or drugging and driving. I wouldn't hav…

Citing for something found isn't bad practice per se, nor is pulling over searching for statistically likely infractions. But too many officers use this argument as an excuse for bad behavior.

I've been abused in a similar manner, versus given a warning and relevant "counselling" (how to not get pulled over) from an officer with a more mentoring style.

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

#80

Post by dragonwriter »

wavefunction wrote: post #75
Anderkent wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait, so was your windshield cracked or not? The way you said it seems it was; in which case I don't see what was wrong?

It was, maybe 3 inches lengthwise, about 2 inches off the edge along the bottom with a black background. My real contention was that I was pulled over for being poor (in my hoopty '90 626 at the time) and he saw the crack when he approached. He also didn't mention the crack until he had spent the previous 25 minutes threatening and cajoling me to tell him if I had been drinking or drugging and driving. I wouldn't hav…

Reasonable suspicion is required for a traffic stop; the Supreme Court has ruled that stops to check for violations without reasonable suspicion violate the Fourth Amendment.

Of course, being legally required doesn't mean it is actually the practice.

Post reply on HN