California woman who drove with Google Glass beats traffic ticket
1–10 of 80 posts
Re: California woman who drove with Google Glass beats traffic ticket
#2If this works, why isn't this same argument used for challenging tickets for using a phone while driving? All the same logic still applies.
Re: California woman who drove with Google Glass beats traffic ticket
#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 rather reasonable reaction.
Clearly there was some confusion about the legality and technically it did qualify as a "monitor", so some sort of legal precedent would be necessary to adequately end that argument, and the only way to get it into the courts was to issue a citation.
Re: California woman who drove with Google Glass beats traffic ticket
#4If this works, why isn't this same argument used for challenging tickets for using a phone while driving? All the same logic still applies.
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.
Re: California woman who drove with Google Glass beats traffic ticket
#5Some 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.
Re: California woman who drove with Google Glass beats traffic ticket
#6If this works, why isn't this same argument used for challenging tickets for using a phone while driving? All the same logic still applies.
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??
Re: California woman who drove with Google Glass beats traffic ticket
#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)
Re: California woman who drove with Google Glass beats traffic ticket
#8> 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)
Similar situation happened to me 2 years ago and I was dismissed in part because of the lack of evidence to back the calibration of a radar gun.
Link: http://skatter.com/2011/02/how-my-smart-phone-got-me-out-of-...
Re: California woman who drove with Google Glass beats traffic ticket
#9Earlier 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??
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.
Re: California woman who drove with Google Glass beats traffic ticket
#10Some 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.
If you're using Glass for navigation, it generally stays out of the way. If you're approaching a turn you're due to make, it will beep at you and a voice will tell you what to do. Only at that point does the screen come on, and displays a fairly simple map drawing. Once you take the turn, the screen fades off.
If you're wearing Glass properly, the screen is also up at an angle above your eye. If you're sitting in the driver's seat of a vehicle and looking forward, the display would be about at the area where your sun visor would be if it were flipped down over the top of your windshield.