California woman ticketed for wearing Google Glass while driving
plus.google.com
plus.google.com
There are a bunch of unanswered questions (and by that I mean not yet litigated differences in opinion) with respect to glass.
For example, if you're driving and you notice you are being tailed, and you say 'Glass record' and you look down at your speedometer, and up at your rear view mirror, and then record the entire traffic stop. Is that video admissible in court? There have been stories of police officers being less than truthful in how a stop occurred, video makes that harder. There is also the infamous 'resisting arrest' charge which people of various demographics feel is used when profiling to hassle them. So if you can get it on record that it is illegal to drive with Glass, then you make it more obvious if someone reaches over and puts on their glass when they get pulled over.
Another question, is it a phone or not? It has a cellular connection capability so kind of. If its a phone are you 'texting' when it is showing text? Who knows, some would argue yes, some would argue no. Again, not yet litigated.
All these things are going to come through the courts eventually if this product gets any traction. So did the CHP tell their officers to add this if they stopped someone? I don't know but I can't think of any reason an officer would try 'watching tv' as the infraction.
I wouldn't think so. It's a very short distance from here to "notice you are being tailed, slow down, say 'Glass record'"
[1] An exemplar : http://www.infowars.com/supreme-court-upholds-right-to-film-...
If I'm in a public place, I can record anything I can see from there.
http://www.infowars.com/illinois-citizens-still-being-arrest...
[1] My sister-in-law is a public defender, and she demands it all the time and gets a variety of pathetic excuses why "this time" it is unavailable.
I've even considered installing cams on my current vechicle.
reading (and watching on Youtube when available) about a bunch of recent beatings and shootings, i think it should be made into a law that a police officer may apply force only when the action is being recorded (by a helmet or Glass-style camera of the officer). Without recording on, police officers should be considered "off-duty" and be subject to regular rules just like any other citizen.
Unless there's a way to reliably stream the data into the central repository (far away from the officer and his/her police department), it won't work.
If the law said "the video has been lost" meant instant acquittal, the video technology would become radically more reliable.
If you're ever in this situation just hire a damn lawyer and listen to their advice.
As a hopefully humorous aside, this joke is as applicable to the way "nerds" view the legal system as it is to the way they view cryptography (though obviously in a more metaphorical sense): http://xkcd.com/538/
People forget just how much force is behind a vehicle moving at the speed limit.
I think, I THINK, that maybe we can respect the value of a human life enough to put down our computers while we drive.
Imho it's less distracting to use GPS on Glass, than have to look down and off the road to find it.
EDIT: I don't want to come off as anti-tech in cars. I definitely believe that tech can enhance road safety, although I'm more looking forward to driverless cars. I do think that Glass is more distracting than normal GPS devices because Glass has the capability to do so much more than GPS. I don't totally trust people to only use the GPS function in Glass.
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d12/vc27602.htm
But the Glass is more than a GPS. It lets you read texts and emails. Reading texts and emails while you're driving will necessarily be more distracting than not doing so. And that's what's not allowed.
The law is written such that it's only allowed to be able to offer both an approved function as well as an entertainment/business function if there's an interlock that prevents anything but the approved functions from being used while the vehicle is in motion.
Should be easy enough to arrange. Also, implement a time readout for "current GPS Nav session" so the officer can verify there was no funny business going on.
That's enough.
1. Spend a month in an accident recovery unit, seeing first hand victims of MVAs.
2. Be in a crash. Somehow this would have to be simulated, at a speed that won't cause injury, but will shock. (I was in a simulated 15mph crash at a fair - it HURT!)
On the day I applied for my license, I visited my dad at the hospital and the guy next to him had a smashed face from a car accident. He had been in a car with a friend, who was driving, and his teenage girlfriend, who was pregnant. The girlfriend's baby died and it was considered unlikely that the girl would survive. The driver went mostly unharmed and was understandably very upset.
I swore that day to always remind myself of this before I get into a car. I used to, but now I don't. The impression fades.
I walked out of it unscathed, but was a kid made of rubber. Dare say these days I'd have smashed ribs and so-forth from the same - at the least.
It's pretty clear that people who justify this are doing so because they don't think it's unsafe. You may disagree, and that's fine, but realize that they disagree with you, and do not see it as a safety issue.
If you don't think it's unsafe, how would awareness of car accidents or respect for human life affect anything? You're aiming at the wrong idea.
The people in the latter group can be proven wrong objectively by data that shows accidents that occur as a result of texting while driving, whereas the former group is irrelevant because they are simply ignorant.
There is currently no data or at least not enough data to support the conclusion that simply wearing a Google glass (which does not imply use in the same way that holding up a cell phone while driving does) causes accidents.
If the device eventually can improve the "task at hand" when driving then _the police_ is the one increasing risks by punishing people with wearable technology.
The burden would be on the maker to ensure that.
Otherwise, it maybe could allow for safer driving, but it sure would allow reckless facebook/driving.
What if is way more safe to use your voice than your hands to communicate? (and some people is going to do it anyway despite laws against texting while driving)
What if is way faster to change your eye-focus than to move your eyes and head to see the GPS?
Many of you guys commenting here are acting like this thing is black-and-white when is clearly not.
If X requires your attention, it will cause accidents. We already have enough data on that.
I really wish the direct approach to the law could work so that this technology could evolve at its normal pace. What's the issue we're trying to solve? Unnecessary injury/property damage due to distracted driving. What should the law be? Enforce a severe punishment for drivers who cause personal injury or property damage while driving distracted. Oh, you were typing a text message when you ran over that pedestrian? Well we're going to drain your personal assets first, perhaps garnish your wages, and then if and only if those assets don't cover the damages your insurance will start to kick in. Oh, the pedestrian died due to your provable distractedness? You're going to prison.
But again, I realize that's very ideal and won't work in the real world. Negligence doesn't respond to punishment in the same way as crimes which require the perpetrator to make an active decision to forego their morals. Negligence is by definition passive. It's the act of not doing. You could argue that device-induce distracted driving is a more active form of negligence, but the psychology behind the way beeps and buzzes control our lives is weird. Want to cut ahead of a long line when all you need to do is ask someone a question? Look up the phone number for the person sitting behind the desk and call them. Nine times out of ten they'll answer (protip to students: this is a really good way to hack your university's registration office). Logic is completely suspended when Pavlov's bell rings.
I think I'd prefer everyone being technologically conservative with respect to driver distraction. Until something can be shown to not be a dangerous distractions, drivers can't have it. When we ban things after they prove to be a distraction, that usually means we proved them a distraction via a body count. Waiting for a hundred or a thousand people to die so that you have statistical certainty is the shittiest kind of science.
This is a bit of a catch-22, because we're pretty piss-poor at proving the negative, that things aren't a distraction. We're still way more paranoid about electronics on an airplane than most people think we need to be.
What should happen -- in my opinion, and for all I know what does happen in some situations -- is a series of trials. First, laboratory, simulation-based trials. If drivers in a simulation are distracted by a new gizmo -- GPS, dash-mounted phone, Glass, car console, whatever -- we can eliminate it there, with zero people dying. Then and only then, if we have reason to believe no one will die because of it, we can have real-world trials, followed by approval for the general population.
Obviously, this would suck for early Glass adopters, since it would likely take a year plus to complete good trials, but you could approve broad classes of devices and fast-track similar devices in the future.
I don't know. You make this sound really bad, but isn't this how a lot of science works? How do we know if a medical treatment doesn't have disasterous side effects? Sure, we start by assuming it's safe, and maybe we test on animals to gain some confidence, but at the end of the day you can't really be sure until people have tried the treatment.
Obviously, there are other safer ways to study whether things distract drivers. Perhaps we could use driving simulators to test reaction time. I probably should have worded my comment differently, and asked for proof that Google Glass makes drivers quantifiably more distracted or less reactive rather than asking directly for proof of a higher accident rate.
My question would be what this woman was doing that attracted the attention of the police in the first place.
Glass could potentially make us better drivers. One of the use cases we've looked at is wiring Glass up to alert drivers when someone is in their blind spot or someone is coming up too quickly behind them.
This citation is bogus. It's safer to look at Glass for directions than my nav system, but you wont see me get ticketed for looking at my nav system.
Glass could potentially make us worse drivers too. Satnav systems have guidelines issued for usage. Here, we are dealing with illumination directly 2 inch in front of my eye. I will go by your data, but would rather want California DMV to test it out comprehensively.
Satnav systems potentially make us worse drivers as well. If I have to look down at the system (which I do) it's much more intrusive than Glass, which only requires I look up and slightly to the right to see. It is certainly not directly in front of your eye unless you are wearing it completely incorrectly.
Have you had Glass on? It isn't as intrusive as you appear to believe.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6640895
Two people who have tried.
Unrelated: Looks like another topic nuked: http://hnrankings.info/6640532/
It sits above my field of vision and is no more distracting that the frames of my glasses.
When Glass is in nav mode, that's all it does. Shows you the next turn and/or the route overview.
If you compare a GPS unit the user has to turn their head or worse look down to use vs. a Glass sitting above their vision with the directions always available at a glance, the Glass is pretty clearly superior. Realistically, many users use their phones for GPS and don't have a proper mount whereas Glass will always be properly mounted to be hands free, so it's probably even safer than the most common thing of just using your phone for directions.
Do cars integrate with Glass like this?
Aircraft are not cars - watching for other aircraft is typically handled by air traffic controllers for most aircraft that will have HUDs, or the HUDs are capable of displaying the locations of other aircraft.
Google Glass interfaces are not designed to be HUDs to be used when driving, and there is no ATC or automatic detection of other vehicles when you're in a car.
The two use cases are quite different.
My flight instructor phrased it this way. In a car in good conditions, you spend 95% of your time watching your surroundings. In an aircraft in visual conditions, you spend 70% of your time looking outside the cockpit. In an aircraft in instrument conditions, you spend maybe 5% of your time looking outside.
The pilot is focused on the hud first, the outside environment second. A car should be completely reversed from that.
Correction: Military heads up displays have already been proven by the military to be much safer. In order for their results to apply to Google Glass, they would have to install Angry Birds, Facebook, and YouTube on those devices, too.
I remember from that testing that there were three ways the threat was categorised by distance: safe, lethal, very lethal - the middle one was very specifically not "kinda in danger" :)
My GPS (actually my phone in a special car dock) is right up on my dash/windscreen, always in my peripheral. I glance at it with ease. And while I am glancing at it, the road ahead of me is in my peripheral. That sounds a lot like what people are describing how to use Glass for GPS. Where are you mounting your GPS that it takes more than a glance to see?
"Consumption" != "entertainment".
A navigation system is made for consuming content, too.
You could say the same thing of a craft knife: it's not a surgical tool. Sure, in a very particular set of circumstances, a surgeon will use one, but that's 'blah blah'. It's not the way the items is used by the vast bulk of its users.
Really? Link?
This seems like a bad idea.
Definitely dangerous but I see a lot of potential in the technology with the possibility of true retina quality resolution.
Similarly, in its current incarnation, I can watch video on Glass. My radio and instruments can't do the same.
Where did you get that idea from? The pictures of the gen 2 Google Glass look almost identical to the gen 1, with the prism and all.
A person shall not drive a motor vehicle if a television
receiver, a video monitor, or a television or video screen,
or any other similar means of visually displaying a
television broadcast or video signal that produces
entertainment or business applications
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d12/vc27602.htm
There are exceptions for devices that have interlocks that allow them to act only as a GPS, map, vehicle information system, or or rear-view camera display while the vehicle is in motion. The Glass doesn't meet these criteria as it has no such interlock.
In my opinion, they are far safer to wear and use for the purpose of navigation than a phone or mounted GPS. They give me the necessary information quickly and don't require me to adjust my vision off the road.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irregardless http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_eng...
The screen on Glass actually rests outside of my normal field of view when wearing corrective glasses, it lies above where the lens would be, in an area where my vision is uncorrected and therefore useless for driving already. That's not a problem though because that area contains the sky and the roof of my car, two things mostly unimportant for driving.
Should I be cited for driving because my corrective glasses don't allow me to see with perfect clarity the area where my windshield joins with the roof? I think not.
>I imagine a responsible Glass user could do the same.
The problem is many users won't be responsible. Good driver who doesn't use phone when driving is focused and well trained could responsibly break speed limit very often and still drive safer than 99% of people out there. Unfortunately it's impossible to fit the law to such cases so people who pay attention are hold to the same standards as texting-while-driving morons. Same with glass - banning it is better for everybody.
I'm sure a lot of users would be able to ignore Glass when needed, but the majority wouldn't and that's why they're making laws.
http://www.catwig.com/google-glass-teardown/teardown/display...
Unless she was actually watching a video on it, then it's no more distracting than the clock on your dashboard.
27602. (a) A person shall not drive a motor vehicle if a television receiver, a video monitor, or a television or video screen, or any other similar means of visually displaying a television broadcast or video signal that produces entertainment or business applications, is operating and is located in the motor vehicle at a point forward of the back of the driver’s seat, or is operating and the monitor, screen, or display is visible to the driver while driving the motor vehicle.
These are some of the things the courts have to figure out.
This is the law relevant to the current situation. It has to do with televisions, and makes no provisions devices capable of multiple functions (for example, cellphones can be GPS devices or show movies).
So California is one state. There are 49 others to check. :(
Like most HNers I'm checking in on stories and commenting to the best of my knowledge while working. If I can invoice you for the time, I'd be more than happy to provide you with a properly MLA formatted list of sources.
In lieu of that, I hope you'll trust that I'm not just making this up. I do recall there's a list of at least 4-6 states that are very hard-line on this issue, and probably a majority of the states have laws prohibiting the driver watching video while driving.
I recognize that such a utility would make it harder for lawyers to make money, since a hefty chunk of their value-add is removed. I'm okay with that. It would be even awesomer when local laws aren't de facto locked away from public perusal through paywalls, though that probably doesn't apply to this particular case.
I honestly don't care if you're making it up. I want to know what's actually on the books. About 20 minutes ago, a mailing list informed me that Tetris has been used to treat flashbacks and Chess has been used to treat ADHD. A 5-second google was able to confirm that this isn't complete bullshit. Googling "states that make driving with a television illegal" gets me nothing but random things about driver's licenses and illegal immigrants.
Seriously. Full-text search on up-to-date records of law. That's all I ask.
Which is silly, but then again CA's vehicles codes always have been.
Additionally, from an article on the web: "Under California rules, video screens are prohibited anywhere ahead of the front seats unless they're displaying GPS information, a map, or information about the car itself."
It is great when walking or riding the bus/subway. Having anything except critical driving information such as speed presented in a Heads Up Display fashion is a distraction. Especially when going 80mph with other vehicles on the road.
Book her!
The HUD is less distracting than the alternatives.
The only devices that can actively command your attention are the gauges & lights in the instrument cluster (which are all important to driving safely) and possibly the screen on your radio. Speaking of which, I hated the old radio on my old car, because it was too bright and had too much activity on the display.
You forgot climate control, cruise control, a confusing array of wiper settings, CD controls, radio, bluetooth, GPS, fuel efficiency feedback and probably a few others I didn't think of right off the top of my head. The point is not that cars are insanely distracting, but just that Glass is probably not the most distracting thing in your car.
Bluetooth integration assumes people are going to use their phones either way, and thus handsfree is the safer choice. GPS informs drivers in advance so they don't have to swerve across seven lanes of traffic to make their exit.
My point is, what problem does Glass solve that makes it worth the risk?
If so, it already incorporates some of those functions.
1 anecdote vs 3 anecdotes... If only anecdotes proved anything in a debate.
I wear it all the time when I drive and I've even traveled at ~95mph for a sustained period of time on the toll road nearby. In addition it is worth mentioning that I rarely look at it while I'm moving.
And that's why I don't drive.
Trust me, I'd prefer no person be allowed to drive. It is insanely dangerous and most people are really bad at it. I worked on autonomous cars about five years ago and I cannot wait for the technology to be consumer ready.
I too cannot wait for autonomous cars; I hope a day will come when I can actually use one without needing a license! Luckily, where I live, public transport is good enough that I would only really benefit from a car a handful of times each year, and I'm happy to forgo that for the benefits - financial, environmental, safety, etc.
She passed a cop doing 80 in a 65, I wonder what was so distracting that you'd miss a cruiser one lane over..
and for those who drive 101, please be considerate and keep up, or keep right.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_limits_in_the_United_Stat...
edit: if the PO cannot prove it was turned on, then there is such a thing as an assumption of innocence.
12) A portable Global Positioning System (GPS), which may be mounted in a seven-inch square in the lower corner of the windshield farthest removed from the driver or in a five-inch square in the lower corner of the windshield nearest to the driver and outside of an airbag deployment zone, if the system is used only for door-to-door navigation while the motor vehicle is being operated.
And mainly, you can't use your GPS for distracting activities like watching videos, browsing the web, talking to your friends... Unless your GPS is your smartphone or tablet, in which case it's the same problem.
As for FoV - as far as I remember, the screen on Glass is quite small. The location is different from what law allows (top right instead of bottom), but still...
Using GPS on a phone while driving is illegal as well (in CA): http://www.dmv.org/articles/california-bans-use-of-cell-phon...
Had Spriggs’s cell phone been fastened on a dash dock, the
story might have turned out differently; that’s because,
even though California has a hand-held ban for texting,
talking, listening (and now, using GPS), it doesn’t
prohibit hands-free cell phone use.My in dash GPS has all sorts of warnings when attempting to program it while driving. One nice feature of my car (VW) is that the road animation and distance is also shown under the speedometer (less graphically pretty but useful).
Now, interestingly enough, adjusting my stereo or its settings don't carry carry the same warnings. I guess the assume you need to adjust them less.
Also, most in car GPS systems do take as well as give voice commands. With steering wheel controls you can do your stereo equally as well.
There was a motorcycle helmet recently shown off by some odd company that incorporated glass like features. Sorry, no way. The last thing we need is just off the line of sight images to distract.
I'm all for people being distracted, but not when a) they're driving a one-ton killing machine and b) very often the things distracting them are just flat out wrong: I can't tell you how many times I've been in a car with a GPS (or iphone) and it gives completely ridiculous directions. Sometimes it's better to just switch off your targeting computer and pay attention.
in a court.
If you want to try out that assumption while driving, make sure to always drive with an open bottle of Jack Daniels in the passenger seat.
No, there really isn't an assumption of innocence for some things. If I am driving with an open container (booze), I'm getting cited, regardless of whether the officer saw me take a sip. IOW, I argue that Glass has such a high degree of risk for distraction and abuse that I don't want them to be legal to use while driving.
Hopefully soon enough we'll get fully automatic cars and this will be a problem of the past but in the meantime this seem the safest approach.
First of all, Glass could've been turned off. Second of all, she could be using it for GPS and other things.
Personally, as a driver, I'd prefer to have all my car information on some kind of a HMD, and not on the dashboard, where I have to look away from the road.
I'm going to go out on a limb and assume you don't drive much.
I spend a lot of time on the road (60,000+km this year). There are a multitude of things to distract you behind the wheel, from eating, phones, stereos, day-dreaming, other drivers, nature, whatever. It's endless. If having a small eye piece is distracting to you, by all means don't wear one. But don't project your inability to maintain focus on all other drivers.
I personally fall on the other side; why not extensively test before banning. We live in a society that jumps to conclusions. I believe we should have a proper understanding of something before deciding to make laws relating to it. What about the positive benefits. Also, do you really expect them to do the research after banning it? Look how long it has taken the FAA to even start reducing the ban on mobile devices.
I've lived in a country which forbade everything by default unless law explicitly allowed it. I guarantee you don't want to go this way.
A general purpose head mounted entertainment system that may or may not be used to display GPS along many other things while driving is a terrible idea.
Definitely agree with you that I'd prefer a HMD or HUD in general to look-down instrumentation.
If you want to be distracted and watch some YouTube videos or whatnot, then public transit would love to have you.
What happens if and when Glass-like devices become common and glasses-wearing people like me get them with prescription lenses?
That's the wrong question. The right question is: How does law enforcement prove that Glass was distracting me?
I shouldn't have to prove my innocence. They should have to prove my guilt.
But, since it's still a criminal case, and right to trial by jury is still recognized, there is a guaranteed automatic appeal that you can invoke[2] if you aren't satisfied with the decision in district court (or magistrate court). You then get a "trial de novo"[3] or "new trial" in superior court (or district court if appealing from magistrate court). Once you get to superior court, that's where you get a jury and the whole bit. It's interesting to note that some people consider it a legal strategy to basically use the first trial as a chance to size up the State's case, so they can construct the best possible defense on appeal.
Not sure if CA has a similar notion or not, but just wanted to point out that, in at least some cases, the bar on traffic offenses is still ultimately "innocent until proven guilty" (as it should be, IMO).
[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bench_trial
[2]: http://law.onecle.com/north-carolina/15a-criminal-procedure-...
"A civil infraction is violation of the law less serious than a misdemeanor, and which usually does not attach certain individual rights such as a jury trial."
That, along with the sheer inconvenience, cost, etc., is probably why few people bother doing this for traffic citations. It's easier to just pay your fine, accept the increase in your insurance premiums and go on your merry way. :-(
You're 16 and you get your license and you get a car with one seat, a speedometer, and a manual gearbox. You then can undergo additional testing/licensure that shows you can cope with additional distractions (passengers, radio, cupholder, tachometer, Google Glass). Trouble is, I don't think many people would go for that.
This does not mean, however, that it actually helps with safety, and that concern should probably dominate.
Because normal glasses help you see?
It is surely more dangerous to look down at a GPS while riding a bike.
I'm in Ireland and early indications make it look like it will be illegal to use while driving.
In one of the last TSA threads a few people insisted that requiring a driver's license (also) unduly restricted freedom of travel, totally disregarding that driving is different from flying because you are operating heavy machinery in public.
I think a single DWI should be an instant and permanent revocation. DW-Texting/Facebook should be at least a temporary revocation. Having a computer on your face is the same class of thing. If you're so important that you can risk other persons' lives to save your time you can afford to hire a taxi.
This is why California and Florida, places with high undocumented immigrant populations, have such high insurance rates. Not only am I paying a premium on my driving I'm also paying a premium on the guy not insured at all.
I'm not sure that's actually true. Most people live in cities.
It may very well be the case, though, that most people driving need to drive to work, which is probably sufficient for your argument.
Any device that actively creates distractions occluding a person's field of vision should be prohibited while driving.
In the future things like google glass or even active screens/windshields will be more and more able to show the same information and more, without necessarily implying any unsafe behavior on the road.
I ask because I kind of doubt you truly mean "100%", but you insult anyone going for anything less.
Yes, radios are distracting and therefore dangerous, especially if drivers take their eyes off of the road to adjust the controls.
>Should they pull off the road before manipulating their heater? Windshield wipers?
No. It is often necessary to adjust windshield wipers and climate control systems to ensure safety, and sometimes those adjustments must be made in situations where pulling off the road is unsafe or impossible. For example, if it starts pouring rain while on a narrow bridge (no way to pull over), you will need the wipers to keep the windshield clear. The heater can be used to de-fog.
People here are doing what they do best: rationalize a situation until it somehow makes sense that they should be allowed to do what they want to do, regardless.
When I started reading this thread I thought I would not engage in a discuss where people cannot accept a distraction is a distraction is a distraction. Apparently, I'm weak in that regard.
It's already been pointed out that CA law bans the driver from looking at a mobile phone. I assure you that's not making anyone any safer, because compliance is zero. What's the benefit of the law?
That's a strong (and I believe false) claim. You think the number of instances of people wanting to look at their phones, and thinking "no, I might get ticketed, better not..." is zero? or no greater than the number of times people think "fuck the law, I'm going to look at my phone now because it's illegal when I wouldn't have otherwise!"? You don't think anyone has cut a cellphone conversation shorter partly because they didn't want a ticket? Compliance is well (well) below perfect, and it may be that the reduction isn't enough to merit added complexity and bureaucracy, but I would be flabbergasted if it hasn't at all reduced the time people spend interacting with devices while driving.
Police will stop and cite you in CA, so while not everyone complies, I'd bet the majority do. Or at least a higher percent than states without the laws.
If it’s off, why is it on your face?
> cited for speeding (80 in 65 zone) and passing a police vehicle while speeding
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d12/vc27602.htm
which partially reads:
Television
27602. (a) A person shall not drive a motor vehicle if a television receiver, a video monitor, or a television or video screen, or any other similar means of visually displaying a television broadcast or video signal that produces entertainment or business applications, is operating and is located in the motor vehicle at a point forward of the back of the driver’s seat, or is operating and the monitor, screen, or display is visible to the driver while driving the motor vehicle.
(b) Subdivision (a) does not apply to the following equipment when installed in a vehicle:
(1) A vehicle information display. (2) A global positioning display. (3) A mapping display. (4) A visual display used to enhance or supplement the driver's view forward, behind, or to the sides of a motor vehicle for the purpose of maneuvering the vehicle.
(5) A television receiver, video monitor, television or video screen, or any other similar means of visually displaying a television broadcast or video signal, if that equipment satisfies one of the following requirements:
(A) The equipment has an interlock device that, when the motor vehicle is driven, disables the equipment for all uses except as a visual display as described in paragraphs (1) to (4), inclusive.
(B) The equipment is designed, operated, and configured in a manner that prevents the driver of the motor vehicle from viewing the television broadcast or video signal while operating the vehicle in a safe and reasonable manner.
[ there is more regarding displays in vehicles operated by utility companies]
She was ticked for having a display that could show non-car related information somewhere within her field of view. Any person that has there cell phone on their center console could be ticketed under the same law. Have your cell phone mounted on your dash, your just asking for a ticket if this goes through. Cops will give whatever ticket they can because they know part of that ticket will go to their department and pay for extras they like to have. More tickets, more overtime they get to have.
I fully agree, driving while distracted it bad. Very bad. But to my knowledge they haven't outlawed drinking coffee or eating yet in the car. Far more dangerous than being responsible and having your phone mounted in a place were it doesn't take anymore eye time than your speed speedometer does.
I have my phone mounted on the dash for a simple reason, I want to know who is calling me. I limit who I take to when I'm driving. I'm not going to take work calls unless it's my boss and he's fine if I hang up on him if it's important. I'm going to take calls from my wife, because of the same. But if it's someone else, I ignore it unless I know it will be urgent and worth the risk of talking while driving. Yes, I use Bluetooth. But is talking on the phone that is dangerous, not if you are holding the phone.
And the argument that she must have been distracted by the google glasses because she passed a cop while speeding. I'm sorry, but people get ticked for speeding every second in california without google glasses on.
To those saying Glass is not a distraction: sarcasm is the lowest form of wit.
This sort of idea isn't new because pilots of military helicopters and fighters have these. It improves awareness and safety.
I hope the court allows this because making it flat out illegal to have a head mounted display would kill off innovations in this area, which could save lives. Maybe we can accept some compromises like a "car mode" for these device, etc. I don't know what the right answer is but I want the possibility for these devices in the car to be left open.
(A) The equipment has an interlock device that, when the motor vehicle is driven, disables the equipment for all uses except as a visual display as described in paragraphs (1) to (4), inclusive.
(B) The equipment is designed, operated, and configured in a manner that prevents the driver of the motor vehicle from viewing the television broadcast or video signal while operating the vehicle in a safe and reasonable manner.
Google Glass is not a phone but an obstacle in view. Therefore, I guess that the cop decided that it should be ticketed. I think this ticket will be upheld in the court as well.
I don't care what kind of special training you have, a vehicle can still pull out in front of you in less time than it takes to look at a mirror, let alone a laptop screen.
Yet police officers hand out expensive fines to citizens for doing the same. Bewildering.
I wonder how many deaths could be prevented.
Oh that makes me remember that the Android app "Torque" has a nifty HUD mode that inverses the display on your phone to put speed, etc. on the windshield. I tried it once but my car doesn't have good angles for that.
But even having to look down at your speedometer or odometer can be a problem at speed, considering how much distance you cover in half a second.
EDIT: when I say "looking behind" I mean the rear view mirror. I don't physically turn my head around to look behind me. That would not be comfortable.
Here's a video of it:
How does it feel to you?
Texting while driving or talking on your phone while driving is simply banned. Even if you are not driving but the engine is running and you talk on the phone, you will get a ticket. The only thing you are allowed todo is using the speakers, but anything that takes your attention away from driving with visual information that is not related to operating your vehicle is problematic.
its a very reasonable step to assume that a computing device attached to your face is not going to help you pay attention to such things - this one data point supports that claim (it is still one data point, but this is the only safe conclusion to draw realistically). in these cases i think 'better safe than sorry' - you will get in trouble for reading a book, using your phone or even smoking a cigarette if it is distracting you from driving. Google Glass is nothing special in this regard - aside from its popularity amongst vocal hipsters on the internet.
also, don't get me wrong, i am in favour of speeding - but i knowingly break the law when i do it and will have to live with the consequences...
still curious to see how this plays out, but utterly convinced this is a case of 'your own stupid fault for doing something stupid'.
Would be tricky for use on trains and airplanes, though (but is that an important use case?)
While inactive they're no more distracting than a pair of regular glasses and while using them for navigation they're significantly less distracting than using a traditional GPS.
She says they were not on while she was driving.