FREEZE, GLASSHOLE! California cops bust Google Glass driver

California cops have issued what is thought to be the first ticket for wearing Google's head-mounted Glass computers while driving. "A cop just stopped me and gave me a ticket for wearing Google Glass while driving!" said Cecilia Abadie on her Google+ page. "The exact line says: Driving with Monitor visible to Driver (Google …

[Jason Hindle]

One word

Good.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: One word

Haveta agree with you.....even if it was off, it's experimental......what if it accidentally switches on and blinds you?

In this case the police really are trying to help. I don't even have a radio on when I'm driving in unfamiliar areas.....

[Gomez Adams]

"More broadly, Glass is built to connect you more with the world around you, not distract you from it"

So why didn't the driver see the police before they saw her?

[Darryl]

She was busy speeding and watching cat videos on her Glass

[LarsG]

"The device's public FAQ does make it clear that car and bicycle riders should be careful that they aren't breaking the law."

So is using a mobile phone when driving but having been on the receiving end of someone that did.....

Hope the fine is huge.

[rcorrect]

So why didn't the driver see the police before they saw her?

Hell, I've had cops catch me off guard when I was riding my bike to work and picking up aluminum cans along the way. As a bicyclist who's almost been hit more than once by someone talking on their cell phone, I am extremely skeptical of people driving while using Google Glass. Last year we had someone get killed while riding their bike by someone texting and driving. I hope that text message was really important. http://www.connectamarillo.com/news/story.aspx?id=764129

[codejunky]

@rcorrect

I agree. Drivers dont need the added distraction and it should not be encouraged. However on the point of cyclists (especially in the UK) I am expecting a wave of accidents blamed on drivers while the cyclist was busy focusing on their latest distraction.

Only this week I was driving behind some moron who decided to take his hands off his handlebars so he could adjust his pockets while occupying the middle of the lane. The sooner they remove cyclists from the road the sooner the death toll will fall. There are some appalling drivers but as a proportion most seem competent and safe. As a proportion of cyclists it is a refreshing change to see a good cyclist who isnt breaking one of many laws or trying to win a darwin award.

If they had their own paths/roads it would be interesting to see how many stupid accidents and even deaths still occur because of cyclists. And the next problem would be the few but determined pedestrians who want to win their own darwin award.

[Stilted Banter]

Re: @rcorrect

Wouldn't necessarily go with all that you say there codejunky, but I have to say that as a pedestrian it is the thought of cyclists using these things that really scares me.

[codejunky]

Re: @rcorrect

@ Larry F54

"According to the statistics in the UK, as a pedestrian you are 272 times more likely to be killed by a driver than by a cyclist, and even on the pavement 180 times more likely to be killed by a driver than by a cyclist."

Is it death by driver? I always feel this is misleading because while the driver might be the cause there is the obvious counter argument that the pedestrian (or cyclist) was also involved. Discounting dangerous drivers (because we all disagree with them) I consider pedestrian and cyclist as dangerous because there is the physical but also emotional impact of an accident.

If someone rides in front of a car or walks in front of a car it is not the drivers fault yet they will suffer at least the psychological effects of the incident. Kinda like someone stepping in front of a train will shake up the driver.

Not a lot of people I talk to consider this. A lot of people like to assume the blame is on the driver, and sometimes they are right. But how many cyclists are arrested for breaking the various laws? Yet it is a very frequent situation. And how many pedestrians walk into a road without looking or assuming the car will just stop (as the world revolves around them). It isnt just dangerous driving it is dangerous actions on and around roads.

Also while a car may be more likely to kill, a cyclist inflicts a hell of a lot of damage on impact and rarely get any trouble for it.

[Stilted Banter]

Re: @rcorrect

According to the statistics in the UK, as a pedestrian you are 272 times more likely to be killed by a driver than by a cyclist, and even on the pavement 180 times more likely to be killed by a driver than by a cyclist.

Generally I find I can trust drivers to stay off the pavements, obey red lights and traffic signs, and not to drive down streets where they are not permitted. Cyclists cannot be trusted to do these things. I have yet to round a corner and encounter a car being driven at speed along the pavement in the opposite direction, but if it does happen I dare say I will find a new respect for your statistics.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: @rcorrect

"Generally I find I can trust drivers to stay off the pavements, obey red lights and traffic signs, and not to drive down streets where they are not permitted"

Wow, so you steer clear of city centres, then? My regular walk to work in narrow Soho streets has frequently been enlivened by (usually white vans) mounting the pavement while hammering the wrong way down one way streets.

[Stilted Banter]

Re: @rcorrect

My regular walk to work in narrow Soho streets has frequently been enlivened by (usually white vans) mounting the pavement while hammering the wrong way down one way streets.

Such wrongs, of course, make any number of cyclist-perpetrated wrongs into rights.

[Alan Brown]

Re: @rcorrect

"My regular walk to work in narrow Soho streets has frequently been enlivened by (usually white vans) mounting the pavement while hammering the wrong way down one way streets."

And if you had Google Glass you could not only video this automatically, you could then upload the ensuing hilarity to Youtube.

Assholes are assholes because they think they won't get caught. I'd love to see a few more prosecutions brought because of citizen surveillance (They happen, but it's rare)

[Alan Brown]

Re: @rcorrect

"According to the statistics in the UK, as a pedestrian you are 272 times more likely to be killed by a driver than by a cyclist, and even on the pavement 180 times more likely to be killed by a driver than by a cyclist."

Killed.

Now, how about "run into", "jumped out of the way of", "been abused by" a cyclist vs a car?

[Adrian Midgley 1]

Re: @rcorrect cyclists have tgeir own paths/roads

And after they got them nice and smooth last but one century a few people put cars on them and then a lot last century.

Share, carefully.

[codejunky]

Re: @rcorrect

5 thumbs down and I am yet to see an explanation. Is it drivers who dont feel there are any bad ones out there? Is it the part about drivers not needing the distraction of google glass while driving? Or is it cyclists disagreeing that any could be law breaking darwin award seekers? Or is it pedestrians of the same thoughts?

I say this having a preconception that its the cyclists based on my interactions with people I know who cycle. In a recent discussion I was told that it is drivers who are the bad ones on the road, not cyclists. In the next sentence this person said he only occasionally rode through red lights when it was dark and nobody was about.

We all should be concentrating when we are out and about on the roads. Yet how many stupid drivers are on their phone or doing makeup? How many cyclists do stupid manoeuvres/tricks/law breaking manoeuvres? How many pedestrians walk into a road without looking because of their gadgets or stupidity?

These are the people we have to share the road with. These are the people we must contend with every day and many times a day. So I am very interested in the views of those down voting.

[Daniel B.]

Re: @rcorrect

As a very recent motorcycle rider (as you drive cars, but you ride bikes ;), I have to say: there are awful drivers on all categories. Bad cyclists, bad bikers and bad drivers. I agree a lot that bicycles should have their own confined lanes. Speed differential is too high in main roads, a Darwin Award candidate is more likely to earn his/her Darwin Award without the confined bikeways. There's also the thing that I'm wearing a full enclosed helmet + body armor when riding a motorcycle; most cyclists will be wearing a styrofoam half-helmet at most. Good for bicycle speed accidents, not so good when you suffer a close encounter of the lorry kind!

[rcorrect]

@codejunky

Bicyclist shouldn't be using phones or whatever when riding their bikes.

[Haku]

@codejunky

"The sooner they remove cyclists from the road the sooner the death toll will fall."

Do you realise how obnoxious & arrogant you come across as?

[codejunky]

Re: @codejunky

@Haku

"Do you realise how obnoxious & arrogant you come across as?"

Do you think I care? Quite simply I have pointed out there are bad drivers, lots of bad cyclists and a good number of bad pedestrians. Nobody has countered that at all.

I notice you only quoted the bit where I said get the cyclists off the road. I notice you left out the bit (in the same comment) about giving them their own roads. Like my comment or not I am still waiting for a disagreement (not a thumbs down but a collection of braincells explaining how I am wrong). Road safety involves everyone on the road. Not just a driver/rider, pedestrian or bicyclist.

You might find me arrogant and obnoxious but for all the downvoters without a comment I think are incapable of reason. Daniel B makes a reasoned comment saying pretty much the same as me about bad drivers and cyclists getting their own lanes for their own safety yet I notice he has 3 upvotes and 2 downvotes.

And of course there is your pointless comment. That adds nothing. So how does that reflect on you?

[Haku]

Re: @codejunky

I think I hit a nerve.

The endless drivers vs cyclists arguments mostly revolve around the fact that too many drivers feel that they own the road (cue the ignorant 'road tax' arguments) and anyone using it with a smaller vehicle shouldn't be there, especially if they're in front of them (a lot of drivers think roads are racetracks), and whilst saying that removing cyclists from the equation will reduce deaths on the road is a fact it only highlights the need for drivers to accept that the road is for everyone legally allowed to be there, wether they pay vechicle tax or not.

[codejunky]

Re: @codejunky

@Haku

"I think I hit a nerve."

Wishful thinking on your part. However the fact that you think you hit a nerve makes me wonder if that was the point of your comment. Actually I just wondered how you could ignore an entire comment except 1 line which you attack me for instead of having anything to contribute to the discussion. But if you are just trolling then it makes sense.

"The endless drivers vs cyclists arguments mostly revolve around the fact that too many drivers feel that they own the road"

Again you ignore my comments of safety. If everyone followed the rules of the road then there would be less accidents. But I only see drivers pulled up for breaking the law and I see (first hand experience obviously) most cyclists I encounter breaking the laws. I appreciate the few who follow the laws. The point of these laws is supposed to keep people safe but it doesnt work if you only attack one group and allow the other to do as they please. Does it?

"a lot of drivers think roads are racetracks"

I suggest you live in a dodgy area or you are making stuff up. For example how much racing occurs on the journey to and from work? The times with the most vehicles. And yes I see cars fly around at stupid speeds occasionally (more often than I like) but at the same time I see cyclists flying down hill at speeds they cannot control their vehicle (seen a few smashed teeth too at the bottom of a few hills). Hence why we ALL (I know that word confuses you) need to be careful on the road. Not just drivers. And the law needs to apply to all EQUALLY (another important word).

"and whilst saying that removing cyclists from the equation will reduce deaths on the road is a fact"

And obviously you think victims need to be more careful because criminals live in this world too? Just as you are arguing that the cyclists can break the law all they want because they too share the road. That must be what you are arguing because I suggest we all need to follow the law and you argue. I suggest cyclists should have their own roads so when there is an accident they dont meet a bigger, more powerful vehicle. And you say no. I wonder if you also argue that pedestrians should do as they please and block up roads, etc ignoring the laws of physics (results in death) because they can? Or do you now think maybe boundaries are actually necessary? Particularly for saving lives.

"wether they pay vechicle tax or not."

What about follow the law and road safety? If you argue against my comment you are arguing against road safety. You can obviously debate how the roads could be safer but since I am arguing that the roads need to be safer and you call me arrogant and obnoxious I wonder if you have a kill em all mentality or just a troll.

[Anonymous Coward]

So why didn't the driver see the police before they saw her?

From what she say then the GGs were turned off and she believed that wasn't contravening the law.

[Roger Stenning]

Such a usage ban...

...is already in the works for Britain.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-57596394-71/u.k-to-ban-wearing-google-glass-while-driving-report-says/

IMHO, it's a good move.

[Anonymous Coward]

hah hah hah

They should double the fine as a form of punishment for her looking stupid. Google glass is the stupidest idea I have heard about in my 20 years in the tech industry. I have to laugh that Google refers to people wearing these things as "explorers". The rest of us will probably use the term "misguided hipster idiot".

[JDX]

Re: hah hah hah

Hipsters care what they look like...

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: hah hah hah

She was pulled over by the San Diego fashion police?

[Splodger]

Re: hah hah hah

An early and more fashionable attempt at head mounted tech:

http://b.vimeocdn.com/ts/447/637/447637341_640.jpg

[a well wisher]

Re: hah hah hah

I thought the term 'Glasshole' had already be coined for users of these

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: hah hah hah

""misguided hipster idiot".

Latest corporate euphamism for twat???

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: hah hah hah

I prefer the "glassholes" to "explorers"

[Eddy Ito]

Seems pretty clear to me. The only exceptions seem to be for when the "mobile digital terminal" is installed in certain vehicles so I don't see how a head worn mdt could be considered 'installed'.

[corestore]

Wouldn't be so sure on that...

In NY, it's illegal to have a radio scanner 'installed' in your car.

NY courts have ruled that simply having a portable scanner sitting on the seat next to you counts as 'installed'.

Never underestimate the potential stupidity of the law.

[Eddy Ito]

Re: Wouldn't be so sure on that...

(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.

Glass fails both tests, A and B, so even given the stupidity of the NY courts, for whatever that is worth in San Diego, it's still illegal even assuming the CA courts are as stupid as their NY counterparts and wanted to say for some reason that it was 'installed'.

I grant you that NY is obviously beyond the rest when it comes to having stupid laws. Frankly, I can't remember when I last drove a car in which the radio didn't have a seek/scan button.

[corestore]

Re: Wouldn't be so sure on that...

You misunderstand.

By 'scanner' they mean a radio scanner capable of receiving, for instance, police frequencies.

The goal of the law was to set up a speed bump for bad guys listening on police radio transmissions; if they couldn't bust them for anything else hey could bust them for the scanner. Bit like prosecuting for 'going equipped' when you can't catch the burglar in the act.

The NY courts decided to extend the reach of the law by interpreting 'installed' in the most liberal manner possible, beyond all common sense meaning of the word!

[Eddy Ito]

Re: Wouldn't be so sure on that...

@corestore

I see, effectively they made police scanners illegal by extending the meaning of the law to suit their purpose like a lot of places did the same with radar detectors. That must have been what, 70s, 80s? I'd think it would be a moot point now with most police bands, I assume, running some kind of encryption. You know, like only criminals who have something to hide do.

[corestore]

Re: Wouldn't be so sure on that...

Eddy Ito, actually no; don't assume :-)

Where I lived in NY, not far outside the city, most cop and fire channels were simple analogue channels.

Fire did have some use of digital for 'trunk' radio back to the dispatchers, but even that was unencrypted and could be picked up with any digital scanner.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Wouldn't be so sure on that...

"Never underestimate the potential stupidity of the law."

Corrected to:

"Never underestimate the potential stupidity of the USA".

There, fixed that for you...

[Anonymous Coward]

@Eddy Ito,

If Steve Mann went to California, how would the statute apply; his has implants that attach his "computational photography" setup to his head. That is about as close to "installed" as one can get.

[Eddy Ito]

Seriously AC? I did provide a link to the law. It pretty clearly reads "when installed in a vehicle". I get that the nine wonders of the legal world interpret words to mean whatever they want and very may well understand that a driver or operator is installed in a vehicle but that doesn't mean they aren't full of shit. I've included the judge icon that you weren't able to posting as AC.

[Anonymous Coward]

And what Steve Mann has is surgically installed. In case you missed a previous article:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/07/18/mcdonalds_computer_vision_spectacles_attack/

[DJ 2]

It's hardly distracting though, he doesn't have an eye where it is "installed"

[katjap]

Cop has a laptop hanging off his dashboard and it IS on by default.

[Don Jefe]

But cop is 'trained' to use his laptop while talking on his mobile, eating a donut and driving. That's why it takes six whole weeks to go through all the intensive training at the academy community college.

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought at least half of that was dedicated to learning the proper technique to whack out a tail-light if he can't find anything else to book you for...

[Yet Another Commentard]

Two things...

She was, apparently speeding. If correct then that's illegal irrespective of what she had on her face.

Secondly - what's a google+ page?

[Tim Parker]

Re: Two things...

"She was, apparently speeding. If correct then that's illegal irrespective of what she had on her face."

Indeed - which is why she was booked for speeding as well.

[Rob]

Re: Two things...

If she hadn't have been speeding the cop wouldn't have noticed the Google Glasses on her face.

It does raise an interesting point for this state on where they stand with HUDs for cars though, as technically they are a monitor, Glass is pretty much the same as a HUD, it's designed not to obscure your vision.

[Faye B]

Re: Two things...

The HUD idea is to diplay vehicle information to the driver, not to display entertainment. The same rules apply as detailed by a previous poster. Google glass will always pose a distraction threat through its ability to display entertainment media or other distracting information (i.e. not related to driving along the road).

The cop was totally right to fine her.

[El Andy]

Re: Two things...

The HUD in a car has already passed various industry safety tests, a third party add-on like Google Glass hasn't. And likely never would given it's ability to display "information" other than what a driver needs

[Don Jefe]

Re: Two things...

HUD in cars goes back to the early 90's and was legalized in all 50 States then.

[MachDiamond]

Re: Two things...

A Google+ page is a web page used by 16yo girls to talk about 18yo boys on.

[arctic_haze]

I'm shocked

I lived two years in San Diego and I had no idea there's a courthouse on Clairemont Mesa Blvd.

[IvyKing]

Re: I'm shocked

Traffic Court has been there at least since the late 1960's, on the north side of CMB and just east of Kearney Villa Rd. To be fair, it doesn't really look like a courthouse.

[dan1980]

Forgot a bit . . .

"Explorers [people who wear the goggles] should always use Glass responsibly and put their safety and the safety of others first . . ."

Also the privacy of others.

At what point does Google Glass become 'covert surveillance'?

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Forgot a bit . . .

"At what point does Google Glass become 'covert surveillance'?"

Never because there is a secret order from a secret court telling Google that their tap into it will be a secret.

[Pete the not so great]

Dam these cars for

distracting drivers from using their tech

[Darren B 1]

Name, Address and Signature

All in one convenient place. Why not provide bank details too.

Is it me or it that open for abuse.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Name, Address and Signature

that was my initial reaction: "El Reg, have you lost your mind?" But look closer: the addy is that of the court and the sig is illegible (and we have the perp's name from the story anyway). so all cool here, nothing to see, move on.

[corestore]

For everyone saying 'good'..

…. or 'ban them!'…

Exactly what is the difference between a satnav display on the dashboard, a satnav display on a HUD projection, and a satnav display on a head-mounted device?

Well, the latter two focus at infinity and you don't have to take your eyes off the road to use them. And Glass, IIRC, is almost entirely voice-controlled; there's a kind of touchpad on the frame but it's not normally used.

As far as I'm concerned that's probably a win-win for Glass and similar devices.

Why be so hasty to ban and ticket before the evidence is actually in as to whether or not they are a help or a hindrance to safe driving???

What do we want? Evidence-based policy! When do we want it? After peer review!

Surprised at the Luddite reactions here.

[Eguro]

Re: For everyone saying 'good'..

You are right!

Let's allow everything until we know that it's not safe!

Why err on the side of caution - it's not like someone's going to die, right?!

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: For everyone saying 'good'..

Cars aren't safe. That's already proven with years of evidence. We should probably ban those, eh?

Once something like that is banned it will be almost impossible to un-ban it. However it is possible that a device like this could make a massive improvement in driver safety.

[kdh0009]

Re: For everyone saying 'good'..

"However it is possible that a device like this could make a massive improvement in driver safety."

How?

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: For everyone saying 'good'..

How could it be used to improve safety?

There are many but I'll list some off the top of my head ideas:

Having car data such as speed or over-speeding warning on your HUD

Having car warnings such as fuel, tyre pressure, oil etc alerted in your HUD

Having simple augmented reality turn directions in the display

Warning you of hazards ahead

Warning of sharp turns on unfamiliar roads

Warning you if you are deviating out of lane

Warning you of reduced stopping distances based upon how far in front the current car is and you current speed

Allowing you to quickly request the nearest lay by, petrol station, mechanics while travelling on a busy road

Warn you of approaching emergency vehicles

Alert you of a potential hazard such as a child or animal about to run out across the road

Automatically recording when driving and storing data as a black box if you have an incident

Calling the emergency services and providing a live feed of the scene if you come across or are involved in an incident

etc etc

These may not all be practical or desirable but there is obviously potential

[SundogUK]

Re: For everyone saying 'good'..

And the average user would still be using it to follow their twatter/farcebook feed.

[kdh0009]

Re: For everyone saying 'good'..

All of these are things which you can do without a distraction in front of your face, or are not likely to be possible..

A child running out from behind a car is no more visible to Glass than your own eyes.

A black box does not need to be a distraction in front of your eyes.

Learning to drive and observation will not be replaced by a fancy pair of specs.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: For everyone saying 'good'..

> Let's allow everything until we know that it's not safe!

Erm, well yes.

Repeat after me: "The law is not a tool of oppression".

[corestore]

Re: For everyone saying 'good'..

Err why not do some bloody *research*?!

Don't assume.

People associated cellphone use with increased accidents.

They assumed it was due to drivers holding the phone in their hand and losing control, so they passed dumb laws saying you have to use a hands-free device.

Then once more research was done, it was found that it was nothing to do with holding the bloody phone; it was the mental distraction of being in a phone conversation.

Someone taking a *brief* handheld phone call is driving a LOT more safely than someone yacking for hours on a bluetooth headset, we now know this - but they still ticket the safer driver. Has the law ever been changed to reflect current research? Yeah, right...

[Persona non grata]

Re: For everyone saying 'good'..

All true - they also determined that listening to music and especially having a conversation with a passenger were in the same order of distraction.

Yet we don't see moves to ban those as that would be 'draconian'.

Law makers and reg commentards will always prefer arguments designed to confirm their biases rather than solid evidence based ones.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: For everyone saying 'good'..

>>with a passenger were in the same order of distraction.

Well, bus drivers and the like are forbidden from talking to passengers while driving for this reason. GB, at least England and Wales, has a catch all, "driving without due care and attention". If the policeman (or you or I) can show evidence that, for instance, drinking from a bottle of water or smoking or tuning the radio distracted the driver so that they did not pay due care and attention, the offence is taken as proved.

Of course, USA or Germany or wherever may have a different approach and require specific laws that can not keep up with developments.

[MachDiamond]

Re: For everyone saying 'good'..

It's not holding the phone that's the problem. It's dropping the phone, taking your eyes off of the road to scramble around in the passenger footwell trying to find where it went. If your ear mounted bluetooth thingy goes flying off into the car, you're pretty well stuffed in trying to find it agin without pulling over and reaching under the seats. The other issue is having the phone in one hand and shifting with the other... Look Ma, no hands.

In California there is a statute about driving while distracted. If you are weaving all over the road whilst practicing your air guitar routine to the tune on the radio, you can get ticketed. If you are telling your brats that if they don't behave you are going to pull over and beat them which causes you to weave all over the road, you can be cited. Besides, you should pull over and whack the little monsters every once in a while so they will know you are willing to do it. Worked for my dad.... I behaved much better in the car after that. This law helps to cover all of the new stuff that comes up without having to write another law that states that you are not allowed to play your Gameboy while driving.

Sure, Glassholes COULD be using a Nav feature but they are more likely checking email, updating their Farcebook page,... whoops, Google+ page, but probably not reading comments here at El Reg. The officer in this story was correct IMO to cite this chick for being a Glasshole. It would be interesting to find out if she ever saw the cop before he got in behind her and turned on the lights. That might be a good indicator of whether the tech was on or not. I know some cops and they tell me that they don't see that somebody is on the phone directly. They are looking at the overall scene and pick up on drivers not holding their line or driving at different speeds from the rest of traffic. That's when they focus on that car and start taking notice of the driver and passengers.

[Gene Cash]

Re: For everyone saying 'good'..

Nope. It's the distraction of using it in the first place, not how you look at it.

I've gotten into issues with my TomTom when it popped up something like "do you want to disallow not excluding the ability to remove toll roads from the route?" (don't remember the real phrase but it was a triple-negative) and I was like "whaaaa?" and wandered around a bit on the road while my brain dealt.

That sort of thing would have happened no matter how the information was displayed.

[PatientOne]

Re: For everyone saying 'good'..

The difference between a Satnav (dashboard or HUD) and Glass is that a satnav is just that. Glass could be that, but it could also be showing Tom and Jerry cartoons for all the police knew. The same applies to smart phones, and the police take a dim view of people using smart phones while driving.

Besides, why exactly was she wearing them if they were switched off? How do the police know they were switched off while driving and hadn't been turned off when the she was pulled over? Bottom line: the police will have assumed she intended to use the glass because she was wearing it, hence the charge.

[Brenda McViking]

Re: For everyone saying 'good'..

I use my phone as a satnav, and so do thousands of other motorists - afterall, with a 5" screen they're pretty much indistinguishable from a tom-tom unless you're in the actual car, and there isn't anything (apart from good old fashioned common sense) stopping me from streaming Tom and Jerry videos from youtube. Police have never commented on it, and I know no-one who has been told off for using the satnav capability of their smartphone.

As for wearing google glasses when they're switched off - that's kind of the point. They're glasses - handsfree, instantly available and you don't have to fish them out of your pocket when you want to use them - these would be the reasons I would buy one. Having to take them off and put them in a case every time I wasn't using them would be really annoying, whereas augmented reality at the tap of a button/voice command would be exactly as I would expect to use them - and I wouldn't want the HUD on all the time, just like I don't want my phone screen on all the time.

As with most things - used sensibly, there is no threat - It might be a bit cliche, but fighter pilots use HUDs to allow them to process the information they need far quicker than the disruptive procedure weekend pilots have to do of checking outside, looking at an instrument, checking outside, looking at another instrument, checking outside. Yes, they're highly trained, but technology can be used to enhance rather than distract human concentration and mental processing. A knee-jerk ban isn't really doing anyone any favours.

Bottom line: the attitude of society towards these new devices is one of inherent suspicion and immediate jumping to conclusions, rather than reasoned, logical debate and actually thinking through the topic. Entirely predictable human response, but not necessarily right. Do I think they're dangerous? No. Do I think society is ready to accept them yet? No.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: For everyone saying 'good'..

Precautionary principle. We know that anything distracting the driver's eyes from the road is a risk. For known ones most countries have laws to cover this.

Google Glasses are just a variant. Common sense is sufficient to see the similarity. Indeed, they could be worse as a more "intimate" distraction. So it makes sense to treat them as evidence of "driving without due care and attention" until an exhaustive examination proves otherwise.

Why on earth did this driver feel the need to wear them while driving her car? Is using them why she missed the speed limit?

I wish the same was applied to cyclists and drivers listening to their MP3 players or radios through earphones. As a cyclist especially, a lot of traffic awareness is through one's ears and even pedestrians with earphones seem to be especially distracted from the world in which they are walking, or more often weaving from side to side or blocking escalators.

[Trahloc]

Re: For everyone saying 'good'..

>Precautionary principle. We know that anything distracting the driver's eyes from the road is a risk.

We should remove all information display in cars then, they require looking away from the road and major refocusing of your eyes. Just because they've been there for decades shouldn't matter, they need to go.

>Why on earth did this driver feel the need to wear them while driving her car?

Do you take your hat off *every* time you get in the car even though it has a roof so the cover becomes redundant? Same reason, it's hands free and not distracting so why not leave it on?

>Is using them why she missed the speed limit?

This is California, doing less than 75 in a 65 is a slow car hazard. We usually do 80 in the first lane which is why several USA states have 75-80mph as their freeway speed limits but California is a nanny state when it comes to freeway speeds. I usually get past by folks in the second lane if I'm doing 75 in the first.

[Anonymous Coward]

Eh, probably a good idea to bust her....

There's no way for the cops to tell whether Glass is off or on, or whether you are browsing the internet or not while driving.

(Paris, because she's had a few run-ins with John Law...)

[ISP]

Re: Eh, probably a good idea to bust her....

So much for innocent until proven guilty...

[Fink-Nottle]

Uh-oh

This does not bode well for the Mercedes Benz initiative to write automotive apps for Google Glass.

[Anonymous Coward]

Dear Moran

You were stopped for speeding, not for wearing the Google Glarses.

[Eguro]

Re: Dear Moran

Except for the second count: "Driving w/ monitor visible to driver (Google Glass)" - at least that's what I make it out to mean.

[Swarthy]

Re: Dear Moran

Except that she was cited for five over. Cops almost never pull someone for less than 10 over; the fines just isn't worth the hassle.

But, it's the end of the month, and the cop had to make quota; he added the Google Glass charge to make the stop worth his time.

[Tatsky]

Re: Dear Moran

Erm, she was doing 80mph in a 65mph zone.

Using my rudimentary maths skills, that's like 15mph over.

I dislike her simply because of her self evident reality distortion field. She was stopped for speeding, and then the cop noticed the glasses, but she has tried sensationalism to get the backing of Google Glass lovers.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Dear Moran

Who the hell is Moran?

[messele]

Re: Dear Moran

Know your memes.

"Get a brain Morans". Google it. On your glasses. While driving.

[Anonymous Coward]

Whats the point in "Driving with monitor visible" being illegal, if the law specifically excludes media players?

Surely the point of the law is to outlaw distractions such as watching a movie whilst driving - unless its on a media player apparently!?

[bigtimehustler]

The authorities attempting to ban this are missing the inevitable, these are test versions and easily identifiable. A few revisions in and they will look just like any glasses/shades. How on earth are they going to enforce a ban then? Im afraid on this one they are better off educating people on its safe use, not banning it, which will end up totally unenforceable.

[Anonymous Coward]

80 MPH

It's difficult to read, but it looks like the ticket includes 80 MPH in a 65 MPH zone. While 80 MPH is common on large freeways, it's flagrant or not paying attention when you're doing it in the presence of law enforcement. Either way the officer may be in a bad mood when you're pulled over.

[Swarthy]

Re: 80 MPH

I think it's 70. It is hard to read tho.

[PatientOne]

Re: 80 MPH

Check the BBC article: It states 80mph in a 65mph. I'd hope they checked.

[Anonymous Coward]

To be fair to the cops

It does say she was doing 80 in a 65 zone... upon pulling her over they probably made the reasonable assumption she'd been distracted by watching an internet video on her "Google Glass" where someone keeps shouting out "Faster... faster".

[Allan George Dyer]

"Monitor visible to driver"

Easy, just plug the video feed directly into the optic nerve.

[mraak]

The worst thing about glassholes

Is the fact that I'll have to see them in press all the time, looks like.

[corestore]

This is all going to look a bit silly...

In a few years, most of the time we'll be driving 'Toyota - powered by Google' and reading or dozing as the car takes care of the driving.

The rest of the time? Well, I'm currently experimenting with eyetap devices. With those, the ONLY way you see the road is through the 'monitors'! Definite advantages; think realtime HDR visual processing, realtime superimposition of thermal imager data at night.

Operating entirely by machine vision is nothing new either; military pilots, especially helicopter pilots, have been flying entirely by night vision goggles for many years. It's the realtime HDR with overlaid augmented reality data that's new and radical. Take a look at this prototype (watch the whole thing):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygcm0AQXX9k

[Trahloc]

Re: This is all going to look a bit silly...

I've been wanting one of those eyetaps for years. If I recall they originally used a split view so half the light was straight on reality and the other half was the augmented digital modified. Sort of a lens/monitor.

[Anonymous Coward]

Arrest them...

...just for using Google products. How "un-American". HHOS.

[Zot]

I bet she said out loud when they was pulled her over...

...was, "OK Glass, Google what do I do if I get pulled over" and the Internet said... .. .

Well it depends on whether the major google vote computer consciousness has being playing GTA or not! ;)

I'm just saying that common sense doesn't seem to get in the way of the collective. Shit what am I saying!!

[Anonymous Coward]

How will they tell when...

... Google Glass is made to look like normal sunglasses?

PULL EVERYONE OVER, it's the only way to be sure.

[Anonymous Coward]

surprise

Obviously being an "explorer" explains her shock and assumed effrontery of the cop... "they're illegal? "

Shouldn't someone wearing a piece of new tech that is in your face (literally) while operating a piece of heavy machinery (and speeding)... have a little more sympathy for society catching up ?

I think this user is planning on replacing their own thought processes and memory with everything supplied by google. woo-hoo.

Should fine her big just for being such a self important idiot.

[Henry Wertz 1]

Agree, good

Nobody should be wearing google glass while driving. If it's off, it's useless to be wearing it. And if it's on it's a distraction. It'd be interesting if glass had a speaker loud enough to use it in a speakerphone mode (i.e. it's sitting on the seat or whatever and you can give it voice commands.)

[Mike Brown]

Re: Agree, good

oh i agree too, i always switch off my phone and remove my watch when i enter a vehicle. Infact i remove my trousers too, dont need them while driving....

[Loki 1]

H+

What will they do when everyone has H+ implants though?

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: H+

If that's a cup size, you'd barely be able to see over the top. Google Glass would be the least of your worries.

[RISC OS]

Can't see what the cop did wrong here, the stupid wench shouldn't have been driving with them on.

[Frankee Llonnygog]

Glass-wearers involved in accidents

I imagine they'll be hard put to prove in court that they were paying attention to the road and not distracted by their glasses. If that's true, wearing them while driving will be as good as an admission of liability.

[bigtimehustler]

Re: Glass-wearers involved in accidents

Indeed it would be difficult to prove in court you were paying attention, but then, you don't ever have to do that. In a court of law it is the responsibility to the accuser to prove your guilty, not for you to prove your innocent. So it will be just as difficult to prove this way round.

[Frankee Llonnygog]

Re: Glass-wearers involved in accidents

That's true in criminal law - in civil law it's different, e.g. in a negligence suit the plaintiff aims to show that the defendant's negligence caused the plaintiff's injury. If a Glass-wearing driver runs you over, it will be difficult for them to show they weren't negligent

[bigtimehustler]

Re: Glass-wearers involved in accidents

Indeed your right, but we are talking about police stopping you and issuing fines or court summons, which is what the article is about. My comment is specifically related to the police stopping you using Glass, not you being found negligent in a civil case.

[messele]

Re: Glass-wearers involved in accidents

"In a court of law it is the responsibility to the accuser to prove your guilty, not for you to prove your innocent."

I'm going to laminate that and stick it to my front bumper. Then I can drive around like an arrogant, bullying arsehole and the last thing people will see as they disappear under my wheels is that pearl of wisdom.

"Good luck proving THAT in court now that you are raspberry jam on the pavement".

The level of idiocy in these comments is staggering, I thought I'd tuned into the BMW / Audi owners forum for a moment.

[MachDiamond]

Re: Glass-wearers involved in accidents

If the NSA does have everybody's internet record, THEY would know what the Glasshole was watching.

[MachDiamond]

Re: Glass-wearers involved in accidents

To be less flippant than in my last comment. I believe that Google is logging "the Glass experience" and may have records that could be demanded in a lawsuit.

[bigtimehustler]

Re: Glass-wearers involved in accidents

Indeed, but my point still stands because when the police pull you over for using it, they do not have this information and so can not issue a fine.

[NogginTheNog]

Discriminatory to four-eyes?

How does these things work for people who wear specs? Do they come in prescription versions??

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Discriminatory to four-eyes?

How does these things work for people who wear specs?

They say they are working on this at the moment .... not clear whether this is google glass frames that prescription lenses can be added to or mechanisms to attach a google glass to an existing frame.

Could me interesting to me as a high-dioptre glasses wearer as looks like the display is almost at a distance away that I can focus on without glasses!

[herman]

A girl?

The surprising thing is not that the person got a ticket, but that it was a GIRL...

[Dr. Mouse]

OK, personally, I'm all for the cops being hard on people who drive while distracted in any major way.

However, Glass could be a way to reduce distractions. Let's take sat nav as an example. Currently, people have a small screen device mounted at dashboard level. Mostly, you can get by without looking at it, just using audio directions (something I do regularly on my bike, as my phone is tucked away in my pocket). But, being realistic, most people can't help looking at it every few seconds. This involves not only looking at it, but also refocussing on it, then looking back to the road and refocussing again, as does looking at your speedo etc.

Instead, if all this info is placed on a Glass display, it is already both nearer to your line of vision and (AFIAK) at the right focal distance. This is much safer to look at. I can also (AFAIK) be used as a hands free kit for your phone.

Now obviously, it could (and probably will, by some at least) be used to watch cat videos, read text messages, etc. which would be a major distraction. What we could do with is a "car mode" along with a log of what is being used, so cops could see whether the driver was using it for something they shouldn't.

In all, it is not as clear as Glass (ba da boom, ching). But banning their use outright will discourage it's use in ways which could improve safety.

[MachDiamond]

One of the features of my SatNav that I like is that it talks to me. Sometimes it talks too much, but having spoken directions is often preferable in city traffic as I am looking out for the other guy and trying to spot the street that I'm being told is .2 miles on the left. I only mount it and turn it on when I need it. The rest of the time it's tucked away and no distraction.

[Anonymous Coward]

One of the features of my SatNav that I like is that it talks to me. Sometimes it talks too much, but having spoken directions is often preferable in city traffic as I am looking out for the other guy and trying to spot the street that I'm being told is .2 miles on the left. I only mount it and turn it on when I need it. The rest of the time it's tucked away and no distraction.

Until it says "turn left in 200 yards" then "turn left now" and you can see 2 or 3 left turns close together and you then have to glance down at the GPS where its normally not distracting you to see which one it means

[darklordsid]

We live in the era of smart glasses and stooopid people.

[cortland]

One of these folks pulled me over one night some years ago for having a GPS visible to the driver. The young lady insisted I had to put it in the back seat.

I put it where "they" couldn't see it.

Complicating things is that a lot of GPS's can display video from an external source.

[Neil Lewis]

Glass is not intrinsically unsafe

Quite.

The built-in GPS in my Citroen also provides a choice of a half dozen computer modes for general info, maps and more, as well as the ability to play a feed from a connected video device. It's not illegal to have it switched on while the car is in motion, indeed, I can't recall there being any way to *not* have it on while driving, since it comes on with the ignition. It does issue a warning that the GPS should be initialised before driving off, and that it's suggestions should be taken as a guide, not orders.

It would seem that Glass would provide similar functionality, with less chance of being distracted from the road when used in a similar, safe way. Of course, that doesn't stop a fool from using it in an unsafe way.

Is anyone really saying that a device capable of providing a potentially safer way of managing navigation and other travel and vehicle info must be banned, just because it's possible to use it unsafely?

[Tatsky]

I'm just waiting for Hollywood...

How long before some screenwriter uses Google Glass as a plot device? You know the one "I am tied into every CCTV, Bank ATM, traffic light camera and all Google Glass' in the area, running facial recognition now, we will find him".

[wheel]

Not many lawyers here on El Reg

I think we're all in for a bad time if the police are allowed to make up the law on the go, whether or not we think it was a good idea. If this goes to court, the citation will most likely be struck down. Here's why:

Section 27602(a) contains the words 'is operating'. That is to say that it is illegal to drive a vehicle while a display (excepting those listed in 27602(b)) is switched on. As the lady swears it was not switched on, and assuming the cop had not checked it was by removing the glasses from the lady and looking into them himself, she cannot be said to have been driving while the display was "operating and ... visible to the driver" (as specified). The arresting officer would be asked how he could ticket a driver for using an operating display when that display was not operating.

Interestingly, 27602(a) seemingly also makes it illegal to use a smart phone as a sat nav in California. Why? Well, you can also watch video on a smart phone, and so it would not be exempt, as it neither satisfies 27602(b)(5)(A) – it would have no interlock to prevent the driver from watching video – nor possibly 27602(b)(5)(B) which states that the smartphone must be "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". While a smartphone can be configured and operated in this way (and I guess Google Glass can too), I know of no smartphone which is *designed* in such a manner.

Of course, I am sure that the smartphone makers – and everyone else – would argue that watching video while driving would mean that you were not operating the vehicle in a safe and reasonable manner, and that to be safe and reasonable you would have to not be watching video. That, of course, would be a legal catch-all, meaning that, as long as whatever display you were using was set up as a sat-nav, you could legally use it and that would include Google Glass.

Damn it, I should have gone into law, rather than music.

[Karcsi]

Re: Not many lawyers here on El Reg

However, I presume it is almost impossible to determine whether the GG is on from a distance. Therefore, to maintain the law, police will have to assume that it is on if you are wearing it. Why else would you put up with looking like a massive member? Surely you will have a spare pair of glasses for when you have no "need" for the GG functionality (and you don't want to look like a dork)?

[cs94njw]

I don't understand. If her Google Glasses were prescription glasses, and she needed them for driving - then surely she can only be fined if the Glasses were in their HUD mode.

If I have a mobile phone in my car but I don't use it - I can still be fined?

[Anonymous Coward]

Explorer?

How can we stop big business or politicians from abusing and misusing our language?

Explorer? Are they mad or just self-aggrandising? What's wrong with "tester" or even "early adopter"?

It's like this unstoppable mania now to put "-en" instead of "-ed" (gotten, proven, how about "moven" or "cooken" or "computen") onto past participles from which it vanished as inconsistent and awkward in the 18th Century, along with "thee", "thy", "aye" and "nay", pantaloons, wigs and so on. Are the perpetrators adopting three hundred year old definitions for their words too? Perhaps they should go into law where they can keep the archaic language as the law is deliberately archaic and conservative in its expressions.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's all good

The sooner they get these distracted drivers off the roadways and in jail, the safer our streets will be.

[Maharg]

Abadie insisted her Google device wasn't switched on

Then why was she wearing it?

[Nifty]

other distractions

"I've had cops catch me off guard when I was riding my bike to work and picking up aluminum cans along the way"

I suggest dismounting from the bicycle before picking up cans

[PirateKing]

In Texas the only thing that is allowed to be displayed on non vehicle/factor installed screen is navigation.

I am on the cops side of this one.. It is bad enough with drivers trying to drive with cell phones .

[DJS2011]

Misleading Headline.....

Look at the ticket...she was stopped for speeding, which she admits. The google glass was just an add on violation, which she deserved. Put the sh!t away and pay attention to the road people...phones, makeup, food...all of it!!!

[agricola]

Not good enough.

Don't stop here. Arrest anybody, anywhere wearing Google Glass, or anything similar which the CopyAsses are getting ready to introduce.

Invoke "Invasion of Privacy" laws.

Simply wearing the device is 'de facto' evidence of use.

[Keith Bee]

Probably been said already but...

... you hear these futurologist types talking about having maps and directions superimposed on the windscreen in the future. I guess that won't be a thing now then.

[Maharg]

Re: Probably been said already but...

I think that’s different, as long as the windscreens don’t have the capability of showing anything else, she could have been updating facebook or watching youtube for all we know

[LS650]

Several studies make it clear that trying to use verb hands-free cellular can be distracting. I don't see how Google Glasses would be any different.