Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Drive With Google Glass: Get a Ticket

Unknown Lamer posted about a year ago | from the no-hud-for-you dept.

Input Devices 638

mrspoonsi writes "Engadget reports 'California is technology's spiritual home in the US, where Teslas roam free, and Google Glass is already a social norm. Well, unless you're a member of the San Diego law enforcement that is — as one unlucky driver just found out. That commuter was Cecilia Abadie, and she's (rather fittingly) taken to Google+ after being given a ticket for driving while wearing her Explorer Edition.'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Good morning from the Olden Girls! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45278877)

Thank you for being a friend.
Travel down the road and back again.
Your heart is true, you're a pal and a cosmonaut.

And if you threw a party, invited everyone you knew.
You would see the biggest gift would be from me
and the card attached would say,
thank you for being a friend.

Re:Good morning from the Olden Girls! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45279015)

It's actually "drew a doggie" not "threw a party". WTF is wrong with you?

Good (4, Insightful)

lxs (131946) | about a year ago | (#45278915)

No texting while driving and no checking Wikipedia.

Re:Good (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45279089)

Just wearing Google Glass does not mean you are texting or checking wikipedia. Should you get a ticket just for having your cellphone in the car because it has the capability to text and check the internet?

Re:Good (5, Insightful)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about a year ago | (#45279173)

No, but you'll quite rightly get one over here (UK) if you're holding it in your hand while driving.

Not, however, if it's handsfree (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45279315)

Or connected via handsfree kit.

So, again your parent poster's statement has not been refuted by your "refutation".

Please try again.

Re:Good (1)

sumdumass (711423) | about a year ago | (#45279185)

You prolly would if you had it in your hands or to your ear- even if you weren't talking or texting on it.

Distracted driving is the big thing now

Do you know what glasses are? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45279511)

Here's a hint: they do not have to be held up to the eyes to be used. They are not opera glasses.

Re:Good (4, Interesting)

FilmedInNoir (1392323) | about a year ago | (#45279249)

I'm issuing you a ticket and court summons for the Production and Distribution of a Bad Analogy.
Unless that cellphone is strapped to your face that is.

inb4 (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45278917)

Inb4 all the 'but but but she could be checking her speed on google glass via GPS while keeping her eyes on the road! It makes driving safer!' type comments.

There is little difference between this and checking a mobile phone while driving, she deserved to get a ticket.

Re:inb4 (5, Informative)

Joce640k (829181) | about a year ago | (#45279075)

One of her own comments is: "Glass was not on and I honestly don't use it much while driving..."

But you do use it, right?

Re:inb4 (1)

mrchaotica (681592) | about a year ago | (#45279337)

Google Glass is the kind of thing that -- if the software is designed appropriately -- ought to be both safe and useful in any situation, including driving. Pretty much the whole point of it is that it knows what you're doing, and helps you do it. So when you're driving, for example, it ought to be actively suppressing other distractions (setting your phone to "do not disturb") and giving you information to help you drive (like "watch out, the guy on the left is encroaching into your lane").

Re:inb4 (3, Insightful)

ElectricTurtle (1171201) | about a year ago | (#45279127)

Cute, but unless you hold a phone at eye level with the road, which I've never seen anybody do, it is in fact completely different. There's a reason that modern military aircraft have HUDs with vital information on them, because the time it takes to move your eyes around, locate and focus on various things can be critical at high speeds. When the visual separation is trivial it can in fact increase concentration, and if you disagree, please inform the world's air forces at once on your genius discovery.

Re:inb4 (3, Insightful)

Sarten-X (1102295) | about a year ago | (#45279227)

There are far fewer things to hit at an aircraft's usual altitude. A pilot's HUD can obscure small parts of the view without significant risk. There's also the small detail that pilots are far better-trained than most drivers.

Re:inb4 (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45279247)

Your missing a vital point in your wonderful argument......the data being displayed in your example (military aircraft) has everything to do with flying and maneuvering the plane and not chatting or looking up something that can easily be addressed once the vehicle has stopped moving.

Now if they were able to provide car telemetry or something like "45 MPH zone approaching" and show you the line where it starts, then I would agree with you completely. But that is simply not the case.

She deserves the ticket.

Re:inb4 (0)

gtbritishskull (1435843) | about a year ago | (#45279421)

Can you not do GPS navigation with google glass? Are GPS units (with screens) illegal in California?

Re:inb4 (4, Insightful)

faffod (905810) | about a year ago | (#45279383)

Just because the information is in your line of sight does not mean that it is in your focus. You have to shift focus to see information in the near plane. And there is a reason HUDs use graphic icons, they are faster for the brain to process. And the plane HUD displays information directly relevant to the successful operation/survival of the aircraft. Reading text takes several orders of magnitude longer to process. If you are traveling at 30mph (slow residential speed) and you read a text for 5 seconds, you have traveled 77 yards, nearly a football field, and you then have to refocus on the outside and scan for any new threats, which will take additional time.

If I was to tell you that I would drive down your street at 30 mph once a day with my eyes closed for a 100 yard section, and I was to do it when you little brother/ daughter/insert loved one was out playing would you be as cavalier about the costs of distracted driving?

or, to answer you question, no I would not inform the world's air forces that you don't understand the difference between a military HUD and a recreational distraction.

apparently... (5, Funny)

brunokummel (664267) | about a year ago | (#45278923)

....she didn't see it coming.... ba dum tss!

Guilty (-1, Flamebait)

Big Hairy Ian (1155547) | about a year ago | (#45278925)

Well she was probably watching "Two girls, one cup" on youtube!

Re:Guilty (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45278985)

Link please :-)

Re:Guilty (3, Funny)

faffod (905810) | about a year ago | (#45279407)

Somebody named "Big Hairy Ian" mentioned a video of dubious taste and you ask for a link?!! I survived slashdot in the 90's without being scared by goatse, I don't need to make up for it now.

Re:Guilty (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45279455)

The jury finds you... NOT GIRLCUP!

Isn't wearing them already punishment enough? (4, Funny)

TWiTfan (2887093) | about a year ago | (#45278937)

What punishment could the court possibly inflict that would compare to the shame of wearing them in the first place?

Impaired Driving Abilities? (3, Insightful)

mrspoonsi (2955715) | about a year ago | (#45278955)

Given that helmet mounted HUDs are good enough for military pilots [wikipedia.org] , how does having a GPS in your field of vision whilst driving a car, impair you? It sure beats looking down at a fixed display to view the GPS map (often not in the best location).

I think the issue is they (police) do not know what else you are doing, such as playing tetris at a stop light.

Re:Impaired Driving Abilities? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45278997)

Pilots in the virtually empty air != drivers in SIlicon Valley

Re:Impaired Driving Abilities? (4, Insightful)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about a year ago | (#45279409)

Highly trained and disciplined Pilots in the virtually empty air != drivers in SIlicon Valley

FTFY.

Nevermind the fact the sky is damn near empty; remember what your driving test entailed? Zero comparison between that and the training military pilots go through.

Re:Impaired Driving Abilities? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45279023)

Because there's very little chance of a collision in air. On the roads, however, a BSOD on a HUD would be quite literal to not only the driver but everybody in her proximity.

Planes fly very fast. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45279385)

So what's the "minimum safe stopping distance" for an aircraft at mach 1.2?

Re:Planes fly very fast. (4, Funny)

SJHillman (1966756) | about a year ago | (#45279439)

Even if you account for the increase in speed, planes are still surrounded by mostly nothing when not taking off or landing. Cars, however, are essentially *always* taking off or landing.

Furthermore, there's only one night out of the year that pilots need to watch out for deer while cruising, and that's not until late December.

Re:Impaired Driving Abilities? (1)

Manfre (631065) | about a year ago | (#45279471)

When a pilot loses their gauges, the worry is that the aircraft will hit the ground, not something in the air.

Re:Impaired Driving Abilities? (1)

X0563511 (793323) | about a year ago | (#45279505)

Oh, really? [indianairforce.nic.in]

Re:Impaired Driving Abilities? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45279029)

Given that helmet mounted HUDs are good enough for military pilots...

... who receive years of specialized training. Wearing GGlass should require a license, or endorsement, as when you need to modify the car for medical reasons.

Re:Impaired Driving Abilities? (1)

N1AK (864906) | about a year ago | (#45279101)

Why are 3 ACs the only ones making the exact same redundant counter-argument here?

I know a pilot who started on the fast jet stream before being bumped for not being good enough. He did plenty of flying with a vastly more obstructive HUD than glass (a tiny box above the line you normally look through) often in circumstances with far smaller margins of error than a typical driver. I can think of no end of things a HUD could include that would make a typical driver safer so a blanket anti-HUD position makes very little sense.

Now obviously whether what this person was using glass for made her a less safe driver could be entirely different.

Re:Impaired Driving Abilities? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45279341)

often in circumstances with far smaller margins of error than a typical driver.

This is a false statement. Most flying, especially while in training, involves huge margins of error because there is a huge distance between an aircraft and other obstructions such as other aircraft, the ground, etc. The small margin of error in military aircraft come from engagement and that has less to do with collision than with being shot. BTW, I worked in support of Training Wing 6 while in the Navy, so I kind of know what I am talking about.

I can think of no end of things a HUD could include that would make a typical driver safer

None of which are apart of Google Glass.

a blanket anti-HUD position makes very little sense

Someone doesn't know the law. This is an anti-cellphone/anti-texting/anti-distracted driver law, not an ant-HUD law. And, see point 2 above.

Re:Impaired Driving Abilities? (2)

SJHillman (1966756) | about a year ago | (#45279467)

There's a big difference between what a HUD *could* do to help a driver and what most drivers *would* do with one that could also access the Internet.

Re:Impaired Driving Abilities? (4, Insightful)

Richard_at_work (517087) | about a year ago | (#45279051)

Two issues with that line of thought -

1. Military pilots (and pilots in general) get a HECK of a lot more training than any person driving on the public road does, including a massive amount of training to handle that helmet mounted display without distraction. When Google Glass comes with a 6 month intensive training course to allow you to drive with it, then you can make that comparison.

2. There's a lot less to run into in the air, even when flying in tight formation.

Re:Impaired Driving Abilities? (0)

ElectricTurtle (1171201) | about a year ago | (#45279205)

People act like training is some magical thing. Training is nothing more than guided experience on a schedule. Intelligent people, it may surprise you, have experiences all the time, and being intelligent they can process those experiences into a useful understanding, gasp, without formal training!

I have lots of technical certs which I know a lot of people train for with classes and whatever, but I never took classes or read any books. I had enough unscheduled, unguided real world experience to just get the certs. Training isn't magical, it doesn't represent an exclusive path to knowledge and ability, so stop patronizing people.

Re:Impaired Driving Abilities? (2)

Sockatume (732728) | about a year ago | (#45279307)

Military pilots also have a lot more experience using HUDs than anyone on the planet has using Google Glass.

Re:Impaired Driving Abilities? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45279419)

So, you would let a random intelligent person perform surgery on you. Oh, and why even bother with driver training? We can just give people licenses to drive without testing their ability to do so. Because, you know, training is over-rated.
 
Training for specialized tasks improves the execution of those tasks. Tell us, how many times did you learn something the hard way? Then, remember that learning something the hard way in an SUV might mean killing someone else, possibly you or someone you love. Knowing that someone's life could be ended or permanently changed for the worse, do you still think training is unnecessary?

Re:Impaired Driving Abilities? (1)

Misagon (1135) | about a year ago | (#45279461)

There is study and then there is practical training. What you are describing is study.
I don't think that military pilots spend six months reading books on how to use the helmet-mounted HUD. The use it practically, under supervision from instructors who have experience in how it should and should not be used.

Re:Impaired Driving Abilities? (1)

SJHillman (1966756) | about a year ago | (#45279493)

One difference between training and experience is that training usually follows best-practice whereas experience follows hasn't-killed-me-yet. There's plenty of 'experienced' drunk drivers out there who will be dead within the year.

Re:Impaired Driving Abilities? (1)

zwei2stein (782480) | about a year ago | (#45279539)

You are comparing:

A) Toying with some IT stuff where worst that can happen is loosing couple of hours of work and where you have all the time in the world to google you answer or retake certs (like they matter).

to

B) Being in potentially fatal situation where windows of opportunity to handle that situation at all are secconds and less and where safety net for figuring that out is about size and durability of paper tissue.

My natural, experience driven intellect tells me that patronizing you is correct course of action.

Re:Impaired Driving Abilities? (5, Informative)

Sockatume (732728) | about a year ago | (#45279057)

Glass's display provides an image like 25-inch screen at 8 feet of distance somewhere above and to the right of your eyeline. It's not a heads-up display. It's more like having an iPhone glued to the corner of the sun visor.

Re:Impaired Driving Abilities? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45279083)

Yeah most people really need GPS on their daily commute, otherwise they would get completely lost. I can guarantee that most people wearing google glass while driving are not using it as a navigation aid. HUD displays for military aircraft are purpose built for the function of flying the aircraft only. They don't have games or a twitter app on military HUD displays.

Re:Impaired Driving Abilities? (1)

X0563511 (793323) | about a year ago | (#45279545)

I don't need my GPS, but I use it all the time. Why? Because it gives me a relatively accurate ETA, and if I have to deviate off course, it immediately adapts to this - where I might otherwise get completely lost. Sure, I'm smart enough to be able to figure out which relative direction I'm moving in, but that won't tell me that the neighborhood I'm driving through doesn't connect to the road I expect to be on the other side.

Re:Impaired Driving Abilities? (1)

Talderas (1212466) | about a year ago | (#45279107)

A pilot's HUD only displays information relevant to the operation of the aircraft. Google Glass can display information irrelevant to the operation of a motor vehicle.

Re:Impaired Driving Abilities? (5, Insightful)

smash (1351) | about a year ago | (#45279191)

Military HUDs only display information to improve situational awareness. Not facebook, twitter or wikipedia.

Re:Impaired Driving Abilities? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45279279)

Given that helmet mounted HUDs are good enough for military pilots [wikipedia.org] , how does having a GPS in your field of vision whilst driving a car, impair you? It sure beats looking down at a fixed display to view the GPS map (often not in the best location).

If google glass could be restricted to only give the driver information relevant to driving (gps maps, speed, lane proximity warnings, etc), that might be a valid argument. The military pilot isn't getting texts from his girlfriend and Facebook updates on his HUD.

I think the issue is they (police) do not know what else you are doing, such as playing tetris at a stop light.

Or reading an eBook while driving 70mph down the freeway.

view the GPS map (often not in the best location)

If that's the problem, the government can require a HUD for GPS. Given that carmakers often charge $1000 or more for a $100 GPS, they could afford to make a HUD.

Re:Impaired Driving Abilities? (5, Insightful)

idontgno (624372) | about a year ago | (#45279295)

I think the issue is they (police) do not know what else you are doing, such as playing tetris at a stop light

More to the point, the police can make a safe bet that whatever's being displayed in Google Glass is completely unrelated to the safe operation of a motor vehicle. Whereas the contents of a HUD in a warplane is 100% concerned with the operation of the aircraft. No "Words With Friends" plugin there, and aircrews already have perfectly usable hands-off voice comm to eliminate texting.

The comparison fails at the most fundamental level: a HUD is constrained to the mission, but a Google Glass is open-ended within its capabilities (comparable to a smartphone). Which means that Glassing while driving is almost certainly a distraction, not an enhancement, because of all the things it can do, only a couple might be legitimate at the wheel (like GPS, for instance).

Re:Impaired Driving Abilities? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45279351)

Probably because helmet mounted HUDSs are generally providing information related to the plane/the mission the pilot was on, as opposed to facebook or wikipedia.

Re:Impaired Driving Abilities? (1)

nukenerd (172703) | about a year ago | (#45279437)

mrspoonsi wrote :-

Given that helmet mounted HUDs are good enough for military pilots, how does having a GPS in your field of vision whilst driving a car, impair you? It sure beats looking down at a fixed display to view the GPS map (often not in the best location).

1) I don't look down at my GPS when driving. I go by its voice instructions and it surprises me that not everyone does this.

2) Pilots are looking at HUDs to get info relevant to the flying of the plane. Someone with Google Glass could be reading the New York Times.

Re:Impaired Driving Abilities? (1)

jklovanc (1603149) | about a year ago | (#45279509)

A big difference is that an aircraft HUD does not pop up texts from your boss. HUDs display information directly related to the task at hand. While Google glass can do that too it can not be guaranteed to do only that. Other information can cause distraction which can cause accidents. If the driver's mind is reading that text that just popped into view it is no longer concentrating on driving. You may be looking in the same direction but you are no longer looking at the road.

Check the ticket: she was doing 80 (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45278959)

Probably should have taken off the Google Glasses *before* the cop walked up.

Re:Check the ticket: she was doing 80 (5, Informative)

MightyYar (622222) | about a year ago | (#45279053)

Not only was she doing 80, but he got her via the "PACE" method. This kind of implies that she wasn't paying much attention, or she probably would have seen the cop car tailing her.

Re:Check the ticket: she was doing 80 (4, Insightful)

armanox (826486) | about a year ago | (#45279179)

If the cops in CA are anything like the MD/DC cops, PACE method means they get to make up whatever they want about how fast you were going.

Re:Check the ticket: she was doing 80 (1)

SJHillman (1966756) | about a year ago | (#45279541)

Most police work means they can make up whatever they want if cases of your word vs theirs (which is very often). However, most traffic cops aren't going to bother with you if you don't do something to catch their attention in the first place, such as going much faster than traffic, changing lanes often, swerving within or between lanes, not signaling, tailgating, etc. Sure, there's a few assholes out there who do it just to be an asshole but even then they usually go after someone who caught their attention for some reason.

Good. (5, Insightful)

Joining Yet Again (2992179) | about a year ago | (#45278981)

So wearing something which deliberately obstructs your field of vision, distracts your concentration and defeats your autofocus is considered dangerous?

Seems about right to me.

Re:Good. (1)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | about a year ago | (#45279087)

The problem here is the total impact is unknown. It's unknown if something in your field of vision is actually going to impact your driving. A HUD with e-mail on it might impair driving less than, say, checking your speedometer--I've almost caused a collision twice on the highway for taking one or two seconds to check my speed when it seemed fast (driver ahead of me took that time to brake, and I had to re-assess when I looked back up and didn't realize cruising at 65 was suddenly a bad thing).

People like to knee-jerk about how everything they don't understand must be like something frightening that they do understand, and so they must apply draconian rules. I've seen it go as far as people wanting to ban manual transmission because it takes your mind off the road and you need both hands on the wheel--while statistics show that manual transmission drivers are better drivers (a lot of confounding here, since people avoid driving stick because they think it's too much work etc. and most manual drivers are enthusiasts or in other countries).

Opposite arguments include that maybe Google Glass is less optimal than not doing other shit while driving; but that people will be distracted and do stupid shit in the real world, and allowing Google Glass will reduce traffic incidents by transferring their dangerous behavior to a less-dangerous form. That argument of course doesn't work well because people want perfection--like when the Polio live vaccine was found to cause 3 or 4 polio deaths per year, so the USA proposed switching to a dead virus vaccine... with projections of thousands or tens of thousands of deaths per year due to the reduced rate of vaccination. But it's better than a live vaccine causing deaths (presumably because it's your fault for not getting the vaccine, not our fault for providing vaccination; and because it only affects poor people).

Re:Good. (5, Insightful)

Joining Yet Again (2992179) | about a year ago | (#45279155)

But since current understanding is that all the features of HUD glasses make driving more dangerous, it would require a goodly quantity of new, independent research to establish that we have an exception

It's not about being frightened by new things - that's the typical strawman response to rational caution. It's about examining the familiar features of new scenarios and taking them as a starting point, rather than resorting to child-like optimism (which may be beautiful but is entirely unscientific).

Re:Good. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45279271)

That's right.

People can't text while driving, what makes people think they can use Google glass?

I am not convinced that this is like a HUD. A HUD in aircraft accentuates or adds other features that AID the pilot - like highlighting or even inserting runway markers when visibility sucks.

Not Youtube videos, email, or whatever other function GG is supposed to have.

Re:Good. (1)

mrchaotica (681592) | about a year ago | (#45279483)

But since current understanding is that all the features of HUD glasses make driving more dangerous

Based on what evidence?

Re:Good. (4, Insightful)

smash (1351) | about a year ago | (#45279285)

It's not the vision impairment that is the problem, as demonstrated by comparisons of hands-free calls vs. people holding the phone and talking. They both registered similar impairment to BAC of 0.08.

The issue is what the person is focused on with their mind.

It's different to talking to someone sitting next to you as your brain has to work harder to judge response, etc. when the person is not there for you to see. Also, most passengers there in person have sense to STFU if traffic looks like it is going to be a problem.

TLDR: we don't need (more) asshats checking twitter while on the road. The fact that it is a HUD is likely to be little different to doing the same thing on a mobile phone. Unless the device locks out all non-driving relevant functionality while driving, its use should be prohibited just like any other mobile internet device.

Re:Good. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45279451)

If you're taking 2 seconds to check your speedometer you're doing it wrong. On top of that you must be following the car in front of you too closely if 2 seconds is all it took for you to nearly close the gap unless the drive in front of you was breaking hard. You did say they were breaking but to what extent? Even the best drivers aren't going to avoid an accident if the car in front of them breaks to hard and there isn't a reasonable amount of space between the cars.
 
Aside from that the rest of your post is pretty much foolery. Checking your speedometer is a function of driving. No sane person is disputing that some functions of driving increase the risk of an accident but are a necessary evil. Checking your email is not a function of driving. You just don't need to do it. And you're acting like someone who is reading their email isn't checking their speedometer too. This only increases the risks of an already distracting (by your own admission) function of driving.
 
Basically when it comes down to it the public is going to be against just about anything that is non-essential while driving. Your attempt of twisting the concept into checking email may be less distracting than performing a function of driving is pretty shortsighted.

Stop right there. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45279459)

The problem here is the total impact is unknown.

I have an easy way of determining the impact. Google Glass either helps the driver or it doesn't. There are more arguments against it (lack of training, obstruction of vision, distractions, etc) than in favor. You do the math if she should get the ticket.

Re:Good. (1)

hawguy (1600213) | about a year ago | (#45279501)

The problem here is the total impact is unknown. It's unknown if something in your field of vision is actually going to impact your driving. A HUD with e-mail on it might impair driving less than, say, checking your speedometer--I've almost caused a collision twice on the highway for taking one or two seconds to check my speed when it seemed fast (driver ahead of me took that time to brake, and I had to re-assess when I looked back up and didn't realize cruising at 65 was suddenly a bad thing).

If it takes you 2 seconds to check your speedometer (which should require no more than a quick glance), how can you possibly read an email in less time and with less distraction?

If maintaining a safe speed is getting in the way of driving safely, you really ought to take a driving course - the life you save may be your own.

Re:Good. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45279097)

I've heard all this before, but let me make the counter argument. If done right, glass could make driving safer. It could be used as a heads-up display with things like GPS, speed, etc displayed so you don't have to look down. It could turn off distractions while in a car - things your phone doesn't/can't really do now. I've often thought that the car is the only place I'd really like to use such a device (for GPS, speed indications)

I'm not saying it is or will be any of these things, but flippant prejudgment moderated as insightful is... indicative of the thought level of this community.

Re:Good. (1)

Joining Yet Again (2992179) | about a year ago | (#45279235)

When confronted with a new scenario, we must start off by identifying familiar, well-researched features - re visibility, concentration, focus - and applying existing knowledge.

You are making an untested hypothesis that Google Glass is a unique combination which forms an exception. That's fine. But "optimism" isn't a basis for deployment, merely a prompt to ignite the research spirit.

Glasshole extraordinaire? (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45278989)

Click on the "one unlucky driver...." link and laugh at all the extreme glassHOLE commentary. The silly self-entitled so-and-so was stopped for SPEEDING, and the Google Glass thing was secondary... given the comments, me thinks perhaps some C.O.P.-- contempt of police- attitude may have played a part here as to the reason for the cop deciding to throw on the Glass obstruction of view thing. What purpose is served by wearing this thing while driving, if it is off? Cause it's too much trouble to take off and put back on when you stop the car?

Re:Glasshole extraordinaire? (1)

gatzke (2977) | about a year ago | (#45279135)

Maybe google should have selected users based on pretentiousness? This glasshole thing may limit their adoption long-term more than any technology issue.

Not sure what to blame the g+ failure on. I went to check that wasteland again today. After the reader debacle I have lost a lot of faith.

Maybe I start the bing? Does it work with the tubes?

Re:Glasshole extraordinaire? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45279209)

Maybe google should have selected users based on pretentiousness?

maybe they already did

Re:Glasshole extraordinaire? (0)

Sockatume (732728) | about a year ago | (#45279139)

As problematic as Google Glass is, the term "glasshole" is one of the stupidest pejorative memes I've heard. I mean, John Gruber uses it. Do you want to be like John Gruber?

Re:Glasshole extraordinaire? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45279397)

Christ. Are all of her posts about Google Glass? Her "commitment" towards her health is just another way to post about Google Glass. GlassHOLE indeed.

I'm totally feeling you with the contempt of police angle too. I'm imagining it started with the officer suggesting it was against the law to drive with them, and she pushed the issue into getting a ticket.

Captcha: Closets (Are Glassholes really closeted hipsters? I bet when Google Glass goes retail, all of these glassHOLEs will be complaining about how impure the new glass users are.)

he though she was a borg (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45279017)

...and it turns out he was not that far off

Google censored the SNL Google Glass skit! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45279021)

The classic SNL 'Randall Meeks' sketch [yahoo.com] has disappeared from Youtube.... actually there is one but the video has been replaced with static screenshot images [youtube.com] .

So if you wondered whether Google has a sense of humor, there's your answer right there. They can enjoy a good laugh at other people's expense, maybe.

Wearing Glass was the third violation on ticket! (5, Interesting)

GAATTC (870216) | about a year ago | (#45279035)

Note she was cited for speeding and a second violation. Wearing Glass was the third violation on the image of the ticket she posts. Speeding while distracted by a web enabled heads up display - how bad would she have felt if she'd killed someone.....

Re:Wearing Glass was the third violation on ticket (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45279195)

how bad would she have felt if she'd killed someone.....,

Not sure, but she could immediately post it on her facebook page...

Re:Wearing Glass was the third violation on ticket (5, Insightful)

swampfriend (2629073) | about a year ago | (#45279207)

She says in the comments, "The speeding was justified as I was in a 65 mph zone and thought I was on a 75mph zone, I always feel like I need some software to alert me when zones change ... is that only me??" Actually California does have an "app" to alert you when zones change, it involves physical displays of the current speed limit that come into eyesight as you physically approach them

Re:Wearing Glass was the third violation on ticket (1)

inicom (81356) | about a year ago | (#45279319)

Came to say this - she was trying to make this about google glass, when it was about her speeding. She and/or the officer were being dickish and thus the google glass part of the ticket, but she was stopped and ticketed for speeding. The infraction for the glass would undoubtably get thrown out if she goes before a judge.

Looks like she was stopped for speeding (4, Informative)

PhilHibbs (4537) | about a year ago | (#45279039)

The first line in the violations section contains "65 mph" but I can't read the rest, so it looks like that was the main reason for stopping. The next line starts with 27602 which is the code for driving with a TV or monitor visible to the driver [ca.gov] .

Re:Looks like she was stopped for speeding (2)

Joce640k (829181) | about a year ago | (#45279109)

I'm guessing the fact that the cop was tailing her and she didn't notice might have influenced his decision that something was distracting her.

Might be legal (3, Interesting)

crmanriq (63162) | about a year ago | (#45279163)

It looks like she might be able to claim an exception under 27602(2) or (3):

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.
      (6) A mobile digital terminal that is fitted with an opaque covering that does not allow the driver to view any part of the display while driving, even though the terminal may be operating, installed in a vehicle that is owned or operated by any of the following:
      (A) An electrical corporation, as defined in Section 218 of the Public Utilities Code.
      (B) A gas corporation, as defined in Section 222 of the Public Utilities Code.
      (C) A sewer system corporation, as defined in Section 230.6 of the Public Utilities Code.
      (D) A telephone corporation, as defined in Section 234 of the Public Utilities Code.
      (E) A water corporation, as defined in Section 241 of the Public Utilities Code.
      (F) A local publicly owned electric utility, as defined in Section 224.3 of the Public Utilities Code.
      (G) A city, joint powers agency, or special district, if that local entity uses the vehicle solely in the provision of sewer service, gas service, water service, or wastewater service.
      (c) Subdivision (a) does not apply to a mobile digital terminal installed in an authorized emergency vehicle or to a motor vehicle providing emergency road service or roadside assistance.
      (d) Subdivision (a) does not apply to a mobile digital terminal installed in a vehicle when the vehicle is deployed in an emergency to respond to an interruption or impending interruption of electrical, natural gas, telephone, sewer, water, or wastewater service, and the vehicle is owned or operated by any of the
following:
      (1) An electrical corporation, as defined in Section 218 of the Public Utilities Code.
      (2) A gas corporation, as defined in Section 222 of the Public Utilities Code.
      (3) A sewer system corporation, as defined in Section 230.6 of the Public Utilities Code.
      (4) A telephone corporation, as defined in Section 234 of the Public Utilities Code.
      (5) A water corporation, as defined in Section 241 of the Public Utilities Code.
      (6) A local publicly owned electric utility, as defined in Section 224.3 of the Public Utilities Code.
      (7) A city, joint powers agency, or special district, if that local entity uses the vehicle solely in the provision of sewer service, gas service, water service, or wastewater service.

Re:Might be legal (3, Insightful)

js3 (319268) | about a year ago | (#45279223)

And the reason why it won't is because

"(a) does not apply to the following equipment when installed in a vehicle:"

Google glass is not installed in the vehicle.

Re:Might be legal (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45279433)

It was as installed as an aftermarket click-on GPS device.

Otherwise that tomtom you bought would be illegal.

Why isn't it?

Because section (a) does not apply to a device that performs the task of
            (1) A vehicle information display.
            (2) A global positioning display.
            (3) A mapping display.

and despite merely being located in a region ahead of the back seat of the driver but not installed into the car, it still falls under one of those three things.

Re:Might be legal (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45279283)

Sadly, those exceptions don't apply because the display is not *solely* a mapping display or a global positioning display. Only dedicated devices meet those definitions. Your smart phone, even with a mapping or GPG program active doesn't count either. It's already settled law.

Re:Might be legal (1)

smash (1351) | about a year ago | (#45279323)

(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.

(6) A mobile digital terminal that is fitted with an opaque covering that does not allow the driver to view any part of the display while driving, even though the terminal may be operating, installed in a vehicle that is owned or operated by any of the following:

I believe that given the device does all of those functions and has NO lockout functionality, she'd be boned if she took it to court. The spirit of that legislation is clearly that the driver should not be distracted by any of those devices, and there must be lockout to prevent this occurring. Glass has none.

Re:Might be legal (1)

Sockatume (732728) | about a year ago | (#45279353)

You would have to define "global positioning display" carefully. I suspect that most courts would conclude that multifunction devices do not fall under the exemption, or that the device would have to be demonstrably in that mode at the time of the incident for the exemption to apply.

the face of Google Glass (2)

drinkmoreyuengling (2768737) | about a year ago | (#45279165)

I went to that first link and had a look at some of the clowns commenting on the G+ thread. Even the typical /. crowd would shun these people as dorks. Google Glass could cure cancer and make you able to fly, and they are NEVER going to sell these things when that is the face of the product.

Re:the face of Google Glass (1)

Robert Saulnier (2957373) | about a year ago | (#45279301)

They're already selling Google Glass. It costs $1500. And people are paying for it.

Re:the face of Google Glass (1)

drinkmoreyuengling (2768737) | about a year ago | (#45279365)

Some people, and this is the crowd using it day to day making themselves public. Normal people either will not buy it or a few will and not leave the house with them.

With all this talk about HUDs.... (1)

mark-t (151149) | about a year ago | (#45279193)

... and the argument that if HUDs don't interfere with jet pilots, they shouldn't pose a problem for automobile drivers, where in the article does it mention that she was actually using it in that capacity?

I firmly suspect she was not....

But on that point.... if merely "driving with a monitor visible to the driver" is illegal, then wouldn't a completely integrated HUD system in an advanced vehicle also be illegal?

Re:With all this talk about HUDs.... (1)

quacking duck (607555) | about a year ago | (#45279441)

But on that point.... if merely "driving with a monitor visible to the driver" is illegal, then wouldn't a completely integrated HUD system in an advanced vehicle also be illegal?

It's not "merely" driving with a monitor visible to driver. That was my first thought too, but after checking the full text of the Section, it includes a pretty comprehensive list of exceptions including vehicle info display and GPS, under which an integrated HUD system would definitely be covered.

I'm torn (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45279225)

This is not straight forward at all. Distracted driving in any form is bad, but where do we draw the line. With a head mounted display you can't tell if someone is actively using it, or just wearing it in addition to their natural glasses. On the one hand you're potentially using it and being a threat to others, on the other you're being judged guilty until proven innocent.

But ultimately what it comes down to is driving is a privilege, not a right. Abuse the privilege, or in this case act like you might be abusing the privilege, and it can be taken away.

perfect (1)

slashmydots (2189826) | about a year ago | (#45279329)

This is exactly what cops have always wanted. If only there was a way to identify self-important, stuck up assholes who think they're better than everyone else and are thus speeding. Oh wait! See if they're wearing Google glass.

Not surprised (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45279357)

One of her own comments is: "Glass was not on and I honestly don't use it much while driving..."

A recent court ruling here in Canada is that even touching an unpowered cell phone is enough to get a ticket [ctvnews.ca] . I am not surprised that wearing an unpowered Glasses is not OK as well.

Let's Fix the Title (1)

Riddler Sensei (979333) | about a year ago | (#45279395)

Get a Ticket With Google Glass: Get a Slightly Larger Ticket (maybe)

Social Norm ?! (2)

nukenerd (172703) | about a year ago | (#45279411)

FTFA "-

California ...... where .... Google Glass is already a social norm.

Citation?

Visible to driver (1)

sl4shd0rk (755837) | about a year ago | (#45279469)

The cop was obviously giving her a ticket for looking like a dork to other drivers.

She was speeding, folks! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45279485)

She wouldn't have been stopped in the first place if she hadn't been speeding! 83 in a 60 it looks like from the blurry ticket... That is the primary offense on the ticket, which many seem to be overlooking. Maybe the glasses were blocking here speedo...

Its California (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45279513)

While the guiding legal principal in the US has been it is legal unless expressly forbidden, you are talking about the Peoples Republic of California. Unless you are given permission to do something, it is illegal. Nanny state extraordinaire. The result should not be a surprise

Just a thought (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45279543)

I will not comment on this instance. But...
Sooner or later google will offer a version of Google Glass for prescription glasses. Then what?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?