Woman Ticketed For Wearing Google Glass While Driving

My wife does legal research and is finishing up a memo on distracted driving in comparison to cell phone laws. I wonder if she'll ever be asked to go back to that research to see the affect Google Glass has on distracted driving.
 
Hazard said:
So speeding here is the primary offense and Google Glass is secondary. Had she not been speeding, I assume she would not have gotten a ticket at all.

When WA state banned cell phones while driving, I remember reading that it's a secondary offense so the police can only ticket you for using your phone if you had a primary infraction like speeding, running a stop sign or driving into a house.
Click to expand...

In California a cop can pull a driver over when witnessing the driver with his or her cell phone is in hand, see below... using a cell phone can be a primary offense here in CA.
It's going to be interesting seeing what laws will be amended and / or enacted over this issue ...It won't happen now but I can see something going through in the future.
California Law for cell phone ........... :p
Effective July 1, 2008,cell phone laws:
• Prohibit persons under the age of 18 from driving a motor vehicle while using a wireless telephone or a mobile service device. This prohibition includes telephones equipped with a hands-free device.
• Prohibit persons 18 and older from driving a motor vehicle while using a hand-held cellular telephone unless that telephone permits hands-free operation. EXCEPTIONS: The law allows those driving a motor truck, truck tractor, tow truck, or specified farm vehicles to use a digital two-way radio service built into a wireless telephone that operates by depressing a push-to-talk feature and does not require immediate proximity to the user’s ear. These exceptions apply until July 1, 2011.

Emergency Exemption

The law permits a driver, regardless of age, to use a wireless telephone for emergency purposes, including, but not limited to, an emergency call to a law enforcement agency, health care provider, fire department, or other emergency services agency or entity.



LeninGHOLA said:
.. she was using the GPS maps, not watching Transformers 3.
Click to expand...

No one in any news feeds over this issue does it state she was using it for gps... It would not surprise me if she had a video feed going on or streaming media and the cops heard it going on... I wouldn't surprise me if she had head phones on too.
 
Snowdog said:
We don't know what she was doing.
Click to expand...

Which is why you give the benefit of the doubt, instead of assuming guilt. That's how the law is supposed to work in this country. There is zero proof that wearing this device had anything to do with her driving over the speed limit. I see a lot of people assuming that this would cause her to drive recklessly and be distracted, but she isn't being charged with reckless driving. This mob justice crap needs to stop.
 
pavementeater said:
No one in any news feeds over this issue does it state she was using it for gps... It would not surprise me if she had a video feed going on or streaming media and the cops heard it going on... I wouldn't surprise me if she had head phones on too.
Click to expand...

And it could have been turned off. Assumtions without evidence aren't good enough to cite or convict.
 
I wish more tickets were written for people going out in public looking like a douche.
 
I want to say, she'd be an idiot if she was watching a movie with it... but it wouldn't be a surprise if that is the case. At the same time, she could really be using it as a GPS or that it wasn't even on. Though I sort of doubt that it wasn't on.
 
LeninGHOLA said:
Which is why you give the benefit of the doubt, instead of assuming guilt.
Click to expand...

No, that just gives carte blanche to use another distracting device while driving. If you are going to ban cellphones while driving, it should also apply to wearing a computer on your face.
 
LeninGHOLA said:
It's only a strawman if I'm misrepresenting the issue, which I am not. If it is legal to use an on dash GPS, it should also be legal to use Google Glass GPS. There is no difference. If the driver is driving recklessly, they will be charged with reckless driving.
Click to expand...

We'll have to agree to disagree.:)
 
Snowdog said:
No, that just gives carte blanche to use another distracting device while driving. If you are going to ban cellphones while driving, it should also apply to wearing a computer on your face.
Click to expand...

It does no such thing. Reckless driving is against the law, speeding is against the law in some situations, hitting someone with your car is against the law. If you break the law and an officer sees you, you get a citation. It doesn't matter if you are wearing a gorrila mask or reading glasses.
 
LeninGHOLA said:
And it could have been turned off. Assumtions without evidence aren't good enough to cite or convict.
Click to expand...
That's true ... I do agree with you on that point but there could be laws in San Diego that are bit stricter than the state law regarding devices while operating a motor vehicle in the SD city or county the SD is in....
Tied in the evidence part she slightly screwed her self through her own actions on her own blog that does put some form of doubt / mistrust in her because of her half baked story by leaving out the true reason to why she was pulled over until being question errr called out on the truth behind her being pulled over in the first place .
Sorry for the jumbled up post ... ;):D
 
not a difficult ticket to beat.

shoot, I beat my speeding ticket with ease.

best method to beat tickets in California is to use a Written Declaration as even if you lose the Written Declaration, you can still get a second chance in court.
More times than not, citing officers don't feel like doing the paperwork as they have to write a response to the Written Declaration.
One downside is you have to foot the full price of the ticket as bail.
 
LeninGHOLA said:
It does no such thing.
Click to expand...

It does so. :D

Round, round we go...

Seriously, you just said, since we can't tell what people do, we just give them the benefit of the doubt.

So that does mean, anyone could use GG to watch movies while driving and there would be no legal way to stop them. Unless they confessed.

Which is why it is a lot simpler and saner to just ban such devices while driving.
 
damicatz said:
Human sacrifice, by its very nature, directly causes the death of another human, violating that person's right to control their own body, and by extension their right to life. The concept of human sacrifice and the action of taking someone's life are inseparable.

Speeding, however, does not automatically hurt someone in the way that human sacrifice does. It is entirely possible to drive fast and not put anyone at risk. It is entirely possible to drive slow and put a whole bunch of people at risk. Unless a driver either causes damage to person or property or puts them at such a risk that it constitutes a threat of violence (e.g. near misses or people have to dodge out of the way or it is aggressive in such a way that people have a credible fear of their life), there is no ethical or moral justification for using coercion and aggression on a person for speeding.

You have a right to life but that does not extend to banning every conceivable risk to that life. Everything we do involves risks. If we banned every activity that could remotely kill someone, everyone would be dead of starvation (after all, every time you eat, you have a risk of contracting deadly food poisoning or accidentally ingesting a deadly poison or choking).
Click to expand...


It depends on whether or no you consider statistical impacts of a population as a whole, or just individual cases.

No the act of speeding does not guarantee death, but it can be shown statistically - as an example - that by increasing speed by x% will cause traffic deaths rates to increase by y%.

It's not a one to one direct impact, but that doesn't mean that it's any less guaranteed to happen. Why is placing controls in place to save lives any less valid when it's random whose life is affected than when it's direct?

By this same argument, should we also allow drunk driving?

It is the responsibility of government to factor in behaviors that involve unacceptably high risks of harm and regulate or prohibit them.

This will inevitably result in debates as to where the line is drawn between an acceptable risk and an unacceptably high risk, and how such behaviors should be regulated, and those are welcome, but to argue that government has no place to regulate these things at all, is IMHO a bit irresponsible.
 
Snowdog said:
It does so. :D

Round, round we go...

Seriously, you just said, since we can't tell what people do, we just give them the benefit of the doubt.

So that does mean, anyone could use GG to watch movies while driving and there would be no legal way to stop them. Unless they confessed.

Which is why it is a lot simpler and saner to just ban such devices while driving.
Click to expand...


If someone is driving recklessly, they get pulled over. All you can do is watch for dangerous behaviour. Wearing GG is no different than looking at a dash GPS, which is perfectly legal. Having a barking dog in the back seat is legal. Switching stations on the radio is legal. If you can't prove wearing these glasses caused a problem, how can you possibly enact new laws against them? Why aren't on windhsield HUD's illegal? It's the same damn thing.
 
Zarathustra[H];1040331178 said:
It depends on whether or no you consider statistical impacts of a population as a whole, or just individual cases.

No the act of speeding does not guarantee death, but it can be shown statistically - as an example - that by increasing speed by x% will cause traffic deaths rates to increase by y%.

It's not a one to one direct impact, but that doesn't mean that it's any less guaranteed to happen. Why is placing controls in place to save lives any less valid when it's random whose life is affected than when it's direct?

By this same argument, should we also allow drunk driving?

It is the responsibility of government to factor in behaviors that involve unacceptably high risks of harm and regulate or prohibit them.

This will inevitably result in debates as to where the line is drawn between an acceptable risk and an unacceptably high risk, and how such behaviors should be regulated, and those are welcome, but to argue that government has no place to regulate these things at all, is IMHO a bit irresponsible.
Click to expand...

If only there was some sort of law that punishes reckless driving.
 
Jathanis said:
So to test this theory, damicatz will go visit kbrickley and his guns at 3am this weekend to test his rights of movement... I'm betting that under Texas law, damicatz loses this argument... :D
Click to expand...

That is private property. And if you used private property to try and block someone in (e.g. buying all the surrounding property) they most certainly would have freedom of movement through that private property.

But seriously, as an Engineer, I could bore you with many reasons why and how speed limits are determined but you'd all be asleep.

As an engineer, have you factored in the fact that not everyone has the same abilities?

Try Googling "stopping sight distance" some time and you'll see there are some good reasons for most limits. Or look up "85th percentile speed" to see why speed limits are (supposed to be) regularly adjusted so that at least 85% of drivers aren't breaking the law. Just because you think you can safely drive a certain speed doesn't mean everyone can. And just because a speed is posted doesn't mean you're always safe from a ticket - there's also something call safe speed for the conditions. Try driving 55 in a 55 in pouring rain with limited visibility, hitting someone, and telling the judge "but I was driving the speed limit!"...

Sorry, damicatz, whether you like it or not, the law is the law. Don't like it? Then you have 3 choices: work to change the laws, move somewhere with laws you like (Germany and the autobahn sound right for you), or deal with the consequences of knowingly breaking the laws...
Click to expand...

More statist tripe. You still haven't justified why it is OK to molest drivers who have not violated anyone's rights or harmed anyone. Stop using the state as some divine entity in which anything and everything is justified because the state says so.

85th percentile is a joke unless you mean that the speed limit is designed so that 85% of the people are breaking the state's law. So called "law enforcement" is the most egregious; around here, when the state troopers aren't busy getting fellatio from some random woman they picked up while on duty in their patrol car or groping female drivers they stopped, they are busy using the interstate highways as their own personal dragstrips, often going in excess of 100mph. The amount of chutzpah it takes to, after going 100mph on the interstate, turn around and give someone a ticket for going 75mph is unbelievable.
 
Optical Head Mounted Display are diff then Head Up Display that are found in must cars.
What the diff you ask well let look at the fact that HUD is display to both eyes at the same time on a glass surfaces where the OHMD is only display in to one eye.
If you all read Calif code Section 27602.
Google Glass is and are illegal and just because it is a projector it is still classified as a monitor/television and it also dbl as camcorder which means it can receiver and sent broadcast.
 
LeninGHOLA said:
If someone is driving recklessly, they get pulled over. All you can do is watch for dangerous behaviour. Wearing GG is no different than looking at a dash GPS, which is perfectly legal.
Click to expand...

Watching a movie while driving is vastly different from glancing at your GPS once in a while.
 
Watching movies on Glass would still be safer than using Apple maps....
 
Give her the ticket. She's diverting her attention while driving. Inattentive driving is inattentive driving, and is largely responsible for the majority of dumbass shitty fucking driving that I see around me every day. I'm the weird one because I'm paying attention to the road, signs, lights, pedestrians, and other drivers. The other drivers are normal because they're all talking on the phone, texting, or doing Christ knows what else.

No, don't ban the use of Google Glass while in a car. Inattentive driving is already a crime(which is why we also don't need to ban cell phones in cars).

However...while I'm a liberty-or-die kind of guy, the one way in which I would love to exercise the power of the State would be to rescind all driver's licenses and force people to take a much more involved, tougher driving test...and have it be required every few years. In the USA, the fact is that at least half of drivers should not be allowed to do so...and probably many more.
 
03grandam said:
Your right. But that freedom of movement does not dictate that you have the right to own a motor vehicle.;)
Click to expand...

Losing your driver's license does not mean you lose your right to own a motor vehicle. You don't need to provide your driver's license to purchase one, even, unless the dealer asks for it. So your right to own a motor vehicle is dependent only upon the right to own private property and the financial ability to acquire one.
 
NickJames said:
That's bullshit, I use my phone as a GPS and they sell accessories to mount it to the dashboard, what makes google glasses less legal than a phone on the dashboard?
Click to expand...

i'm just guessing but maybe cause the phone isn't mounted on your face.
 
the one way in which I would love to exercise the power of the State would be to rescind all driver's licenses and force people to take a much more involved, tougher driving test...and have it be required every few years. In the USA, the fact is that at least half of drivers should not be allowed to do so...and probably many more.
Click to expand...

I agree add some defensive driving skills to the tests and have license valid for only 4 yrs, but you always have the DMV people that take pity on the old ass people who cannot even see and renew there license anyways...I know my grandmother was LEGALLY BLIND and got her license renewed out of pity.
 
damicatz said:
Freedom of movement is significantly restricted without a motor vehicle. Try going without one for a while. Unless you live in a big city New York or Chicago it is impossible to function in daily life without one. As such, it is not proper to call it a mere privilege
Click to expand...

I'm not sure the point you're trying to make. Are you saying the freedom of movement was infringed upon before the automobile was invented? It wasn't even common for most people to own an automobile until several decades after they started being mass-produced. I agree with your larger point about freedom of movement itself, but you're making a silly argument here. There exist dozens of forms of transport, either under your own power or by someone else driving, that don't require owning a car.
 
Stiletto said:
Losing your driver's license does not mean you lose your right to own a motor vehicle. You don't need to provide your driver's license to purchase one, even, unless the dealer asks for it. So your right to own a motor vehicle is dependent only upon the right to own private property and the financial ability to acquire one.
Click to expand...
Oh pardon me, let me correct that.
The privilege to DRIVE a motor vehicle.
Really gonna point out a simple mistake? Pretty sure everyone else knew what I was referring to.
 
XamediX said:
But you forget the fact that those people are trained to do operate those vehicles in that manner. I mean, really. Comparing military vehicles to civilian consumer vehicles is just as bad as it gets, man. :rolleyes::)
Click to expand...

lol agreed failed comparison.

you don't have a 4 lane traffic in the sky with people that will cut you off and not signal.

How you guys can even compare military vehicles in the sky to someone driving on a highway or a local road is beyond me.
 
03grandam said:
Oh pardon me, let me correct that.
The privilege to DRIVE a motor vehicle.
Really gonna point out a simple mistake? Pretty sure everyone else knew what I was referring to.
Click to expand...

The right to own something and the right to operate something are very distinct concepts. Just because you don't recognize that difference doesn't make that difference pedantic. Next time, don't let your smug disdain for those concerned about their rights lead you to misspeak.
 
lol, not only is it exempt under navigation exceptions, its also the very model of hands-free with about as much interaction as your average blutooth headset.
 
Stiletto said:
The right to own something and the right to operate something are very distinct concepts. Just because you don't recognize that difference doesn't make that difference pedantic. Next time, don't let your smug disdain for those concerned about their rights lead you to misspeak.
Click to expand...
I never said I didn't recognize the difference, It was a simple mistake is all. But hey go ahead and carry on with your argument about it if that's what gets your fancy.:rolleyes:
 
03grandam said:
I never said I didn't recognize the difference
Click to expand...

Right, you implied you didn't care and that it was unreasonable for me to note the difference.

Learn two simple words that will make you appear less like a jerk: "my bad".
 
Stiletto said:
Right, you implied you didn't care and that it was unreasonable for me to note the difference.

Learn two simple words that will make you appear less like a jerk: "my bad".
Click to expand...
A stupid argument that I already stated was an ACCIDENT.

But please, keep on with your insults and what not, kinda funny actually.
 
Snowdog said:
Watching a movie while driving is vastly different from glancing at your GPS once in a while.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. Anyone watching a movie while driving is a complete idiot. Maybe I didn't explain it clearly enough; in no way would I advocate for people to use gadgets while they are driving. I sure as hell don't. I pay attention when I drive. My issue is with the legality of it all. It's already illegal to drive recklessly, banning these items punishes even those that don't drive while distracted. It also does nothing to stop the behaviour. Inneficient lawmaking. Having GG on doesn't automatically mean you're distracted.
 
I'm surprised you people are still responding to damicatz. You know what happens when you feed trolls?
 
LeninGHOLA said:
Wait, you're worried about your family and other people are bleeding hearts? That makes about no sense at all. IMO, that's just fewer Christmas and birthday gifts I have to buy if my family dies.
Click to expand...

Wow dude that's cold as ice.

I hope none of your family members are on this forum.
 
XamediX said:
I'm surprised you people are still responding to damicatz. You know what happens when you feed trolls?
Click to expand...

Actually I think when he is taking his meds he is damicatz and when he goes off the meds he becomes sculelos ... could be, you never know :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top