This situation has a lot in common with the "I'm not holding my phone in my hand to do a phone conversation, I'm using it as a GPS."
Then you run up against the intent and purpose of a law and its application. The intent and purpose of the hands-free laws are to prevent phone conversations but they are applied in many cases when you have the phone in your hand period.
While the debate can rage on and on, the key point is we don't have enough facts about the incident to make any real call. According to some reports, the woman was doing 80 MPH at the time she was stopped and we have no indication what (if anything) was on her display. The issue will probably come down to the capabilities of the device more than what was being displayed. A GPS only displays mapping data so there is no comparison and any attempt to compare the two is an apples and oranges dichotomy.
While the debate can rage on and on, the key point is we don't have enough facts about the incident to make any real call.
Actually I think we do. Since the device is *capable* of displaying info other than car/nav or stereo data, that "screen" can not be viewable by the driver.
But what if it weren't capable? What if rather than google glasses, they were, say, Garmin glasses, and they only did nav info? They should be fine under the law. And wouldn't the HUD be safer than looking away from the road for nav info? As the law goes, it isn't so much the technology, nor even the exact use, but it's potential use that's the issue.
While the debate can rage on and on, the key point is we don't have enough facts about the incident to make any real call.
Actually I think we do. Since the device is *capable* of displaying info other than car/nav or stereo data, that "screen" can not be viewable by the driver.
But what if it weren't capable? What if rather than google glasses, they were, say, Garmin glasses, and they only did nav info? They should be fine under the law. And wouldn't the HUD be safer than looking away from the road for nav info? As the law goes, it isn't so much the technology, nor even the exact use, but it's potential use that's the issue.
We don't know what, if anything, was being displayed at the time the officer noted the infraction. As the comments accompanying the CNET article state, she could have had a movie or TV show displayed. But here you are venturing into the "coulda, woulda, shoulda" arguments. Just because a device is capable of doing more doesn't mean its use is illegal.
This situation has a lot in common with the "I'm not holding my phone in my hand to do a phone conversation, I'm using it as a GPS."
In Ontario, that argument wouldn't matter. In a recent court case, the court said that the police only need to see someone holding the phone in their hand. It doesn't matter if you you had an application of any sort open or not and the screen could even be blank.
This makes it much easier, since the police don't need to prove that the person was talking or texting, by having to get a warrant for the records.
Ontario is likely also going to increase the fine dramatically higher than the current $155 fine plus there will be demerit points added.
-- DriveSmart 65, NUVI2555LMT, (NUVI350 is Now Retired)
Should a hearing impaired driver get a ticket for not communicating with a “hands free” device for signing to a hearing impaired passenger while driving?
Mark
There's a lot more detail coming out about this incident from different reports. "The Right Click" has more detail in their recap, http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/right-click/google-glass-earn... which states the incident occurred in Ontario where the laws are more specific than we find in a lot of US states. One commenter states:
Quote:
Well in Ontario she's pretty much done. The specific section 78.1 prohibits computers, and specifically thier screens from the drivers view. While there is an argument that they could be using GPS, Section 2 throws even that out the window because it is not the PRIMARY use of the device.
It appears as if in Ontario they take into consideration the total functionality of the device rather than just its current mode of operation. it appears from this person's understanding of Ontario law that using a tablet as a GPS would also be prohibited as it can be considered a computer and GPS apps are not the primary purpose of the device.
CNN) -- In what might be a first, a woman in California received a traffic ticket for wearing Google Glass while driving.
Cecilia Abadie was pulled over for speeding on Tuesday in San Diego and given an additional citation for driving while wearing her Google Glass. The officer considered the head-mounted display a monitor that was visible to the driver. Shocked, Abadie posted a copy of the ticket on Google+.
Traffic laws vary state by state, but many now have broad distracted-driving laws or bans on certain monitors that could easily apply to Google Glass.
The California law cited in Abadie's case is meant to prevent people from watching television while driving. V C 27602 prohibits televisions and similar monitors from being turned on and facing the driver. There are exceptions for GPS and mapping tools and screens that display camera feeds to help the driver navigate. If a device has a safety feature that limits its display to approved uses while driving, it can be allowed.
=oldboy]I agree with the police on this one. In fact I'd like them to go after the drivers wearing headphones as well.[/quote]
Can't be real smart using the glass to drive, period.
-- Using Android Based GPS.The above post and my sig reflects my own opinions, expressed for the purpose of informing or inspiring, not commanding. Naturally, you are free to reject or embrace whatever you read.
Wow, that is scary. I commonly use a sharp knife at the dinner table. I could potentially use that knife to kill someone. You are saying I should be subject to arrest because I possess and am using a knife?
Unfortunately, I think you are right - that we are headed that way.
Should a hearing impaired driver get a ticket for not communicating with a “hands free” device for signing to a hearing impaired passenger while driving?
Mark
If the driver is gesturing with the hands instead of holding the steering wheel, that's unsafe.
These laws aren't so much about specifics; like how the device is being used. The laws are about preventing driver distraction. And that's what should be the deciding factor; if it's something that would unduly distract the driver.
Using that guideline, my mother in law is no longer allowed to ride in my car.
In Ontario, that argument wouldn't matter. In a recent court case, the court said that the police only need to see someone holding the phone in their hand. It doesn't matter if you you had an application of any sort open or not and the screen could even be blank.
Phone in the hand means only one hand was on the wheel. It's being held in the hand for a reason.
She should have gotten the ticket. They can use all the excuses they want. It is illegal and the why is not important. It is a distraction from the road.
I wonder how the people who don't think the ticket was right would feel if they were hit by somebody wearing them?
-- Don't sweat the petty things and don't pet the sweaty things!
"General Cosgrove was interviewed on the radio recently.
This is one of the best comeback lines of all time. It is a portion of an ABC radio interview between a female broadcaster and General Cosgrove who was about to sponsor a Boy Scout Troop visiting his military Headquarters.
Quote:
FEMALE INTERVIEWER:
So, General Cosgrove, what things are you going to teach these young boys when they visit your base?
GENERAL COSGROVE:
We're going to teach them climbing, canoeing, archery and shooting.
FEMALE INTERVIEWER:
Shooting! That's a bit irresponsible, isn't it?
GENERAL COSGROVE:
I don't see why, they'll be properly supervised on the rifle range..
FEMALE INTERVIEWER:
Don't you admit that this is a terribly dangerous activity to be teaching children?
GENERAL COSGROVE:
I don't see how. We will be teaching them proper rifle discipline before they even touch a firearm.
FEMALE INTERVIEWER:
But you're equipping them to become violent killers.
GENERAL COSGROVE:
Well, Ma'am, you're equipped to be a prostitute, but you're not one, are you?
The radiocast went silent for 46 seconds and when it returned, the interview was over"
There's just no way of otherwise enforcing a ban on using Glass for non-GPS purposes. Even GPS purposes could be dangerous as Glass partially blocks the drivers view.
Distractions cause accidents, especially where interaction is called for. Glass and driving do not mix and I'd be surprised if Google doesn't find itself defending a wrongful death or personal injury lawsuit auto-accident lawsuit before next year is out for not disabling Glass while the auto is in movement (of course that would prevent passengers from using it as well, which would be problematic). I guess a company that can program its software to filter out faces and license plate numbers (on google streetview) should be able to eventually figure out how to deactivate Glass while someone is driving (maybe base it on a combination of motion and the presence of steering wheels?).
with the police, to many distractions, nobody is paying attention to anything any more. Need for people to pay attention to driving, not checking your facebook account or texting someone.
-- 2597 Sometimes I wonder..."Why is that Frisbee getting bigger?"...and then, it hits me.
Judge dismisses the Google Glass ticket. No evidence introduced to establish that the device was on.
The judge also dismissed the 85 in a 65 zone because expert witness did not appear to establish the accuracy of the patrol car's speedometer.
Great lawyer.
Judge dismisses the Google Glass ticket. No evidence introduced to establish that the device was on.
The judge also dismissed the 85 in a 65 zone because expert witness did not appear to establish the accuracy of the patrol car's speedometer.
Great lawyer.
More likely, a poor prosecuting attorney.
Establishing that a violation occured is the first step in any prosecution. And if you are using technology as evidence to support your position, you must establish that the equipment was calibrated and operating properly.
Remember, not every lawyer graduated at the top of their class!
Good
I agree with the cop.
GPSMAP 76CSx - nüvi 760 - nüvi 200 - GPSMAP 78S
Ditto
I also.
Frank DriveSmart55 37.322760, -79.511267
I agree with the police on
I agree with the police on this one. In fact I'd like them to go after the drivers wearing headphones as well.
this situation
This situation has a lot in common with the "I'm not holding my phone in my hand to do a phone conversation, I'm using it as a GPS."
Then you run up against the intent and purpose of a law and its application. The intent and purpose of the hands-free laws are to prevent phone conversations but they are applied in many cases when you have the phone in your hand period.
While the debate can rage on and on, the key point is we don't have enough facts about the incident to make any real call. According to some reports, the woman was doing 80 MPH at the time she was stopped and we have no indication what (if anything) was on her display. The issue will probably come down to the capabilities of the device more than what was being displayed. A GPS only displays mapping data so there is no comparison and any attempt to compare the two is an apples and oranges dichotomy.
Illiterate? Write for free help.
garmin glasses?
While the debate can rage on and on, the key point is we don't have enough facts about the incident to make any real call.
Actually I think we do. Since the device is *capable* of displaying info other than car/nav or stereo data, that "screen" can not be viewable by the driver.
But what if it weren't capable? What if rather than google glasses, they were, say, Garmin glasses, and they only did nav info? They should be fine under the law. And wouldn't the HUD be safer than looking away from the road for nav info? As the law goes, it isn't so much the technology, nor even the exact use, but it's potential use that's the issue.
i disagree
While the debate can rage on and on, the key point is we don't have enough facts about the incident to make any real call.
Actually I think we do. Since the device is *capable* of displaying info other than car/nav or stereo data, that "screen" can not be viewable by the driver.
But what if it weren't capable? What if rather than google glasses, they were, say, Garmin glasses, and they only did nav info? They should be fine under the law. And wouldn't the HUD be safer than looking away from the road for nav info? As the law goes, it isn't so much the technology, nor even the exact use, but it's potential use that's the issue.
We don't know what, if anything, was being displayed at the time the officer noted the infraction. As the comments accompanying the CNET article state, she could have had a movie or TV show displayed. But here you are venturing into the "coulda, woulda, shoulda" arguments. Just because a device is capable of doing more doesn't mean its use is illegal.
Illiterate? Write for free help.
ticketed ???
Should have been arrested and jailed.
--
it's the dog's fault
Garmin DriveSmart 5 My other toys: IMac quad-core i3, Mac Mini M1. MacOS: Ventura 13.3.1 The dog's name is Ginger.
California
Just because a device is capable of doing more doesn't mean its use is illegal.
Apparently in California it is illegal.
1490LMT 1450LMT 295w
Ontario is Getting Tough on Distracted Driving
This situation has a lot in common with the "I'm not holding my phone in my hand to do a phone conversation, I'm using it as a GPS."
In Ontario, that argument wouldn't matter. In a recent court case, the court said that the police only need to see someone holding the phone in their hand. It doesn't matter if you you had an application of any sort open or not and the screen could even be blank.
This makes it much easier, since the police don't need to prove that the person was talking or texting, by having to get a warrant for the records.
Ontario is likely also going to increase the fine dramatically higher than the current $155 fine plus there will be demerit points added.
DriveSmart 65, NUVI2555LMT, (NUVI350 is Now Retired)
Google Glasses !?
I agree with the cop also.
latchis
I'll probably get slammed for this...
Should a hearing impaired driver get a ticket for not communicating with a “hands free” device for signing to a hearing impaired passenger while driving?
Mark
more information on this is slowly coming
There's a lot more detail coming out about this incident from different reports. "The Right Click" has more detail in their recap, http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/right-click/google-glass-earn... which states the incident occurred in Ontario where the laws are more specific than we find in a lot of US states. One commenter states:
Well in Ontario she's pretty much done. The specific section 78.1 prohibits computers, and specifically thier screens from the drivers view. While there is an argument that they could be using GPS, Section 2 throws even that out the window because it is not the PRIMARY use of the device.
It appears as if in Ontario they take into consideration the total functionality of the device rather than just its current mode of operation. it appears from this person's understanding of Ontario law that using a tablet as a GPS would also be prohibited as it can be considered a computer and GPS apps are not the primary purpose of the device.
Illiterate? Write for free help.
San Diego
Forget Ontario.
CNN) -- In what might be a first, a woman in California received a traffic ticket for wearing Google Glass while driving.
Cecilia Abadie was pulled over for speeding on Tuesday in San Diego and given an additional citation for driving while wearing her Google Glass. The officer considered the head-mounted display a monitor that was visible to the driver. Shocked, Abadie posted a copy of the ticket on Google+.
Traffic laws vary state by state, but many now have broad distracted-driving laws or bans on certain monitors that could easily apply to Google Glass.
The California law cited in Abadie's case is meant to prevent people from watching television while driving. V C 27602 prohibits televisions and similar monitors from being turned on and facing the driver. There are exceptions for GPS and mapping tools and screens that display camera feeds to help the driver navigate. If a device has a safety feature that limits its display to approved uses while driving, it can be allowed.
1490LMT 1450LMT 295w
agreed
=oldboy]I agree with the police on this one. In fact I'd like them to go after the drivers wearing headphones as well.[/quote]
Can't be real smart using the glass to drive, period.
Using Android Based GPS.The above post and my sig reflects my own opinions, expressed for the purpose of informing or inspiring, not commanding. Naturally, you are free to reject or embrace whatever you read.
lol
lol
A GPS can take you where You want to go but never where you WANT to be.
Scary
but it's potential use that's the issue.
Wow, that is scary. I commonly use a sharp knife at the dinner table. I could potentially use that knife to kill someone. You are saying I should be subject to arrest because I possess and am using a knife?
Unfortunately, I think you are right - that we are headed that way.
-Quest, Nuvi 1390T
Scary
Dup.
-Quest, Nuvi 1390T
Hearing impared
Should a hearing impaired driver get a ticket for not communicating with a “hands free” device for signing to a hearing impaired passenger while driving?
Mark
If the driver is gesturing with the hands instead of holding the steering wheel, that's unsafe.
These laws aren't so much about specifics; like how the device is being used. The laws are about preventing driver distraction. And that's what should be the deciding factor; if it's something that would unduly distract the driver.
Using that guideline, my mother in law is no longer allowed to ride in my car.
Hands on the wheel, please
In Ontario, that argument wouldn't matter. In a recent court case, the court said that the police only need to see someone holding the phone in their hand. It doesn't matter if you you had an application of any sort open or not and the screen could even be blank.
Phone in the hand means only one hand was on the wheel. It's being held in the hand for a reason.
Google glasses
She should have gotten the ticket. They can use all the excuses they want. It is illegal and the why is not important. It is a distraction from the road.
I wonder how the people who don't think the ticket was right would feel if they were hit by somebody wearing them?
Don't sweat the petty things and don't pet the sweaty things!
might be hard to enforce
They'd need to prove the device was 'on'. It's illegal to drive with headphones covering both ears, but only if they are actually playing sound.
That being said, it would probably fall into the distracted driving legislation we have if they can prove the device was on.
I drive, therefore I am happy. Rodeo, wildlife and nature photography rodeophoto.ca
Reminds me of a piece I read...
"General Cosgrove was interviewed on the radio recently.
This is one of the best comeback lines of all time. It is a portion of an ABC radio interview between a female broadcaster and General Cosgrove who was about to sponsor a Boy Scout Troop visiting his military Headquarters.
FEMALE INTERVIEWER:
So, General Cosgrove, what things are you going to teach these young boys when they visit your base?
GENERAL COSGROVE:
We're going to teach them climbing, canoeing, archery and shooting.
FEMALE INTERVIEWER:
Shooting! That's a bit irresponsible, isn't it?
GENERAL COSGROVE:
I don't see why, they'll be properly supervised on the rifle range..
FEMALE INTERVIEWER:
Don't you admit that this is a terribly dangerous activity to be teaching children?
GENERAL COSGROVE:
I don't see how. We will be teaching them proper rifle discipline before they even touch a firearm.
FEMALE INTERVIEWER:
But you're equipping them to become violent killers.
GENERAL COSGROVE:
Well, Ma'am, you're equipped to be a prostitute, but you're not one, are you?
The radiocast went silent for 46 seconds and when it returned, the interview was over"
Granted, the piece is a fake (http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/reinwald.asp), but the point remains.
Intent is a very hard thing to prove.
Striving to make the NYC Metro area project the best.
I agree with the Copper
There's just no way of otherwise enforcing a ban on using Glass for non-GPS purposes. Even GPS purposes could be dangerous as Glass partially blocks the drivers view.
Distractions cause accidents, especially where interaction is called for. Glass and driving do not mix and I'd be surprised if Google doesn't find itself defending a wrongful death or personal injury lawsuit auto-accident lawsuit before next year is out for not disabling Glass while the auto is in movement (of course that would prevent passengers from using it as well, which would be problematic). I guess a company that can program its software to filter out faces and license plate numbers (on google streetview) should be able to eventually figure out how to deactivate Glass while someone is driving (maybe base it on a combination of motion and the presence of steering wheels?).
This Should Prove to Be Interesting
Thanks for posting the link to this story. This prove interesting in the near future as to how this is handled.
I agree
with the police, to many distractions, nobody is paying attention to anything any more. Need for people to pay attention to driving, not checking your facebook account or texting someone.
2597 Sometimes I wonder..."Why is that Frisbee getting bigger?"...and then, it hits me.
Case dismissed
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-57609991-94/woman-gets-ticket-for-wearing-google-glass-while-driving/
Judge dismisses the Google Glass ticket. No evidence introduced to establish that the device was on.
The judge also dismissed the 85 in a 65 zone because expert witness did not appear to establish the accuracy of the patrol car's speedometer.
Great lawyer.
1490LMT 1450LMT 295w
Whats more distracting than
Whats more distracting than keeping your eyes off the road? Smh maybe ill mount a 32 inch tv on the dashboard and get away with it.
A GPS can take you where You want to go but never where you WANT to be.
Prosecution 101
Judge dismisses the Google Glass ticket. No evidence introduced to establish that the device was on.
The judge also dismissed the 85 in a 65 zone because expert witness did not appear to establish the accuracy of the patrol car's speedometer.
Great lawyer.
More likely, a poor prosecuting attorney.
Establishing that a violation occured is the first step in any prosecution. And if you are using technology as evidence to support your position, you must establish that the equipment was calibrated and operating properly.
Remember, not every lawyer graduated at the top of their class!