Ramblings of an old Doc
Google Glass's first citation
Published on October 31, 2013 By DrJBHL In Mobile Tech

 

I've written about Google Glass before...never figured California had the brains to enact a truly positive statute like this one.

Well, that lady just received a citation in part for distracted driving....

She might just beat it:

"California state law pertaining to the incident, V C Section 27602 Television, states that 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.”

That portion of the law seems pretty cut and dry, but...points out that there is a list of exceptions to the law, one of which could applicable to the device: “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.”

I think it's more a distraction, and shouldn't be considered in the same way as cams enhancing the rear view in SUVs.

In fact, the solid part of the unit does obscure the right visual field of the driver. It does not 'enhance' anything but one's chances of getting in an accident and hurting, maiming or killing ones self and/or others.

Source:

http://www.redorbit.com/news/technology/1112990143/google-glass-gets-california-woman-a-ticket-103113/


Comments (Page 1)
3 Pages1 2 3 
on Oct 31, 2013

Good! We don't need more drivers being distracted thus making them stupider than they already are. I cannot believe what I see drivers doing on the road nowadays!

on Oct 31, 2013

As a professional driver I hope she doesn't get away with it and hope there is a rewrite to fix that hole. Distracted drivers are by the far the worst on the road. Even drunks are safer. Proven scientifically as well.

on Oct 31, 2013

  x2

on Oct 31, 2013

“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.”

That won't save her.

It's intended to cover the use of reversing cameras/rear view cameras ...

on Oct 31, 2013



“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.”

That won't save her.

It's intended to cover the use of reversing cameras/rear view cameras ...

In America you would be surprised by what can happen with our laws.

on Oct 31, 2013

I guess that once again, the people enforcing these laws will be exempted from them 

 

Nine crashes a day caused by police - Exclusive
Shocking figures reveal how careless police driving is putting public at risk

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/nine-crashes-a-day-caused-by-police-789745

 

 

Met police has twelve traffic accidents EVERY DAY - killing five pedestrians and a cyclist in last three years
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1342723/Met-police-traffic-accidents-day-Six-people-killed-years.html#ixzz2jJQah88n 



And it’s not the only case. The I-Team found 155 major accidents where Houston police were at fault between 2008 and 2012. The reasons include running red lights, stop signs, speeding, and just failing to use common caution.

But how many times did an officer get ticketed? Absolutely zero.

http://www.khou.com/news/ITeamHPDAccidents-149102875.html




on Oct 31, 2013

When it comes to the bottom line, at the end of the day, society will always need to protect some of it's people from themselves.  Just the way it is, been that way since the beginning of time.

Unfortunately no laws, rules or such that anyone can come up with will be able to fix STUPID.

on Oct 31, 2013

Society should never protect people from themselves.  The problem is when you're some dumb broad in a ton of metal flying around at 60mph, it's not a matter of protecting you from yourself.

 

When you kill yourself being stupid, you probably involved someone else in your suicide.  Every now and then we get lucky and some moron wastes themselves on a light post or a tree when they were doing something really stupid while driving, even the odd brick wall.  Most of the time, the fatalities involve pedestrians, or other vehicles.

on Oct 31, 2013

Philly0381
Unfortunately no laws, rules or such that anyone can come up with will be able to fix STUPID.

The world's most incurable disease.

on Oct 31, 2013

Philly0381
Unfortunately no laws, rules or such that anyone can come up with will be able to fix STUPID.

That's why we have the 'Darwin Awards'...

 

on Oct 31, 2013

myfist0

I guess that once again, the people enforcing these laws will be exempted from them 



 

Nine crashes a day caused by police - Exclusive
Shocking figures reveal how careless police driving is putting public at risk

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/nine-crashes-a-day-caused-by-police-789745

 

 

Met police has twelve traffic accidents EVERY DAY - killing five pedestrians and a cyclist in last three years
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1342723/Met-police-traffic-accidents-day-Six-people-killed-years.html#ixzz2jJQah88n 








And it’s not the only case. The I-Team found 155 major accidents where Houston police were at fault between 2008 and 2012. The reasons include running red lights, stop signs, speeding, and just failing to use common caution.

But how many times did an officer get ticketed? Absolutely zero.

http://www.khou.com/news/ITeamHPDAccidents-149102875.html







 

So Johnny is stupid so that means I can be stupid to. Just because a cop does not follow the rules does not mean we can get on the road and put every one else in danger because we want to prove a point. That does not even make any since. Cops are just like everyone else there are a few bad apples in every bunch. No one needs to be reminded of that. 

 

Back to the story. The woman needs a big fine. It seems some people just do not care about putting others in danger. All they think about is them self's

 

on Oct 31, 2013

psychoak
The problem is when you're some dumb broad
  Dumb knows no gender.      you don't need balls to be a moron

  racist, sexist  and other 19th century behaviour is discouraged

on Oct 31, 2013

Police have their own rules to follow, obviously.  When situations arise they are fully entitled to exceed speed limits etc and exceed/break other civil traffic laws - but are still typically held accountable.  Whether or not their 'advanced driver training' is sufficient is of course debatable.

I remember endangering myself on a 4-lane freeway removing boxes strewn accross the road - a particularly dangerous potential hazard [ one semi almost jack-knifed avoiding them...and a taxi hit one] while calling triple zero [911] for police response.  When he turned up we'd cleared the boxes...and I told him it's OK...we're racing officials...used to being in high-speed traffic...and he simply replied 'oh yes....and all these drivers THINK they are as good as Schumacher too'.

They aren't, btw...

on Oct 31, 2013

It's intended to cover the use of reversing cameras/rear view cameras ...

In Ammurrika, intent has little (if anything) to do with the application of laws.  Or the avoidance thereof.  We have special people here to see to it - lawyers.  Or, as they say in Ireland, liars.

on Nov 01, 2013

Google's lawyers will be lining up for this one. This is as much bad publicity as it is reduced utility of their product. There needs to be a forced off-switch while driving, although how can they possibly implement that?

3 Pages1 2 3