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 2)
3 Pages1 2 3 
on Nov 01, 2013

Dumb knows no gender.      you don't need balls to be a moron

  racist, sexist  and other 19th century behaviour is discouraged

 

The story refers to a woman.  If it had been some asshole shaving his beard, I'd have specified it similarly in countering the idea that this is somehow protecting people from themselves, or that anyone should have the right to do such a thing as protect people from themselves.

 

GG on the spammer having to try three times to get a post right...

on Nov 01, 2013

First there was alcohol, then there was the mobile phone, then there was the google glass... just imagine what would happen if some woman has consumed alcohol on a party and is driving home, is wearing google glass because the trip is so boring, and her phone rings and it's her favorite boyfriend ... I think even a female would fail at multitasking at that point.

 

on Nov 01, 2013

psychoak
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.
bold font mine.

Unfortunately, the same would apply to "some dumb guy".

The word "broad" does makes your reply sexist. It is considered a derogatory word when applied to a female as it objectified the width of the female pelvis...without which we wouldn't be around to argue the point.

You are also correct. The person cited is a female, who simple didn't know that law existed.

The OP was about distracted driving, not about the gender of the driver and you should accept that your response could be offensive to others.

A reasonable step would be to edit your response and ask others to edit theirs as well.

 

on Nov 01, 2013

A reasonable step would be to not get offended over something someone said on the internet.  Political correctness gone amok holds no interest for me.

on Nov 01, 2013

I'm with the psycho. 

on Nov 01, 2013

psychoak
Political correctness gone amok holds no interest for me.

It isn't a matter of PC. It is a matter of the ToS.

on Nov 01, 2013

Do the T's of S say that posting anything that might offend someone, in whoever's opinion (in this case, Mod's, presumably), is grounds for threat of some 'action'?  Does it really say that 'sexism' as defined by the Mod's mood on a particular day is a violation?  I'm not arguing in favor of gratuitously insulting a person or group of people, just curious.  I would find it surprising that a word used in such an off-hand fashion would constitute such a violation.  I understand someone objecting, however justified the objection may or may not be, but a ToS violation?

on Nov 01, 2013

If you have questions about what's allowed and what's not, PM a mod. They can get a bit stingy sometimes with their implementation, and trying to discuss it in public never helps.

on Nov 01, 2013

From the ToS:

Stardock does not control the Content posted via the Service and, as such, does not guarantee the accuracy, integrity or quality of such Content. You understand that by using the Service, you may be exposed to Content that is offensive, indecent or objectionable.

You agree to not use the Service to:

...

(j) make malicious personal attacks, statements of libel, or other behavior deemed unacceptable by administrators.

I'll just leave it at that.

on Nov 01, 2013

psychoak
A reasonable step would be to not get offended over something someone said on the internet.  Political correctness gone amok holds no interest for me.

on Nov 01, 2013

Having walked down life's road a fair distance I have found that no matter what we say it will offend someone. 

If someone asks for your opinion they are only interested in it if you agree with them.  

Always engage your mind before opening your mouth.  

on Nov 01, 2013

This thread certainly has covered a lot of broad topics.

 

on Nov 01, 2013

Sorry to have derailed the thread a bit, Doc.

on Nov 01, 2013

What word would one use (political correctness aside) if the driver was male?  "...some dumb broad" would become "...some dumb ___________ ...?  

on Nov 01, 2013

3 Pages1 2 3