Home
Judge says no evidence that device switched on; case highlights struggle for law to keep pace with technology

A judge in California has dismissed a case brought against a woman who was wearing a Google Glass headset while driving – but only because there was no evidence that it was in operation at the time she was pulled over.

Software developer Cecilia Abadie was wearing the device when she was stopped for speeding in San Diego in October, reports the Huffington Post.

Abadie is among 30,000 people – ‘Explorers,’ as Google terms them – who are testing the device, which includes a tiny camera and projects images onto a heads up display.

Information relayed by Google Glass might include emails, video or satellite navigation.

According to California Highway Patrolman Keith Odle, Abadie passed him at 80mph on a road with a speed limit of 65mph.

He told the Southern California traffic court he believed the motorist had not seen him because her field of vision was blocked by the headset.

Besides ticketing her for speeding, the officer also cited Abadie for driving with a visible monitor.

Presiding over the case, Commissioner John Blair agreed that there was no case to answer on the second count, because there was “no testimony it was operating or in use while Ms Abadie was driving."

But he rejected her attorney’s insistence that the law did not apply to Google Glass because the device was not specifically named in it.

Instead, the judge said he was of the opinion that Google Glass comes within "the purview and intent" of that law.

Speaking to reporters afterwards, Abadie said she had hoped that the judge would have issued a clear ruling on the issue of wearing Google Glass at the wheel, whether or not it is switched on.

The case, which does not set a precedent for other courts to follow, is believed to be the first anywhere to specifically address whether wearing Google Glass while driving is legal or not.

Other lawsuits are exepected to follow and three states – Delaware, New Jersey and West Virginia are currently considering introducing laws that specifically ban Google Glass.

But that takes time, and legislation is struggling to keep pace with advances in technology – in the UK, laws banning drivers from using handheld mobile phones while driving for example, were brought in long before smartphones, which bring a whole new set of safety-related issues, were launched.

Earlier this month, road safety campaigners in the UK reacted with alarm to news that the Department for Transport was in talks with Google to permit the use of Google Glass while driving.

A DfT spokesman confirmed to The Sunday Times that discussions had been held with Google “to discuss the implications of the current law for Google Glass.”

He added: “Google are anxious their products do not pose a road safety risk and are currently considering options to allow the technology to be used in accordance with the law.”

But after pointing out that existing legislation about the use of handheld mobile phones dates back more than a decade, Kevin Clinton, head of road safety at the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (RoSPA) insisted:

“All the research shows that even hands-free phones are distracting. These glasses are just as distracting and increase the risk just as much as any other hands-free device.”

Meanwhile, the Wall Street Journal has floated the idea that Google may be working on what it terms “a more socially acceptable version of Google Glass” – one that would dispense with the existing distinctive headsets, and be based on contact lenses instead.

The newspaper’s speculation is based on Google’s announcement on Thursday that it is working on a “smart contact lens” that would enable diabetics to monitor their blood sugar levels.

Besides the obvious potential for such a product to be extended to other applications, the Wall Street Journal points out that the Google blog post was co-authored by people involved in the Google Glass project, including the man who founded it, University of Washington researcher Babak Parviz.

Born in Scotland, Simon moved to London aged seven and now lives in the Oxfordshire Cotswolds with his miniature schnauzer, Elodie. He fell in love with cycling one Saturday morning in 1994 while living in Italy when Milan-San Remo went past his front door. A daily cycle commuter in London back before riding to work started to boom, he's been news editor at road.cc since 2009. Handily for work, he speaks French and Italian. He doesn't get to ride his Colnago as often as he'd like, and freely admits he's much more adept at cooking than fettling with bikes.

9 comments

Avatar
mrfree [76 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

It shouldn't be allowed. It's too difficult to prove you are not doing something else on it. Other forms of heads-up display do exist, for instance with fighter pilots, but they are rigorously trained and tested. That can't be said for the UK driving tests.

Isn't it strange that we have so many health and safety rules in this country, but it's still not safe to ride a bicycle. Just a thought.

Avatar
Paul J [884 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

And, of course, a heads-up display in an aircraft is there to *increase* the situational awareness of the pilot.…

Avatar
Redx [48 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

If it could be limited to driving information and directions that would be fine. It's the prospect of drivers being distracted reading of e-mails and text messages that I find worrying.....

Avatar
sfichele [141 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes
Paul J wrote:

And, of course, a heads-up display in an aircraft is there to *increase* the situational awareness of the pilot.…

Yes, that's because it displays relevant aircraft information. It's not relaying Facebook or youtubes of Miley Cyrus crapping on a biscuit, is it?

If she was not "using it" why was she wearing it?

Avatar
neildmoss [291 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

I think the term for those wearing Google Glass, especially whilst not needing to use it, is a 'glasshole'.

Avatar
gb901 [149 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

Surely as with mobile phones and other gadgets using mobile data or WiFi there's as way to check their use or "footprint" on the network - or is this US judge an IT ignoramus?

Avatar
ironmancole [322 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

Sign of the times and no doubt we all suspect this is yet another attack on common sense and that PR farce government calls road safety.

The dept. for transport will ask the following:

1: Does it hinder the progress of motorists? No.
2: Can anyone at Google make our lives awkward with senior government if we don't roll over? Yes.
3: Can we attach flimsy laws to it that no-one can enforce so it appears we give a damn? Yes.
4: Is any risk disproportionate to the amount of fun motorists can have playing with it if their sat nav/dvd player/smart phone/Nintendo 3ds runs flat whilst they're supposed to be driving? No, just a few pedestrians and cyclists who shouldn't be there anyway.
5: Did Clarkson like it when he was in the new Lamborghini? Yes.

Approved.

We'll then see a spate of 'accidents', all of which were completely avoidable and government will still release offensive statements about wanting to encourage cycling and being serious about 'road safety'.

Obesity spirals, the NHS falls apart, roads become broken collections of tarmac and then government will waste yet more cash commissioning a report into what happened that will be ignored.

Blind leading the blind isn't it?

Avatar
bendertherobot [1071 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes
gb901 wrote:

Surely as with mobile phones and other gadgets using mobile data or WiFi there's as way to check their use or "footprint" on the network - or is this US judge an IT ignoramus?

Do you know how much of a footprint your mobile leaves just by being on?

Avatar
gb901 [149 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

Just because your mobile phone is powered up doesn't prove one has used it while driving - I was referring more to proof such as texts/calls etc which are chronologically logged.