California Cop tickets woman for driving with Google Glass


We’ve seen private establishments like bars ban glass. We’ve seen social backlash about Google Glass being for being “Glassholes” (the term is lamer than the tech). But one place Google Glass hasn’t been banned yet, although it’s in the works: your car.

Not anymore. Glass Explorer +Cecilia Abade was just issued a ticket for driving while wearing Google Glass.


There is no publicly available information discerning the legalities of driving with Glass and at most (in my opinion), Cecilia should have been given a warning, well wishes, and been on her way.

This was bound to happen at some point and the ruling on Ms. Abadie’s case could become important to the future of Glass from a legal standpoint. According to fellow Glass Explorer Matt Abdou the law being contested is called V C Section 27602 Television and technically, based on the verbage, it seems Glass could be considered legal under these circumstances.

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.

ceciliaHowever, there is also a list of exceptions, and one could consider Google Navigation with Google Glass a valid exception:

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.

Not to mention, while texting and driving may be illegal in some states, looking at your phone while driving is not. Neither are Garmins. Unless he can prove she was watching a YouTube video or doing something entertainment based, she should be able to avoid a penalty.

This opens a can of worms for Google Glass at a very important time. Google has just announced a new hardware version of Glass and is also letting Glass explorers invite 3 friends to the program. Glass is supposed to launch publicly in 2014 and far fetched rumors suggest a floating barge in San Francisco could host the first Google Glass store.

One thing is for absolute sure: Cecilia shouldn’t be subject to ambiguous laws created by the intersection of an ancient legal system and innovative technology. Let’s spread the word about this case and see if we can’t force some justice.

Just one question, Cecilia… any chance you recorded the whole thing with Glass?

Rob Jackson
I'm an Android and Tech lover, but first and foremost I consider myself a creative thinker and entrepreneurial spirit with a passion for ideas of all sizes. I'm a sports lover who cheers for the Orange (College), Ravens (NFL), (Orioles), and Yankees (long story). I live in Baltimore and wear it on my sleeve, with an Under Armour logo. I also love traveling... where do you want to go?

Something’s happening: 12 Google apps were updated on Oct 29th [UPDATE]

Previous article

Is this a picture of the Nexus 5 fresh out of the box?

Next article

You may also like


  1. She should have said “OK Glass: record” . And then uploaded the video to YouTube so we could all see this dumb cop.

    1. Do you know the officer personally? Were you there at the scene? Do you even know any officers personally?

      1. you are so ignorant, ARE YOU A COP!!!!???? DO YOU KNOW A COP???!!!! OH THOUGHT SO!!! just shut up

        1. Nice misuse of the word ignorant. I’ll have to unfortunately forgive you as so many ignorant people misuse the word ignorant.

      2. I don’t understand those downvotes. How can Gus70 claim that the cop was dumb? For all I know, the offender might be even dumber. If you don’t know exactly what happened don’t label people.

        1. I suppose because of the dickish tone and general stupidity.

          “Were you there at the scene?” No?! Then why would you want a video of it if you weren’t there? I don’t understand! Hurf durf!

          He may have had better results if he’d said something along the lines of, “For all you know the cop could have been extremely friendly and apologetic. Perhaps his understanding of the law is sound and he felt compelled to issue the ticket. Perhaps she was rude or difficult. Maybe she admitted that she was sending tweets as she was driving.” Instead he chose to go with the bizarre rhetorical interrogation.

          Pointless + Stupid = Downvote (Also it’s pro-cop. People don’t like cops.)

  2. There should be some legal representative out there that would like to argue this case on her behalf. Partly to get an actual ruling on the law and how it pertains to Google Glass. But also for the publicity.

  3. When you give power to the ignorant, this is what happens.

    1. Oh, and you are an officer? You know an officer personally?

      1. You must be fond of cops. Relax and take it the Cape off. The cops don’t need you to save them.

      2. I heard Walgreens had a sale on butt hurt creme

  4. Maybe the cop is an iPhone user and was upset Apple didnt make this first, lol.

    1. or maybe he’s just an ignorant prick

      1. probably both

        1. Probably neither

    2. There’s a lot of Google Glass-haters out there… it doesn’t need to about Apple versus Google.

  5. The Cop needed to fulfill his minimum tickets per day to show his performance. I hate when Government behaves like private companies ( like similar to sales)

    1. Thank you for that, I assume you are an officer or know an officer? What, you aren’t and don’t? That’s what I thought, more ignorance from the uninformed.

      1. I know a few. and yes they have quotas.
        They just don’t call it a “quota” – they call it a “productivity goal”

  6. Many states don’t actually allow you to touch your Garmin (GPS) while in drive. Must have the vehicle in park. Same with texting, a red light is not sufficient. Having a video display in the front seat is legal nowhere in the USA. Having a laptop/tablet in the passenger seat with a movie ain’t kosher (and I’ve tried it … quite dangerous).

    Oh, and picking up your phone in CT & NY has been illegal for about a decade.

    1. “Having a video display in the front seat is legal nowhere in the USA.” Except for every GPS screen? And every Tesla Model S?

      1. There are limits on those, and ones that navigation apps for Glass can absolutely meet. For the most part it’s “no media”, which for navigation means no transitional animations, etc. The UI needs to remain as static as possible.

  7. Debatable. The issue is, google glass (or a smartphone) can function both as a type of device that is in the “exceptions” list, as well as the type of device that is in the specifically prohibited.

    Absent some pretty big-brotherish intrusions into technology, there isn’t currently any easy way for a cop to tell if someone driving is using a navigation app, or watching videos (or reading a text)

    If anyone comes up with a GOOD way to allow people to do things while driving that either enhance safety (or at least do not impair it) while effectively discouraging and/or punishing things that make them a menace behind the wheel, that will be a happy day.

    1. My thoughts exactly. Glass would be a whole lot safer than any other traditional GPS. I would love to not have to take my eyes off the road to get a better understanding of were I’m going next.

  8. Without question, I’m sure that she’ll be able to fight this in court and win. Imo, maybe she would’ve been granted said warning, and she just pushed the cop into writing the tix. Most cops are not jerks and prolly would’ve just asked to see the device, give you a slap on the wrist; but if she acted like the “glasshole” that we’re hoping she didn’t portray, then maybe she deserved the tix. There are always more than one side to a story, we shouldn’t jump to conclusions for the sake of wanting a device to do well. I for one am very excited about Google glass, and with all the right variables, I would love to own one; but not if people out there can’t handle using it responsibly..

  9. If Lucy Koh is the judge in the case then she’s screwed

    1. Good memory!

  10. Bet that cop is an apple user

      1. R.I.P sense of humor, you must be real fun at parties. You iPhone users trolling Android fan sites now?

        1. Well, I don’t even own an iPhone… so much for trying to be a smartass, but ending up looking like a dumbass.

          Primary/personal smartphone: Sony Xperia Z1
          Work phone: HTC One
          Tablet: Nexus 7 2013

          1. Your disqus said: iPhone, iPad, iPod, Mac before you changed it and added Android and Google lol

        2. I dont even own an iPhone…

          I’m pretty much an Android user all over when it comes to smartphones and tablets.

          Primary phone:Sony Xperia Z1
          Work phone: HTC One
          Tablets: Nexus 7 and iPad Mini

          Before I bought the Xperia Z1, I owned and used a Samsung Galaxy S4.

          I love when people makes assumptions and act on them before they got any facts – makes you look like a retard.

          1. I can say I own a Nexus 5 as we speak but it doesn’t mean its true O.o or is it lol, not the first time an iPhone user has made something up to win a convo

          2. alright now i believe you lol, just seemed odd that an Android user was getting offended over a iPhan joke.

          3. I dont have the time, the lust or the need to pretend I’m an Android user just because I want to win flamewars. Another thing I don’t have the time or lust to do, is spreading negative things, often hate messages (camouflaged as humor), about other peoples choices, just because it makes me feel better about my own choice – to me, this shows a lack of believe in your own choices.

          4. Who’s being a troll again?



            Get yourself a hobby – you’re clearly in need of it.

          5. Alright dude chill with the pictures lol, you wouldn’t believe how many iPhone users pretend to have a HTC one or a S4 just to say they hate it and its not as good as the iPhone

  11. Really stupid ticket based upon ignorance and fear. If anything glass is a much safer way to drive since many of us addicted to our phone and even though we know it’s as dangerous as drinking and driving to use it while we drive we do it anyway. With glass everything can be done with eyes on the road. I think it’s the safest way to use your phone and drive and it’s no more dangerous than a heads up display

  12. Nanny State vs Douchey State

    1. Why don’t you move to Somalia, no pesky state to bug you there, of course, armed warloads will probably rob and kill you, but hey, at least no dang tickets or police to mess with!

      1. Because the people there are not civilized.

      2. The warlord has others do their bidding, they dont get dirty out on street robbing people.

      3. Please stop posting you ignorant prick .

  13. BS ticket. I’ve never tried google glass, but it can’t be much different than a HUD projected on the windshield, like in a vette… in terms of being a distraction of sorts.

    1. Or navy pilots who use a HUD in their helmets visor while landing an f18 onto an aircraft carrier.

  14. The discretion of officers to apply infractions of the law is something I’ve always disliked. In addition to the concept of quotas.

    I have very photosensitive eyes and wear prescription sunglasses while driving at night (darker ones for day time). I’ve been pulled over several times for this, been given a variety of sobriety tests, and only once written a ticket for it.

    It’s hard to read this ticket but it looks like the officer may have pulled her over for speeding. The first item on the ticket says something about 65mph Past Patrol … something

    1. Discretion is in your favor most of the time. Think how pissed you’d be if every infraction was caught on camera and you were simply mailed the ticket—-no discretion. Be careful for what you wish for.

  15. “Cecilia should have been given a warning, well wishes, and been on her way.” No, she should have been given a ticket, like she was. It is a distraction while driving, plain and simple.

    1. Ignorant response. Have you worn Glass while driving? It’s not on 24/7, ya know? Are you a Glass Explorer? Do know people that are?

      1. its not that its on 24/7 its that it could be and how would the cop know… that’s like having the tv on but say no officer i wasn’t watching it… doesn’t work that way. the law is the law.

        1. What law?

          “how would the cop know”

          Bingo. Last I checked, unless they actually can prove suspicion, they have *zero* right to pull people over.

          Yeah, we have rights…who knew?

          1. Suspicion from the fact that you have them on while driving. There’s no reason to have it on your face if it’s not on. The cop has to assume it’s on, because for 99.99% of devices out there, if it’s in the position where most people use it, then they’re probably using it. If I hold a pen in a way that allows me to write with it, wouldn’t you assume I was just about to write or have written with it? If I was holding a cell phone out in front of me wouldn’t you assume I had just gotten done using it or was about to use it? To assume the opposite would go against every single bit of logic and rationality that you have. There’s an easy fix to this, take off the thing when you get in your car. I think cops are pigs and scum of the earth and would love to see their power-hold on the people severely limited but this is not the battle to fight.

          2. If you have a bluetooth headset on your ear should I assume you’re having a conversation? The things you described are not wearable.

          3. You missed my point then. My point is that if something is in a position where it is usually used, you will assume they are using it. Even a bluetooth headset, you would assume I had been, or will be using it if I had one on. To assume the opposite would be illogical. It doesn’t matter if they’re wearable, that’s not the point, again. Comprehension skills, get some.

          4. I’ve known people who just leave their bluetooth on all day because they are on-call at work. They may not actually use it, they just have it there in case so they can respond quickly.

            Just because they didn’t take it off to go to the restroom doesn’t mean I assumed they were going to the restroom to take a phone call.

          5. Congratulations, you just found one of the .01% of devices that I already accounted for!

            And it may just be me, but I usually don’t find myself interacting with people that leave headsets on all day. Might have something to do with most of their personalities that led them to wearing such a device all day, save the forgetful person.

          6. Uh, no, I used the device you actually used as an example of “logical assumption” and provided a valid counter-example.

            Most people I know don’t leave them on all day either, but there are a few who take enough calls or are just forgetful. (Or in the case of the restroom, taking care of business took priority over putting it away after the call completed.) But especially for the case of driving with bluetooth or glass on, there’s no real reason to assume they were last used, or are intended to be next used while the car is in gear and on public roadways. And that’s the difference between wearable and hand-held.

          7. You have to make assumptions, it’s a part of life. It’s more logical to assume they’re using if it’s in the position to be used in. It’s not logical to not take an action in order to benefit a small percentage of people while possibly damaging the larger group, the people that can get hurt from a crash caused by someone that can’t see or is distracted. Inaction is still action. The inaction of not enforcing the law will result in deadly action among innocents. This is what it boils down to. It’s pretty simple to just get in the habit of taking off the thing.

          8. You do have to make assumptions, but you don’t have to act on them without gathering additional data first, which is what you seem to be advocating.

            I have no qualms with making distracted driving an add-on offense. People who can’t drive safely normally have no reason to be adding more risk to those around them. But making it a primary offense, as some states have, punishes the 10-20% of people who know how and when to operate these devices safely, and the 5-10% of people who are smart enough to turn them off but didn’t think to take them off. And that’s not right either.

            (And yes, my percentages are out of the air, but they should be in the ballpark.)

          9. You’re missing _my_ point – it being wearable means you _wear_ it, so it doesn’t occupy your hand, so there’s no inherent reason (i.e. not including outside concerns like having to prove to someone that you are not using it), unlike with a phone, to put it down when not using it.

          10. “Suspicion from the fact that you have them on while driving. ”

            Really? That’s enough in your opinion?

            Regardless; You’re assuming something that isn’t in evidence and ignoring the possibility that leaving it on one’s face is far easier than pulling it off, folding it up, and putting in it’s case.

            I’d bet most people leave them on unless they’re sleeping.

            Your examples are all for items of immediate use and simple setting aside. The GG can sit on your face all day and not at all affect your ability to do anything else.

            Oh, and for what it’s worth; they cannot pull you over for “holding” your cell phone. :)

          11. It’s all very simple really. The law states that the device must not be in operation. I see that you’re getting hung up on that. Your definition of “operation” is just too limited. I could argue that by placing GG on your head you are performing one of the first steps in operating it and is therefore in operation. Whether something has electricity flowing through it is not enough of a qualifier to determine if something is in operation.

            People should also just get in the habit of putting away a $1000 device when they’re not using it, especially when the place they’re keeping it is on the head where it can get damaged easily. We deserve the economic situation we’re in if we just shrug off the importance of properly caring for expensive equipment.

          12. Yes they can in many states. In Tennessee you most certainly can get pulled over and ticketed for distracted driving. New York is even more strict. Ignorance of the law is not an excuse.

          13. Using a cell phone may indeed be ticketable.

            Simply holding it? I’d love for you to show me that law…

            Don’t worry, I’ll wait.

          14. Article 33Miscellaneous RulesSection 1225-c.Use of mobile telephones.Section 1225-d.Use of portable electronic devices.

            §1225-c. Use of mobile telephones.

            1. For purposes of this section, the following terms shall mean:

            (a) “Mobile telephone” shall mean the device used by subscribers and other users of wireless telephone service to access such service.

            (b) “Wireless telephone service” shall mean two-way real time voice telecommunications service that is interconnected to a public switched telephone network and is provided by a commercial mobile radio service, as such term is defined by 47 C.F.R. § 20.3.

            * (c) “Using” shall mean holding a mobile telephone to, or in the immediate proximity of, the user’s ear. *


            Thanks for waiting.

          15. And just in case it isn’t clear enough for you:

            * (b) An operator of a motor vehicle who holds a mobile telephone to, or in the immediate proximity of his or her ear while such vehicle is in motion is presumed to be engaging in a call within the meaning of this section. The presumption established by this subdivision is rebuttable by evidence tending to show that the operator was not engaged in a call. * NB Effective until October 28, 2013

            * (b) An operator of any motor vehicle who holds a mobile telephone to, or in the immediate proximity of, his or her ear while such vehicle is in motion is presumed to be engaging in a call within the meaning of this section; provided, however, that an operator of a commercial motor vehicle who holds a mobile telephone to, or in the immediate proximity of, his or her ear while such vehicle is temporarily stationary because of traffic, a traffic control device, or other momentary delays is also presumed to be engaging in a call within the meaning of this section except that a person operating a commercial motor vehicle while using a mobile telephone to engage in a call when such vehicle is stopped at the side of, or off, a public highway in a location where such vehicle is not otherwise prohibited from stopping by law, rule, regulation or any lawful order or direction of a police officer shall not be presumed to be engaging in a call within the meaning of this section. The presumption established by this subdivision is rebuttable by evidence tending to show that the operator was not engaged in a call. * NB Effective October 28, 2013

          16. “in the immediate proximity of, the user’s ear. ”

            Funny that….

            Seems I can still hold it.

            Thanks for trying, though. I do appreciate the effort.

          17. If you actually take time to follow the link, you will find it goes into greater detail. It in fact states that even pushing buttons or looking down to do so is a ticketable offense. It further states that if you have the phone in your hand and appear to be talking into it (i.e. speaker phone mode) is also worth a citation.Holding the phone CAN get you a ticket, regardless of how entitled you feel.

            * (c) “Using” shall mean (i) holding a mobile telephone to, or in the immediate proximity of, the user’s ear; and (ii) with respect to a person operating a commercial motor vehicle, holding a mobile telephone to, or in the immediate proximity of, the user’s ear, or dialing or answering a mobile telephone by pressing more than a single button, or reaching for a mobile telephone in a manner that requires such person to maneuver so that he or she is no longer in a seated driving position, restrained by a seat belt that is installed in accordance with section 393.93 of title 49 of the code of federal regulations and adjusted in accordance with the vehicle manufacturer’s instructions. * NB Effective October 28, 2013

          18. “regardless of how entitled you feel.”

            I love how arguing against the ability of police to pull people over without cause gets one labeled as “entitled”.

            It might help to *not* picture me typing this as I am driving while talking on the phone. I am sure it helps you reach conclusions regarding entitlement, it has no bearing on reality.

            “Using” shall mean holding a portable electronic device while viewing, taking or transmitting images, playing games, or, for the purpose of present or future communication: performing a command or request to access a world wide web page, composing, sending, reading, viewing, accessing, browsing, transmitting, saving or retrieving e-mail, text messages, instant messages, or other electronic data”

            Again, seems I could hold it just fine.

          19. There was cause—-the person ticketed was speeding.
            Even if the only offense were to have the Google Glass on her head, that is certainly in proximity to her ear.
            The statutes quoted in previous replies clearly show that just holding the phone can most certainly get you pulled over AND ticketed if you are not able to prove you weren’t using the phone.

            I try not to picture anybody when responding. Your entitlement to do whatever you want regardless of what the law states is obvious in your replies. You can “hold it just fine” all day long, but it can get you pulled over and possibly cited. If you choose to feel this is wrong, fine. But any officer who sees you doing so is legally obligated to investigate that reasonable suspicion.

          20. We can argue for decades. Regardless of the item or circumstance I hold one thing to be true and you can paint me as entitled or not:

            No officer has the right to pull an individual over without probable cause. This is one of our most basic rights. You state the law is clear; I have yet to find anything in that link that clearly disallows the use of Glass, much less doing nothing more than “holding” a mobile device.

            It can be argued that “holding” it gives the officer enough cause to investigate whether or not it is in use, but I believe even that is arguable.

          21. You are incorrect. An officer only needs reasonable suspicion to pull you over and investigate. Probable cause is what is necessary for arrest.

          22. You are correct. I used the wrong phrase…swap them where I’ve used them and you have my meaning.

          23. Reasonable suspicion was there—-she was wearing the glasses. That is enough to pull you over.

          24. ahhh the law stated right in the article? “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.” wearing google glass as all you have to do in talk to it and presto! distraction… no need to have them on when driving and you can all but expect a law in the near future banning them. so don’t rush out and buy those prescription frames thinking it will be a get out of jail free as it will not…

          25. “ahhh the law stated right in the article?”

            “…is operating…”

            Again, you say that it “can be” is enough – I say it is not.

            “you can all but expect a law in the near future banning them.”

            Future state. (or rather, future police-state) irrelevant at the moment.

      2. I agree with him, there are already enough distractions while driving. Maybe it was on, maybe it wasn’t, it’s not the point. This brings back the whole texting while driving debate. Over here, you can get a ticket for that and I’m 100% for it. It only takes a second for an accident to occur.

        1. Er, how is that not the point? If it wasn’t on, then in terms of distraction it’s no different from wearing regular glasses.

          1. Well the point is that they can’t tell if it’s on or not. Same as a cell phone. Try driving over here with a cell in your hands, then tell the cops it wasn’t on… People drive badly enough as it is without adding another distraction.

            I work for a part of the government that deals with car accident victims, you should see the stupid things people do on the road…

          2. They should take your word for it. Innocent until proven guilty, and unlike a non-wearable phone you naturally put down in order to have your hands free for other activities, there’s no inherent reason to remove the glasses when not using them, outside of having to prove to an outside party (where you should not have the burden of proof) that you’re not using them.

            If it’s really important, then have a regulatory body decree that devices like this have to have a visible light on the outside when in use. Then the cop can see if the light’s on.

            What are they going to do when this becomes something that other companies make, and not everyone’s product has a distinctive look that shows they’re not normal glasses? You think the Apple version of this isn’t going to look like regular hipster frames? What if someone has a prescription version?

          3. They should take your word for it… seriously? You think someone would actually be truthful if he was in the wrong?

            I’ve seen so many stupid things, so many people taking advantage of the system and lying their way out of ridiculous situations that I’ve lost faith in the common sense of drivers. My opinion is that people shouldn’t operate this device while driving or even be wearing it. To me, this is just as bad as texting. Until cops can see if the device is not, they should all be considered as ‘on’.

          4. Being considered innocent until proven guilty is one of the principles this country was founded on.

            You gave no answer for my question in my third paragraph.

          5. Not being American, the principles your country was founded on don’t really preoccupy me. Same with the second ammendment, the King is not coming for your land anymore =P

            As for the possibility of ‘hipster glass’, it’s not up to me to find a solution, all I’m saying is that people have enough accidents without adding more distractions.

    2. Was it on? Was she actively using it?

      Do you actually have any valid information with which to make such claims?

      Nope…plain and simple.

    3. If it’s not a law then no she should not have been given a ticket, no matter how justified it might be.

  16. It’s sad how stories like this bring out the ignorant comments like all cops are bad, pigs and other uninformed, stereotypical descriptions of officers. If people would debate things without acting like a bunch of teenagers, maybe this discussion could be useful. These officers are your friends, neighbors and family, and while there are bad ones for sure, most are good and keep you safe, but then I guess it’s like anything, it’s easy to berate when you don’t need, but when you need an officer, well, it’s a different story.

    1. You’re being extra sensitive. You mentioned debate without acting like teenagers but you’ve attacked every post about the cops so far.

    2. Cry me a river.

  17. Why waste resources on serious crimes, when we can waste it on…. glasses

    1. Yeah because you hear so many cases of cops not reporting to a murder because they were busy issuing citations for texting. If people would obey the speeding laws and texting laws we wouldn’t have to waste resources having cops pull them over. You see it as a minor thing that shouldn’t be regulated. I see it causing deaths and injuries on a near daily basis. But no.. I’m sure you know everything when it comes to laws and what needs enforcing and what doesn’t. Smh

  18. yeah the cops out here in cali are f@#$ing @$$holes they will make up a reason to give a ticket just to make the state an extra buck

  19. Interesting….. there is no direct law on the books for this in my opinion, but I think there should be. Your most important sense when driving is visual and it shouldn’t be directly distracted like that with Google Glass. Even if the person is using Google maps for navigation.

    1. But a GPS suction cupped to the dashboard is fine, right?

      1. yes, yes it is. as long as your not one of those idiots changing it while you drive…

      2. I would say yes because it does not block your side vision. The GPS on the dash would not constantly be block a part of your line of site. Plus, look at the % of your vision Glass would take away vs just having it on the dash. It does not make sense.

        1. glass does not impede your vision, it is in your peripheral vision, just as a GPS unit would be.

  20. Its punk cops like this I love to hear about in the news getting clipped in the line of duty!

    1. Harm should not be wished upon anyone, especially over a measly ticket.

  21. What the hell is wrong with people in comments? I haven’t used Glass, so I’m not completely sure how it is displayed, but regardless – you most certainly should not actively use it while driving – wearing it, without device being active might be disputable, but using: not in a long run. Still, only way to ensure you are not using it, is forbidding wearing it I guess.

    Driving safely, and by that – properly, is about focus – hence even talking while driving, especially in areas you don’t completely know/crowded city environments should be limited to minimum. And I would argue, as did, apparently, officer on duty, you cannot give your full attention to driving, if you are playing with your Glass. It’s not about your rights and freedoms, it’s about rights of other road users – you are, first and foremost, endangering other people, and your own passengers, and personal freedom do not extend to that place.

    1. “I haven’t used Glass, so I’m not completely sure how it is displayed”
      And that’s where I stopped reading. Ok, no, I read the rest of it. But that’s where I tuned out. You want to make a point of how distracting it is and what a danger it is but you have no idea what it actually looks like out of your eyeballs or what was happening. Let alone if she was actually doing anything with it. Maybe she was using it for navigation? Should we ban GPS devices because you have to take your eyes off the road for a split-second?

      1. I don’t know how it looks “exactly”, I have general idea and that’s enough – it’s not magic.

        Besides, you use GPS by audio 90% of the time. You only look at the map when you are looking for something very specific, usually while stopped, or driving slowly. edit: scratch that, you shouldn’t look at GPS in moving vehicle at all, the same way you shouldn’t be looking at map, if you don’t know where you’re going – use the signs, like everybody else did for decades /edit
        +GPS is only in your FoV when you explicitly look at it, not constantly. +it’s impossible to determine what Glass was used for.

        Interpretation for Glass use is most certainly needed sooner than later. I don’t see why all the outrage? Glass is, atm, more of a toy than anything else, and was interpreted as such by officer. It’s his right to do so in such situations, and he wouldn’t be completely wrong.

        1. “you use GPS by audio 90% of the time”

          You use your GPS differently from I, then. I put mine in my periphery so I know about curves in the road in advance, and being able to quickly count how many side streets until the one I need. The audio is pretty much useless in residential areas if the streets are too dense and the signage is poor.

          I agree, the outrage here is crazy, since we don’t know all the details. If the Glass was off, there was no reason to append it to the ticket. (the law as stated in the article allows video screens to be present but off while in motion) If it was a navigational aid being displayed, it is questionable, and the officer kicking it over to the court to decide is inconvenient but not wrong.

        2. So, are you for GPS devices to be banned as well? Radios with displays or that play when the car is in motion? Should we simply enclose a driver in a plexiglass box in the vehicle and cordon off any outside influence?

          Because you are saying that is what is warranted. The point I am making is, if you ban one visual distraction why are there others that are completely acceptable ones?

    2. “It’s not about your rights and freedoms, it’s about rights of other road users – you are, first and foremost, endangering other people, and your own passengers, and personal freedom do not extend to that place.”

      It is, actually. It is about our right to be presumed innocent until found guilty and to not be searched or “targeted” without reasonable cause.

      An office has *zero* rights to pull someone over for wearing GG. If they can somehow see they are actively using it, or are pulling them over for some other reason, fine….but simply wearing it?


      1. He pulled her over for speeding, Glass was just addition.

        And he had full right to write this addition, as there was screen in field of view, connected to device that primary use is entertainment and/or business apps, in one way or another.
        Car is not a toy and there should be no leeway to allow possibly dangerous behaviour, especially since, as I’ve stated, you don’t only risk your own life and health, ergo you are reaching over personal freedom.

        She disagrees, as is her right – whether law is or is not a matter of officer’s interpretation – judge will decide. End of story.

        1. “He pulled her over for speeding”

          If that is the case, and there was no indication of this in the article, then pulling her over was warranted.

          “he had full right to write this addition”

          Well within his rights assuming the above.

          “as there was screen in field of view”

          Was it on?

          “Car is not a toy and there should be no leeway to allow possibly dangerous behaviour, especially since, as I’ve stated, you don’t only risk your own life and health, ergo you are reaching over personal freedom.”

          Obviously cars aren’t toys…but there is a difference between limiting one person’s personal freedoms in the name of safety and being overly zealous in the name of “protection” to the point of limiting everyone’s said freedoms.

          As I said above, had she not been speeding he would have had no right to pull her over. Glass itself is not enough probable cause (so far…we’ll see how insane the courts get…and this is California, so….)

          1. She was going an estimated 80 and she passed the patrol vehicle. It’s right there on the ticket.

        2. Unless he would do the same thing to someone using a GPS then he never should have written the additional ticket.

    3. Some highend newer cars have Heads Up Displays built right into the dashboard and reflect off the windscreen (BMW is one of them) and display driving information into the drivers FOV. This is a tested and proven technology. Even pilots flying fighter aircraft at hundreds of miles per hour, wingtip to wingtip use it, because it allows you to keep your eyes forward and augments that FOV with the pertinent information. If Google Glass is being used to augment the drivers view with navigation information, for example, current speed, turn information, or compass heading, this is a perfectly safe and appropriate use for the technology. That is even safer than having to take your eyes off the road to check your gps, or your dash to verify your speed. If the user is using it to read text messages, then that is not an appropriate use. The distinction is in adapting the technology to lock out improper uses when driving a vehicle – not banning the technology all together while driving. Otherwise you are singling it out and saying Google Glass is not OK, but all other screen projected HUDs currently in use are fine – and that is simply an unsubstantiated argument.

      1. Won’t argue here, but it is tested, measured and limited to display only very specific information in very specific way. Glass doesn’t have that kind of limitation – you can get pop ups, notifications, videos, all kind of stuff. Plus it’s still kinda different, because it’s not in a periphery as much – it’s designed to part of looking at road, just like road signs are.

        1. Which is why Google needs to adapt the tech to go into a limited use mode while driving – well within their capabilities. This will be in the best interest of their bottom line, the safety of their customers, and the safety other drivers. Since we still have not seen the final consumer version yet, it is quite possible that they already had this in mind and we will see a driving mode featured on Glass when it hits the shelves in 2014.

          1. How exactly would one ensure that users are in this limited mode whilst driving?

          2. there are apps that do exactly that….Aegis Fleetsafer, being one of them.

          3. That’s hardly an acceptable solution. If something like Aegis Fleetsafer was native to the Google Glass OS it would render the device useless anytime the software decided that you were driving, which I assume is related to a measure of speed from the GPS. Hence, users would be locked out of their applications as passengers in cars, buses, trains, etc; hardly practical. Any other implementation (such as a paired transmitter located in the users vehicle(s)) would require cooperation on the users part. Distracted driving is a serious problem that has been shown, countless time, to affect one’s reaction time in response to dangers on the road. Allowing drivers to use new distracting devices, especially those that impair vision, is only adding to the risk of fatal collisions. When driving, your only concern should be driving.

          4. If Google can get a car to drive it self, they can easily setup Glass to go into limited mode when driving.

          5. Do think phones should have the same limitation? Only work as a navigation aid while in a moving vehicle? If not why what is the difference?

        2. You can do the same thing with your phone, you could just hop into a text message then back to navigation, and wouldn’t that be far more distracting. Are you going to push for phones to not work for anything except navigation while in a moving vehicle?

    4. Under this pretense drivers should not be legally allowed to talk to other passengers in their car, have a drink of water, touch the radio, or scratch their face.

  22. So how much was the fine? this seems either fake or it is a written warning that was cropped to look like a fine… if it were a fine the yes box should be checked beside where it says google glass to show that it is a violation… Seems fishy.

    1. The yes or no is whether or not it’s a correctable violation. Perhaps you’re unfamiliar with California traffic citations. The fine is not printed on the traffic ticket.

      1. then it should still say yes should it not? as taking them off = correction…

        1. no, that’s not how they work…Correctable violations are things like equipment (brake lights, license plate placement, tint) and possession of insurance (not on your person but you can show the court you had it at the time).

  23. What does it matter? Cops are jag offs.

  24. The law that was quoted basically says no monitors of any type in the drivers view. Does California also consider a heads up display that projects on the windshield illegal?

    1. The statues quoted also don’t seem to allow for exemptions for GPS since it is a display and nothing they reference refers to navigation devices.

  25. Something must be done with the quality of these pictures, though.

    1. Taken on Google Glass*

  26. gotta make those revenue quotas

    police = terrorism

    1. Google =

      I’ll let you fill in the blank :)

  27. No, no, no, no, no!!!!! She got a ticket for speeding. Extra citation for driving with a display visible to the driver, which is illegal in Cali.

    1. although it appears both were issued as infractions. Can’t really tell from the image (I didn’t realize they were making the glass from potatoes) if it was issued with a fine or not, but it may have been blanketed under an inattentive driving code which may very well be a fine-able offense.

      1. California law is different than whatever law you’re trying to reference. Both code sections are infractions and both carry a fine. “Yes or No” is whether or not they’re correctable violations (think “brake light out”).

      2. She could have been using Google Glass as an alternative to a portable car GPS, which is yet still legal as lons as she’s using it for its intended purpose in a responsible way.

        Doesn’t make up for her speeding ticket though.

    2. Ok, so do all drivers with a GPS get tickets there as well?

      1. There is an exception in the law for navigation systems and alternate-view cameras. The only thing not allowed is ‘devices capable of displaying video or entertainment’. Google Glass is clearly capable of this, so it’s illegal to wear while driving – as it should be. Distracted driving kills SO many people, it’s just not OK to have anything displayed floating in front of your face while you drive.

      2. read the law cited in the article. It specifically addresses your comment

  28. Google glass doesn’t work anyway.. so basically she was wearing non-prescription glasses. Big deal!

  29. I think the 2 definitions listed, google glass will fall into the former rather than the latter. “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.” specifically refers to driving assistants such as in car cams, lane assists etc

  30. Supposed I’m playing startrek and I’m moving to get out of a way of a virtual spaceship while driving then I hit a real car. Game over everyone dead

  31. Its California..

  32. If you use glass to supplement view (rear camera, navigation etc) it could be a benefit. I would bet it’s no worse than the 99 percent of LA who are on their phone the entire car trip.

  33. In Tennessee, using any device while driving can be considered “Distracted Driving” and can get you cited. I think using a phone, especially texting or viewing video, while driving is pretty stupid and definitely inconsiderate to the others trying to get home without being injured or killed. Hands free/blue tooth are better options, but there are VERY FEW reasons to use a phone while driving. It can wait.

    1. Same here in Québec/Canada, and I’m 100% for it.

  34. How is this worse than looking down on your radio to change a station? This cop should lose his badge.

    1. you shouldn’t be too quick to judge. people like you are the reason innocent people die.

      1. Wow, that escalated quickly.

    2. The cop got her speeding and probably had a bad day so he looked for something else to pile on.

      1. Yes and should lose his POST cert for it. uphold he LAW, don’t make up as you go along.

        1. His job is to protect and serve, he was protecting other drivers by getting her off the road and telling her to take off her distraction goggles.

          1. Question, do you avoid touching the radio or gps in your vehicle? If not, then you’re as bad as everyone else, so stop preaching.

          2. I do avoid using GPS in the vehicle, I look it up on Google Maps before I go and then use my phone’s bluetooth to inform me where to turn via my radio, which set up before I start driving. There is no video or map for me to look at though.

            Secondly, when changing the radio stations I use the scan button on my steering wheel because it’s one button and it’s right there. It’s more convenient to do it that way.

            Thirdly, using those items pales in comparison to texting while driving, wearing google glasses while driving and lastly having a phone conversation with someone while driving.

            Finally, in no way am I trying to imply that I am the most focused driver you will ever meet. My husband is terrified when he is in the vehicle with me just like most husbands. However, I do firmly believe that we should work to avoid such distractions, rather than looking for ways to justify them.

          3. Not everyone has a scan button on their steering wheel, should everyone else that touches their radio also be fined?

            Do you also not have conversations with other passengers in your vehicle? That’s just as distracting as using a hands free phone call.

          4. I agree. I try to talk to my husband when I am driving and it is distracting. But like I said, it’s no reason to excuse behavior that we have the ability to really control and outlaw.

        2. The law is in the article. That cop didn’t make up anything.

    3. lol, lose his badge, ok, seems a reasonable response

    4. No. The cop did the right thing. Hands-free shouldn’t even be legal. There are still too many accidents due to the fact that people aren’t paying attention to their driving. People need to not try to multitask when they drive.

      1. Then radios should be illegal, you should have to muzzle all children and passengers, no more GPS with a nav screen.

        1. It’s true that there are many distractions out there, including ones we can’t control – everything you mentioned plus more. However, I certainly don’t think that it’s justification to allow even more distractions, which we have the ability to control.

  35. Just buy one of those Google robot cars, problem solved.

  36. Yeah, it’s speeding and then tacked with good glass. She should’t have sped and should have removed her google glass. Cops hate anything strange and suspicious. Best thing to do when pulled over is shut off the car, put the key and wallet on dash board with hands on the wheels, greet the officer while providing them with all the information. Still, you shouldn’t have sped in the first place.

    1. whenever i get pulled over i’m forced to put my keys and wallet on the roof of the car and keep my hands firmly planted on the ceiling.

      1. Yeah i’m so sorry for following the laws. In our small town, anyone who speeds over 6 mph over the sl, their ass gets nabbed. Oh and you want marijuana with that?

        1. lol im not blaming you for following the laws, not am i upset i got pulled over. I was in fact talking on the phone while driving in a residential neighborhood by an undercover cop. I just poking fun at the fact that you have a choice in how you are pulled over.

          Also you can’t say she should have removed her google glass unless there is proof that video was actually playing. Sure she could have just to be cautious, but there is currently no law against wearing having glasses with potential of displaying video.

          1. np. however I watched a video of “the father of eye gadget” who happened to be in mcdonalds. This device was a bulky device like the google glass back then, and was weird and very advanced. The fucking manager was called because the wouldn’t remove the weird device and the manager attacked him. I’m writing from memory and it really was bad. On a side note, a manager of a deli attacked a customer paying with google wallet nfc thinking he was robbing him as paying with a phone is absurd.

    2. Yes, because everyone drives the speed limit… you must be an internet asshole-troll or don’t have a car.

    3. “Cops hate Everything” there FTFY

  37. Common sense dictates, take the freaking glass off your head

  38. I see this can be a distraction, but it’s not any different than using some hands-free device and a GPS at once.

  39. Incoming Americans who think the good Lord gave them the right to look at everything except the road while driving in 3….2… oh wait they are already here.

  40. I don’t understand why this is confusing. Wearing Google Glass while driving is *clearly* against California law regarding screens visible. These ridiculous examples like what about my GPS or HUD or radio are actually explicitly enumerated in the law as well. If you actually READ the laws rather than throwing out a bunch of red herrings, the police officer is 100% correct. Do you know how few times I’ve written “the police officer is 100% correct”? But in this instance, it’s true. Have some intellectual honesty so that when we have legitimate complaints against officers it doesn’t sound like just another anti-police rant.

    1. Seems pretty obvious right. The law doesn’t say she has to be watching something entertaining. It just states a video monitor that is capable of producing entertainment. Also that second clip doesn’t justify GPS, it sounds like it’s meant for rear view cameras and the sort.

  41. Could she have got the same ticket then if driving with a smart watch then as well?

  42. I say it’s not a problem. The law specifically says a screen designed to receive ” television broadcast or video signal for entertainment. One, since lawyers get paid to split hairs glass is not a screen in that sense. Two can you get TV broadcast or video signals to glass. Also how does he know it was on? Third, the law was designed to keep people from looking down at a display and taking your eyes of the road, which this does not require.

    1. It’s not about looking ‘down’ at a display, it’s about getting distracted with things inside your field of view. I’m not familiar with the features of Glass, but if anything pops up on there while you’re driving (incoming message, perhaps), then it could be very distracting for a driver.

  43. There’s a lot of talk about this “shouldn’t” be legal and that “should” be legal. We need to look at actual facts in this case, instead of turning this into a freak out session over texting and driving, and similar issues.

    Had Google Glass been completely turned off, was this breaking any laws? Can the cop prove they weren’t completely turned off?

    This will probably be one of those situations where laws are going to have to be altered to either for or against using wearable technology while driving with a little more specificity.

    Also, just a side question, what will people who wear prescription glasses who integrate them with Google Glass do in these situations? It will be go blind or wear Glass at that point.

    1. Because the only thing sillier than wearing GG is wearing it while it’s turned off.

  44. I agree… using Google Glass must be the same than texting. That’s is unsafe getting your attention when the road should have it.

  45. The term Glasshole is not lame. It’s the most perfect term possible.

  46. Her credibility is questionable when she leaves out that she was speeding. That’s why she was pulled over, then claims that there was signs posting the speed limit.

    So, she didn’t notice any posted signs, didn’t notice she passed a cop, and didn’t notice he was behind her… maybe she was distracted by something. What could that have been?

    1. I agree. Her credibility and bias in reporting the story. I think GG is a great product, but quite frankly, it concerns me with people paying more attention to what is on the GG than what is in front of them. True that GG could enhance safety, but quite frankly, most are going to be playing around on G+ (or the other social network) while driving.

    2. Your comment is pure gold. Totally agree.

    3. I agree with you BUT How many of us have our phones in car dock on the dashboard? Basically the Samething she was doing isn’t it?

  47. >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.

    Google Glass cannot be considered under that exception. From a device perspective, it cannot help supplement your view forward, behind, or to the sides, because its camera is only able to view exactly what your eyes already are.

    1. Just to be awkward, but you could have a camera on the back of your car and stream it through your display surely?

    2. “it cannot help supplement your view forward…”

      GPS routing information overlay?

  48. pig.

  49. Google should provide her a lawyer.
    The outcome of this case could set legal precedent, become case law, and either positively or negatively affect future like cases.

    1. And ultimately, affect Google Glass sales, too.

  50. You can’t watch YouTube on a garmin last I checked and you should never be looking at any screen the whole time your driving not even GPS. Lets put safety before tech please.

    1. But you can on your car’s head unit in many cases.

      1. My point is nobody needs a screen in front of their eyes while driving and just because you can’t doesn’t mean you should. Even if 90% of you use it for good or turn it off while driving it’s that % who doesn’t and kills people that makes it worth taking off and leaving them on should be against the law. There’s a time and place for wearable tech and it’s cool. But the road isn’t it.

        1. Heads up displays would make gauges and GPS less distracting than currently available tech. You have to take your eyes off the road to look at speed or GPS.

    2. aren’t most cars considered technology?

    3. Um, having to look DOWN to check my speed is more dangerous than having it on a display in my line of site. You’re argument is invalid.

    4. By that logic every person that drives a car should get a speeding ticket every time they go through a speed trap regardless if they were speeding or not. Why? Because their car has the ability to exceed the speed limit, they were actually designed to be able to exceed the speed limit.

      Just because Google Glass has the ability to display YouTube videos doesn’t mean everyone is at all times, else…..speeding tickets for everyone.

  51. Good for that cop – having any kind of distraction while driving, especially something that partially obstructs your view at the same time as grabbing your attention, is stupid and dangerous.

    1. so… no GPS navigation, no touching the stereo, no looking at your speedometer. yeah, lets make it so doing anything other than driving is illegal. we should definitely not ban police from using their LAPTOPS WHILE DRIVING. because that isn’t dangerous at all.

      1. None of those are a way of communication. It’s not the same level of distraction. As for the cops, well I’m not informed enough about that to comment.

        1. Dan so who gets to determine the level of distraction. Putting on lipstick is that a high enough level. lifiting a hot mug of coffee is that a distraction.
          YOu didn’t ask if she had it on while wearing it. Maybe she was listening to music or the news. Maybe she was just wearing it because she was used to wearing it.
          The cop is not supposed to write law that’s the legislature’s job and the legislature has not determined whether Google glass is illegal or not. Obviously they determined that in the case of a tv.

          1. or any other similar means of visually displaying a television broadcast or video signal that produces entertainment or business applications As far as I know, lipstick and coffee don’t fall into this category.

            As I said, cops don’t have a way to know if the device was on, even if they ask, will people tell the truth? This is strictly my opinion, but I think he was justified.

      2. At least within the CHP, the laptops are rarely used while driving; instead, they’re typically used when stationary.

        Source: former California Highway Patrol employee.

    2. It does not obstruct your view though…

    3. And i’m sure you’re a perfect saint that never drinks anything in their car, eats food, answers phone calls, uses a gps or any of it… Yeah, I really believe that… /s

      1. But-but-but you do it too! Doesn’t make it right, google employee.

    4. And then you remember that police cars are riddled with devices that can distract them…

    5. Do you realize that Glass doesn’t obstruct your view at all and it’s only on when you tell it to be on? It’s not on 24/7 and even when it is on, it’s above your normal field of vision.

      1. Just based on what we know, it should be reasonable to deduce that it was on since she was speeding. Unless she has a history of speeding, she was to distracted by GG to either know what the speed limit was or how fast she was going.

    6. It would be no more distracting than an ordinary GPS unit; said GPS units are already exempted under most sections of the Vehicle Code pertaining to electronic displays. She can rather easily make a case that she was using her Glass for such a purpose, thus permitting dismissal of the infraction.

      1. Google girl spamming heavily today

        1. Hm?

      2. Only if you were holding your gps unit 1/2″ from your eye.

        1. The Glass’ screen isn’t nearly as large as that on a GPS unit; hardly obstructive at all – and certainly permits actually viewing the screen and the road simultaneously, rather than one or the other in most GPS setups (particularly on automobiles with built-in GPS units; they tend to be positioned where a stereo would normally be, which is arguably worse than having one eye minimally obstructed by a tiny screen within your peripheral).

  52. I would’ve given her a ticket just on the principle of being Google Glass, what a nerd.

    1. ‘Glassholes’ is the term I like to use.

    2. Nothing wrong with being a nerd. We need more nerds to keep up with the rise of intellects around the world.

      1. Spam brought to you by google glass..

      2. Too bad it’s not happening in the US though. I blame Twilight and Harry Potter.

    3. You’re just bitter because nerds own the company you work for, the bank that finances your car, and your house. Don’t cry, at least nerds are happy to take your money instead of just kicking the cr*p out of you like you probably did to them in high school.

      1. Angry google employee spam alert

  53. umm, it’s not on 24/7.

  54. So are they going to make these new cars that put the gps and other information on the windshield illegal as well?

    1. GPS units are exempted from most California Vehicle Code sections so long as they are used for navigation purposes; this applies to car-mounted phones/tablets used for the same purpose as well. The driver can make a case that she was using her Google Glass as a navigation device, in which case that particular infraction would be voided.

      1. Google employee spamming..

        1. Huh?

        2. Birther pls

    2. Quit spamming, google. We get it.

  55. Here is a clearer picture from Cecilia’s g+ profile. You’re welcome :)

    1. Given that this is a speeding ticket (as indicated by the reference to Cali VC section 22349(a) ), she probably won’t get out of the whole ticket; since she probably would have received it regardless of whether or not she was driving while wearing a Google Glass.

      That said, I’m surprised that the Glass “violation” was cited under 27602, but it makes sense that it would be classified as a “monitor”; I’d have expected something closer to 23123.5, given its association with cell phones and its use for consuming text-based information.

    2. From SD huh? I live near the border from SD.

  56. This entire debacle could’ve been avoided if she would’ve obeyed the posted speed limit. Let this be a lesson to you Cecilia. After my fair share of speeding tickets, I quickly figured out that speeding tickets are the easiest tickets to avoid once you scrape some lead off of your feet.

    1. What does that have to do with Google glass?

      1. The only reason why she received a citation for driving with Google Glass to begin with was because she was speeding. The chances of a police officer catching her driving with Google Glass, at the posted speed limit, which appears to be 65 mph based on the ticket, are slim to none. It’s highly doubtful anyone can decipher whether Google Glass is an ordinary pair of glasses when passing at 65 mph, much less notice any kind of eye wear at that speed. It’s the same as a police officer pulling you over for speeding and catching you with marijuana in your backseat. Would the police officer noticed the marijuana had he not pulled you over for speeding? Probably not. Granted marijuana is illegal in the majority of the U.S. but I think I make my point.

        1. So, you’re comparing google glass to a schedule 1 illegal drug? Bravo, well done, your opinion is now invalidated.

          1. I made that comparison to make a point. I don’t comprehend how you don’t see the point made.

          2. Oh I see the point you’re trying to make and I’m saying it’s false. We should not be in jeopardy of getting cited for things that we shouldn’t be cited for simply because we’re doing something else wrong. That’s dangerously close to double jeopardy.

            It’s like saying “don’t jay walk, and I won’t arrest you for chewing gum in public”

          3. The citations are covered under two different sections of the law. Each offense would be seen as separate so I’m not sure double jeopardy applies here. So you’re saying that if I receive a speeding ticket citation, and have opened bottles of alcohol in my vehicle, the police officer should let me go without writing me a citation? I’m not sure I follow you.

          4. Let me spell it out really clearly. IT WAS NOT A CITEABLE OFFENSE!

          5. Dude, get your head out of your ass and comprehend what is going on. Such a simple thing to understand and your brain is not capable of even doing that. It is logical thinking!! geez….

          6. It isn’t clear whether it was an offense. I’m a lawyer and when I read that code section it very well might apply.

          7. According to V C Section 27602 Television, it is considered an offense worthy of a citation. The court will determine whether or not the police officer was justified in writing Cecilia a citation. Regardless of how much we think the citation is B.S. the justice system will have the final say.

          8. Double jeopardy??

            I’ll take “I have no idea what I’m talking about” for $500 Alex.

          9. lul , te internetz gives me everything

          10. It has absolutely nothing to do with “double jeopardy”….at all. Your opinion is now invalidated.

          11. There’s no double jeopardy. Double jeopardy is being charged with the same crime twice. after being found not gulty the first time. Although I believe there can be some exceptions to that rule in rare cases.

          12. Quit spamming, google.

          13. y u do dis Birther?

    2. It’s not her fault, she couldn’t see the speed limit sign while browsing Amazon.

  57. Like hell she should have been given a warning. It is precisely this attitude why the rest of us refer to the Useful Idiots out there as ‘glassholes’, ya know?

    She was endangering the rest of the people on that street…but glassholes don’t care. They are ‘special’ and the rules don’t ‘apply’ to them, apparently.

    1. How so? For all you know she was using Google maps, which legal to do on your phone and on your GPS devices. If she was using Apple maps than yes you would have apoint :P

    2. Guilty until proven innocent right, that’s the American wa…….wait a second. You can fight for your everyone is guilty utopia, I will fight for innocent until proven guilty which America is based on, even if there are people in power who forget that.

      1. Umm…this isn’t about guilty versus innocence. First, there is a written law. Second. she was given a citation. She has not been found guilty yet. The burden is still on the government to prove her guilt. Not sure where you get this idea that she’s being treated guilty. That is the nature of law enforcement.

    3. Maybe you should also ban talking, laughing, smiling, changing the radio, adjusting temperature controls, drinking water, and everything else you remotely consider a distraction. Distractions are everywhere. They will always be there. The onus is on the driver to drive the vehicle. Being distracted is the driver’s choice. If they choose to be distracted, then hit or kill someone, its on them. Not the distraction the driver chose to pay attention to.

      Its not: “I shot myself with a gun, and its the gun’s fault”

      1. Not the distraction the driver chose to pay attention to.

        Sorry. But the law doesn’t operate according to your fantasy-based worldview of the world. It operates how it is legislated, for the most part.

        1. the the part that doesn’t make your “most part”, it is a fantasy based worldview, not of Dan, but of the authority.

      2. it’s you over sensitive types that jump to these conclusions. it is IN FACT a distraction unlike “talking, laughing, smiling”…what an idiot comparison.

      3. Its a very engaging distraction. The others you mention are practically unconscious. And, yes, there are always distractions. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t limit the ones that we can. Google glass literally pumps imagery directly into the line of sight of a user. The user can help but be distracted. Sure, the onus is on the user. The onus is on people not to kill people too, but that doesn’t mean we don’t have laws against murder.

        1. It is actually above the line of sight. Please try one on before making assumptions. It is absolutely not a distraction unless the wearer makes it one. It is in sleep mode most of the time. You have to either tilt your head upward (if that setting is on) or tap the side in order to make the display light up. If it isn’t lit up, it is a clear piece of glass.

          1. Please don’t make assumptions about what you perceive as my assumptions. I have tried one. I understand all that. If it is on it is in your field of vision. If not then why do they exist? It is absolutely no different than sitting there holding your cellphone out at about arms length. There is absolutely nothing about it that makes it less of a distraction than say your cellphone.

          2. It is within your field of vision, yes. It is above your line of sight to keep it from getting in the way of anything when on, and to keep the slight distortion of light from the glass prism from being obnoxious. I was merely correcting your statement: “Google glass literally pumps imagery directly into the line of sight of a user.”

            It is no different than having your cell phone, display off, in a holder attached to your windshield or dash similar to how many have their GPS. Therefore, it would not be a distraction unless on and being interacted with. That was exactly my point.

          3. Not to be technical but your line of sight changes depending on what you look at. “Field of vision” is a better term though.

            See my response above, but she’ll likely end up getting off of this simply because the Officer can’t likely testify to whether or not he/she actually witnessed the display on (assuming Cecelia actually has a decent attorney), which they normally could if it were a cellphone.

            I don’t think she’ll lose, but I don’t have a problem with the law being tweaked to specifically address wearables. They should be forbidden, with an exception made for GPS and the like and that burden should be shifted to the user. The user could evidence that by simply showing some sort of default “driving mode.”

  58. I know i’ll probably get down voted, but it seems to me the term “glassholes” was coined by those that simply could not be a part of this Google Glass experiment/testing phase due to it’s high cost. I myself cannot afford the glass, but cannot WAIT for the day they come to market next year and crossing my fingers for a much lower price. Let’s not concentrate on putting down people due to your envy, but see that tech innovation that is happening and hold on for the ride! Just my 2 cents…

    1. Keep your 2 cents and buy a clue. Nobody is jealous of google glasses. You sound like a google employee.

    2. I have the money but no desire to own it, so I feel great using the term glasshole, thanks!

    3. No envy here, I can afford it I just don’t think it’s worth 1/4 of what it’s asking price is right now. And the people who are using it and making the news seem like attention whores claiming to be persecuted. Makes the product look bad IMO. Down vote away I don’t really care lol. Come to think of it.. I think they want the attention to justify the price they paid for it to give them some social status. Kind of like that point I often hear made about iPhones on this forum.. Hmm..

    4. Nope not jealous here. I could buy one for every member of my family if I wanted them to look like ridiculous asshats.

  59. Cars need HUDs.

  60. So the cop was behind in his ticket quota so he thought easy catch. That’s what this really is. I was pulled over once for having a bigmac in the backseats, claiming I was eating and driving. I was given a ticket. Needless to say I wasn’t seeing how it was in the backseat, the cop admitted in court he was trying to meet his quota. Good thing I have a webcam in the car.

    1. Must have been a HUGE Big Mac to be visible from outside the car! Where I work we don’t have Big Mac quotas, only quotas for driving while eating a Whopper.

      1. You would be surprised how desperate cops are to meet quotas. I’m a man of color and every time I drive I get stopped by cops. Once they claimed they stopped me because they saw a can of beer that wasn’t covered in the back seat. Got a $100 fine. Sad thing is that is was a soda can, which I told the cop. Never knew that was illegal, but I went to court, proved the cop was doing it to meet his quota and the cop was put on suspension.

    2. I am glad I live in Michigan. The Michigan Supreme Court ruled that ticket quotas are illegal. However, that doesn’t stop the police department from breaking the law. Isn’t that ironic?

  61. The real Glasshole is the police officer that concocted this stupid ass fine.

  62. Guess she was so distracted by GG that she didn’t notice she was speeding…

  63. If Google Glass was only able to display Maps when in a vehicle then I don’t see a problem, but not so with Google Glass it can still display text messages, video content, and more, limit Google Glass to Maps only in “car mode” might have a stronger case.

    1. The burden of proof is on the officer though. If she was looking at Google Maps, she was not breaking the law.

      1. Not it isn’t. The law only reads that the device be capable of delivering video (for entertainment or business application purposes). It doesn’t say that they have to be watching video. A person is breaking the law just by having it in view.

        1. So if your cell phone is in a holder as if it were a GPS, and say this cell phone is either off, in sleep mode, or displaying GPS, it would be illegal to have in your line of sight? I believe Glass will fit in the same loophole as cell phones when it comes to being hands free and capable of GPS. Technically the above would break the law, but I couldn’t imagine any citation of such thing actually holding any weight.

          1. I might have changed my mind a bit. The law does state the device must be “operating,” but it doesn’t specify what mode (meaning video, GPS and etc.) it has to be operating in. I think most courts would construct that to mean supplying a video signal for entertainment or business purposes. Under that construction it is doubtful GPS would apply. Ultimately the burden is on the prosecution so they’ll have to prove that she was using it for entertainment/business app purposes. Normally, an Officer’s testimony (e.g., seeing someone texting and etc.) would be enough. Here, however, it is almost impossible for an officer to testify on that point (unless it was on when he approached the window and he happen to catch a small glance of the active screen somehow). Based on this construction my guess is the prosecutor’s office will drop it.

            That said, there are likely other laws on the CA books that my address this point in another way, so who knows.

          2. GPS devices can make voice announcements of directions, so no real need to view device. While most don’t mount in direct view of ones field of vision such as in front of your eye, inches away.

    2. Here were we live, if you have a obstruction/distraction in the field of view it is illegal.
      Example — a pair of fuzzy dice hanging from the mirror, illegal.
      A GPS device can do voice announcements so the distraction is limited to a glance or none at all.

  64. Then how does a touchscreen sound system work? Isn’t that illegal too?

    1. First thought that came to my mind.

  65. “Not to mention, while texting and driving may be illegal in some states, looking at your phone while driving is not.” It is now in California — it sucks, but its a law.

    “A California appellate court has ruled that it’s illegal to hold your phone while driving to use it for anything — like checking Google maps, or even looking at an email or text.” – April 2013

    1. Not quite – the whole issue here is that he actually picked up the device; if it were passively in a cradle attached to his dash or windshield, there would have been no action taken. Looking is not illegal; touching is.

      1. Ah, true. It’s such a fine line though. I don’t think she should have gotten a citation for driving while wearing Glass.

        1. you’re probably one of those that think turn signals aren’t a big deal either. distracted drivers increase the risk of accidents and people can wait.

  66. So, to be consistent, they will now prohibit all GPS units and in dash navigation.

    Making all new car sales illegal in California.

    I’ll be waiting for this.

  67. You can talk on the phone and watch a big screen computer at night while you’re driving legally! All you have to do is get a Police badge and learn how to write tickets to us mere mortals for doing the same thing!

    1. Yeh, just a wee bit of a double standard.

      1. Double standard? Its their job, they drive in pairs usually and they are trained to do it. Sheesh, do think before assuming conspiracy theories. And there is a HUGE difference between glancing down to a display on the dash to having your eyesight constantly in demand from a mounted HUD in your glasses.

    2. Umm…ya, except that’s part of their job. They get to detain people too. Sometimes they aim their gun at people. Sometimes maybe even shoot people. Are you upset you can’t do that too?

  68. She was stopped for speeding and issued a citation for speeding AND for wearing Google Glass. The article makes it sound like the officer stopped her for just wearing Glass and issued her a citation.

    How do we know that the stop didn’t go like this?

    Officer: I stopped you for speeding. 80 mph in a 65 mph zone.
    Her: I didn’t realize I was going that fast. I was watching a video of my daughter’s school play on my Google Glass.
    Officer: Do you know how dangerous that is?
    Her: How dare you! Don’t you know who I am? I know (insert high ranking public official’s name here)!
    Officer: I’ll be right back.

    1. lol

  69. this woman looks like she is dead. lol

  70. People will always say to themselves psh this stupid law i can so totally watch the road and these directions at the same time. Glass should determine the speed of the wearer and shut off all visuals and relay directions to the mounted cell phone. Same for smart watches too.

    1. its’ been proven people can’t walk and look at a cell phone without injuring themselves falling into construction sites or walking into traffic. Why would they think they can drive a vehicle and do the same any better?

      1. Had a guy Walk off of the side walk intointo the side my car while he was on the phonephone needless to say everyone says it was my fault how I was going like 2mph

        1. Too lazy to fix that

          1. know someone and was reading a text, stepped right out in front of a car going 35 mph. Total traumatic brain injury now.

  71. Hopefully Google Glass isn’t banned before I can buy one

  72. That should read:
    “Woman gets ticket for speeding. Cop also issues her a citation for being an asshat and wearing Google Glass while sitting there getting a ticket.”

    You know she sat there wearing those silly glasses thinking she was so “advanced”… you just know it. The cop was probably like “what are those?” and after she told him how awesome they are, he gave her a ticket.

    I guess we’ll find out when she posts the POV video.

    1. Ya, she’d almost have had to be wearing them when he walked up. She deserves it for being an idiot.

  73. DWLLAD – driving while looking like a dork

  74. as with any rule , there’s a loophole to be exploited.

  75. Not sure how Cecelia is a “victim” or how the legal system in this case is “ancient” or how the law in this case is “ambiguous.” It isn’t ambiguous. It is actually quite clear. Don’t conflate broad with ambiguous. It is very clear what it means to cover. And it covers all video devices (minus the safety exceptions) for a reason. The law was likely written this way to cover expected changes in technology. Moreover, tell me how using google glass is any safer than reading messages off of your cell phone while driving. Was google glass activated? Who knows. But if I were driving along with my cell phone out in front of my face (on or off) you can be certain I would get pulled over for it if caught.

    Cecelia isn’t a victim. She’s a clown. In order to get the ticket she almost definitely had to be wearing the glasses when the officer approached her window. Sorry. That’s just stupid. Take them off. Victim? Please. That disrespects all those who are actually victims, like the first person that gets run over by someone using google glass while driving.

  76. I don’t think she should have gotten a ticket since it’s a relatively new thing, just a warning. However I think it’s rather stupid to use Glass or any device for that matter (yes, even Garmins, Tom Toms, etc) while driving…it’s too much of a distraction. Hell even changing the radio or climate on your car dash is risky, why else would they have added steering wheel mounted controls?

    On the rare occasion that I use GMaps Nav I either have someone else operate it for me while I’m driving, or I set the handset face down on the passenger seat and rely on the audio only to direct me.

  77. You dont think someone driving should get a ticket for using google glass? What? She should have her license revoked.

  78. @ Rob, At most she could have been distracted and killed a member of your family, I agree with those saying she needs her license revoked.

  79. What injustice? The law is pretty clear not ambiguous. Just reading what you quoted, she’s in violation. The exception you’re quoting is referring to back/ side view/ blind spot cameras. Any video device other than back up and side view cameras are prohibited by the section you quoted. Don’t really see how there’s confusion here. This is beyond stupid driving with one of these things on.

    1. But if you put your smartphone on the car mount, is that a violation too? You are not viewing anything but it’s just sitting there OR if you are using navigation, is it a violation?

      How is this different? The person could be getting direction via the NAV app or they are just wearing it.

      1. just wearing it because it looks so good?

        1. It’s a pair of glasses….You just leave them on. And YES…..they look pretty cool.

  80. She should go to prison for 3 months, same as a DUI.

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

More in Accessories