One word
Good.
FREEZE, GLASSHOLE! California cops bust Google Glass driver
California cops have issued what is thought to be the first ticket for wearing Google's head-mounted Glass computers while driving. "A cop just stopped me and gave me a ticket for wearing Google Glass while driving!" said Cecilia Abadie on her Google+ page. "The exact line says: Driving with Monitor visible to Driver (Google …
-
-
Wednesday 30th October 2013 22:12 GMT rcorrect
So why didn't the driver see the police before they saw her?
Hell, I've had cops catch me off guard when I was riding my bike to work and picking up aluminum cans along the way. As a bicyclist who's almost been hit more than once by someone talking on their cell phone, I am extremely skeptical of people driving while using Google Glass. Last year we had someone get killed while riding their bike by someone texting and driving. I hope that text message was really important. http://www.connectamarillo.com/news/story.aspx?id=764129
-
Thursday 31st October 2013 11:59 GMT codejunky
@rcorrect
I agree. Drivers dont need the added distraction and it should not be encouraged. However on the point of cyclists (especially in the UK) I am expecting a wave of accidents blamed on drivers while the cyclist was busy focusing on their latest distraction.
Only this week I was driving behind some moron who decided to take his hands off his handlebars so he could adjust his pockets while occupying the middle of the lane. The sooner they remove cyclists from the road the sooner the death toll will fall. There are some appalling drivers but as a proportion most seem competent and safe. As a proportion of cyclists it is a refreshing change to see a good cyclist who isnt breaking one of many laws or trying to win a darwin award.
If they had their own paths/roads it would be interesting to see how many stupid accidents and even deaths still occur because of cyclists. And the next problem would be the few but determined pedestrians who want to win their own darwin award.
-
-
This post has been deleted by its author
-
Friday 1st November 2013 11:51 GMT codejunky
Re: @rcorrect
@ Larry F54
"According to the statistics in the UK, as a pedestrian you are 272 times more likely to be killed by a driver than by a cyclist, and even on the pavement 180 times more likely to be killed by a driver than by a cyclist."
Is it death by driver? I always feel this is misleading because while the driver might be the cause there is the obvious counter argument that the pedestrian (or cyclist) was also involved. Discounting dangerous drivers (because we all disagree with them) I consider pedestrian and cyclist as dangerous because there is the physical but also emotional impact of an accident.
If someone rides in front of a car or walks in front of a car it is not the drivers fault yet they will suffer at least the psychological effects of the incident. Kinda like someone stepping in front of a train will shake up the driver.
Not a lot of people I talk to consider this. A lot of people like to assume the blame is on the driver, and sometimes they are right. But how many cyclists are arrested for breaking the various laws? Yet it is a very frequent situation. And how many pedestrians walk into a road without looking or assuming the car will just stop (as the world revolves around them). It isnt just dangerous driving it is dangerous actions on and around roads.
Also while a car may be more likely to kill, a cyclist inflicts a hell of a lot of damage on impact and rarely get any trouble for it.
-
Friday 1st November 2013 13:01 GMT Stilted Banter
Re: @rcorrect
According to the statistics in the UK, as a pedestrian you are 272 times more likely to be killed by a driver than by a cyclist, and even on the pavement 180 times more likely to be killed by a driver than by a cyclist.
Generally I find I can trust drivers to stay off the pavements, obey red lights and traffic signs, and not to drive down streets where they are not permitted. Cyclists cannot be trusted to do these things. I have yet to round a corner and encounter a car being driven at speed along the pavement in the opposite direction, but if it does happen I dare say I will find a new respect for your statistics.
-
Friday 1st November 2013 14:04 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: @rcorrect
"Generally I find I can trust drivers to stay off the pavements, obey red lights and traffic signs, and not to drive down streets where they are not permitted"
Wow, so you steer clear of city centres, then? My regular walk to work in narrow Soho streets has frequently been enlivened by (usually white vans) mounting the pavement while hammering the wrong way down one way streets.
-
Friday 1st November 2013 15:24 GMT Alan Brown
Re: @rcorrect
"My regular walk to work in narrow Soho streets has frequently been enlivened by (usually white vans) mounting the pavement while hammering the wrong way down one way streets."
And if you had Google Glass you could not only video this automatically, you could then upload the ensuing hilarity to Youtube.
Assholes are assholes because they think they won't get caught. I'd love to see a few more prosecutions brought because of citizen surveillance (They happen, but it's rare)
-
-
Friday 1st November 2013 15:22 GMT Alan Brown
Re: @rcorrect
"According to the statistics in the UK, as a pedestrian you are 272 times more likely to be killed by a driver than by a cyclist, and even on the pavement 180 times more likely to be killed by a driver than by a cyclist."
Killed.
Now, how about "run into", "jumped out of the way of", "been abused by" a cyclist vs a car?
-
-
-
Thursday 31st October 2013 15:35 GMT codejunky
Re: @rcorrect
5 thumbs down and I am yet to see an explanation. Is it drivers who dont feel there are any bad ones out there? Is it the part about drivers not needing the distraction of google glass while driving? Or is it cyclists disagreeing that any could be law breaking darwin award seekers? Or is it pedestrians of the same thoughts?
I say this having a preconception that its the cyclists based on my interactions with people I know who cycle. In a recent discussion I was told that it is drivers who are the bad ones on the road, not cyclists. In the next sentence this person said he only occasionally rode through red lights when it was dark and nobody was about.
We all should be concentrating when we are out and about on the roads. Yet how many stupid drivers are on their phone or doing makeup? How many cyclists do stupid manoeuvres/tricks/law breaking manoeuvres? How many pedestrians walk into a road without looking because of their gadgets or stupidity?
These are the people we have to share the road with. These are the people we must contend with every day and many times a day. So I am very interested in the views of those down voting.
-
Thursday 31st October 2013 22:33 GMT Daniel B.
Re: @rcorrect
As a very recent motorcycle rider (as you drive cars, but you ride bikes ;), I have to say: there are awful drivers on all categories. Bad cyclists, bad bikers and bad drivers. I agree a lot that bicycles should have their own confined lanes. Speed differential is too high in main roads, a Darwin Award candidate is more likely to earn his/her Darwin Award without the confined bikeways. There's also the thing that I'm wearing a full enclosed helmet + body armor when riding a motorcycle; most cyclists will be wearing a styrofoam half-helmet at most. Good for bicycle speed accidents, not so good when you suffer a close encounter of the lorry kind!
-
-
-
Friday 1st November 2013 17:05 GMT codejunky
Re: @codejunky
@Haku
"Do you realise how obnoxious & arrogant you come across as?"
Do you think I care? Quite simply I have pointed out there are bad drivers, lots of bad cyclists and a good number of bad pedestrians. Nobody has countered that at all.
I notice you only quoted the bit where I said get the cyclists off the road. I notice you left out the bit (in the same comment) about giving them their own roads. Like my comment or not I am still waiting for a disagreement (not a thumbs down but a collection of braincells explaining how I am wrong). Road safety involves everyone on the road. Not just a driver/rider, pedestrian or bicyclist.
You might find me arrogant and obnoxious but for all the downvoters without a comment I think are incapable of reason. Daniel B makes a reasoned comment saying pretty much the same as me about bad drivers and cyclists getting their own lanes for their own safety yet I notice he has 3 upvotes and 2 downvotes.
And of course there is your pointless comment. That adds nothing. So how does that reflect on you?
-
Saturday 2nd November 2013 04:33 GMT Haku
Re: @codejunky
I think I hit a nerve.
The endless drivers vs cyclists arguments mostly revolve around the fact that too many drivers feel that they own the road (cue the ignorant 'road tax' arguments) and anyone using it with a smaller vehicle shouldn't be there, especially if they're in front of them (a lot of drivers think roads are racetracks), and whilst saying that removing cyclists from the equation will reduce deaths on the road is a fact it only highlights the need for drivers to accept that the road is for everyone legally allowed to be there, wether they pay vechicle tax or not.
-
Monday 4th November 2013 09:28 GMT codejunky
Re: @codejunky
@Haku
"I think I hit a nerve."
Wishful thinking on your part. However the fact that you think you hit a nerve makes me wonder if that was the point of your comment. Actually I just wondered how you could ignore an entire comment except 1 line which you attack me for instead of having anything to contribute to the discussion. But if you are just trolling then it makes sense.
"The endless drivers vs cyclists arguments mostly revolve around the fact that too many drivers feel that they own the road"
Again you ignore my comments of safety. If everyone followed the rules of the road then there would be less accidents. But I only see drivers pulled up for breaking the law and I see (first hand experience obviously) most cyclists I encounter breaking the laws. I appreciate the few who follow the laws. The point of these laws is supposed to keep people safe but it doesnt work if you only attack one group and allow the other to do as they please. Does it?
"a lot of drivers think roads are racetracks"
I suggest you live in a dodgy area or you are making stuff up. For example how much racing occurs on the journey to and from work? The times with the most vehicles. And yes I see cars fly around at stupid speeds occasionally (more often than I like) but at the same time I see cyclists flying down hill at speeds they cannot control their vehicle (seen a few smashed teeth too at the bottom of a few hills). Hence why we ALL (I know that word confuses you) need to be careful on the road. Not just drivers. And the law needs to apply to all EQUALLY (another important word).
"and whilst saying that removing cyclists from the equation will reduce deaths on the road is a fact"
And obviously you think victims need to be more careful because criminals live in this world too? Just as you are arguing that the cyclists can break the law all they want because they too share the road. That must be what you are arguing because I suggest we all need to follow the law and you argue. I suggest cyclists should have their own roads so when there is an accident they dont meet a bigger, more powerful vehicle. And you say no. I wonder if you also argue that pedestrians should do as they please and block up roads, etc ignoring the laws of physics (results in death) because they can? Or do you now think maybe boundaries are actually necessary? Particularly for saving lives.
"wether they pay vechicle tax or not."
What about follow the law and road safety? If you argue against my comment you are arguing against road safety. You can obviously debate how the roads could be safer but since I am arguing that the roads need to be safer and you call me arrogant and obnoxious I wonder if you have a kill em all mentality or just a troll.
-
-
-
-
-
-
Wednesday 30th October 2013 21:10 GMT Anonymous Coward
hah hah hah
They should double the fine as a form of punishment for her looking stupid. Google glass is the stupidest idea I have heard about in my 20 years in the tech industry. I have to laugh that Google refers to people wearing these things as "explorers". The rest of us will probably use the term "misguided hipster idiot".
-
-
-
Wednesday 30th October 2013 23:40 GMT Eddy Ito
Re: Wouldn't be so sure on that...
(5) A television receiver, video monitor, television or video screen, or any other similar means of visually displaying a television broadcast or video signal, if that equipment satisfies one of the following requirements:
(A) The equipment has an interlock device that, when the motor vehicle is driven, disables the equipment for all uses except as a visual display as described in paragraphs (1) to (4), inclusive.
(B) The equipment is designed, operated, and configured in a manner that prevents the driver of the motor vehicle from viewing the television broadcast or video signal while operating the vehicle in a safe and reasonable manner.
Glass fails both tests, A and B, so even given the stupidity of the NY courts, for whatever that is worth in San Diego, it's still illegal even assuming the CA courts are as stupid as their NY counterparts and wanted to say for some reason that it was 'installed'.
I grant you that NY is obviously beyond the rest when it comes to having stupid laws. Frankly, I can't remember when I last drove a car in which the radio didn't have a seek/scan button.
-
Thursday 31st October 2013 00:05 GMT corestore
Re: Wouldn't be so sure on that...
You misunderstand.
By 'scanner' they mean a radio scanner capable of receiving, for instance, police frequencies.
The goal of the law was to set up a speed bump for bad guys listening on police radio transmissions; if they couldn't bust them for anything else hey could bust them for the scanner. Bit like prosecuting for 'going equipped' when you can't catch the burglar in the act.
The NY courts decided to extend the reach of the law by interpreting 'installed' in the most liberal manner possible, beyond all common sense meaning of the word!
-
Thursday 31st October 2013 03:53 GMT Eddy Ito
Re: Wouldn't be so sure on that...
@corestore
I see, effectively they made police scanners illegal by extending the meaning of the law to suit their purpose like a lot of places did the same with radar detectors. That must have been what, 70s, 80s? I'd think it would be a moot point now with most police bands, I assume, running some kind of encryption. You know, like only criminals who have something to hide do.
-
Thursday 31st October 2013 07:50 GMT corestore
Re: Wouldn't be so sure on that...
Eddy Ito, actually no; don't assume :-)
Where I lived in NY, not far outside the city, most cop and fire channels were simple analogue channels.
Fire did have some use of digital for 'trunk' radio back to the dispatchers, but even that was unencrypted and could be picked up with any digital scanner.
-
-
-
-
-
-
Thursday 31st October 2013 03:34 GMT Eddy Ito
Seriously AC? I did provide a link to the law. It pretty clearly reads "when installed in a vehicle". I get that the nine wonders of the legal world interpret words to mean whatever they want and very may well understand that a driver or operator is installed in a vehicle but that doesn't mean they aren't full of shit. I've included the judge icon that you weren't able to posting as AC.
-
-
-
-
-
Thursday 31st October 2013 09:34 GMT Rob
Re: Two things...
If she hadn't have been speeding the cop wouldn't have noticed the Google Glasses on her face.
It does raise an interesting point for this state on where they stand with HUDs for cars though, as technically they are a monitor, Glass is pretty much the same as a HUD, it's designed not to obscure your vision.
-
Thursday 31st October 2013 09:49 GMT Faye B
Re: Two things...
The HUD idea is to diplay vehicle information to the driver, not to display entertainment. The same rules apply as detailed by a previous poster. Google glass will always pose a distraction threat through its ability to display entertainment media or other distracting information (i.e. not related to driving along the road).
The cop was totally right to fine her.
-
-
-
This topic is closed for new posts.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
