The December 2022 issue of IEEE Spectrum is here!

Close bar

Speeding Ticket Cites Google Glass Use

The ticket was for speeding but the citation for using Google Glass while driving is probably a first

3 min read
Speeding Ticket Cites Google Glass Use

Google Glass has made its first appearance on a speeding ticket issued in California. The  smart glasses' unfortunate run-in with the law probably won't set any landmark legal precedents, but the incident has caused plenty of debate over the proper use of such devices while driving.

The case became public knowledge when Cecilia Abadie, a member of Google's Explorer program allowed to own an early edition of the smart glasses, posted on her Google Plus account about being stopped and issued a ticket by a San Diego police officer. Her ticket's second violation read: "Driving with Monitor visible to Driver (Google Glass)."

"A cop just stopped me and gave me a ticket for wearing Google Glass while driving!" Abadie wrote.

But some commentators were quick to point out that the ticket's first violation mentions that Abadie was ticketed primarily for going 129 kph (80 mph) in a 105 kph (65 mph) zone. That means the case is less about a police officer deliberately ticketing a driver for wearing Google Glass and more of a mundane speeding ticket.

"So I'm no lawyer, but I've read a police report or 3000," said Phil Nickinson in a comment. "And looking at this, nobody was stopped for wearing Google Glass while driving... The driver was cited for having a monitor visible while driving after being stopped for what appears to be speeding."

Cecilia Abadie's speeding ticket included a citation for wearing Google Glass.

A few people also noted that the police officer used the common "pacing" method of matching the Abadie's speed to gauge her speed over time. That suggests Abadie failed to notice the police officer following her for at least a while—either because she was distracted by Google Glass or simply too focused on her own driving.

Still, the fact that the police officer bothered to cite Google Glass at all is worth a look. The citation mentions the California statute 27602 that begins with the following:

"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."

Google Glass can display videos that would probably qualify as "entertainment or business applications." But it can also run navigation apps that may prove as useful to drivers as a separate GPS system or driver heads-up display mounted on the dashboard or windshield. The decision to limit drivers' usage of smart glasses to specific apps and the enforcement of such regulations could prove tricky—unless lawmakers follow the examples of the UK and U.S. states such as West Virginia by aiming to ban the use of Google Glass while driving.

This latest case also feeds into the broader debate over what devices may aid or distract drivers on the road. Head up displays are sure to become more common as their costs go down. Many U.S. state laws already ban texting or other handheld phone use for drivers based on the increased risks of an accident. Studies have even suggested that voice-activated systems for accessing emails or text messages can still worsen driver distraction. (That worrying prospect has not stopped many new cars from including built-in voice recognition systems.)

If a ticket had been written solely because Abadie was wearing Google Glass, both Google and smart glasses fans might have bigger cause for concern. But perhaps this latest speeding case will spur more U.S. states to begin seriously considering how they want to regulate smart glasses on the road.

Top Photo: Google; Bottom Photo: Cecilia Abadie

The Conversation (0)

Deep Learning Could Bring the Concert Experience Home

The century-old quest for truly realistic sound production is finally paying off

12 min read
Vertical
Image containing multiple aspects such as instruments and left and right open hands.
Stuart Bradford
Blue

Now that recorded sound has become ubiquitous, we hardly think about it. From our smartphones, smart speakers, TVs, radios, disc players, and car sound systems, it’s an enduring and enjoyable presence in our lives. In 2017, a survey by the polling firm Nielsen suggested that some 90 percent of the U.S. population listens to music regularly and that, on average, they do so 32 hours per week.

Behind this free-flowing pleasure are enormous industries applying technology to the long-standing goal of reproducing sound with the greatest possible realism. From Edison’s phonograph and the horn speakers of the 1880s, successive generations of engineers in pursuit of this ideal invented and exploited countless technologies: triode vacuum tubes, dynamic loudspeakers, magnetic phonograph cartridges, solid-state amplifier circuits in scores of different topologies, electrostatic speakers, optical discs, stereo, and surround sound. And over the past five decades, digital technologies, like audio compression and streaming, have transformed the music industry.

Keep Reading ↓Show less
{"imageShortcodeIds":[]}