Woman Ticketed For Driving With Google Glass Pleads Not Guilty

It's hard to read, but the driver was cited for "Driving with Monitor visible to Driver (Google Glass)" (Source: Google+)

It’s hard to read, but the driver was cited for “Driving with Monitor visible to Driver (Google Glass)” (Source: Google+)

Back in October, a California woman was given a ticket for driving while sporting a Google Glass device. Yesterday, she appeared in court to enter a plea of not guilty on the charge of distracted driving.

The ticket, which went viral after the driver posted it to her Google+ account, shows that a ticket was given for “Driving with Monitor visible to Driver (Google Glass),” an alleged violation of a California law that prohibits drivers from operating a vehicle if he or she can be distracted by a visible TV or other video monitor used primarily for entertainment or business applications. Screens for things like GPS and rearview cameras are allowed.

However, the driver argues that she was merely wearing the Google Glass and it was not turned on, which she maintains is like trying to ticket someone for driving with an unplugged TV in the passenger seat.

“There is nothing illegal about simply wearing the Google Glass while it is not turned on,” said her lawyer.

Of course, there is the little part where she was also allegedly driving 80 mph in a 65 mph zone, but that is — for want of a better word — a pedestrian issue compared to whether or not the simple wearing of Google Glass violates the law. Of course, why would you actually wear the device if you’re not using it? Not saying she was using it, but just curious what purpose it served other than to earn geek cred from other drivers who noticed.

Both sides will make their case when it comes to trial on Jan. 16. We predict that at least 4 tech bloggers will be on hand, attempting to record the trial with their own Google Glasses.

US woman denies distracted driving due to Google Glass [Yahoo]

Read Comments5

Edit Your Comment

  1. MathManv2point0 says:

    According to CA court rules, if people want to record the proceedings using Google Glass they must get permission from the judge and it must be used for personal notes only.

    2013 California Rules of Court
    Rule 1.150. Photographing, recording, and broadcasting in court
    Section d

    Internet is informative.

  2. MarthaGaill says:

    You keep them on so when you need to use them, you just tilt your head back to turn them on, say, “Okay, Glass” and ask your question. If you had to take them out of the case, put them on, turn them on and then ask your question, what’s the point of having them? You might as well pull out your phone.

    Not only is the screen out of your normal line of sight, it can read you the information, so you never even have to look at the screen. If you ask for directions, the Glass vibrates against your head so you hear it and people around you can’t. It will read turn by turn directions without having to look at the screen.

    Also, I believe you can clip them to your regular glasses, or will be coming out with a version that attaches to your regular glasses, that way you’re not looking like Data all the time.

    • SingleMaltGeek says:

      I’m on Cecilia’s side in this, for exactly the reasons you cite. I wear my Bluetooth headset whenever I’m driving (in fact, I only wear it while I’m driving) for the same reason. But I can also understand the law enforcement perspective, which is that allowing this is like allowing an open container as long as you don’t see the driver drink from it. It’s too tempting to use, and can be a danger. (Yes, there are significant differences, but I’m not arguing that they’re the same.) I’m just saying, it’s not completely unreasonable to say people shouldn’t be browsing pr0n while driving, so should law enforcement ignore ALL Google Glass use? I would say if the driver doesn’t seem to be paying close attention to the road (and excessive speed could be an indicator, as well as going too slow), then it’s reasonable to cite them for using Google Glass.

      I still hope she beats it.

  3. CommonC3nts says:

    This cop should be reprimanded for writring such a false ticket.
    A cop has no right to lie and say that you distracted by your eglasses.
    He has 0 proof of it.

    • SuperSpeedBump says:

      “she was also allegedly driving 80 mph in a 65 mph zone” — Seems like a reasonable amount of proof to me. I’m curious to hear what the Judge thinks.