Given A Chance To Make A Ruling On Google Glass, The Court Kicks The Can

Jack Baruth
by Jack Baruth

It seemed like just the right case to start the public debate on driving-while- Google Glass aficionada Cecilia Abadie was snagged doing 80 in a 65 on a San Diego freeway while wearing the device. (Clearly, the real headline here should be: Attractive Woman Wears Nerd Glasses: Only In California.) The CHP ticketed her for the speed and also for “driving with a monitor visible in violation of California Vehicle Code 27602.”

Miss Abadie did not deny wearing the glasses.



She posted a photo of the citation on her Google+ page above, which was both proof of the incident and of the fact that a woman has signed up to use Google+. One can only guess at the carefully-JavaScripted marriage proposals she’s receiving over RESTful services right now. The below video, which your author admittedly could only watch for seven seconds before starting to daydream that he was jumping an SLS AMG Black Series over an Olympic-sized swimming pool filled with hammerhead sharks, offers some of her thoughts on the device.

When it came time to face the court, Ms. Abadie denied that she was speeding but proudly admitted to wearing The Glasses Of The Future. The stage was set to wrangle out of the future of heads-up device use in the United States… but then a San Diego court commissioner dismissed both the monitor-watching and the speeding charges, saying that he could find no evidence that Ms. Abadie was using the Google Glasses while driving. Insofar as Ms. Abadie clearly stated that she was doing so, this amounts to case allergy on the part of the court. One can almost imagine the anonymous commissioner washing his hands while some Pharisees watch him do it. (What’s the modern equivalent of a Pharisee? An intellectual-property attorney?)

Your humble author is very much looking forward to seeing some actual court rulings on this matter, because it places two of California’s favorite things into uncomfortable juxtaposition. On one hand, there’s the official state policy that looking at anything from a 27″ Curtis-Mathes to the externally-mounted fiber-optic turn-signal notifiers on one’s Eldorado constitutes attempted murder via distracted driving. On the other hand, there’s the fact that Google in its infinite political power wishes to make the Google Glass a permanent wearable for everyone. No doubt politicians will be thrashing around in their beds at night, wondering if acting against Google Glass will cause their names to appear in election-year search autocompletes with “molester of infant goats”. Let the games begin!

Jack Baruth
Jack Baruth

More by Jack Baruth

Comments
Join the conversation
4 of 32 comments
  • Luvmyv8 Luvmyv8 on Jan 19, 2014

    Why I hate people from Temecula, so glad to be out of that Hell hole. That's where the driver hails from. She was actually popped in San Diego. Temecula is notorious for hyper aggressive tailgaters, erratic and distracted drivers in BMW's and huge lifted trucks, and they bring their nasty habits with them.... I'm sure the Google Glasses will HELP with that...... Not suprised she fought it, even though she was SPEEDING. Here's an idea; leave the glasses at home and focus on driving! What a novel concept!

    • DenverMike DenverMike on Jan 19, 2014

      Temecula is a bedroom community largely overrun by those that work and play in San Diego. Except they couldn't handle the rent/mortgage of "America's Finest City", or north/east SD county. I consider SD the upscale part of Tijuana, myself.

  • Lorenzo Lorenzo on Jan 19, 2014

    "Kicking the can down the road" has become so prevalent in legislatures and government offices that it's not surprising that courts are now doing it. There's no place for the buck to stop anymore.

    • Pch101 Pch101 on Jan 19, 2014

      She was acquitted by a lower court. Are you suggesting that they should have convicted her wrongly?

  • Lorenzo I'm not surprised. They needed to drop the "four-door coupe", or as I call it, the Dove soap bar shape, and put a formal flat roof over the rear seats, to call it a sedan. The Legacy hasn't had decent back seat headroom since the 1990s, except for the wagons. Nobody wants to drive with granny in the front passenger seat!
  • Analoggrotto GM is probably reinventing it as their next electric.
  • Vatchy What is the difference between a car dealer and a drug dealer? Not much - you can end up dead using what they sell you. The real difference is that one is legal and one is not.
  • Theflyersfan Pros: Stick shift, turbo wagonExtra tires and wheelsBody is in decent shape (although picture shows a little rust)Interior is in decent shapeService records so can see if big $$$ is coming upCan handle brutal "roads" in Uganda, Rwanda, and Tanzania, although the spare wheels and tires will be needed. (See picture)Cons:Mileage is high Other Volvos on the site are going for less moneyAnyone's guess what an Ontario-driven in the winter vehicle looks like on the lift.Why wasn't the interior cleaned?Clear the stability control message please...Of course it needs to cross the border if it comes down here. She lowers the price a bit and this could be a diamond in the rough. It isn't brown and doesn't have a diesel, but this checks most TTAC wagon buyer boxes!
  • Spookiness They'll keep chasing this dream/fantasy*, but maybe someday they'll realize their most valuable asset is their charging network.(*kind of like Mazda with rotary engines. just give up already.)
Next