Last November I mentioned a news item whereby a woman in America – Cecilia Abadie – had been pulled over for speeding, and then cited for wearing Google Glasses behind the wheel. For anyone still living in the Dark Ages when it comes to technology, Google Glass is a wearable computer with a small display in front of your eye. It also has a camera, which – given that Google is involved – has kicked up a stink about privacy from numerous angles At the moment, Google Glass costs around £1,000!
As I mentioned at the time, in her Google+ profile she describes herself thus:
Geek, Google Glass Pioneer, Self-Quantifier, Transhumanist, Blogger, Speaker, currently playing with fun new ways to a better self…
She has profiles on all the social networks, and finds time to post copiously on all of them – and that’s on top of her blogs. She has a full time job, and she’s married. She likes (and uses) phrases like “paradigm shift” alongside words like “evolution” (anyone who has read a little and knows what a “paradigm shift” is might raise an eyebrow at that. Abadie has taken some sort of vow – honestly, she has – to wear Google Glass 24 hours a day. She is evangelising it beyond the point of obsession, arguing that Google Glass should be taken up by doctors and the agricultural industry.
But cutting through all that, she was caught speeding. She was driving at 80mph in a 65mph zone. – and then found to be wearing Google Glass behind the wheel. She absolutely and definitely broke the Law relating to speed. She is arguing that the Laws relating to distracted driving do not apply to Google Glass.
One thing I know from experience – both as a driver, and as a driver trainer – is that when your mind wanders then you cannot control your speed. It’s quite simple: if you are fiddling with your phone, the radio, the satnav, trying to read directions on a sheet of paper, or any number of other things, then you are distracted. Even if you are looking out of the front window you are not actually seeing things properly because your mind is elsewhere. So your speed can either fall or increase – it depends on the driver and the situation. One thing it is unlikely to do is remain fixed.
If you have a computer-cum-smartphone stuck on your face, and one which in Abadie’s case is likely to be incandescent with incoming texts, tweets, and various other inane communications, you WILL be distracted. And then some. And then some more.
At the time of Abadie’s original ticket, no mention was made (including on her Facebook page, which she delighted in keeping up to date) that her Google Glass wasn’t switched on. Her mantra about technology versus the World was all that mattered. However, now her case has come to court it would appear that all the bravado about challenging the Law – one which bans motorists from watching TV behind the wheel, and therefore a law which doesn’t apply to a computer monitor – is being muddied somewhat by her claim that Google Glass wasn’t switched on at the time. One can only wonder why she was wearing the damned thing if it was turned off.
The worrying thing is that there is every possibility that the judge will end up agreeing with Abadie that the Law in question doesn’t apply to Google Glass, even though it is obvious that it should. And that comes on top of the fact that the DfT over here might be “reconsidering” its original prospective ban on using Google Glass behind the wheel. I love the part where the DfT says:
We have met with Google to discuss the implications of the current law for Google Glass. Google are anxious their products do not pose a road safety risk and are currently considering options to allow the technology to be used in accordance with the law.
What they mean is that Google is anxious not to lose any revenue from sales of Glass. When it comes to money versus safety, Google knows where its priorities lie.
Update: As expected, she managed to get off. True to form, the American judge decided that there was no proof she had them switched on, so there was no case to answer. It isn’t clear if she was still prosecuted for the crime she DID commit of speeding. The chances are she wasn’t.
Abadie will no doubt claim this as some sort of “paradigm”. It isn’t. If it COULD be shown she had them switched on, she would still have been in trouble – or at the very least, the judge would have had to engage a couple more brain cells before letting her off. As it is, the issue of wearing them whilst driving has become moot thanks to this particular judge. The matter has not been furthered or resolved one way or another.
And she was pulled over for speeding, remember. The Google Glass thing has become a smokescreen.