Remember the dust-up over the woman wearing Glass while driving? She’s since pleaded not guilty, and is set to make her argument in a San Diego courtroom today. It’s the first legal test for Glass, which has seen its share of misunderstandings and bad press.
If you’re coming into this cold, we’ll break it down for you. Later last year, a woman was pulled over for speeding. In issuing her a ticket for the infraction, the officer noticed she was wearing Glass. Under California law, a driver cannot have a monitor — like a TV — visible to them while operating a vehicle. The ticket had a notation of “Driving with Monitor visible to Driver (Google Glass)” to bolster his citation for the monitor.
The woman, Cecilia Abadie, maintains she was using Glass for navigation, a loophole in the law which allows for a Garmin and devices like it to be used. Essentially, we’ve reached a stalemate which seems to revolve around perception and contrived notion. An officer sees a device that is displaying something, and assumes it’s a monitor for who knows what. Abadie claims it was navigating her, attempting to dispel the officer’s notion.
She failed, but will have her day in court to reverse the decision. It’s the first actual legal case regarding Glass, so aside from clearing her name and driving record of the infraction, it will also set a precedent for Glass moving forward. Should she find herself successful, Glass wearers now and in the future will find themselves a bit easier in the driver seat, unafraid of consequence.
Should she fail, it’s potentially devastating for Glass. While the random misconception of what Glass really is can be polarizing, it’s not a legal leg one could stand on. Being banned from a bar doesn’t go against your driving record, after all. We’d think the headlines alone from a loss would dissuade many potential future owners of Glass, too.
VIA: The Consumerist