backtop


Print 64 comment(s) - last by eBob.. on Jan 24 at 9:54 AM

Google Glass ticket tossed due to lack of evidence

At times new technology not only creates a rush of similar products, but it can cause issues for the early adopters. Just look at the confusion among some businesses and even local authorities having to do with the Google Glass wearable computing device. One restaurant in Seattle has already banned people from wearing Google Glass devices inside and makes no apologies for doing so.
 
A woman in California was issued a traffic citation while driving and wearing her Google glass device back in October. The woman was initially pulled over for speeding and was then issued a ticket for using a “visual monitor” in her car while driving.
 
The highway patrol officer said that wearing Google Glass was a violation of state law, but the woman vowed to fight that ticket and took it to court. A San Diego court commissioner dismissed the ticker this Thursday after it was found that the officer had no proof that the device was operating at the time she was pulled over.

 
"There is no testimony it was operating or in use while Ms. Abadie was driving," the commission stated during the hearing.
 
Another reason for the dismissal is that an expert didn’t appear to testify that the device had been calibrated.
 
The officer who issued the ticket for speeding and for wearing Google Glass noted that he initially wasn’t going to cite the driver for wearing the glasses, however, he noted, "She got a little argumentative about whether or not it was legal for her to wear them."

Source: Reuters



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Translation
By amanojaku on 1/17/2014 10:01:36 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
The officer who issued the ticket for speeding and for wearing Google Glass noted that he initially wasn’t going to cite the driver for wearing the glasses, however, he noted, "She got a little argumentative about whether or not it was legal for her to wear them."
Translation: "She pissed me off, so I decided to abuse my authority."




RE: Translation
By Spuke on 1/17/2014 10:18:54 AM , Rating: 1
No, they have to write up every violation. If they let you off it's because they're being nice. You could actually report them for letting you off but who's dumb enough to do that.


RE: Translation
By kleinma on 1/17/2014 10:36:14 AM , Rating: 1
How is it an abuse of power when the only reason it was overturned was because of lack of proof it was operating at the time? If there was video from it at the time of the stop, then should would have been found in violation of the state law.

Have you seen what people look like using google glass? They almost have to go cross eyed to view the screen. That would certainly be a distraction to driving if you were using it at the same time.

http://www.ilyke.net/uploads/2013/03/23/sub/24158-...


RE: Translation
By nafhan on 1/17/2014 12:28:28 PM , Rating: 5
Let's generalize this a little bit:
"I have no idea if you're doing something wrong or not, but I'm still going to send you to court for the day and/or ticket you for several hundred dollars."

That sound's like either abuse of power or bad training. On the other hand, this woman apparently had a bad attitude, and that's something that almost guarantees a ticket.


RE: Translation
By Reclaimer77 on 1/17/2014 10:49:37 AM , Rating: 1
It really gives you some insight into the thinking pprocess behind our outrageously over funded and unconstitutional police state when you read comments like this.

Rights are an illusion in these peoples minds. She only got off on a technicality, and that's sad.


RE: Translation
By wookie1 on 1/17/2014 2:15:34 PM , Rating: 2
Lack of any evidence is only a technicality?!


RE: Translation
By lexluthermiester on 1/17/2014 4:12:01 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
She only got off on a technicality, and that's sad.


Ok, RIGHT HERE is where your intelligence comes into serious question.

Evidence is a required part of ALL criminal cases[or at least it's suppose to be]. Dismissing a case for lack of evidence was not only the correct thing to do, but is required by law in all 50 states.

It would seem you indeed have the maturity AND intelligence of a fifth grader.


RE: Translation
By Reclaimer77 on 1/17/14, Rating: 0
RE: Translation
By lexluthermiester on 1/19/2014 7:34:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You're taking me out of context. I was speaking through the eyes of the officer, perhaps I should have made that more clear.


This is another example of your choice of words being less than correct for the situation. Your sarcasm was not readily apparent.

quote:
And you bring up MY intelligence? How was this a "criminal case"? It's a traffic violation, not even a major one!


Traffic violations are a part of the criminal code in ALL 50 states. That's how they can fine, jail and even imprison someone. DUI's are a felony, speeding is a misdemeanor and so on and so forth. You were saying what now?

quote:
How many people do you think get tickets in this country every year, are actually innocent of the supposed violation, and end up paying the fine anyway? The system is slanted against us, and they know it, because they rigged it that way. Proving your innocence ends up costing you MORE than the ticket is, so most people don't even bother.


And people call me a little paranoid! While it is true the some low-lifes abuse and corrupt the justice system, it is not designed for abuse. And if you had taken[or perhaps stayed awake during] a criminal justice class you would know this. The justice system is designed to be fair. The imperfect human beings running it are why it is so flawed.

quote:
Good thing maturity and intelligence can be faked. Your reading comprehension just plain sucks, good luck with that.


Oh yes, you must be right. How silly of me to take known fact seriously instead of listening to your almighty wisdom. Shame on me....


RE: Translation
By ritualm on 1/17/2014 4:33:04 PM , Rating: 1
Umm, she got off because cops couldn't prove Glass contributed to her driving over the speed limit. It wasn't a technicality, it was simply that cops had zero proof she was using it while driving.

You can't fine someone for distracted driving with a cellphone, just because they have a cellphone in their pockets. Likewise, you can't add a charge for using Glass to an existing traffic violation just because the person is wearing Glass at the time. How can you tell they're using it?

The cop abused his authority here, and the ticket deserved to be thrown out. There is nothing more to discuss.


RE: Translation
By Reclaimer77 on 1/17/2014 4:50:42 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
The cop abused his authority here, and the ticket deserved to be thrown out. There is nothing more to discuss.


And I'm 100% in agreement with that here. Wtf! Can you people not read??

Hell if I had my way, you could use Google Glass even while driving. Screw the nanny state.


RE: Translation
By lexluthermiester on 1/19/2014 7:56:28 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Hell if I had my way, you could use Google Glass even while driving. Screw the nanny state.


Is this another example of your brand of sarcasm? Yes, let's all use Google Glass while we drive. Let's make texting while driving legal too while we're at it. Right?

Your notion is flawed in oh so many ways. Did you know that texting while driving is more dangerous than driving drunk? Here's why and it's very simple; Drunk drivers, while impaired, have their eyes ON THE ROAD. But when you are texting, Google Glassing or endeavoring in other such distractions your eyes are on that distraction instead of where they need to be, on the road.

Yes, screw the nanny state for trying to help keep us safe from moron drivers paying more attention to their phones and technology and less on the road in front of them.

Remember how we were talking about maturity elsewhere? Kinda shining brightly for everyone to see here aren't you....


RE: Translation
By Reclaimer77 on 1/20/14, Rating: 0
RE: Translation
By mgilbert on 1/17/2014 12:47:44 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly!!! Traffic cops are almost always arrogant pricks with god complexes. The only reason they take the job is because they have anger and hatred issues, huge chips on their shoulders, and tiny pricks in their pants. Most need taking down a few notches.


RE: Translation
By ven1ger on 1/17/2014 1:44:35 PM , Rating: 3
It is really sad when people react as you do and label a group based upon a small incident. It creates and sets up such ignorance that many others fall prey to and sometimes echo.

Probably everyone here has some person they are related to or friends with in law enforcement. All law enforcement officers are just regular people, and there are bad officers but the majority are really decent people that are just doing their jobs and trying to enforce the law, and many times are handicapped because of the rules. I've known very good cops and I've known some cops who I'd have called friends but ended up in Federal lockup because of a scandal involving abusing of prisoners, which I don't condone.

Learn to understand what these cops have to do and put up with on a daily basis and you'll understand why many of them change, sometimes for the worst.


RE: Translation
By Reclaimer77 on 1/17/2014 4:32:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It is really sad when people react as you do and label a group based upon a small incident. It creates and sets up such ignorance that many others fall prey to and sometimes echo.


Sorry, statistics validate most of what he's saying.

Law enforcement officers are also, statistically, major spousal abusers. Domestic violence is two to FOUR times more likely in homes of law enforcement officers.

If this was a man he pulled over, I doubt he would have gotten a ticket for daring to stand up for his rights. But a woman, oh well, we can't have that.

quote:
Learn to understand what these cops have to do and put up with on a daily basis and you'll understand why many of them change, sometimes for the worst.


That doesn't mean we have to condone it or respect it.

There is a growing police state mentality in this nation. And I'm not going to sit here and play it down because some of these guys have a tough job, boo freaking hoo.


A Little Argumentative
By mgilbert on 1/17/2014 12:44:06 PM , Rating: 3
So he wasn't going to write her a ticket, but she decided to state her opinion and defend herself. God forbid you EVER do that to a COP. Didn't she know traffic cops are all GODS? What a fckng arrogant prick.




RE: A Little Argumentative
By Divide Overflow on 1/17/2014 12:56:17 PM , Rating: 2
Overreact much? She was cited and had her day in court.


RE: A Little Argumentative
By mgilbert on 1/17/14, Rating: 0
RE: A Little Argumentative
By Rukkian on 1/17/2014 2:29:04 PM , Rating: 5
Really, you smile when a cop gets run over or shot? You have some serious anger/mental issues you may need to work on.

While there are some bad apples, not all cops are as bad as you portray. I personally know several, and they run the gamut just like the rest of the population. Some are a-holes, while others are quite nice.

While I don't know how the whole thing went down, it sounds like from the article that she was probably pretty argumentative, and possible hostile towards the cop. If you want to be an a-hole to somebody who has every right (really a duty) to give you a ticket, then you will probably get said ticket. If you go to court and are belligerent to the judge, you will probably get a harsher punishment. If you are an a-hole to your boss, you will probably end up without said boss.

In the end, it sounds like either she wanted her day in court, or just had a crappy attitude towards a fellow human being just doing his job.

If you have a problem with the laws on the road, do not take it out on the cops, take it out with the lawmakers. The cops are (usually) just doing their jobs.


RE: A Little Argumentative
By ianweck on 1/17/2014 3:22:10 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Once in a while, a motorist fights back and wins, or runs an abusive cop over, or shoots one - and I smile from ear to ear every time it happens.


What kind of @sshole are you? What's wrong, did a cop steal your girlfriend or something?
You'd probably not turn down help from the police when you needed it though, huh?


RE: A Little Argumentative
By Divide Overflow on 1/18/2014 2:29:33 PM , Rating: 2
You've got some serious authority issues to deal with.
When you read the law, it's easy to see how the charges against her could be quite valid. So it's no huge stretch or "abuse of power" that she was cited. As far as taking the time off to deal with court, that's part of life in a civilized society. You want a country with no rules, no laws and no police? Such anarchy wouldn't be able to support cars and traffic, let alone companies that could make google glass!


RE: A Little Argumentative
By silverstangs on 1/19/2014 12:08:54 PM , Rating: 2
You have some issues, and I hope you are seeking help.


its glasses
By KOOLTIME on 1/17/2014 11:24:59 AM , Rating: 2
it should qualify as hands free which it is, same as blue tooth headset which is legal to drive with, hands freeand teh head is up towards road to view.

whats worse is all new cars coming with digital dash boards, those are a terrible idea. Have to READ them for viewing, means not looking at road looking down at center console screen trying to read something on them. Reading and driving = bad idea for the unlucky souls that will eventually get run over due to the stupid idea. The old dial knobs on radios, nothing to read, so no head turning down to read digital info. More eyes on road time.




RE: its glasses
By jeoten on 1/17/2014 12:11:07 PM , Rating: 2
Digital dashboards are not the issue here. The issue is a device that places distracting visual images directly in your field of view that can distract your attention away from driving.

We already have problems with texting while driving (including deaths). In no way is this a hands free device or to be considered such.


RE: its glasses
By nafhan on 1/17/2014 12:33:11 PM , Rating: 2
This argument means a powered off cell phone is also a ticket-able offense. "I see you've got a cell phone in your car. Can you prove you weren't looking at it?"

You can get a ticket for texting while driving IF the officer sees you texting (or at least messing with your phone). She got ticketed for a "might have been" - not something she did.


RE: its glasses
By Lars Hampton on 1/17/2014 12:22:12 PM , Rating: 3


The problem is when they are playing Grand Theft Auto X on their Google glasses and it overlays reality. Blurred lines.


Visual Monitor
By Blckadder on 1/17/2014 11:37:56 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
using a “visual monitor” in her car while driving


That's extremely ambiguous... Most cars these days have LCD screens that tell some sort of information built into the dash so by that definition checking how fast you're going is illegal. Also, any "thing" that you look at for information should be considered a "visual monitor". I would hope the actual law is a bit more defined, but I honestly doubt it.




RE: Visual Monitor
By wookie1 on 1/17/2014 2:23:09 PM , Rating: 2
Why is it distracting to look at a display showing a camera image of the rear view from your car, but not distracting to look at the rear view mirror? I agree also, with LCD screens in the dash now, how is that not distracting?


RE: Visual Monitor
By mchentz on 1/18/2014 8:15:49 PM , Rating: 2
gotta post


Catch 22
By macca007 on 1/18/2014 10:43:28 PM , Rating: 2
What was being displayed on the glass?
You see there is another side of argument, If it was displaying speed zones or other relevant driving info then it is safer than looking down at speedo.
I have a new car which has HUD on windscreen, I don't need to look down AT ALL as all info is displayed on the windscreen and radio is controlled by voice or buttons on steering wheel, To me half of you people complaining about google glass should also be fined seeing as you are distracted looking down at your speedo or radio every minute or more.
Of course if she was just using it to update facebook BS or other sites then it is a complete distraction from driving and she should be fined!
Life and laws is getting too complex these days. ;)




Good
By eBob on 1/24/2014 9:54:03 AM , Rating: 2
I am glad she beat the ticket. Let the games begin.




Glass should be banned while driving!!!!!!
By BillyBatson on 1/17/14, Rating: -1
RE: Glass should be banned while driving!!!!!!
By Camikazi on 1/17/14, Rating: 0
By lemonadesoda on 1/17/2014 11:35:08 AM , Rating: 2
Reading glasses, long distance glasses, driving glasses.


RE: Glass should be banned while driving!!!!!!
By BillyBatson on 1/17/14, Rating: -1
RE: Glass should be banned while driving!!!!!!
By BillyBatson on 1/17/14, Rating: -1
RE: Glass should be banned while driving!!!!!!
By ritualm on 1/17/2014 4:09:33 PM , Rating: 5
People have managed to crash their cars while under clear skies, straight roads, and zero distractions.

Your arguments are invalid, but wishing death and destruction against those who disagree with your Nanny-state viewpoints is asinine and childish.


RE: Glass should be banned while driving!!!!!!
By BillyBatson on 1/17/14, Rating: -1
RE: Glass should be banned while driving!!!!!!
By Reclaimer77 on 1/17/2014 7:08:54 PM , Rating: 3
You can't even use capitalization or a coherent sentence structure. I wouldn't be accusing other of being less intelligent if I were you.


RE: Glass should be banned while driving!!!!!!
By BillyBatson on 1/17/14, Rating: -1
By ie5x on 1/22/2014 12:43:47 AM , Rating: 1
Completely unrelated to the topic, but I had to say this...
dude, are you trying to compete with Pirks?


RE: Glass should be banned while driving!!!!!!
By ritualm on 1/17/2014 7:27:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
so because driving vehicles can never truly be safe we shouldn't have laws about it then? so drunk driving should be find, speeding should be fine, ignoring street lights should be perfectly ok... very smart idea.
Just because you can crash in perfectly clear skies doesn't mean there shouldn't be laws protecting people from vehicle injuries. also all studies show that in clear skies, or bad weather, driving while distracted greatly increases your chances of a crash.

Believe it or not, we had such a case several years ago. Dude was driving on a toll highway. Very little traffic, no curves, no adverse weather conditions in effect, driver wasn't distracted. He still managed to crash his car into a light pole at the median.

Why do you think banning Glass while driving will make us safer, BillyBaston? Talking to passengers in the car, listening to the radio, adjusting climate controls, drinking coffee from a tumbler, etc., all of these are distractions as well. Why are these activities not banned as well?

Look at this guy. Driving 60mph without his hands on the wheel...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3M-J0jw9kwo

... and yet he didn't crash.
quote:
another completely unintelligent comment

Your Nanny-state viewpoints are completely unintelligent. Next.
quote:
now you go crash into a wall and end your miserable pathetic life.

Wow, really? Is Wazza1234 your second login name?


RE: Glass should be banned while driving!!!!!!
By BillyBatson on 1/17/14, Rating: -1
By ritualm on 1/17/2014 8:08:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You are just proving my point further

Nah, you didn't have a point.
quote:
if people can be unsafe drivers when not distracted imagine how bad they can be when they are distracted

Unsafe? Says who, you?

Your arguments have more holes than an Intel CPU socket, as vividly illustrated by the following:
quote:
Yes all of those things are also distractions

So why do you want Glass banned, but not every other activity that can also cause distractions?
quote:
but Glass is much more distracting as it requires you to take your vision and attention off of the road in order to use the visual navigation

Wrong. Some states have done much worse.

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=33275...
quote:
There are gray areas in the law because the law says your hands must always be on the wheel yet people let go in order to drink coffee or smoke a cig which I have never heard anyone getting ticket for, but I have heard of people putting on makeup and eating in the car and getting tickets.

In other words, the law has no teeth because it isn't being consistently enforced. How does this help in getting Glass banned? Oh right, it won't work. With the current design, you cannot even tell the driver is using it, as opposed to merely wearing it.

Therefore, your arguments amount to "we must ban Glass just because they can cause distractions!" Your argument is unfounded and without merit.
quote:
What are you rambling about!?!

You're not the one who keeps a level and calm head here. You told me to kill myself, just because I wholeheartedly disagreed with your points. Not a wise move by yours truly.


RE: Glass should be banned while driving!!!!!!
By Piiman on 1/18/2014 12:43:50 PM , Rating: 2
"
Yes all of those things are also distractions but Glass is much more distracting as it requires you to take your vision and attention off of the road in order to use the visual navigation."

Really? how do you know this? It would seem to me if you have GPS data in your eyes while looking straight ahead at the road would be even safer than having a stand alone GPS that you have to direct your eyes to to see??? IE that means taking your eyes off the road.
Now what proof or link do you have that GG is more distracting other than your imagination?


By Piiman on 1/18/2014 12:33:38 PM , Rating: 1
Well aren't you wonderful!? NOT What if they are running a GPS app on them? is Glass GPS more distracting then one you have to take your eyes off the road to see better or do you also want GPS units to be outlawed? DO you wish death on GPS users and their families also? You're a asshat


By Rukkian on 1/17/2014 2:33:27 PM , Rating: 1
Have you every used glass? Do you know that it is more or less distracting that what people are currently doing? What about if it actually helps people focus on the road and not pick up their cell phone?

I am not saying any of this is true, as I have not used glass (probably wont in the forseeable future), but if it actually helps by putting GPS, speed, etc in eysight without needing to take your eyes off the road, it may make driving safer in the end. Now for watching pron, playing games etc while driving, no thanks.


By Piiman on 1/18/2014 12:30:15 PM , Rating: 2
"The woman was initially pulled over for speeding and was then issued a ticket for using a “visual monitor” in her car while driving."

wouldn't GPS devices also be a monitor you can see? And it appears she got the ticket because the cop got mad at her.


RE: Glass should be banned while driving!!!!!!
By wookie1 on 1/17/2014 2:21:25 PM , Rating: 1
Damn right! If you own a gun, it should come with the assumption that you are going to use it to kill someone! What if there's a newspaper on your front seat, do we assume that you're going to read it?

She didn't get lucky. There was no evidence that she had done anything wrong. There was nothing in the traffic ticket about driving erratically as far as I can tell. Speeding doesn't count since pretty much everyone speeds anyway even without wearing these devices.


RE: Glass should be banned while driving!!!!!!
By BillyBatson on 1/17/14, Rating: -1
RE: Glass should be banned while driving!!!!!!
By ritualm on 1/17/2014 4:00:08 PM , Rating: 2
For christ sake, what's with you and the Nanny-state mentality that infects your ilk?

Wearable technology is rapidly becoming commonplace. If you're going to ban Glass, why not under the same breath ban all prescription glasses and contact lenses while behind the wheel? What you're advocating here is beyond ridiculous.

It's illegal in the state of California to have unlocked and loaded firearms within arms' reach while driving. Did crime rates go down? Not at all. If that unconstitutional law is intended to reinforce a penal state against its law-abiding citizenry, however, it's doing a heckuva job.

I do not take kindly to morons like you who aim to strip away my rights and freedoms at every conceivable step in order to protect myself from danger.


By Reclaimer77 on 1/17/2014 4:48:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It's illegal in the state of California to have unlocked and loaded firearms within arms' reach while driving.


Wow. That is SO Unconstitutional it's not even funny. Hope the NRA gets that one on up to the Supreme Court, because it's ridiculous!


RE: Glass should be banned while driving!!!!!!
By BillyBatson on 1/17/14, Rating: 0
RE: Glass should be banned while driving!!!!!!
By Reclaimer77 on 1/17/2014 6:27:30 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
and glass is the same thing if not worse because it is always in your field of vision and ready to use.


Do you understand how a HUD works? Comparing Google Glass to texting is idiotic. Ever wonder why avionics systems use HUD's? Because you never have to take your eyes away from where you are going and what you are doing!

quote:
I am not advocating the loss of all freedoms.


No not all at once. You'll just justify the loss of each one individually for whatever nanny state Nazi reason you can think up.

There wasn't a SINGLE case of an accident caused by Google Glass when this law was made. You Liberals make everything a goddamn APOCALYPSE!! We're sick of it.


By Monkey's Uncle on 1/18/2014 10:23:59 AM , Rating: 1
It depends on proving what you are doing with the glass that makes it distracting or not or even enforceable. That is exactly where the legality question comes in.

The charge was dropped because the cop could not prove that the device was even powered on. It is not against that state law to wear google glass while driving. It is (supposedly) against the state law to USE google glass while driving.

And there is no way on earth that a cop can make a charge like that stick. Ever. Unless the glasshole is stupid enough to actually admit they were using it (I suppose there will be a few morons like that out there).


By Piiman on 1/18/2014 12:48:52 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe if you quit blaming everything you don't like on Liberals you'll feel better.


By Divide Overflow on 1/18/2014 2:53:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Do you understand how a HUD works? Comparing Google Glass to texting is idiotic. Ever wonder why avionics systems use HUD's? Because you never have to take your eyes away from where you are going and what you are doing!

HUD avionics provide pilots with information to aid their ability to FLY. Automotive HUDs give drivers information to aid their ability to DRIVE. They don't display web browser, email, texting, etc. which distract the users focus on their primary task, DRIVING.


By Rukkian on 1/20/2014 1:17:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Automotive HUDs give drivers information to aid their ability to DRIVE.


And GG can do the same exact thing. Again, the issue should not be Google Glass, or any other device, it should just be distracted driving, which is already in the books as a law. If you are distracted while driving, you should get a ticket. Just having a device available does not mean it is distracting.

Why the need to make new laws just because a new distraction comes out? What happens when Apple comes out with one, new law, now Samsung comes out with theirs - new law, now google makes a new one and calls it Google HUD - new law etc etc. Why make potentially 1000's of new laws, when it all already falls under distracted driving?


By ritualm on 1/17/2014 7:51:10 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
I am sorry but when did prescription glasses and contact lenses become wearable technology? Why would we ban those they aren't distracting and they AID vision which is needed for driving.

Precisely why Glass should be allowed to be worn while driving. While you insist that it causes the driver to be distracted, the rest of us can rightly argue that it is a driving aid.
quote:
Let me see did crime rates go down from not being allowed to have loaded guns in reach... hmmmm....

No answer? Figured as much.
quote:
I would actually argue and say that there would be more crime, even if a small percentage more, if this laws did not exist.

That law did squat to lower crime rates. Were criminals and gang members ever prevented from driving while carrying fully loaded firearms on their hands? Nope. Meanwhile, ordinary civilians are denied yet another method to protect themselves when sh!t really hits the fan.
quote:
Ever heard of road-rage?

So what? You'll still have road rage even if CA gave the US Constitution the middle finger and banned all citizens in the state from owning and using firearms, and you'll still have people dying from road rage with the ban in place.
quote:
I am not advocating the loss of all freedoms.

That's what every supporter of the Nanny-state mentality claims on their opening arguments. Nope, not buying your book of lies.
quote:
I also don't care about you or you protecting yourself

Therein lies your entire argument for banning Glass. You believe we don't have the right, capacity, and ability to protect ourselves from danger.
quote:
these laws are to protect me from idiots like you just as much as they are there to protect you from yourself

As claimed by the "idiot" who thinks the powers that be have fully sanctioned rights to dictate what we can/not do while driving a motorized vehicle.
quote:
You are clearly the one with a mental disability here.

You have the mental faculty of a Westboro Church supporter. Rage harder.


By Piiman on 1/18/2014 12:36:54 PM , Rating: 2
"Wearable technology is rapidly becoming commonplace. If you're going to ban Glass, why not under the same breath ban all prescription glasses and contact lenses while behind the wheel?"

Not the same thing since those don't display pictures or web pages


By StormyKnight on 1/18/2014 12:40:08 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
If you own a gun, it should come with the assumption that you are going to use it to kill someone!

That is an ignorant comment. I've owned guns for years. I'm certified through work to carry a pistol and I have a CPL for when I'm off work. I haven't killed anyone and haven't intended to.


By Reclaimer77 on 1/17/2014 4:33:43 PM , Rating: 1
Billy who died and made you asshole of the Universe?


"I want people to see my movies in the best formats possible. For [Paramount] to deny people who have Blu-ray sucks!" -- Movie Director Michael Bay














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki