But she wasn't watching YouTube videos; the Glass was off. She was just wearing them. How is it any worse than wearing normal glasses?

What happens if and when Glass-like devices become common and glasses-wearing people like me get them with prescription lenses?

> How is it any worse than wearing normal glasses?

Because normal glasses help you see?

Not if you have normal vision. The point is that we don't consider normal glasses dangerous (otherwise glass-wearing people would be banned or at least have restrictions on driving), so why would Glass be, if it was kept off?

Because it can distract you, and the cop can't tell if it's off?

I wear glasses as well, and I agree there. But how do you want to prove that Glass was off? Should your Glass report to the Police when it's on and off?

> But how do you want to prove that Glass was off?

That's the wrong question. The right question is: How does law enforcement prove that Glass was distracting me?

I shouldn't have to prove my innocence. They should have to prove my guilt.

Standards are a bit lower for a civil infraction. Which isn't to say that this isn't a consideration, but is certainly to say that the situation is not the same as with a misdemeanor or felony the way our system currently works (and that is quite possibly appropriate).

I don't know how different - if at all - it is in CA, but here in NC, a traffic violation is still, as I understand it, a criminal charge. It's just that they try to speed up the process by treating traffic charges differently, and having the first trial in front of a judge only[1], no juries and all the normal courtroom / trial trappings.

But, since it's still a criminal case, and right to trial by jury is still recognized, there is a guaranteed automatic appeal that you can invoke[2] if you aren't satisfied with the decision in district court (or magistrate court). You then get a "trial de novo"[3] or "new trial" in superior court (or district court if appealing from magistrate court). Once you get to superior court, that's where you get a jury and the whole bit. It's interesting to note that some people consider it a legal strategy to basically use the first trial as a chance to size up the State's case, so they can construct the best possible defense on appeal.

Not sure if CA has a similar notion or not, but just wanted to point out that, in at least some cases, the bar on traffic offenses is still ultimately "innocent until proven guilty" (as it should be, IMO).

[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bench_trial

[2]: http://law.onecle.com/north-carolina/15a-criminal-procedure-...

[3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_de_novo

I've no doubt it varies from locality to locality, but Wikipedia's generalization for the US (sure to have many counter examples) is:

"A civil infraction is violation of the law less serious than a misdemeanor, and which usually does not attach certain individual rights such as a jury trial."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_infraction

True. One other interesting point about the "trial de novo" mechanism, in states that have it, is that the judge in a de novo trial can sometimes (in the case of a conviction) impose a harsher sentence than what would have been possible in the original trial. So invoking that right, even when you have it, does entail some additional risk as well.

That, along with the sheer inconvenience, cost, etc., is probably why few people bother doing this for traffic citations. It's easier to just pay your fine, accept the increase in your insurance premiums and go on your merry way. :-(

I mean, I've always envisioned a sort of uber-graduated license for driving with "distractions".

You're 16 and you get your license and you get a car with one seat, a speedometer, and a manual gearbox. You then can undergo additional testing/licensure that shows you can cope with additional distractions (passengers, radio, cupholder, tachometer, Google Glass). Trouble is, I don't think many people would go for that.

I don't understand. A manual gearbox is far more distracting from the safe piloting of the car than an automatic.

One sense in which a manual gearbox might make sense for beginners is that it arguably leaves you more in tune with what's actually going on inside the car. Much like knowing assembly can guide your C.

This does not mean, however, that it actually helps with safety, and that concern should probably dominate.