Look left, look right…take your eyes off your smartphone. Okay. Now, you can cross the street in Honolulu.

In a 7-2 vote, the city council just passed a law that makes it illegal to stare at a phone screen while crossing “a street or highway.” The “distracted pedestrians law,” which is the first of its kind in the country, also encompasses video games, cameras, tablets, pagers, and other small handheld devices.

“Sometimes I wish there were laws we did not have to pass, that perhaps common sense would prevail,” Mayor Kirk Caldwell said during a bill signing ceremony near one of the city’s busiest intersections. “But sometimes we lack common sense.”

Local law enforcement will have three months to educate people about the new law, but after October 25, so-called “smartphone zombies” will risk incurring fines between $15 and $99, depending on how many times they have gotten caught glancing downwards before.

Pedestrians can still look at their phones on the curb and won’t be penalized if they are listening to music or talking on the phone as they cross the street, as long as their eyes can stay on the road. Dialing 911 is also permitted mid-crossing.

Though many believe this law, much like jaywalking, will be enforced in an arbitrary manner, lawmakers assure they are trying to tackle a serious road fatality problem.

“We hold the unfortunate distinction of being a major city with more pedestrians being hit in crosswalks, particularly our seniors, than almost any other city in the county,” Caldwell told Reuters.

The Governors Highway Safety Association reported that pedestrian fatalities increased 11 percent from the first six months of 2015 to the same period in 2016 and that one possible reason may be the rise in smartphone use.

However critics are saying that this law ought to further regulate drivers instead of punishing pedestrians.

Hawaii already forbids drivers from using their phones or texting while driving, allowing them only to use a hands-free device. However, no law exists preventing them from glancing at their screen. Last year, local police issued over 20,000 distracted driving citations statewide.

“If it’s signed into law,” writes Steven Miller in an opinion piece, “a pedestrian could have the right of way, be struck by a driver, and still receive a ticket for using a cell phone in the crosswalk, even though it’s the driver who should have yielded.”

Others are complaining that this new policy is an overreach of the local government’s authority.

“I don’t know if it should be a law that you can’t use your phone, because it is your phone,” said Sandra Hirooka. “I like the freedom of using my phone whenever I want to.”

“Scrap this intrusive bill, provide more education to citizens about responsible electronics usage, and allow law enforcement to focus on larger issues,” resident Ben Robinson told the city council in written testimony.

Celia Heudebourg

Celia Heudebourg is an editorial intern for Law Street Media. She is from Paris, France and is entering her senior year at Macalester College in Minnesota where she studies international relations and political science. When she’s not reading or watching the news, she can be found planning a trip abroad or binge-watching a good Netflix show. Contact Celia at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post New Law: No “Crossing and Texting” in Honolulu appeared first on Law Street.

On Wednesday, Britain’s Department of Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs released documents detailing the country’s plan to reduce air pollution over the next several years. Most notably, the United Kingdom will ban the sale of new petrol or diesel-powered cars and vans by 2040.

In addition to the ban on gas vehicles, the government reiterated its desire to fully implement its recently-announced £2.7 billion investments into low-emission taxis, car-rental programs, roads, and green bus retrofits.

In its plan, the government pledges to be the “the first generation to leave the environment in a better state than we inherited it.”

Europe’s Green Trend

Britain’s announcement comes at a time when air quality levels are increasingly at the forefront of policies across Europe, as the continent tries to grapple with the increased effects of climate change.

“It’s important we all gear up for a significant change, which deals not just with the problems to health caused by emissions but the broader problems caused in terms of accelerating climate change,” Britain’s Environment Secretary Michael Gove said.

New diesel and petrol cars are to be banned from 2040 as part of a new strategy to tackle air pollution https://t.co/Bmj3JSq6BN pic.twitter.com/MEjFNoqO9R

— BBC News (UK) (@BBCNews) July 26, 2017

Britain’s new policy mimics France’s ban on gas and diesel cars by 2040, which was announced last month after the country struggled with dense smog and pollution in its larger urban areas. It’s also inspiring some Irish politicians to advocate for a similar commitment.

“If Ireland doesn’t change it’s in the danger of becoming a dumping ground. We need to set a date and work from it, without targets we are rudderless,” said Ireland’s Green Party Councillor Ciaran Cuffe.

Too Little, Too Late?

Some politicians, including former Labour Leader Ed Miliband, are saying that this announcement is largely meant to act as a media charade, to distract from ongoing Brexit negotiations and the fact that the U.K. government has been slow to tackle the issue seriously.

Fear that new car petrol/diesel ban in 23 years time is smokescreen for weak measures to tackle 40,000 deaths a year from air pollution now.

— Ed Miliband (@Ed_Miliband) July 25, 2017

Criticism is also emerging from industry officials who condemn the government’s plan because of the negative ramifications it may have on car manufacturing jobs.

“Outright bans risk undermining the current market for new cars and our sector, which supports over 800,000 jobs across the U.K.,” said Mike Hawes, chief executive of the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders.

Even among supporters of a gas car ban, some are critical of the timeline, which they consider to be too forgiving.

Areeba Hamid, a clean air campaigner at Greenpeace UK said: “We cannot wait nearly a quarter of a century for real action to tackle the public health emergency caused by air pollution.”

While 2040 was set as a benchmark by other countries, India has stated that every vehicle sold in the country should be powered by electricity by 2030.

Norway has adopted a similar rule, but has set its target to ban diesel-powered vehicles by 2025. Forty percent of all cars sold in Norway last year were electric or hybrid, making the country a leader in this area.

Maybe Not…

In comparison to some other countries, the U.K.’s goals seem far off. Yet, researchers are confident that the market might naturally transition to cleaner cars sooner than politicians expect.

The Dutch financial group ING released a report earlier this month predicting that the electric car market will see a major breakthrough between 2017 and 2024, and could supply 100 percent of Europe’s car demand by 2035.

Car manufacturers aren’t wasting any time either. Tesla made waves when it announced its mass market electric Model 3 car earlier this month.

Also this month, Volvo said that all of its cars would be be completely or partially electric by 2019. Volvo’s chief executive Håkan Samuelsson called for the “end of the solely combustion engine-powered car.” And BMW announced on Tuesday that it would start building an electric model of the Mini compact car in England through 2023.

Celia Heudebourg

Celia Heudebourg is an editorial intern for Law Street Media. She is from Paris, France and is entering her senior year at Macalester College in Minnesota where she studies international relations and political science. When she’s not reading or watching the news, she can be found planning a trip abroad or binge-watching a good Netflix show. Contact Celia at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Britain to Ban Sale of Gas and Diesel Cars by 2040 appeared first on Law Street.

Volvo has set itself apart from other mainstream automakers this month by announcing that all of its new models from 2019 onwards will be electric or hybrid. Five fully electric models and a range of hybrids will become available between 2019 and 2021. In a year in which Tesla has surpassed Ford Motors and GM in market value, the shift toward electric can only be seen as a smart move for Volvo. But, interestingly enough, it was not actually a choice made to corner the American market.

Volvo is owned by Geely Motors, a little known Chinese company that purchased the Swedish brand from Ford in 2010 for a fraction of the cost that Ford had originally paid. The purchase could have driven Volvo into the ground but instead has given it new life in the Chinese market, where government regulations favor electric and hybrid vehicles in large cities. Geely has built a name for itself with its reinvigoration of Volvo and has now moved on to purchasing the makers of London’s ubiquitous black cabs, the racing brand Lotus, and the flying car start-up Terrafugia. Volvo is not the only brand under the Geely umbrella to go green–Geely opened a solar powered factory near Coventry, England this year which has created all-electric cabs for London Taxi Co. The UK government has been preparing plans to give taxi drivers grants for switching to these low emission cabs.

Geely stock price has been climbing ever upward over the past several years, tripling over the course of 2016-2017. The Chinese juggernaut may not be a household name in the U.S. at the moment, but it is expanding across Europe and into the Southeast Asian market, where American automakers have historically struggled to gain a foothold. If the company continues to commit to low emissions vehicles and transforming iconic brands into electric powerhouses its success may spread to the American market. Although the company will probably never have the immense production facilities of its direct competitors, with Ford and GM sales taking a downward turn, Geely may have found its moment to begin edging into the North American market.

The shift to electric has been underway for several years and Volvo is truly just a high profile manifestation of a larger trend–however every effort to drive consumers toward electric energy should be applauded. From the Nissan Leaf to Tesla’s more affordable Model S to the ever popular Prius, electric and hybrid vehicles are now settling into a price range that first time buyers are more comfortable with–but what about drivers with loyalty to a certain brand? In those instances, a massive transformation like the one Volvo is undergoing captures a section of consumers that may never have planned to buy electric–but could change their minds when the vehicle comes from a name they trust. Whether or not the Volvo transition is just a drop in the bucket on the path to a fully electric future, Geely clearly has a vision and commitment to electric energy that makes it unique in the conventional automotive market.

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Geely Motors: The Power Behind Volvo’s Electric Bid appeared first on Law Street.

A man who works as a high school administrator is accused of intentionally hitting a cyclist with his SUV in a national park in Tennessee, and then fleeing the scene. A friend of the cyclist had a GoPro camera on his helmet and shared a video of the incident on Facebook. After that, the police were able to track down the driver, Marshall Grant Neely III.

On Sunday night, Neely, 58, was arrested on charges of felony reckless endangerment, leaving the scene of an accident, failure to immediately notify of an accident, and failure to render aid.

He was released after posting an $11,500 bail, but could still face additional federal charges. Park rangers will meet with the United States Attorney’s office this week to discuss any further charges.

The chilling footage from the incident shows two cyclists biking through the Natchez Trace Parkway. The road the two were cycling is a designated bicycle route, and bikes are legally allowed to use the whole lane when necessary. In the opening seconds of the video, a white truck passes the cyclists without incident.

Soon after, a black Volvo SUV comes up from behind and hits 23-year-old cyclist Tyler Noe, who is slightly further ahead of his friend, Greg Goodman.

But the video makes it pretty obvious that the car hit him on purpose, as there were no other cars or people in sight. Neely also did not stop to check on Noe. Luckily, Noe was not seriously injured, and was taken to a nearby hospital for treatment. Noe got up on his feet after tumbling off of the bike.

“A black Volvo passing the bicyclists struck Noe causing serious but non-life threatening injuries. The Volvo’s driver failed to stop and left the scene,” said a press release from Natchez Trace Parkway officials.

NEW: According to arrest report, Marshall Neely claimed “a man & a woman were standing in the road & threw the bicycle at his car.” @WKRN pic.twitter.com/mZKopldryE

— Josh Breslow (@JoshBreslowWKRN) July 10, 2017

According to Goodman, a witness told him that the same Volvo SUV had tried to hit someone a week earlier as well. According to the police report, Neely claimed that a man and a woman had been standing in the road and had thrown a bicycle at his car.

Neely has worked with children since 1995. Until the accident, he served as dean of students at the University School of Nashville, a K-12 private school. The school also has a mountain biking team. Neely is the father of two USN alumni, and also reportedly has a degree in law.

Neely’s profile has been deleted from the school’s website since the incident, but the school wrote on its Facebook page that he has been placed on a leave of absence while the investigation is ongoing.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post High School Employee Arrested for Hitting Cyclist and Fleeing the Scene appeared first on Law Street.

Self-driving cars might soon become a common part of our lives–TechCrunch recently reported a study predicting that 25 percent of driving could be done by autonomous vehicles by the year 2030.

But the new technology is far from perfect, and has recently caused a number of incidents. In late March, a Tesla in autopilot mode hit a police motorcycle in Arizona, although the officer was able to jump off of the motorcycle before he was injured. And a self-driving Volvo being used by Uber ended up in another crash in Arizona around the same time. Over the summer, a Tesla driver died in a crash while the car was on autopilot (the driver was watching a Harry Potter movie at the time).  In September, one of Google’s self-driving vehicles ran a red light and collided with the passenger’s side of another vehicle.

So, when there isn’t a human steering the wheel, who takes the fall in court for accidents like these? Many lawyers and legal experts who have weighed in on the issue believe that the automobile manufacturers should be held liable.

However, not every case involving self-driving car crashes is the same. Recently, Michael I. Krauss, a professor at George Mason University’s Antonin Scalia Law School, explored how different types of accidents and malfunctions for different types of vehicles should be handled under tort law in a piece for Forbes Magazine. Tort law involves civil cases in which one party has faced injury or damages and another party has been accused of being responsible for them.

According to Krauss, if an accident occurs because of a “manufacturing defect”–meaning the car does not operate as it was designed to operate–then the company that built it should be at fault. If there was an “informational defect”–meaning the car’s owner was not properly educated about how to operate it, and used it incorrectly as a result–then, Krauss writes, the car company should be liable only if it was negligent and failed to give sufficient instructions or warnings.

However, Krauss notes that “design defects” create a legal gray area. A design defect would occur if the choices the car has been programmed to lead the driver into an accident in response to an unforeseen issue. For example, Krauss says that if a moose jumps in front of the car, it could choose to hit the moose and potentially kill the driver or swerve onto the sidewalk and endanger pedestrians. He argues that decisions about liability in these scenarios should once again be based on whether or not the manufacturers were negligent or whether they made the best possible design choice. Such decisions could be left up to juries or decided beforehand by regulators, based on what a reasonable person might conclude, Krauss writes.

The Society of Auto Engineers has established six levels of driving automation, with level zero indicating that the driver has full control and level five indicating that the car is completely autonomous. Bryant Walker Smith, a law professor at the University of South Carolina, told USA Today that a human driver is responsible for any crashes involving a vehicle ranked lower than level three. Smith added that because most accidents are caused by human error, which automatic vehicles aim to eliminate, a growing reliance on self-driving cars could mean fewer accidents and thus fewer legal disputes.

But the technology isn’t perfect, and can still make the same mistakes as humans–like speeding or running through red lights. Questions about who would take the blame for these violations remain unanswered.

Government regulation of self-driving cars could be changing under President Donald Trump’s White House. In September, former President Barack Obama’s administration released a set of standards for self-driving car manufacturers that would require them to conduct extensive safety assessments and provide the results to the federal government. Because legislation that addresses the vehicles varies for each state, the Department of Transportation released a centralized list of guidelines each state could adopt. But Elaine Chao, the new transportation secretary in Trump’s Administration, is now reevaluating the old administration’s rules as companies that develop the vehicles like Google and Uber push back against the amount of information they would have to report. Chao has cited safety and jobs–because the technology would eliminate the need for occupations like truck drivers–as her main concerns as she considers the issue.

Victoria Sheridan

Victoria is an editorial intern at Law Street. She is a senior journalism major and French minor at George Washington University. She’s also an editor at GW’s student newspaper, The Hatchet. In her free time, she is either traveling or planning her next trip abroad. Contact Victoria at VSheridan@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Who is Liable When a Self-Driving Car Gets into an Accident? appeared first on Law Street.

Two of the trendiest topics in tech and innovation–Uber and self-driving cars–are set to combine in Pittsburgh. Uber is aiming to place 100 self-driving cars in the city for use by Uber customers, although it’s important to note that for right now, the driverless cars will contain drivers who are prepared to take over in case that anything goes wrong, as well as co-pilots who will monitor and observe the car. While driverless cars have been talked about for a few years at this point, the company’s giant leap into actually offering self-driving Ubers to its customers–even at a test level–is a major step.

Uber has been working with about 50 researchers and engineers from Carnegie Mellon University’s robotics department to develop the system, and while it’s being tested out, Uber self-driving car rides will be free. The plan is that even when Uber begins to charge for the trips, they’ll still be cheaper than traditional rideshare prices. Additionally, rather than make its own self-driving cars, Uber is just attaching driverless capabilities to regular cars–specifically “100 modified Volvo XC90s outfitted with self-driving equipment.”

According to Bloomberg News, the set up will be:

For now, Uber’s test cars travel with safety drivers, as common sense and the law dictate. These professionally trained engineers sit with their fingertips on the wheel, ready to take control if the car encounters an unexpected obstacle. A co-pilot, in the front passenger seat, takes notes on a laptop, and everything that happens is recorded by cameras inside and outside the car so that any glitches can be ironed out. Each car is also equipped with a tablet computer in the back seat, designed to tell riders that they’re in an autonomous car and to explain what’s happening.

This is obviously still a work in progress in many ways. There are a lot of hurdles to get over before driverless cars actually become a realistic form of transportation–including legal concerns, as only a few states have authorized self-driving cars. But Uber’s taking a gutsy step, and next time you’re in Pittsburgh, you may end up in an Uber that’s a preview of the future of ridesharing.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Self-Driving Ubers to Launch in Pittsburgh…Sort Of appeared first on Law Street.

Driverless cars are all the rage in the auto industry lately, as efforts have been underway for years to move away from the outmoded, human-driven gas guzzlers of the 1990s and early 2000s. The rosy image of the future of cars took a hit recently, however, when a man was killed while riding in his Tesla while on autopilot mode. This fatality immediately raised concerns over safety and the need for regulation that had been relatively quiet in the quest to go driverless. Read on to find out more about self-driving cars, how they are being regulated, and how close we are to a society where your car does the driving for you.

The History Behind Driverless Cars

While history has seen many driverless vehicles, from boats to rockets, driverless cars are typically something that is only seen in science fiction writing. Although the idea began drawing increasing interest around World War II, the concept was still in its infancy. Some actually believed the future wasn’t in driverless cars, but in safe highways that could guide cars like trains on a track. The movement for driverless cars really began to gain momentum with artificial intelligence enthusiasts during the 1960s who dreamed of developing driverless cars by the new millennium. Several prototypes were developed starting in the late 1970s, but the main challenge of developing a vehicle that could not only drive but react to conditions in real time remained elusive.

The industry got a boost when the U.S. military became involved in 2004, initiating a competition to develop driverless cars for use on the battlefield. Since then, driverless vehicles have popped up all over, including on farms, mines, and warehouses. The late 2000s and early 2010s also saw self-driving cars become a more plausible option for the average commuter, particularly when Google began its foray into the industry. Along with Google the other big name in the driverless car industry is currently Tesla Motors, while other many car companies have autonomous car projects of their own. The accompanying video looks at the history of driverless cars and their potential future:

Impact of Driverless Cars

Many carmakers are already fretting about the future of their industry. With the rise of affordable car-sharing services like Uber and Lyft, getting around without owning a car has become much easier for people who live in cities. This has led major car companies to invest in these services. Car companies are also investing in driverless cars, which could present another possible major disruption to the status quo of their industry.

Forecasts suggest that if and when driverless cars become widespread, likely sometime in the next couple decades, families will actually own fewer vehicles. This is due to the fact that a car that can operate by itself will be able to fulfill more functions with greater efficiency than traditional cars. Many may even forego ownership and use car sharing services instead.

It’s also important to consider driverless cars’ impact on the fusion of two industries. Namely, many of the largest and most well-known names in the auto and tech industry are teaming up to create the cars of tomorrow. The idea behind these collaborations is each industry is lending what it does best. In the case of the auto industry that is large scale production of vehicles that are safety and emissions compliant. For tech companies, that is developing the software, not only to allow for driverless cars but also for functions associated with computers or smartphones today.

Safety Concerns

The push toward driverless cars has continued even as the potential for danger remains high. While the accident in May that resulted in the death of the driver was the first fatality related to a self-driving car, it was certainly not the first accident. In fact, driverless cars are between two and five times as likely to get into accidents as cars with drivers, although that range depends on whether unreported accidents in regular cars are included. These numbers are slightly skewed by the small number of driverless cars compared to the large number of traditional cars. Nonetheless, while driverless cars are more likely to be in accidents, until the recent fatality, all the accidents that did occur only resulted in minor injuries because the driverless vehicles were always going slow at the time of the accident.

The following video details the first fatality in a driverless car:

Although the accident rate for driverless cars is higher, nearly all accidents between driverless cars and human drivers are the human’s fault. In fact, it was not until this year when the actions of a driverless car led to a traffic accident. This begs the question, why are driverless cars getting in more accidents when they are less likely to cause them in the first place? Ironically, the problem is that driverless cars are programmed first and foremost to always obey the laws of the road. However, in a busy intersection or highway, humans often disregard the rules and drive as necessary. The conservative approach that is taken by driverless cars actually increases their accident rate.

The inability to overcome the human element has caused the two leading companies in the driverless car industry, Google and Tesla, to pursue different approaches to the same goal. Based on observations made by Google engineers during an initial test phase–where drivers quickly trusted self-driving cars and stopped paying attention–Google decided to take a slower approach with the goal of creating a car that is 100 percent driverless. Conversely, Tesla embraces a notably different method. Tesla’s cars actually have many autonomous features already; however, the company instructs its drivers to keep their hands on the wheel while riding. Telsa argues that this approach will allow the company to collect enough data in order to improve its technology in a shorter timespan.

Perhaps the most significant safety issue, though, could affect cars with drivers and driverless models alike. This issue is the threat of hacking. With the amount of technology in modern cars and the many ways that they can connect to the internet, hackers are now able to take over a person’s vehicle.

The video below looks at the threat of car hacking:

Debate and Regulation

The high rate of accidents and the recent fatality has naturally intensified the debate over whether driverless cars are safe enough to traverse American roads. While autonomous features are commonly found in cars already, fully driverless cars are a work in progress. Getting driverless cars to the point where they are significantly safer than normal cars, however, could take hundreds of years of test driving. It becomes a question of how safe is safe enough and whether a crash in a driverless car is worse than a crash in a normal car.

While regulators are trying to step in and set up a framework for driverless cars, they too are uncertain about how to best regulate the industry. California, home to Google and most major tech companies, is currently the epicenter of the driverless car industry. In California, it is still illegal for driverless cars to operate on public roads without a licensed driver able to take the wheel at any moment. The main problem with these regulations, at least for the carmakers, is the requirement for cars have pedals and a steering wheel–features that driverless car makers like Google want to get rid of. California was actually the second state to authorize self-driving cars for testing and public use. The first state was Nevada, which has much looser regulations. Michigan has also authorized the use of driverless cars.

However, to avoid the varying state standards that have already popped up, many carmakers are anxious for national rules. Such rules may come sooner rather than later, as the Department of Transportation aimed to have a nationwide standard for regulations outlined within six months of its January announcement. In July, Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx announced some progress on rulemaking and outlined steps going forward. However, many questions about regulation remain unanswered.

Conclusion

Driverless cars are a relatively new and exciting technology. Like any new advancement before them, there is an inherent risk involved, especially at the early stages. However, that risk has to be controlled in order to ensure driver safety.

While driverless cars excite the imagination, they still have a long way to go before they are adequately safe and regulated. This will not be an easy transition as it means people will have to embrace giving up control at 70 plus miles per hour. This also comes at a time when everything, including cars, is vulnerable to online attacks. Nevertheless, driverless vehicles appear to be an important next step in transportation technology. Even if they suffer several growing pains along the way, a car where everyone rides shotgun is likely the car of the future.

Resources

New York Times: Self-Driving Tesla Was Involved in Fatal Crash, U.S. Says

Computer History Museum: Where to? A History of Autonomous Vehicles

Los Angeles Times: Tesla and Google are Both Driving Toward Autonomous Vehicles. Which is Taking the Better Route?

The Economist: The driverless, Car-Sharing Road Ahead

USA Today: Study: Self-driving cars have higher accident rate

Wired: Google’s Self-Driving Car Caused Its First Crash

Bloomberg Technology: Humans Are Slamming Into Driverless Cars and Exposing a Key Flaw

Los Angeles Times: Is the World Ready for Driverless Cars? Are Driverless Cars ready for the World?

Governing: When Regulating Self-Driving Cars, Who’s at the Wheel?

Wired: The FBI Warns That Car Hacking Is a Real Risk

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post How Close are we to Driverless Cars? appeared first on Law Street.

In June, “Star Trek” actor Anton Yelchin was killed at age 27 after his Jeep Grand Cherokee rolled away from where it was parked and pinned him against a gate in his driveway. In the media scrutiny that followed, some major issues surrounding the car model and its gear shift became widely publicized, including the recall of nearly 1.1 million vehicles that included Yelchin’s model. On Tuesday, the actor’s parents announced that they would be filing a lawsuit against Fiat Chrysler, the parent company of Jeep, for the wrongful death of their son.

In an emotional press conference on Tuesday, Victor and Irina Yelchin announced the lawsuit, with the actor’s mother explaining that she hoped that his death “might save another life.” Their lawyer, Gary Dordick, blamed the carmakers for the accident, saying the company “failed to take action to protect the families that trusted them to make their vehicle safe. The safety recall was way too little and way too late.”

Yelchin’s death is attributed to the monostable shifter found in the car model and others made by the company. The design and operation of the shifter is reportedly not intuitive for drivers, many of whom mistakenly believe that their cars are in “park” when they are not. This issue has allegedly caused nearly 300 accidents and 68 injuries, leading the company to issue a recall this past April. The shifters were also investigated by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, which stated in its report that the “absence of an additional mechanism to mitigate the effects of driver error…constitutes a defect presenting a risk to motor vehicle safety.”

The suit isn’t the first example of legal action taken against the company since Yelchin’s death. In late June, a class action lawsuit for $5 million was filed against the company by drivers of vehicles with the same monostable shifter found in Yelchin’s vehicle. In April, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration released the results of their investigation into the shifters, in which they reported that drivers often exited their vehicles after mistakenly believing them to be in the “Park” position. This defect, the report stated, “constitutes a defect presenting a risk to motor vehicle safety.”

Perhaps one of the most tragic parts of this story? The fact that the recall notice was mailed to Yelchin’s house just one week after his death. The notice informed drivers that the software in the cars could be updated to add an “Auto Park” feature which would reduce the risk of rollaway vehicles. The fact that the actor’s death could possibly have been prevented is sure to be a large part of the Yelchins’ case against the company.

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Anton Yelchin’s Parents to Sue Fiat Chrysler for Their Son’s Death appeared first on Law Street.

Although gender equality in the sporting world is far from perfect, a majority of sports now have women’s leagues. One notable exception is racing–both Formula 1 and NASCAR. Danica Patrick has worked tirelessly to be a visible competitor on the NASCAR scene but few other female American drivers have been recognized. In Formula 1, there are only a handful of female drivers who were recently made to feel even more out of place in their sport when Bernie Ecclestone, Chief Executive of the Formula One Group, said in an interview with The Daily Beast that he didn’t know “whether a woman would physically be able to drive an F1 car quickly, and they wouldn’t be taken seriously.” Ecclestone said in the same interview that he thinks women can break through as executives outside of the sporting world, but by stating that women are not physically capable of driving in Formula 1 Races, he has effectively written them off as trivial rather than valuable contributors to the sport.

Mario Andretti was asked to comment on women in Formula 1 in the wake of Ecclestone’s comments and told TMZ that

You could be more delicate about it, but Formula 1 has been in existence for what, 66 years, and we’ve only seen 5 women try and compete and none have really been successful.
The bottom line is you can make assertions until the cows come home. Saying women can do it. Bottom line, they have to prove it. You can’t just come out of the woodwork and say ‘I want to be a F1 driver.’ You need to earn your way there.  Will it happen one day? It’s impossible to predict, but I’d say probably yes. At the same time, someone else might say, if it was going to happen, why hasn’t it happened in 66 years?  I think it’s clearly more of a men’s sport. Could there be some women who are competitive? Like with tennis… could Serena Williams compete with men? I think yes, but could she win a major, I don’t know.

Former Williams test driver Susie Wolff has stepped forward, stating that Ecclestone’s comments were taken out of context and that Ecclestone has committed to her Dare to be Different initiative, which aims to get more girls interested in motor sports. However, Wolff’s defense of Ecclestone (and his commitment to her initiative) may be too little too late. By claiming that women don’t have the physical capacity to drive at the highest level of racing, Ecclestone has undercut decades of hard work and sacrifice from the women who are pioneering gender integration in Formula 1.

Just because women are a minority in the sport does not mean that they are not capable. When given access to the training, funding, and resources that male drivers receive, women can also compete on the most challenging race tracks in the world. It is a question of opportunity, not of ability. Ecclestone and Andretti are working on the flawed assumption that because no woman has emerged as a racing champion equivalent to a male driver in the past, it would be impossible for such a female to exist in the present or the future. In reality, all forms of sport are based on breaking records and pushing forward rather than being tied to the way the sport was conducted in the past.

When male leaders in the motor sport community dismiss the possibility of female talent, they are shutting the door for the current generation of girls who find racing interesting. These girls may enjoy driving and cars just as much or more than their male peers but when they are constantly told that there is no way they will ever compete seriously, they lose all inspiration and incentive to continue training and racing. Ecclestone and Andretti should have stepped forward and challenged young women to break into the boys’ club of motor sport so that it can become just as diverse as any other major sport. By falling back on antiquated notions of female ability, Ecclestone and Andretti are hammering the final nail into the coffin–if the most high profile and experienced men in the sport don’t think you’re capable, then you can bet no one else will.

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Where are the Women in Formula 1? appeared first on Law Street.

The U.S. government has officially filed a civil suit against Volkswagen for violating the Clean Air Act; the latest step in a saga that has taken several months to unravel and appears to look worse for the car manufacturer at each turn.

The Department of Justice (DOJ), acting on behalf of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), has made allegations against the German automaker that mostly stem from the discovery that some of Volkswagen’s cars had “defeat devices” installed. Essentially a defeat device would kick in during an emissions test, to make it appear as though the cars were running at standards that were in accordance with the Clean Air Act. However, when the cars were out on the road, their emissions were significantly higher–in some cases up to 40 times greater than the federal standards allow. The DOJ is alleging that about 500,000 of those were sold in the United States. Volkswagen admitted in September that it was aware of the implications of these devices, and is currently negotiating with American regulators on how to conduct a recall of the affected cars.

The federal civil suit against Volkswagen doesn’t preclude the DOJ from filing criminal charges against the company as well. But given the higher burden of proof needed to prosecute a criminal case, it makes some sense that the civil suit has come first.

Assistant Attorney General John Cruden of the environment and natural resources division at the Justice Department explained the motivations for the lawsuit in a statement released by the DOJ:

Car manufacturers that fail to properly certify their cars and that defeat emission control systems breach the public trust, endanger public health and disadvantage competitors. The United States will pursue all appropriate remedies against Volkswagen to redress the violations of our nation’s clean air laws alleged in the complaint.

The DOJ also outlined the public health danger that could come from Volkswagen’s deception, warning that it could cause nitrogen pollution, and stating:

NOx pollution contributes to harmful ground-level ozone and fine particulate matter. These pollutants are linked with asthma and other serious respiratory illnesses. Exposure to ozone and particulate matter is also associated with premature death due to respiratory-related or cardiovascular-related effects. Children, the elderly and people with pre-existing respiratory disease are particularly at risk of health effects from exposure to these pollutants.

Volkswagen will have a hard road ahead when it comes to fighting off this civil suit. Given that it could end with the company paying billions in fines, it’s certainly one to watch.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post U.S. Government Sues Volkswagen For Clean Air Act Violations appeared first on Law Street.

How would you feel if someone took control of your car while you were driving it? Well that’s exactly what happened to Wired’s Andy Greenberg when he let two hackers remotely take control of his car while he was driving it. While the experiment was obviously done in good faith, the ordeal sheds some light on the remote capabilities of hackers to mess with vehicles as driving software continues to improve.

Hackers Chris Valasek of IOActive and Charlie Miller, a former NSA staffer, accessed Greenberg’s Jeep’s computer brain through its Uconnect infotainment system. There are issues in the Uconnect software system that powers the connected infotainment and other internet-powered systems in Fiat-Chrysler automobiles. Because of this, they were able to create an attack that could connect to the system and use a chip powering the in-vehicle entertainment to rewrite the firmware. From there, their exploit code sent commands across the car. They were able to do all this simply by using a MacBook connected to a cell phone.

To test their hacking skills, Greenberg drove the Jeep Cherokee down the expressway, gearing up to about 70 mph. Once the hackers were able to take control of the car, they began to test some of its features. This included playing with the car’s air conditioning, blasting loud music, and even killing the transmission and brakes. Despite being in on the “test,” Greenberg was freaked out when the vehicle began to drive itself even though he was still behind the wheel and on the expressway. He was able to gain control of the car again, only after he turned the car off and back on. Once he exited the expressway and tried to park the car in a parking lot, his brakes were hacked as he parked directly in front of a ditch, and was forced into it.

Even more notably, once the hackers were able to access Uconnect, they were also able to scan for other vulnerable vehicles. After repeated scans, they believe as many as 471,000 vehicles are carrying the same vulnerabilities that would allow them to get hacked. They have only actually tested their hacking skills on this Jeep Cherokee, but they believe any Chrysler vehicle with Uconnect manufactured in late 2013, all of 2014, or early 2015 is affected.

As crazy as this sounds, Miller and Valasek aren’t the first to hack a car over the internet. In 2011 a team of researchers from the University of Washington and the University of California at San Diego showed that they could wirelessly disable the locks and brakes on a sedan. 

Regardless of how funny the act may have been in this context, Miller and Valasek’s demonstration should alert drivers to the potential danger they could be facing if their car was hacked while they were driving a vehicle.  The entire automotive industry has been repeatedly criticized for various systems’ lack of security over the last year. Former National Security Agent, Charlie Miller says,

If consumers don’t realize this is an issue, they should, and they should start complaining to carmakers. This might be the kind of software bug most likely to kill someone.

Other researchers have demonstrated attacks on vehicles from afar, while highlighting vulnerabilities in widely-used insurance dongles. At a recent Senate Commerce Committee hearing on The Internet of Things, senators Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) and Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) announced legislation that would direct the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the Federal Trade Commission to establish federal standards to secure our cars and protect drivers’ privacy.

So what does this say about the types of vehicles we drive and their vulnerabilities that provide hackers access? Even though it was just a demonstration, Greenberg was clearly extremely uncomfortable not being in control of his car. In 2011, the team of researchers from the University of Washington and the University of California San Diego took a more discreet approach in their research, keeping the identity of the hacked cars a secret and only sharing the details with the carmakers. Now, carmakers who failed to take heed of polite warnings in 2011 have been exposed for their vehicles’ security flaws. The result could be product recalls or even civil suits, says UCSD computer science professor Stefan Savage, who worked on the 2011 study. While it is fortunate all cars are not subject to these vulnerabilities, it is clear that car manufactures must finally address the potential dangers of car hacking.

Angel Idowu

Angel Idowu is a member of the Beloit College Class of 2016 and was a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Angel at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Car Hacking: Funny or Dangerous? appeared first on Law Street.

Something is rotten in the city of Akron, and we finally know what (or rather who…unfortunately we’ve known the what for a while). That’s right, it’s official. After years of reported sightings, elusive behavior, and terrorized citizens, we have finally gotten a real picture of the legendary creature. He does exist, and if you park your car in his territory, he will mark it. So whatever you do, be careful.

Courtesy of Giphy.

I’m not talking about Big Foot, just in case that is where your mind went. Nope. The weirdo that was finally caught on film was the mysterious car pooper–in no way related to the party pooper. The car pooper is a guy who has been terrorizing the Akron, Ohio area for the last three years, using people’s vehicles as his own personal toilet.

Here’s a video clip of an interview with the man who caught the priceless photo–the only image captured of the culprit.

In middle school, my entire school was pulled into a meeting with the vice principal where we were told, “Stop wiping your feces all over the bathroom walls. The janitors shouldn’t have to clean that up.” I remember very clearly thinking how ridiculous it was that we needed to have this conversation at our advanced pre-teen ages. So imagine how I feel about this guy.

Mr. Crapper, which as far as I know is not his real name, has reportedly pooped on at least 19 cars in the last three years. Some of those cars have been defaced more than once, more than twice even. At what point does finding feces on your car in the morning just become part of your regular routine? I hope I never find out. I’ve walked to my car many times before and found something weird that made me say, “What is that crap?” But I have never had the answer to my question actually be crap. I didn’t realize that this was something to be thankful for.

Anyway, if this was not bad enough on its own, if you were unwise enough to leave your door unlocked, you might not find a package on the hood of your car, you might just find one on your passenger seat. So imagine being the person complaining about his bad day because he had to wash crap off of his car that morning, literally, and still not being able to win the worst-story-of-the-day award because some other poor sucker had to scrub crap out of his cloth seats. That’s a smell that cannot be easy to get rid of.

While the culprit had left his mark all over town, he has in the past been as hard to find as the mythical Yeti. Nobody has even gotten a picture. But that all changed earlier this year, when photographic evidence of the man finally surfaced. A man caught him mid-deed in what was hopefully the weirdest photo he has ever taken or will take again. Now that police know who they are hunting it will hopefully not be that long before the cops catch him.

Courtesy of Giphy.

Waking up to find your car has been pooped on (or worse, in) is a crappy way to start your day–and I refuse to apologize for my bad pun here. I hope for the sake of the people in this neighborhood, this man is placed behind bars and given toilet training rehabilitation lessons while he stinks up his cell.

Ashley Shaw

Ashley Shaw is an Alabama native and current New Jersey resident. A graduate of both Kennesaw State University and Thomas Goode Jones School of Law, she spends her free time reading, writing, boxing, horseback riding, playing trivia, flying helicopters, playing sports, and a whole lot else. So maybe she has too much spare time. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Akron Police One Step Closer to Catching Serial Car-Pooper appeared first on Law Street.

It may have been the first full week of 2015, but that doesn’t mean that our criminals are any more normal than they were in 2014. Read on to see the top five weirdest, funniest, and downright bizarre arrests of this week.

[SlideDeck2 id=31723 ress=1]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Weird Arrests of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

It seems like every summer a parent leaves their child in a smoldering car to die. Obviously none of these parents left their child strapped into the car seat on purpose, but it makes you wonder what is going through their minds. Now I am not a parent, and I do forget things pretty often, but one would think that if the little person that you gave life to is just inches away, you would remember that you have a responsibility to take them out of the car. Sadly, child hot car deaths are something that we’ve become accustomed to.

In 2014 so far there have been at least 18 heatstroke deaths as a result of children being left in vehicles. Just last Thursday Police in Wichita, Kansas found a 10-month-old girl unresponsive after she had been in her car seat for more than two hours after her foster parents forgot to take her inside the house. In 2013 there were 44 confirmed heatstroke deaths, and from 1998 until now there have been a total of 624, making an average of 38 child heatstroke deaths a year according to Golden Gate Weather.

Those are really sad statistics. RIP to every single one of them.

Alissa Chavez is a 17 year old from Albuquerque, New Mexico and she has designed a device called “Hot Seat” that alerts parents when it detects that a child has been left in its car seat. She is currently raising money to build a prototype. For the device to work, a parent will have to place a sensor pad on the child’s car seat. The pad will have a sensor that communicates with the key fob, which will sound three alarms (the fob, a phone app, and the vehicle alarm) if it senses that a child is still in the seat once the parent and key fob are a certain distance away from the car.

Brillant Idea, Alissa

While Alissa’s idea is a splendid one, I can’t help but think, why? Why is a device like this even needed? Have we become so distracted that we can’t even care for our children? Is technology the one to blame? Or are we too consumed by our own personal problems? Or are babies just too quiet nowadays?  It’s sad that a device like this is now needed in our society, we need to take a deep look within ourselves and ask what kind of people we really are. And it’s looking like we are just forgetful people. Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx said, “We encourage you to put something in the backseat to remind yourself that you have a child in the back, it could be a purse, it could be a phone, anything that will work for you.”

What could be a better reminder of your child being in the car than your actual child? Why are we more likely to check if we forgot our phone or our purse than our children? What does this say about us as a society? The piece of advice Foxx offered should have been to accept the responsibility of being a parent and remember to take your child out of the car; simple as that. As a society though we’ve come to accept that these things just happen, chalking it up to human error I guess. As Gene Weingarten explained it, any parent can fall victim to negligence.

“The wealthy do, it turns out. And the poor, and the middle class. Parents of all ages and ethnicities do it. Mothers are just as likely to do it as fathers. It happens to the chronically absent-minded and to the fanatically organized, to the college-educated and to the marginally literate. In the last 10 years, it has happened to a dentist. A postal clerk. A social worker. A police officer. An accountant. A soldier. A paralegal. An electrician. A Protestant clergyman. A rabbinical student. A nurse. A construction worker. An assistant principal. It happened to a mental health counselor, a college professor and a pizza chef. It happened to a pediatrician. It happened to a rocket scientist.”

Interesting…

Well put Mr. Weingarten, but if the parents aren’t to blame, then who the hell is? Yes, the parents who forget their children made terrible, terrible mistakes, and they have to wake up and live with the guilt of having murdered their child every single day; and while that is punishment enough, I still think that they deserve all of the blame.

When you bring a life into this world, you take on a whole other world of responsibility. When you bring a life into this world you can’t afford to slip up or forget. When you bring a life into this world, you should be 100 percent about where your kid is from the day they leave the womb until their 18th birthday. When you bring a life into this world, it is your duty to be on your A-game every single day, week, and month of the year. There is no such thing as a break when you bring a life into this world. There are no “re-dos” or “oopsies.” This is not a phone or a laptop or a purse, this is a life, and when you bring a life into this world, it deserves a whole lot more than to be forgotten in the backseat of a car.

—

Trevor Smith

Featured image courtesy of [Erik Bishoff]

Trevor Smith

Trevor Smith is a homegrown DMVer studying Journalism and Graphic Design at American University. Upon graduating he has hopes to work for the US State Department so that he can travel, learn, and make money at the same time. Contact Trevor at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Parents Need to Step into the Hot Seat and Take Responsibility for Hot Car Deaths appeared first on Law Street.

The name “Tesla” can provoke various thoughts: the character played by David Bowie in The Prestige; Tesla Motors; “tesla coil” and, of course, its inventor Mr. Nikola Tesla himself. Aside from providing the car company with a catchy name, the famous inventor’s original 1882 design of an AC motor is the predecessor to the one currently used by Tesla Motors.

On June 12, 2014 the Tesla Motors company made headlines by announcing that it would make its patents publicly available. As of the end of last year, Tesla had been issued 203 patents and had more than 280 applications pending with the United States Patent and Trademark Office.

According to Tesla’s official blog, “Yesterday, there was a wall of Tesla patents in the lobby of our Palo Alto headquarters. That is no longer the case. They have been removed, in the spirit of the open source movement, for the advancement of electric vehicle technology.”

Why did the company release this information, allowing others to access its secrets? What does the wide availability of these patents mean for the future of Tesla Motors and the entire the auto industry?

To answer the question of why Tesla Motors made its patents publicly available, one need not search any further than the company’s website, where Musk explains the company’s hope that the wide availability will lead to rapid-evolution of the electric car industry.

Given that annual new vehicle production is approaching 100 million per year and the global fleet is approximately 2 billion cars, it is impossible for Tesla to build electric cars fast enough to address the carbon crisis…We believe that Tesla, other companies making electric cars, and the world would all benefit from a common, rapidly-evolving technology platform.

-Elon Musk, CEO of Tesla Motor Company

Why release their patents now, though? Initially employees of Tesla Motors worried that if the technology were made public, large auto companies would copy the information and leave Tesla Motors entirely unable to compete; however, as Musk states in the blog, they quickly realized that this was not the case.

Our true competition is not the small trickle of non-Tesla electric cars being produced, but rather the enormous flood of gasoline cars pouring out of the world’s factories every day.

-Elon Musk

Will It Catch On?

Tesla expects this release to encourage other auto companies to build on the information, leading to the mass production of electric cars; however, despite the appeal of electric cars, they still have numerous drawbacks limiting marketability to the average consumer. For example, the vehicles typically only have a range of about 100 miles and take hours to recharge, whereas cars run by gasoline have a 300-plus mile range and only require a quick stop at a gas station to refuel. On the plus side, however, electric cars cost only 2 cents per mile to run. For electronic vehicle sales to really take off, the upfront costs will need to be substantially more affordable. Unfortunately, reducing carbon emissions alone is not motivation enough for the majority of car buyers to go electric.

Despite the fact that the number of electric vehicles sold each year does not even approach that of gasoline-powered vehicles, the number is increasing. In 2013, approximately 96,000 electronic vehicles were sold, almost doubling the number sold in 2012.

Time will tell if Tesla Motors’ release of its patents will provide sufficient motivation for other auto companies to beef up the production of electric vehicles and lead to the reduction in the impact of drivers on the environment. If this technology is embraced by other car manufacturers, the automaker community could work together to improve the way electric cars are made and marketed. Doing so would have a tremendous impact on the environment. According to research compiled by Sherry Boschert, author of the book, Plug-in Hybrids: The Cars that Will Recharge America, use of electronic vehicles would reduce the amount of pollution released by cars between 32 and 99 percent. Though there is discrepancy between the exact amount of reduction the switch to electric cars would cause, there is a general consensus that it would be beneficial. Although no one can be sure exactly what will happen now that Tesla Motors has made their patents public, it seems to be a step in the right direction of sharing potentially valuable information throughout the industry.

—

Marisa Mostek (@MarisaJ44) loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [randychiu via Flickr]

Marisa Mostek

Marisa Mostek loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Tesla Releases Its Patents, But is it Enough to Jump Start Electric Vehicle Production? appeared first on Law Street.

As technological advances make our lives easier, will our laws need to change to keep up with the times? That is the question that tech fans are asking after a run-in between a California woman named Cecelia Abadie and the police. Abadie was wearing one of the newest innovations in tech trends: Google Glass.

The idea behind Google Glass is simple. It’s sort of like a smart phone, but completely hands-free, and it communicates with the wearer through motions and voice commands. While Google Glass currently cannot be worn in lieu of prescription glasses, developers are hoping to add an ability to contain a prescription in coming years. Applications available on Google Glass include video capture and streaming, Google Maps, Gmail, Evernote, and The New York Times, among others. More applications are expected to be released as the technology becomes more mainstream and affordable.

Currently, Google Glass is not fully available the public, but for those in the tech industry, such as testers or developers, an “Explorer Addition” is available for $1,500.

Abadie, 44, from Temecula, California, was driving down a San Diego Highway when she was pulled over for speeding. While writing up her ticket, the officer noticed that she was wearing Google Glass and cited her for distracted driving. California Vehicle Code 27602 states that it is illegal to, “”drive a motor vehicle if a television receiver, a video monitor, or a television or video screen, or any other means of visually displaying a television broadcast or video signal that produces entertainment or business applications is operating and is located in the motor vehicle at a point forward of the back of the driver’s seat, or is operating and the monitor, screen, or display is visible to the driver while driving the motor vehicle.” According to California law, the mandatory minimum fine is $162.

Abadie claims that the glasses were turned off at the time of her arrest. The cop cited her because the monitor was in her view and because Google Glass has a small square in the top right corner that could block a person’s view. After returning home, she posted a photo of the ticket she received to some of her online profiles. Much of the feedback that she received encouraged her to take the ticket to court and fight it. She says she believes that whether or not the ticket gets upheld depends on the judge’s feelings towards technology. She stated, “It’s all in how a judge will interpret it and I suspect their love or hate and understanding of the technology might help or the opposite.”

It seems clear that many of the functions of Google Glass—such as video streaming and web browsing, fall firmly into the category of distracted driving. But there’s also some grey area with Google Glass. Google Glass does contain the potential for navigation software. That type of software, such as a hands-free GPS device, is usually exempted from distracted driving laws. Whether or not Google Glass is ever used for that kind of purpose could change whether or not it is considered distracted driving. However, that raises another important issue: how would officers be able to tell if someone they pull over is using Google Glass for navigation, or for something else?

It’s important to note that Google Glass has presented itself as a program to be used while driving. In the manual, it states that Glass can provide directions, whether “whether you’re on a bike, in a car, taking the subway, or going by foot.” However, the Glass FAQ does also point out that many states have laws preventing the use of such technology while driving. Some states have introduced legislation that specifically prevents the type of technology that Glass uses. West Virginia and Arizona specifically have created amendments that forbid drivers from “using a wearable computer with head mounted display.”

Technology often is ahead of law. I highly doubt that Google Glass will become a norm the way that using a GPS while driving has, but as this new technology develops so quickly, it may become difficult for law enforcement to keep pace. That being said, until Google Glass’s place within driving law becomes regularly accepted, intrepid tech-fans who are trying them out should assume that if they get caught driving while wearing Glass, they will pay the price.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Ted Eytan via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Google Glasses: a Whole New Level of Distracted Driving appeared first on Law Street.