The check during the theory test
According to a report by IT之家, citing the Chengdu traffic police, on 16 October last, officers monitoring the driving-licence examination center — where the theory test for the motorcycle permit was being held — noticed a candidate who was visibly tense, with an unusual answering demeanor and unnatural behavior. The officers therefore decided to subject him to a more thorough check.
During the check, it emerged that the candidate was wearing a pair of glasses with an integrated screen and a smart ring; according to the police account, prolonged pressure on the ring activated scanning and displayed the answers directly on the lenses. Questioned by the officers, the man admitted to using electronic devices to cheat during the test.
The motive and the device’s actual performance
According to reports, the man had already had to sit the theory test four times to obtain a car licence previously, passing it only with difficulty. Facing the new theory test for the motorcycle licence, and fearful of another failure, he allegedly bought online what are presented as AI glasses and a smart ring, hoping to pass the test thanks to technology.
The police, however, provided a detail that puts the episode in perspective on a technical level: during the checks, the man, using a phone to practise, had claimed a correct-answer rate above 85%. But when officers asked him to demonstrate the device on randomly selected questions, they found that the system gave blatantly incorrect answers and that on multiple-choice questions it got every answer wrong. The police therefore concluded that the expensive instrument presented as a guarantee of success was in fact wholly unreliable. This is a law-enforcement assessment, not an independent test.
The penalty and the points that remain unclear
Under Article 93, paragraph 2, of the regulations on obtaining a driving licence, the authorities imposed a fine of 1,900 yuan and banned the man from submitting a new licence application for one year. The measure therefore concerns both payment of the fine and the temporary suspension of the possibility of obtaining the document.
The news is of interest beyond the individual case: it shows how wearable devices presented as smart aids can be used in formal examination settings, and how unreliable they can prove to be compared with commercial promises. Some elements remain unclear, however: the report does not specify the model of the devices or the seller, does not indicate whether investigations are underway into online sales channels, and does not specify whether the candidate had already filed an appeal. It is also unknown whether the police conducted systematic tests on the device or limited themselves to the demonstration requested of the examinee.
Context
The case fits within the broader issue of surveillance during public examinations and the use of increasingly widespread wearable technologies. The Chengdu case, as reported, offers a concrete example of how electronic tools can be used to evade checks, but also of how their actual functioning can be overestimated. The source is the Chengdu traffic police’s statement as reported by IT之家.
