Apple Found Not Responsible in Fatal Car Crash Involving Distracted Driver Using FaceTime

[Justanotherfanboy]

I think you've misunderstood my point. Others were suggesting that the father was driven by greed or stupidity. I was suggesting they needed to consider that he was more likely to be given by terrible grief, never mind how misguided his actions are.

Sadly though, there are others who - as you say - are just happy to dismiss him as greedy and/or delusional. They criticise people based only on a reason that only exists for certain in their own heads.

I could see going after the young man or his family to “make them pay”, for taking the child’s life.
I’d understand wanting them to suffer in some way.
Going after Apple, who clearly wasn’t to blame & obviously wouldn’t “suffer”, makes it look/feel greed motivated.

 

[jav6454]

I would guess that most of us (by which I mean "me") would fundamentally agree that there are a lot of frivolous and absurd lawsuits, I do want to pick at that coffee lawsuit for a moment, because I used to make fun of that also, and hold it up as an example of stupid people that get $ for being stupid. But, it turns out that McDonalds brewed coffee at a far hotter temperature than usual, and in this case it did cause truly ghastly burns (i.e. not just to the thighs but to other things "in that area"). I feel really badly that I ever made fun of this woman. Here is the low-down.

That lawsuit is an example of stupid people making money for being stupid. Coffee or tea that is asked hot, is hot. Not tepid, warm, but hot. Hence you have to exercise caution just like when you handle a soup that has just finished simmering, pasta that was just cooked or anything else considered hot.

The US, with these lawsuits, has started protecting stupid people for their own mistakes. Judges should throw out lawsuits like these because it just comes down to common sense.

 

[sofila]

It doesn't matter daughter, son, grandfather or mother. I have lost too to traffic accidents and the blame I place is always on the driver, not the vehicle or anything within being used. But screw logic when it comes to baby sitting right? You have to hold people, not corporations accountable when the issue is reckless or distracted driving.

How hard of a concept is that to understand?

It takes a lot more time to adjust a law that's always behind technical evolutions (and behaviour by consequence). My English is not complete, but the concept is clear: whoever has a chance (corporations) or duty (lawyers) to deliver a solution for this poisoned individuals' behaviour must act (and fast) for whatever is possible within their capacity

 

[MileHighPilot]

I don't understand people who FaceTime while driving. Seems silly.

i have answered facetime while driving but my phone was either on my navigation mount or in my pocket and the audio was routed through Bluetooth so in other words it was no different than answering a phone call with the audio over Bluetooth

Just a brief counter argument here, but our car disables some functions on its entertainment/GPS/phone/messaging/ai assistant unit, or whatever you want to call it . This means some services cant be used while driving for those that feel the need to. A day might come where facetime/video calls might be disabled automatically when your vehicle is started.

which also means a passenger couldn't use my phone to place a call or change the playlist in apple music

Or a restaurant held liable for the heat of hot coffee? Wait...

and in other news.. Coffee is hot.

the last time i checked coffee was supposed to be served hot

Apple already has safety measures... 'Do Not Disturb' but unfortunately its 'Off'' by default, The only way you could really automatically force this on is when it senses the phone is connected to the car. then DND would automatically switch on.

it should be off by default otherwise my wife wouldnt be able to type in an address or change the apple music playlist

If Apple did that, it would at least 'help' in some part. but not everyone connects their phone to their car... you wouldn't solve the problem.. only handling it better. Currently, its only manual switch, which is basically the worse case, as that is only relying on the user.

no it would be allowing people to not be responsible which is not the direction that should be taken

Do you know what I really hate? People that can’t take responsibility for their own actions.

welcome to the 21st Century

Whilst Apple is not liable in this case, they along with car manufactures should do more to stop this thing happening, because humans are incredibly thick and selfish and will talk with a phone glued to the side of their head, text, video chat whilst driving a 1.5 ton machine at 40 MPH plus with zero thought of the consequences!

They need to make of for the lack of any intelligence shown by these idiots behind the wheel. For they are many.

it isnt apples place to do this
as i mentioned above such a feature prevents passengers from using the drivers phone to put an address in maps or change the playlist in apple music

What about a bartender serving someone who gets into an accident after leaving the bar?

wasnt there such a case

Because it's always about the money. Always.

which is why apple was sued here

So he or she thought it was smart to FaceTime while driving just like talking or texting on a phone while driving but yeah it's Apple's fault for being stupid. Does not matter if the phone warns you not to use it during driving it is basic logic and the option is there for iPhone to be not distracted while driving.


Why do people just not pull over to talk, text or FaceTime is it that hard or hard to also wait answer text, FaceTime or phone calls when you stop or at the destination you were driving to.
[doublepost=1545104435][/doublepost]


But why FaceTime why not just talk on speaker do you really need to see each other on cam?

ive answered facetime while driving but each time my phone was either in my navigation mount or my pocket and the audio was routed through Bluetooth so the end result was no different than answering a call over Bluetooth

 

[panjandrum]

People are killed by guns. Do you go after gun manufacturers? Better yet, people are killed by choking on chicken bones. Do we need to go after farmers? People are killed by reckless driving due to excess speeds. Do we need to go after and hold car makers liable because they didn't limit the speed in their cars? No. The answer to all these is no.

This is a common problem. You are making a logical fallacy, most likely the type known as a red-herring (I could be wrong about the specifics; my classes in the philosophy of logic are many years behind me, but I'm fairly sure that's the right one in this case). This renders this particular argument meaningless / irrelevant (because guns are designed for the specific purpose of killing, while neither cars nor chickens are designed specifically for killing). In order for your argument to hold up you would need to compare like-items. For example: "People are killed by guns" and "people are killed by not-a-flame-throwers," do people sue the manufacturers?

But yes, I agree that it was the driver's fault and this lawsuit was absurd.

I would, however, support regulation to enforce a "drivers mode" for all phones, where only apps approved for use during driving would function. This would include shutting-down any/all types of video-apps, social-media apps, games, and the like, and furthermore allowing only those apps that have a specific "driving mode" interface (look at the Audible app for a great example of how this can be done.) I would also support regulation regarding the design of vehicle dashboards and controls - far, far too many modern cars are distractions hazards unto themselves due to their design.
[doublepost=1545148723][/doublepost]

That lawsuit is an example of stupid people making money for being stupid. Coffee or tea that is asked hot, is hot. Not tepid, warm, but hot. Hence you have to exercise caution just like when you handle a soup that has just finished simmering, pasta that was just cooked or anything else considered hot.

The US, with these lawsuits, has started protecting stupid people for their own mistakes. Judges should throw out lawsuits like these because it just comes down to common sense.

You did not follow the link and read what actually happened, did you?

 

[sofila]

Judges should throw out lawsuits like these because it just comes down to common sense.

Common sense loses meaning in its purpose as soon as 90% of the social group to which you belong assumes that using a telephone anytime and anywhere is the normal thing to do. Add also that for people born from 1995 onwards this is all they have known, they have never even seen what it was like before. So this is their common sense model to refer to. I don't have words for adults behaving this way.

 

[MileHighPilot]

I would, however, support regulation to enforce a "drivers mode" for all phones, where only apps approved for use during driving would function. This would include shutting-down any/all types of video-apps, social-media apps, games, and the like, and furthermore allowing only those apps that have a specific "driving mode" interface (look at the Audible app for a great example of how this can be done.) I would also support regulation regarding the design of vehicle dashboards and controls - far, far too many modern cars are distractions hazards unto themselves due to their design.

i do not support that as my wife has used my phone while driving to change the address in maps or change the playlist in apple music among other things including reading and sending texts for me

 

[jlc1978]

People are killed by guns. Do you go after gun manufacturers?

Congress passed a law exempting them from any liability, so no.

 

[jav6454]

It takes a lot more time to adjust a law that's always behind technical evolutions (and behaviour by consequence). My English is not complete, but the concept is clear: whoever has a chance (corporations) or duty (lawyers) to deliver a solution for this poisoned individuals' behaviour must act (and fast) for whatever is possible within their capacity

I can accept that argument. However, people should not expect a corporation to baby sit you all the time. Technology to keep us safe is ongoing and will always be evolving, but to be expecting it, nay demanding it, or even claiming a corporation has liability for the lack-of is plain wrong and none sense.
[doublepost=1545149814][/doublepost]

Congress passed a law exempting them from any liability, so no.

Is there a law exempting car manufacturers from liability if you use their vehicles to run over people? I'm pretty sure there isn't, yet we don't see lawyers after GM because a Cadillac was used to run grandma over at high speeds.

This is a common problem. You are making a logical fallacy, most likely the type known as a red-herring (I could be wrong about the specifics; my classes in the philosophy of logic are many years behind me, but I'm fairly sure that's the right one in this case). This renders this particular argument meaningless / irrelevant (because guns are designed for the specific purpose of killing, while neither cars nor chickens are designed specifically for killing). In order for your argument to hold up you would need to compare like-items. For example: "People are killed by guns" and "people are killed by not-a-flame-throwers," do people sue the manufacturers?

But yes, I agree that it was the driver's fault and this lawsuit was absurd.

I would, however, support regulation to enforce a "drivers mode" for all phones, where only apps approved for use during driving would function. This would include shutting-down any/all types of video-apps, social-media apps, games, and the like, and furthermore allowing only those apps that have a specific "driving mode" interface (look at the Audible app for a great example of how this can be done.) I would also support regulation regarding the design of vehicle dashboards and controls - far, far too many modern cars are distractions hazards unto themselves due to their design.
[doublepost=1545148723][/doublepost]

You did not follow the link and read what actually happened, did you?

I didn't see the link until you just mentioned it.

As per the logic behind it, I could go in delve into my old philosophy textbook to make sense of it, but I see you already agree the lawsuit was frivolous and and absurd.

Common sense loses meaning in its purpose as soon as 90% of the social group to which you belong assumes that using a telephone anytime and anywhere is the normal thing to do. Add also that for people born from 1995 onwards this is all they have known, they have never even seen what it was like before. So this is their common sense model to refer to. I don't have words for adults behaving this way.

While what you state is sadly the truth, it doesn't mean a manufacturer is guilty due to their user's own actions. It's a slippery slope to not hold persons accountable for actions and instead hold a corporation.

 

[panjandrum]

i do not support that as my wife has used my phone while driving to change the address in maps or change the playlist in apple music among other things including reading and sending texts for me

Yeah, it would suck for passengers too. Unfortunately we have been unable to educate the public about how dangerous the practice is. I'm generally against nanny-states and am all for people doing whatever the hell they want, as long as it's a danger to themselves, not others. I do plenty of hazardous things that are somewhat a risk to myself; participating in amateur motorsports (including racing on frozen lakes), alpine ski at "unsafe" speeds, etc. But we appear to be utterly unable to get people to understand that using a phone (or anything similar) while driving is incredibly effing dangerous; and that puts you, me, our children, pets, and other loved-ones at risk. That means it has become a societal issue, not a personal one. There are plenty of other examples of when the needs of society as-a-whole outweigh our personal freedoms (such as requiring driver's licenses in the first place).

I don't know if we will ever find another solution; most people just don't seem to stop doing it no matter how hard we try get them to do so. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe it's on a downtrend and my own perception of the issue is skewed.

 

[polaris20]

Not Apple's fault, obviously. But I cannot imagine the grief the father is experiencing, so I hold no judgment on his choice to at least try.

Twenty years for manslaughter... The accused gets a better opportunity to live than that child ever got.

Completely agree; as a father of three small kids, this story breaks my heart. But yeah, Apple isn't really at fault any more than Nintendo would be, had the driver been playing Super Mario Run instead.

I think it'd be a good will/publicity thing if Apple volunteered to help out the family in some way anyway though.

 

[jav6454]

I think it'd be a good will/publicity thing if Apple volunteered to help out the family in some way anyway though.

Slippery slope. You start having people expecting expecting a handout. Which this is regardless of the PR spin.

 

[npmacuser5]

Why not sue the car manufacturer, after all there are technologies available to avoid this type of collision. Shame on the car manufacturer for not putting the available technology into the car. Why do all automobiles not have the available technology to detect intoxicated drivers? We need to accept responsibility for our actions.

 

[I7guy]

...
I think it'd be a good will/publicity thing if Apple volunteered to help out the family in some way anyway though.

I don’t think it should be monetary and they have to be careful (IMO) in creating the wrong impression. Maybe create a gofundme page or something where contributions go toward a good cause.

 

[ttusomeone]

I would guess that most of us (by which I mean "me") would fundamentally agree that there are a lot of frivolous and absurd lawsuits. But I do want to pick at that coffee lawsuit for a moment, because I used to make fun of that also, and hold it up as an example of stupid people that get $ for being stupid. But, it turns out that McDonalds brewed coffee at a far hotter temperature than usual, and in this case it did cause truly ghastly burns (i.e. not just to the thighs but to other things "in that area"). McDonalds was clearly at least at partial fault. I feel really badly that I ever made fun of this woman. Here is the low-down.

The lady required skin grafts on her inner thighs and elsewhere. That's far beyond just "hot" coffee.

 

[sofila]

I can accept that argument. However, people should not expect a corporation to baby sit you all the time. Technology to keep us safe is ongoing and will always be evolving, but to be expecting it, nay demanding it, or even claiming a corporation has liability for the lack-of is plain wrong and none sense.
[doublepost=1545149814][/doublepost]

I claim myself as an honest driver. I'm not asking to be baby sitted. I'm asking for a better chance to drive home safely, considering idiots' behaviour a part of the problem, not an option.

While what you state is sadly the truth, it doesn't mean a manufacturer is guilty due to their user's own actions. It's a slippery slope to not hold persons accountable for actions and instead hold a corporation.

Even if it means going off-topic, I'm quite past after Apple's responsibility in this case. Would it be possible, I'd personally ask Apple and other manufacturers to help providing an effective solution.
While this poor parent probably may have been misguided by some greedy lawyer, the fact that we are talking about this is already a small step forward. The great step backward would be ignoring all of this alarm signs. Edited for typo

 

[jlc1978]

Is there a law exempting car manufacturers from liability if you use their vehicles to run over people? I'm pretty sure there isn't, yet we don't see lawyers after GM because a Cadillac was used to run grandma over at high speeds.

Cars are not designed to be lethal (MadMax excepted), guns are and gunmakers got Congress to release them from liability because they were afraid of the impact of lawsuits; and car makers have been sued successfully when their vehicles have a design defect that causes injury or other losses.

 

[yoz-y]

How on earth was the Apple lawsuit already treated twice and dismissed before they could even sufficiently prove that the guy who is actually responsible was using FaceTime at all?

 

[Yoda Mann]

It is literally impossible for the device to determine if the driver or passenger is using the phone while the car is in motion. It's nonsensical to blame it on the phone.

The only thing Apple can do is change the device in a manner that makes it impossible for anyone in a moving vehicle to operate a phone.

I don’t think that’s true. My apple EarPods turn off once my car is in motion. Could be wrong, but I think that’s what happens.

 

[I7guy]

I don’t think that’s true. My apple EarPods turn off once my car is in motion. Could be wrong, but I think that’s what happens.

There should be a differentiation between driver and passenger.

 

[jav6454]

I claim myself as an honest driver. I'm not asking to be baby sitted. I'm asking for a better chance to drive home safely, considering idiots' behaviour a part of the problem, not an option.

Even if it means going off-topic, I'm quite past after Apple's responsibility in this case. Would it be possible, I'd personally ask Apple and other manufacturers to help providing an effective solution.
While this poor parent probably may have been misguided by some greedy lawyer, the fact that we are talking about this is already a small step forward. The great step backward would be ignoring all of this alarm signs. Edited for typo

I agree that Apple should help mitigate it. But we shouldn't be holding companies liable nor even think they should baby sit us all the way. Yes, requesting for safety features to prevent this is a good step. We should still exercise our own responsibility when it comes to driving and assume the other guy isn't looking out for you.

Cars are not designed to be lethal (MadMax excepted), guns are and gunmakers got Congress to release them from liability because they were afraid of the impact of lawsuits; and car makers have been sued successfully when their vehicles have a design defect that causes injury or other losses.

Ah, you made a clear case, car defects. However, that is not the same thing as reckless driving. As you said, cars are not lethal by design, yet they can turn lethal under reckless usage. However, it should be the person executing such poor judgement the one to be held accountable.

 

[MileHighPilot]

am i missing how it was discovered the driver was using facetime in the first place

Congress passed a law exempting them from any liability, so no.

which is the correct move in that case

I can accept that argument. However, people should not expect a corporation to baby sit you all the time. Technology to keep us safe is ongoing and will always be evolving, but to be expecting it, nay demanding it, or even claiming a corporation has liability for the lack-of is plain wrong and none sense.

i agree people need to be accountable for their actions

While what you state is sadly the truth, it doesn't mean a manufacturer is guilty due to their user's own actions. It's a slippery slope to not hold persons accountable for actions and instead hold a corporation.

in this case i think it was a case of apple having more money than the driver

Yeah, it would suck for passengers too. Unfortunately we have been unable to educate the public about how dangerous the practice is. I'm generally against nanny-states and am all for people doing whatever the hell they want, as long as it's a danger to themselves, not others. I do plenty of hazardous things that are somewhat a risk to myself; participating in amateur motorsports (including racing on frozen lakes), alpine ski at "unsafe" speeds, etc. But we appear to be utterly unable to get people to understand that using a phone (or anything similar) while driving is incredibly effing dangerous; and that puts you, me, our children, pets, and other loved-ones at risk. That means it has become a societal issue, not a personal one. There are plenty of other examples of when the needs of society as-a-whole outweigh our personal freedoms (such as requiring driver's licenses in the first place).

I don't know if we will ever find another solution; most people just don't seem to stop doing it no matter how hard we try get them to do so. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe it's on a downtrend and my own perception of the issue is skewed.

its a slippery slope as there are valid instances where a passenger must use the drivers phone to do certain tasks
one workaround would be to not pair the phone to the car at all which will bypass all restrictions unless they are automatic above a certain speed
even if the restrictions are automatic above a certain speed it will make traveling with younger children more of a hassle and i am sure the restrictions would be in place on an airplane too
unless there is a way to turn off the restrictions which negates any need for them in the first place

Completely agree; as a father of three small kids, this story breaks my heart. But yeah, Apple isn't really at fault any more than Nintendo would be, had the driver been playing Super Mario Run instead.

i have 2 teenage daughters and i feel for the father but to sue apple and not the driver shows the father was after money

I think it'd be a good will/publicity thing if Apple volunteered to help out the family in some way anyway though.

i disagree because eventually everyone would want the same "good will/publicity thing"

Slippery slope. You start having people expecting expecting a handout. Which this is regardless of the PR spin.

which is why it is a bad idea plus it could imply fault on apples part

Cars are not designed to be lethal (MadMax excepted), guns are and gunmakers got Congress to release them from liability because they were afraid of the impact of lawsuits; and car makers have been sued successfully when their vehicles have a design defect that causes injury or other losses.

it seems like congress did their job for once

How on earth was the Apple lawsuit already treated twice and dismissed before they could even sufficiently prove that the guy who is actually responsible was using FaceTime at all?

before i saw your post i was wondering how it was discovered the driver was using facetime in the first place

There should be a differentiation between driver and passenger.

there should be but there isnt
when we were going on vacation over the summer my iphone was paired to my truck and my wife had to input different addresses into maps or change the playlist in apple music
if the restrictions people want to be in place were in place my wife wouldnt have been able to due this as it would thought i was making the inputs

 

[polaris20]

Slippery slope. You start having people expecting expecting a handout. Which this is regardless of the PR spin.

I don’t think it should be monetary and they have to be careful (IMO) in creating the wrong impression. Maybe create a gofundme page or something where contributions go toward a good cause.

Probably right. I just feel bad for the father, and the accused should suffer the rest of his life.

 

[Alan Wynn]

Talking hands free is no safer then holding the phone, just are just as distracted, it doesn't matter if you are looking at the road or not if you are focusing on something else. What you are doing is exactly the same as what the guy who crashed in this article did. And why do you doubt that other people don't answer their phones whilst driving? it really isn't hard. If I am distracted on the phone whilst walking and accidentally walk into somebody the chance of them being injured are very slim.

When you drive, you sit in silence, allowing no other conversation or sound in the car (including among your passengers)? You are able to think of nothing but the road ahead of you, do not see billboards, bumper stickers (or are illiterate so your brain does not automatically read the writing on them). Wow. You are impressive.

Most of us are human, and could not possibly do as you seem to do.

There is no real difference in talking to the person next to you in the car and talking on the phone (which you state is “exactly the same as what the guy who crashed in this article did.”

 

[I7guy]

When you drive, you sit in silence, allowing no other conversation or sound in the car (including among your passengers)? You are able to think of nothing but the road ahead of you, do not see billboards, bumper stickers (or are illiterate so your brain does not automatically read the writing on them). Wow. You are impressive.

Most of us are human, and could not possibly do as you seem to do.

There is no real difference in talking to the person next to you in the car and talking on the phone (which you state is “exactly the same as what the guy who crashed in this article did.”

There actually is a concept called situational something or another. This means the passenger in your car can see danger and automatically shut up allowing the driver to focus. The person on the other end of the home doesn’t have that knowledge viewpoint. This is why there is a big difference talking to a passenger vs a cell phone.