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

Discussion in 'MacRumors.com News Discussion' started by MacRumors, Dec 17, 2018.

  1. MEJHarrison macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    #201
    When idiots refuse to stay off their devices, that endangers not just them, but everyone around them. Including me and my family. I 100% agree with something to completely disable phones in vehicles. And if innocent passengers are caught up in that, so be it. I shouldn't have to die because someone else thought it more important to talk to their children while out picking up some milk. We shouldn't have young children getting killed because some ******* thought he was special and could take that facetime call or answer a text or whatever. I don't feel human lives are an acceptable price for the luxury of using a cell phone. And I don't accept "but I need my phone for work". ********. We all managed to get along just fine before cell phones came along, we can do just fine now.

    Using a phone while driving your vehicle is like playing Russian Roulette where you point the gun at someone else's head and pull the trigger. I shouldn't have to play someone else's stupid game. And since people won't stop, it should absolutely be 100% disabled while the vehicle is moving. I live in a state where it's illegal to use your phone while driving and it hasn't made a lick of difference from my observations. So yeah, completely disable those suckers. There's not a phone call or text in the world that is more important than innocent person's life.
     
  2. I7guy macrumors P6

    I7guy

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2013
    Location:
    Gotta be in it to win it
    #202
    I can’t agree with completely disabling phones. Stupid is as stupid does. People will still:
    • Read the newspaper
    • Eat soup
    • Shave
    • Put on makeup
    • Turn around to discipline their kids
    • Etc
     
  3. MEJHarrison macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    #203
    If there was a way to eliminate those activities, I'd be for banning them too. Just because it's possible to do dumb things in your car is no reason to give up and let people do additional dumb things like use cell phones. Two wrongs and all that stuff. Do you have the same attitude towards drunk driving? I mean people can still fiddle with the radio while driving, put an address into their GPS while driving, reach under their seat for crap while driving, so why bother outlawing drunk driving? There have been numerous studies showing texting while driving to be as dangerous and drinking and driving, so I'm not sure why it should be handled differently.
     
  4. I7guy macrumors P6

    I7guy

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2013
    Location:
    Gotta be in it to win it
    #204
    Slippery slope argument. Drunk driving is against the law. I’m not for tech that would ban lawful activities in the car.

    Most states have a distracted law on the books and many states ban the use of hand-held devices.

    There is no tech that will stop a car if people:
    1. Read the newspaper
    2. Eat a knish(kosher of course)
    3. Shave
    4. Put on makeup
    5. Etc
     
  5. DeepIn2U macrumors 603

    DeepIn2U

    Joined:
    May 30, 2002
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    #205
    Man this whole situation is messed up.

    Father looses his child ... that's horrible beyond words so I completely understand his grief (children are supposed to outlive our parents).

    Driver was a dumbass for FaceTime call (making or even accepting the call). What we don't know is how LONG was the FaceTime call before the accident? As in how long was the actual FaceTime call for?
    Was is Audio FaceTime call only?
    Was it Video FaceTime call?

    Do we know if the driver accepted the call and specifically say "Goodbye" Ï'm driving" "i have to go driving" "call me back I'm driving"etc?
    ^ in this situation if the phone is on a center console mount, say even 1 minute from accepting the call until the accident is there possibility for safety the driver did not lift 2 hands from the wheel to end the call? Was the car fully retrofit with steering wheel controls to end the facetime call? What would be teh generally accepted social acceptance if he answered not knowing it was a FaceTime call mentioned he was driving to hang up and the other person did not respect that - call remains connected ... person on other end being an ass not ending the call and further distraction.

    It's an accident. Sure preventable: but is it the driver or Apple? Do Not Disturb I've noticed for 2months doesn't fully work now; does not auto detect I'm in a vehicle moving. IF this is the case then teh fathers case DOES have merit. Apple should also block FaceTime Calls (audio/video) when driving but if failing; and the driver did NOT make the FT call then .... yeah Apple.

    Does the driver really get 20yrs for a stupid mistake that he did NOT intentionally nor in sound mind knowing would comit?! Probably did not even know a baby was in the car ahead and that sucks a child died. But 20yrs?!
     
  6. MEJHarrison macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    #206
    Once upon a time, no one cared if you drove drunk or not. Then we realized that by outlawing that behavior, we could cut down on lots of deaths.

    While cell phones being used in cars today might be legal in some places, I would argue that perhaps it's time to ask, should they be legal while driving? Given the fact that lots of research is suggesting that cell phone usage while driving is roughly equivalent to drinking and driving, I personally think it's time to have that conversation. Just like they did many years ago when people asked "should people be allowed to drive drunk?" That might have been considered a slippery slope back then too. But with hindsight being 20/20, I'm guessing most people would say they made the right choice.

    Lots of research is showing that hands-free doesn't make you any safer than hand-held. So while it's a nice step for states to take, it feels like a pointless exercise. My own state (Oregon) has such a law, though general observation tells me it's made almost no difference at all. Those laws aren't giving me any additional protection if that research is to be believed.

    That's a good list. I'm sure we could add things till it's big enough to be a book. And you're right, tech can't stop someone from plugging in a hot plate and frying an egg on their way to work. People are idiots and on some days it almost feels like a competition to out-stupid their peers. But why should that prevent us from using tech where we can to eliminate whatever risk we can? Driving is an inherently unsafe activity to begin with. But that shouldn't stop us from trying to make it better.
     
  7. I7guy macrumors P6

    I7guy

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2013
    Location:
    Gotta be in it to win it
    #207
    I'm not for introducing tech that would ban lawful activities, it's called a nanny. So if a passenger wanted to use a cell phone, the passenger would be able to use a cell phone.

    Want to ban hands free, then make it illegal.

    In the meantime education is the best way to get to drivers.
     
  8. MEJHarrison macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    #208
    If it's technically feasible to disable just the driver's phone, I'd support that 100%. Otherwise, too bad. If the kid can't play Pokemon Go, he can't play it. If mom can't chat with her friend, too bad. Better to have bored passengers than dead passengers. I never played on a cell phone in the car as a child and I've come out reasonably well-adjusted. We need to stop thinking of it as a "right". It's a luxury and nothing more. And when your luxury endangers my life, we have a problem.

    That's kind of been my point. I think it's time to make it illegal. I just take it one step further in saying I'm fine with tech that would remove the choice from the driver. It's illegal in my state and that law has made virtually no difference. Since people can't seem to follow the rules, I'm all for removing the choice and forcing it on them. That sucks for passengers. But I'd rather get where I'm going then worry about bored passengers.

    Going back to the drunk driving thing, the precedent has already been set. I can't drink a beer in the car even if I'm just a passenger. I'd have no problems with cell phones falling into the same category.

    It feels like while we don't 100% agree with each other, we're not too far apart in our thinking. It also feels like neither of us is going to drag the other over that line in the sand. Thanks for the engaging conversation. And thanks for keeping it a discussion and not turning it into a battle!
     
  9. dwfaust macrumors 601

    dwfaust

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2011
    #209
    The "distracted driving" laws in most locations cover activities like these... and while "distracted driving" is against law, unfortunately, stupidity is not.
     
  10. Spizike9 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2011
    #210

    I agree with you completely. No matter what the product, people will use them either on purpose or by accident to hurt or kill people and manufactures can’t control that.
     
  11. I7guy macrumors P6

    I7guy

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2013
    Location:
    Gotta be in it to win it
    #211
    There is enough of a body of research out there, some of which has been cited, which shows hands free vs holding the phone vs talking to a passenger.

    Yes, stupid is as stupid does and I've already listed some activities that over the years, I've seen drivers doing behind the wheel.

    Cell phone usage in it's various types of incarnations, calls, texts, video, etc due to it's prevalent usage and apparently non-restraint by drivers is very dangerous. Even though with hands-free when the eyes are looking at the road, the brain is engaged in the conversation and humans do not multi-task well.

    So while saying stupid is as stupid does is absolutely true, I personally support very strict penalties for drivers breaking the law with regards to cell phone usage due to the sheer numbers of drivers estimated to use them in a manner inconsistent with safe driving.
     
  12. MEJHarrison, Dec 22, 2018
    Last edited: Dec 22, 2018

    MEJHarrison macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    #212
    I agree. Lots of humans think they're great multi-taskers. And in some sense, some people are good at juggling two or more activities. But it's not true multi-tasking. It's time-slicing (do this task, then that task, this task, that task, etc). We're just not built to focus on two things at the same time. I even went through an exercise a few years back where the teacher proved to us that humans can't truly multi-task. Like a computer, humans also have to context switch. Which is why if you have people bothering you all day, it's hard to accomplish a task that takes a lot of concentration. It's not just the time lost from the other person talking to you. You also lose a lot of time context switching (aka switching gears).

    Driving is an activity that requires a great deal of attention if you want to do it well. It might not take much time to read a single sentence in a text message, or listen to a question on your phone. But while you're reading or listening to the question, you are absolutely not focused on driving. The human brain simply can't do both things at the same time. And even when you finish, your brain still needs time to switch from that activity back to the previous activity (driving).

    For the skeptics:

    https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=95256794

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_multitasking

    https://www.scienceabc.com/humans/can-humans-actually-multitask.html
     
  13. I7guy macrumors P6

    I7guy

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2013
    Location:
    Gotta be in it to win it
    #213
    The situation on the road can go south in a second or less. That second can make the difference between life and death; to your point.
     
  14. MileHighPilot macrumors member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2018
    #214
    that is terrible since it prohibits a passenger from making an input
    absolutely not
    it is not the manufactures job to keep people from engaging in activities
    that is the job of the state legislature to enact laws
    i agree physical buttons are easy
    are we driving a car or flying a 787
    i take it you never traveled with kids who entertained themselves for hours with netflix
    this shouldnt be allowed
    whos to say the person is going to pick up some milk as you claimed
    whos to say the incoming call isnt an emergency
    whos to say the incoming call isnt the last time the 2 people will ever talk
    the easiest fix is to raise the driving age to 18 so theres no children young or not driving cars
    theres plenty of legitimate reasons to be on the phone while driving
    welcome to conducting business in the 21st century
    if someone misses a call for work the end user might go to a competing business
    this will lead to a loss of income all because you feel people shouldnt drive while talking on the phone hands free or not
    than dont drive or use the roads
    again you clearly never traveled with young kids in the car
    are you calling the appropriate law enforcement agencies and reporting these drivers
    while were at it lets prohibit first responders from using their radios while driving in the interest of a true hands free environment
    youre right there could be a phone call or text where more than 1 person's life is at risk such as a surgeon taking a call while on the road
    i volunteer with a sar agency when i have the free time and theres been instances where a group of hikers have gotten lost and were reported as missing
    that is just 1 example of a phone call or text that is more important than 1 person's life
    i agree and if the phone being disabled is dependent upon the phone being paired to the car with Bluetooth the simple workaround is to simply not pair the phone to the car
    that the father sued apple and not the driver shows the father was after money which is the point i lost respect for the father
    has anyone said how it was discovered that the driver was on a facetime call
    i agree that an audio or video facetime call should be viewed different as should a video facetime call where the driver never look at the screen
    this is important as it can change the verdict or sentence in court
    i would be surprised if he gets the 20 years
    if you have a link to a peer reviewed article by experts in the field than post it
    are you reporting drivers who use their phones while driving
    i agree this is something that shouldnt come from the auto or phone manufactures but from the state legislature
    the more i think about it the more i think there could be liability issues if a driver cant call and report an emergency
    lets outlaw music talking and eating while driving while were at it
    neither have i but welcome to the 21st century
    driving is a privilege not a right
    you cant regulate everything
    that is better than removing it from everyone but if enabling it requires the phone to be paired to the car its easy just to not pair the phone and car in the first place
    this is true and if drivers are breaking the law they should be penalized for it
    i agree which is why the manufactures of any products should not be held liable for how the end user uses the products
    this goes for all manufactures
    can you post a link to a peer reviewed article from experts in the field to back up this claim
    i know for a fact that i am a great multi-tasker because ive been doing it my whole adult life due to my job
    the ability to multi-task is a requirement for 1 of my jobs if not 2
    i dont time-slice in my job i actually multi-task
    than ban listening to music and eating from driving as well
    thats not a peer reviewed article from experts in the field so i will hold my comments until you publish such a link and preferably more than 1
     
  15. MEJHarrison macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    #215
    Hope you're not waiting on me to post something. I'm done with you. We're too radically opposed to have a reasonable conversation. Going any further with you is just a waste of my time.
     
  16. MileHighPilot macrumors member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2018
    #216
    i didnt see any posts from you which are peer reviewed articles from experts in the field
    what you have posted instead are wikipedia articles and opinion pieces neither of which carry any weight in a discussion
    i agree it is a waste of my time to continue discussing this with you as you make claims but refuse to back them up with peer reviewed articles written by experts in the field
    i will continue to answer hands free calls while driving like i have since i got my first Bluetooth many years ago since you are unable to back your claim up
     
  17. I7guy macrumors P6

    I7guy

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2013
    Location:
    Gotta be in it to win it
    #217
    https://news.illinois.edu/view/6367/204502

    Whether or not you think these opinions are valid is immaterial. There are a number of studies about distracted driving while using cell phones that the studies have some merit.

    It is legal to use hands free cell phones in vehicles in most jurisdictions, that is not the discussion point...the discussion point revolves around situational awareness and the differences between talking to a passenger and talking to a remote "partner".
     
  18. bingeciren macrumors 6502a

    bingeciren

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2011
    #218
    What about smoking while driving? I’m not familiar with the laws in many places but surely it is far more distracting than talking with hands free. Same can be said for eating. Yet we see plenty of both.
     
  19. Spizike9 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2011
    #219
    I couldn’t agree with you more I7guy. I get so angry when I see people texting while I’m driving. And yes I’ve seen people FaceTiming as weel. SMH
     
  20. inkahauts macrumors regular

    inkahauts

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2014
    #220
    If someone can’t use hands free while driving then they shouldn’t have a drivers license. The same thing if someone can’t Handel a passenger in a car while driving and keep from being distracted, they shouldn’t have a drivers license.

    I refuse to to believe we have to make everything inoperable because not everyone is irresponsible and texts with their hands while driving or can’t keep from getting distracted with a passenger in the car or in their hands free phone, etc.

    Self driving cars can’t get here fast enough.
     
  21. The-Real-Deal82 macrumors 604

    The-Real-Deal82

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2013
    Location:
    Wales, United Kingdom
    #221
    I’m not surprised Apple were absolved of any blame. In many western countries with any sense it’s illegal to be using your phone while driving. The idiot that caused the crash should be footing the bill for destroying others lives, not a company offering a service not specifically designed for the stupid.
     
  22. MileHighPilot macrumors member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2018
    #222

    finally a link that i have asked for since the beginning
    does the study include the education and abilities of the drivers in the study
    what about participants ability to multitask prior to getting in the simulators
    all of this is relevant and can alter a so-called study to fit a narrative the so-called researcher has
    as i said before people who don't have enough situational awareness to talk on the phone and drive shouldnt drive period
    i agree how about we ban talking while driving while were at it
    i agree people who interact with their phone using their hands while driving make me angry
    facetiming at the wheel really
    i agree people who don't have enough situational awareness to talk on the phone and drive shouldnt drive period
    i also agree
    we cant regulate everything and people need to be accountable for all their actions
    i have mixed feelings about self driving cars since i love driving and i just got my wife & i new vehicles
    thats how i feel about all manufactures for all products
    the end user and not the manufacture or distributor should be liable for the use of the product
    the next time my wife or daughters get a speeding ticket i will sue ford since they were driving a ford vehicle
     
  23. I7guy macrumors P6

    I7guy

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2013
    Location:
    Gotta be in it to win it
    #223
    Yes. What these studies showed is that people who thought they were good at multi-tasking crashed the car when cell phone usage in its various forms was given priority.

    Thanks for highlighting that point.
     
  24. MileHighPilot macrumors member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2018
    #224
    source for your claim that "that people who thought they were good at multi-tasking crashed the car"
    i see no mention of multitasking in the article and it is possible the test subjects lacked the ability to multitask let alone multitask while driving
    im sure i could get several current and former coworkers and have a completely different result since we all have the ability to multitask
    it still doesnt list any information about the drivers such as education experience or other skills that could factor into the decision
    as i said this is relevant otherwise it looks as if a researcher has conducted a flawed and biased study to fit a narrative
    among other jobs i am an adjunct professor so i see how studies are done to fit a narrative the researcher had prior to starting the so-called study
     
  25. I7guy macrumors P6

    I7guy

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2013
    Location:
    Gotta be in it to win it
    #225
    I’m not going to cite all of the studies that have evaluated cell phone usage over the years vis-a-vis driving distractions. The NHTSA and Other websites have a preponderance of information. If you believe your thinking processes are above the evidence, so be it.

    The drivers of America can only hope you are obeying the laws of the road.
     

Share This Page