It would be more public and get more attention than just suing the driver.... *like that always happens* anyway.
It had to be gain attention if MR picked it up.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Insists It's Not Responsible For Distracted Driving Accidents Involving iPhones
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It would be more public and get more attention than just suing the driver.... *like that always happens* anyway.
It had to be gain attention if MR picked it up.
The only winners in these cases are the attorneys. Either way, the attorneys of one side (or both) get paid and since the judges are attorneys too, they let the cycle continue. Thank god for our current Supreme Court!
[doublepost=1503099505][/doublepost]
Or gun manufacturers. Wait, they did!
[doublepost=1503099505][/doublepost]
Or gun manufacturers. Wait, they did!
They aren't. Just as you can't blame alcohol for drunk driving deaths or cigarettes for cancer. You don't blame the spoon for making you fat.
You have a choice.
Edit: Sue the person for their bad choices, not the manufacturer.
You have a choice.
Edit: Sue the person for their bad choices, not the manufacturer.
Probably so. But this case against Apple won't be dragged out that long. My point is the double standard. The general population finds it absurd that Apple could be liable when someone texts while driving and kill someone. However, not so much when people someone harms or kills someone with a gun.
Last edited:
Great point apple, "...it's a driver's fault if they choose to misuse an inherently safe iPhone while operating a vehicle...".
Operating a safe item while operating an unsafe item, a car makes the human at fault?! Let's play out that logic.
What if this human was to operate a safe item, unloaded gun and operate an unsafe item, bullet. Would this still make the person at fault?! Or would it be the fault of the gun/bullet?
Items have no morality period! Morality is assigned by their operators, humans.
One can use a car and an iPhone to protect life... much like one can use a bullet and a gun to protect life.
I had to point out the irony found on Apple's rhetoric and convictions.
Cheers
Operating a safe item while operating an unsafe item, a car makes the human at fault?! Let's play out that logic.
What if this human was to operate a safe item, unloaded gun and operate an unsafe item, bullet. Would this still make the person at fault?! Or would it be the fault of the gun/bullet?
Items have no morality period! Morality is assigned by their operators, humans.
One can use a car and an iPhone to protect life... much like one can use a bullet and a gun to protect life.
I had to point out the irony found on Apple's rhetoric and convictions.
Cheers
Apple appeared in Los Angeles Superior Court on Thursday to argue that it shouldn't be held liable for iPhone-related distracted driving accidents, in response to a lawsuit filed against the company earlier this year.
California resident Julio Ceja filed a class action complaint against Apple in January, accusing the company of placing profit before consumer safety by choosing not to implement a lock-out mechanism that would disable an iPhone's functionality when being used behind the wheel by an engaged driver.
Ceja said his vehicle was involved in a collision with another vehicle in which the driver was texting on an iPhone.
Apple, however, told the court that it's a driver's fault if they choose to misuse an inherently safe iPhone while operating a vehicle. Apple essentially said it cannot be blamed simply because it manufactures the device, according to court documents filed electronically and obtained by MacRumors.
Just yesterday, a U.S. district court in Texas dismissed a similar distracted driving lawsuit brought against Apple last year. In that case, Meador v. Apple, Inc., the plaintiffs accused Apple of failing to automatically disable a user's ability to operate an iPhone while driving, and of improper marketing.
However, judge Robert W. Schroeder III said the plaintiff's injuries stemmed from neglecting to safely operate her vehicle.Apple has faced similar lawsuits in the past. In response to one filed in Texas in 2015, Apple indicated the responsibility is on the driver to avoid distractions in a statement provided to The New York Times:Ceja's lawsuit mentioned a patent for a motion analyzer that would detect whether a handheld device is in motion beyond a certain speed. A scenery analyzer would then determine whether the holder of the handheld device is sitting somewhere other than the driver's seat. Otherwise, the device could be disabled.
In other embodiments, a vehicle or car key could transmit a signal that disables functionality of the handheld device while it is being operated. To a lesser degree, a vehicle could also transmit a signal that merely sends the device a notification stating that functionality should be disabled.
Apple hasn't gone as far as implementing any of those functions, but in iOS 11 it introduced Do Not Disturb While Driving.
Do Not Disturb While Driving is an optional setting that, when enabled, turns on whenever an iPhone connects to a vehicle via Bluetooth or detects rapid acceleration. While active, the feature mutes all incoming phone calls, notifications, and text messages, and the iPhone's screen stays off completely.
Phone calls are allowed, so long as an iPhone is connected to a car's Bluetooth or a hands-free accessory, allowing drivers to respond without needing to pick up their phone. If not connected to Bluetooth or a compatible accessory, calls will be blocked like text messages and notifications.
For text messages, there is an option to send your contacts a message that lets them know you're driving and will get back to them later. In an emergency, a person who is attempting to contact you via text while you're driving can break through Do Not Disturb by sending a second "urgent" message.
Do Not Disturb While Driving can also be activated manually in Settings > Do Not Disturb or in Control Center.
Article Link: Apple Insists It's Not Responsible For Distracted Driving Accidents Involving iPhones
The person that was texting and driving isn't the one suing. The person that got hit is suing.
"Stop standing in the path of my fist. You have to take some personal responsibility"
What's next, file lawsuit against La-z-boy for preventing exercise due to being too comfortable and now fat. Geez...people these days.
Lol such a law is stupid. There isn't even anything that harsh all nationwide for first or anytime offenders with even minute alcohol content over he limit restricting them to 90 days suspension and 6mths breathalyzer engine startup.
Adults should be adults and held responsible for their actions; doh I was already informed this is not happening in today's world. Lol.
[doublepost=1503110279][/doublepost]
Because it's hard to PROVE a company is at fault for neglecting to enforce a restriction when it's not law. There are 2 features and he end user failed to use hem as Apple clearly recommends. The driver that caused the injury knows the laws of impaired driving and chose to ignore it.
There are licenses for owning caring and handling a weapon both in storage in your home and in public. Don't go by those laws you get pinched, slapped or cuffed up! Same applies here! The manufacturer in those cases was not the fault until proving a known flaw in manufacturer and no recall - yet this is not the case here. Plantiff was advised by lawyer Apple has more money then the driver - who probably has none and the state would barely cough up enough to cover medical bills.
there are folks that try to blame the car companies because they drove too fast and got a speeding ticket
This is one lawsuit I have to agree fully with Apple on. If any one where to win such a suit it would open up just about anybody to a lawsuit due to a stupid driver. Consider some possibilities:
1. A car crash results from somebody rocking out to a song on the radio. The musician then gets sued for distracting the driver.
2. A driver is cracking open a can of Coke and cracks up the car, Coco-cola then gets sued for causing the wreck.
3. A woman is putting on lipstick and drives into another car, so we sue the lipstick manufacture.
I've actually seen people doing the above though no accidents resulted at the time. Frankly this just strikes me a another leftist attempt to blame anything and everything but the actual cause of the problem in the first place. It is like the stupidity of freeing the mentally ill to walk our streets and then demanding that we outlaw piano wire, steak knives or chunks of rock for the damage the mentally ill do. The need to deflect and blame everything or everyone but the person that caused the actual problem is hurting this country big time. As is these hunts for profits at the expense of others which is a big factor in these law suites. Responsibility for stupidity behind the wheel needs to rest with the driver and nobody else. If need be we need to ry and hang these drivers along side the roads, which frankly would have a bigger impact on distracted driving then any other approach we have seen lately.
[doublepost=1503111966][/doublepost]
We are headed down a dangerous road here and frankly it will lead to the collapse of the little social order we have now. After all if you aren't responsible you are basically free to engage in any mayhem that you want to engage in.
1. A car crash results from somebody rocking out to a song on the radio. The musician then gets sued for distracting the driver.
2. A driver is cracking open a can of Coke and cracks up the car, Coco-cola then gets sued for causing the wreck.
3. A woman is putting on lipstick and drives into another car, so we sue the lipstick manufacture.
I've actually seen people doing the above though no accidents resulted at the time. Frankly this just strikes me a another leftist attempt to blame anything and everything but the actual cause of the problem in the first place. It is like the stupidity of freeing the mentally ill to walk our streets and then demanding that we outlaw piano wire, steak knives or chunks of rock for the damage the mentally ill do. The need to deflect and blame everything or everyone but the person that caused the actual problem is hurting this country big time. As is these hunts for profits at the expense of others which is a big factor in these law suites. Responsibility for stupidity behind the wheel needs to rest with the driver and nobody else. If need be we need to ry and hang these drivers along side the roads, which frankly would have a bigger impact on distracted driving then any other approach we have seen lately.
[doublepost=1503111966][/doublepost]
I agree 100%
We are headed down a dangerous road here and frankly it will lead to the collapse of the little social order we have now. After all if you aren't responsible you are basically free to engage in any mayhem that you want to engage in.
Last edited by a moderator:
Or makeup producers for the women I've seen putting on makeup in the rear view mirror. Better, let's sue cattlemen for producing beef that is ground into hamburger used by MacDonalds so idiots can be distracted by their passengers that are eating in their cars.While we’re at it, let’s sue the inventor of newspapers
Here is the problem, when will they stop suing and what will we have left to lawfully own?
Think about it there is talk about making driverless cars, that is cars under the control of a computer, mandatory because it MIGHT reduce accidents. If that happens then whom is responsible for any accidents that do happen? The government because the facility is mandatory, the car builder because something unforeseen happened or the driver who said screw it I'm not paying attention and will let the car drive me to wherever? Frankly it is more leek a scheme to shift blame away from the individual responsible to a corporation that has tons of lawyers to defend themselves with.
The net result is that the car you own today could become illegal in the future simply due to legal moves to transfer responsibility off the individual. We have already seen many items made illegal for the stupidest of reasons. For example lawn darts made illegal because a couple of people out of serval million owners punched holes in their heads.
At world it is absolutely hilarious what the safety department goes through to try to keep people from cutting themselves with box openers. You end up with a knife that is almost useless unless you break the safety enhancement. Rather there should be a modicum of personal accountability and frankly a little training in how to handle a knife. Speaking of which don't our youths take part in the Boy Scouts, 4H or other youth programs to learn how to properly handle simple tools anymore. Makes you wonder what percentage of students graduating from high school have spent any time in the wilderness or camped over night and survived. Maybe more so you have to wonder how many students are in the practice of carrying a pocket knife or any tools for that matter on a daily basis. God forbid they carry the into a school as we can't have people developing good habits while maturing in school.
Or like suing a firearm manufacturer for a crime committed using their gun. It's been tried, but not been very successful.
What people seem to totally miss in this lawsuit, being all occupied with making up wise-ass comments and irrelevant comparisons, is that the plaintiff might actually have a point.
Apple is implementing a DND-mode for cars that "turns on whenever an iPhone connects to a vehicle via Bluetooth or detects rapid acceleration" in iOS11. Well then, it's not like they couldn't have done that many years ago, right? Bluetooth and motion detectors was in the first iPhone 10 years ago.
So the lawsuit states that Apple has been in their power to implement this years ago but has neglected to do so because it would hurt their sales. So, Apple has been putting money ahead of public safety.
It has nothing in common with suing McDonalds when people eat and drive and have a crash. There's absolutely nothing McD could've done to their burger to stop people from eating it while driving. Or make up manufacturers or any other irrelevant comparison that has been done in this thread.
On another note, I fail to see why it would be impossible to actually do more than one thing, in a car. Our world is filled with people doing some very heavy multitasking without causing mass mayhem (like pilots), but when it comes to motorists, well then, it seems most people are unable to even change radio stations with the steering wheel controls without plowing into innocent bystanders.
Perhaps it should be a little more difficult to get a drivers license? It's not like would-be-pilots do a trip around the block and then run off to fly Air Force One...
Apple is implementing a DND-mode for cars that "turns on whenever an iPhone connects to a vehicle via Bluetooth or detects rapid acceleration" in iOS11. Well then, it's not like they couldn't have done that many years ago, right? Bluetooth and motion detectors was in the first iPhone 10 years ago.
So the lawsuit states that Apple has been in their power to implement this years ago but has neglected to do so because it would hurt their sales. So, Apple has been putting money ahead of public safety.
It has nothing in common with suing McDonalds when people eat and drive and have a crash. There's absolutely nothing McD could've done to their burger to stop people from eating it while driving. Or make up manufacturers or any other irrelevant comparison that has been done in this thread.
On another note, I fail to see why it would be impossible to actually do more than one thing, in a car. Our world is filled with people doing some very heavy multitasking without causing mass mayhem (like pilots), but when it comes to motorists, well then, it seems most people are unable to even change radio stations with the steering wheel controls without plowing into innocent bystanders.
Perhaps it should be a little more difficult to get a drivers license? It's not like would-be-pilots do a trip around the block and then run off to fly Air Force One...
In other news a law suit where Apple is being blamed for injuries by disallowing their iPhones to be used while driving has been filed in Texas.
Once again, there's a difference between something Apple could do and something Apple should do.
Is it possible to create software that disables your phone if it detects you are moving at a fast speed? Sure. I get that when I tried to play Pokemon Go in a moving taxi. And it was irritating because I wasn't the driver, but the app assumed I was just because I was moving at a fast pace.
Should Apple have done it? I struggle to see how it can be implemented effectively. Make it an option which the driver must manually enable and most likely won't bother, which brings us back to square one. Make it something like the Pokemon Go example above and you screw with every passenger in a fast-moving vehicle, regardless of whether they are driving or not.
Apple didn't value money over public safety. It just wasn't an issue which should have been up to them to resolve.
This is not an Apple question. It is a general safety question that involves all distractions. For example radios have been in cars for decades. If you are tuning a new station on the radio, or playing with the buttons, even with the controls of the windshield wipers, you could get distracted and cause an accident. It is a legal question and policy that the country and the laws have to deal with. If you don't let drivers use the buttons to activate the wipers and there is an accident due to poor windshield vision due to grime on the glass, you have conflicting issues. If someone gets a call saying 'relax, we found the kid he was hiding in his closet', you stop a frantic drive to the home to find him.
Apple appeared in Los Angeles Superior Court on Thursday to argue that it shouldn't be held liable for iPhone-related distracted driving accidents, in response to a lawsuit filed against the company earlier this year.
California resident Julio Ceja filed a class action complaint against Apple in January, accusing the company of placing profit before consumer safety by choosing not to implement a lock-out mechanism that would disable an iPhone's functionality when being used behind the wheel by an engaged driver.
Ceja said his vehicle was involved in a collision with another vehicle in which the driver was texting on an iPhone.
Apple, however, told the court that it's a driver's fault if they choose to misuse an inherently safe iPhone while operating a vehicle. Apple essentially said it cannot be blamed simply because it manufactures the device, according to court documents filed electronically and obtained by MacRumors.
Just yesterday, a U.S. district court in Texas dismissed a similar distracted driving lawsuit brought against Apple last year. In that case, Meador v. Apple, Inc., the plaintiffs accused Apple of failing to automatically disable a user's ability to operate an iPhone while driving, and of improper marketing.
However, judge Robert W. Schroeder III said the plaintiff's injuries stemmed from neglecting to safely operate her vehicle.Apple has faced similar lawsuits in the past. In response to one filed in Texas in 2015, Apple indicated the responsibility is on the driver to avoid distractions in a statement provided to The New York Times:Ceja's lawsuit mentioned a patent for a motion analyzer that would detect whether a handheld device is in motion beyond a certain speed. A scenery analyzer would then determine whether the holder of the handheld device is sitting somewhere other than the driver's seat. Otherwise, the device could be disabled.
In other embodiments, a vehicle or car key could transmit a signal that disables functionality of the handheld device while it is being operated. To a lesser degree, a vehicle could also transmit a signal that merely sends the device a notification stating that functionality should be disabled.
Apple hasn't gone as far as implementing any of those functions, but in iOS 11 it introduced Do Not Disturb While Driving.
Do Not Disturb While Driving is an optional setting that, when enabled, turns on whenever an iPhone connects to a vehicle via Bluetooth or detects rapid acceleration. While active, the feature mutes all incoming phone calls, notifications, and text messages, and the iPhone's screen stays off completely.
Phone calls are allowed, so long as an iPhone is connected to a car's Bluetooth or a hands-free accessory, allowing drivers to respond without needing to pick up their phone. If not connected to Bluetooth or a compatible accessory, calls will be blocked like text messages and notifications.
For text messages, there is an option to send your contacts a message that lets them know you're driving and will get back to them later. In an emergency, a person who is attempting to contact you via text while you're driving can break through Do Not Disturb by sending a second "urgent" message.
Do Not Disturb While Driving can also be activated manually in Settings > Do Not Disturb or in Control Center.
Article Link: Apple Insists It's Not Responsible For Distracted Driving Accidents Involving iPhones
So it is complicated. But it is not an Apple product issue, it is an industry issue. Yes cellphones could have hands free operation mode to do everything by voice for example, 'call Dave' and 'record a reminder' and so on. And many other features that prevent the driver from looking at the phone. Is being distracted like in a conversation with a fellow passenger to be regulated? There is a lot here.
Let me distract you with some facts:
https://safestart.com/news/top-10-causes-distracted-driving-and-what-they-all-have-common
Cell phone use makes up "only" 12% of all distracted driving related accidents. Albeit, it's #2 on the list.
By far the biggest cause is being absent minded, with a whopping %62 .
While this lawsuit is ridiculous, some people here calling for Apple to have added D-N-D functionalities years ago are blind to the facts and part of the problem blaming technology for their lack of personal responsibility.
It's a global societal problem, not just in the US, except the US is all about how much money someone can get from someone else. There are more cars on the road than ever and driving standards have slipped. From my own personal experience in driving for 30+ years, I've been rear-ended and side-swiped 3 times in the last 4 years while driving considerable less nowadays than in decades past. In my province alone, insurance rates are up 30% YoY because of increased accidents, mostly due to distracted, ie. "mind-less" driving.
STOP looking for faults elsewhere but yourself. Focus on driving when you are behind the wheel!
https://safestart.com/news/top-10-causes-distracted-driving-and-what-they-all-have-common
Cell phone use makes up "only" 12% of all distracted driving related accidents. Albeit, it's #2 on the list.
By far the biggest cause is being absent minded, with a whopping %62 .
While this lawsuit is ridiculous, some people here calling for Apple to have added D-N-D functionalities years ago are blind to the facts and part of the problem blaming technology for their lack of personal responsibility.
It's a global societal problem, not just in the US, except the US is all about how much money someone can get from someone else. There are more cars on the road than ever and driving standards have slipped. From my own personal experience in driving for 30+ years, I've been rear-ended and side-swiped 3 times in the last 4 years while driving considerable less nowadays than in decades past. In my province alone, insurance rates are up 30% YoY because of increased accidents, mostly due to distracted, ie. "mind-less" driving.
STOP looking for faults elsewhere but yourself. Focus on driving when you are behind the wheel!