Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Does the US not have a law against using your phone whilst driving like we do in the UK or something? Is that seriously it?

If that is the case... Jeez... just add it to the list of laws you should have that the rest of the world already goes by, I guess?

No, the US does NOT have laws against use of hand-held devices while driving a vehicle. There are some states that have and loosely enforce them against texting while driving. USA is still screwed-up in this regard compared to European nations and most other nations of the world!

This is because it is the job of the politicians to draft such laws; we know where their heads are at now. They still don't enforce camera captured moving violations - apparently their privacy is invaded!

Some still think that seat belts are traps and don't apply to rear-seat passengers!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gorms
Turn off your phone or use Carplay. I hope more states make it illegal to hold your phone while driving


so when i go out i should remember to stick my phone in DND mode? That seems to much work.
How about just ignoring the phone ... would be better..


Technology takes over.... Its a feature, so we'll use it as a stop-gap for something we should have always known anyway. I think road rules came along before DND therefore, that takes priority, but we act like the reverse..

technology trumps safety.. Gotta get out of that habbit.. *slaps*
 
Really simple...

If you are driving and caught holding your phone to your face = instant ban
If you are driving and caught Texting = instant ban
If you are driving and tapping in Directions to GPS = instant Ban ( stop and enter them )

Basically stop to use your phone or Use Siri or whatever if you REALLY REALLY have to.
 
This is almost like suing Jack Daniels for a drunk driver
I agree that the driver is responsible, but technically it is not the same.
Jack Daniels cannot stop a drunk driver, while technically Apple could implement a solution that could stop the driver using the phone.
 
I agree that the driver is responsible, but technically it is not the same.
Jack Daniels cannot stop a drunk driver, while technically Apple could implement a solution that could stop the driver using the phone.


hence why I said it is almost in my post and clarified why in a post a few posts down from my jack daniels comment... Bottom line is the distracted driver should be the one being sued, not Apple. We don't sue drug companies cause Billy Bob was on pain pills and xanax and caused a wreck.


It's not just "almost like", it is.

well to be just like, he would have to sue the automobile industry for not having a kill switch if alcohol is detected on driver lol
 
Last edited:
I nope the person suing is also suing the car makers for making the cars (his and the other parties) as if they had'nt made them he wouldn't have been in the accident. At the same time he should sue his parents for conceiving him.
 
How is this in even a court case? Does the US not have a law against using your phone whilst driving like we do in the UK or something? Is that seriously it?

many states have laws about not holding it in your hand, but handsfree is not an issue. some folks are trying to claim its still too much use.

i say make a law that all cars must be build as faraday cages so you get zero signal, making your phone not work. then we can blame the bored kids in the back seat for the accidents cause clearly they were distracting their parents with all their whining
 
well to be just like, he would have to sue the automobile industry for not having a kill switch if alcohol is detected on driver lol
Really simple...

If you are driving and caught holding your phone to your face = instant ban
If you are driving and caught Texting = instant ban
If you are driving and tapping in Directions to GPS = instant Ban ( stop and enter them )

Basically stop to use your phone or Use Siri or whatever if you REALLY REALLY have to.

In the UK, there is no instant ban for either (fines at most), but the rule is not just to stop, but parking your car. That is, turning the engine off. Not allowed to make a call while on a red traffic light, for example, or stopping on the motorway in a traffic jam.
 
Buy an LG, you won’t be distracted, because the phone will be bootlooping while you drive!

This is simply ridiculous!

It’s never one person’s blame, right?

If they bought a Samsung Note they could sue because the flames distracted them while driving.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zirel
Julio Ceja is a moron.

Since Julio Ceja didn't text while driving, but had the bad luck to get into the way of an idiot who was using their phone while driving, and that was clearly expressed in the article, which you apparently totally failed to either read or understand, please reconsider who is the moron here.
Some Humans never cease to amaze with their IQ, or complete lack thereof!
Ever human being has an IQ.
[doublepost=1503155461][/doublepost]
I wouldn't be too sure about the frivolous part. A woman did successfully sue McDonalds because her coffee was too hot and it caused her injury.

If iPhones stopped your brakes and steering wheel from working if used when driving, and that was caused intentionally by Apple, and Apple had settled 700 cases before this crashed your car, then you would be completely right to sue Apple, and everyone would applaud you for winning. Something like that happened in the McDonalds case. Don't repeat nonsense. Inform yourself. (PS. The woman sued to get the cost of her medical treatment covered, about $25,000. The jury upped the amount to over a million. She asked for that. The amount then was reduced to $400,000 IIRC. If any women read the details of the case, most would prefer to not have had the injuries to having $400,000).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Since Julio Ceja didn't text while driving, but had the bad luck to get into the way of an idiot who was using their phone while driving, and that was clearly expressed in the article, which you apparently totally failed to either read or understand, please reconsider who is the moron here.

Clearly you didn't read the article or don't understand my point. Mr Ceja has brought forward a class action lawsuit demanding that Apple add unnecessary features to our iPhones and because they didn't are liable for his loss. Its against the law to text and drive in most states, the party that rear ended him is at fault not Apple...where does it stop? These needless class action suits only do one thing, they increase the cost of our phones. Julio Ceja is a moron and I'm going to assume by your comments that you have joined into these frivilous class action law suits...please reconsider who is the other moron here.
 
Playing devils advocate here, I hope everyone that is so defensive of Apple's responsibility in this matter are just as defensive of the Smith & Wesson's, Ruger's, Remington's, etc.
 
Playing devils advocate here, I hope everyone that is so defensive of Apple's responsibility in this matter are just as defensive of the Smith & Wesson's, Ruger's, Remington's, etc.
Not to mention the company’s that manufacture alcoholic and gambling products.
 
All because of texting. Time they should ban texting and go for old school way...phone calls. Even then...people shouldn't be talking on the phone unless bluetooth is implemented in your car.
 
I think the new features are great

I wish they would allow Do Not Disturb features to be timed (certain days ) or location based as well
 
Anyone who files a lawsuit like this is essentially admitting they have no awareness of nor control over their own actions as it relates to the safety of other citizens. They should immediately be locked away in a padded room for the rest of their life to ensure they don't continue to be a danger to others.

This is no different than people wanting to hold gun manufacturers liable for the illegal use of weapons. An object is generally not inherently unsafe, it is its misuse by a person that results in injury and that person needs to be held responsible.

While I agree with your overall point, it is fair to note the the story initially refers to a suit brought not by the distracted driver, but by the victim. So it is less a repudiation of personal responsibility than the classic "deep pockets" litigation.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.