Several times and I have friends living in all corners of the US from my work in the music business and I've had my fair share of stupidity there but this is bad, like as bad as it gets, bad.
Last edited:
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 Sued for Choosing Not to 'Lock-Out' iPhones Behind the Wheel to Prevent Texting and Driving
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Several times and I have friends living in all corners of the US from my work in the music business and I've had my fair share of stupidity there but this is bad, like as bad as it gets, bad.
I'm not ignoring them.
If Apple can't make a safe product, those passengers should also be punished.
Eating and driving is nothing. Have you ever tried driving with children in the car?
Literally the most ridiculous thing I have heard. I'm guessing planes and boats are also included in this total device ban?
I think you have this backwards? What you're describing seems to be a very "liberal" take. Not that I care one way or the other.
....this is the kind of crap Apple has to waste money putting up a defense for......hopefully the suit is thrown out as frivolous and Apple can recoup their defense costs from the plaintiff and his attorneys
California resident Julio Ceja is seeking a class action lawsuit against Apple, 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 demands that Apple halt the sale of all iPhones in California until a lock-out mechanism is implemented. He also demands that Apple release a software update that adds a lock-out mechanism to all iPhones already in the hands of consumers. He is not seeking further damages beyond legal fees and costs.
The complaint, filed with the Los Angeles Superior Court on Tuesday, asserts that Apple's willful decision not to implement a lock-out mechanism on iPhones, chiefly to prevent texting and driving, constitutes "unfair business acts and practices" under California's Unfair Competition Law. A jury trial has been demanded.
Ceja asserts that Apple's "enormous market share" means that it is the "largest contributor" to texting and driving, while noting it is "downright shocking" that smartphone companies like Apple "do nothing to help shield the public at large from the dangers associated with the use of their phones."
"If texting and driving is a vessel of trouble, Apple is the captain of the ship," the complaint alleges.
The complaint claims that Apple recognized the dangers of texting and driving, and the important role it should play in stopping it, in its lock-out mechanism patent filed in 2008 and published in 2014.
The patent notes that "texting while driving has become a major concern of parents, law enforcement, and the general public," and further claims that "texting while driving has become so widespread it is doubtful that law enforcement will have any significant effect on stopping the practice."
The patent describes one method where a motion analyzer would detect whether a handheld device is in motion beyond a certain speed. A scenery analyzer would be able to determine whether the holder of the handheld device is located within a safe operating area of a vehicle. 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.
In November, the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration recommended smartphone makers develop a "Driver Mode", a simplified interface that would prevent access to non-driving-related tasks such as text messaging, social media, and viewing images and video unrelated to driving.
The complaint comes less than one month after a Texas family sued Apple for failing to enable said lock-out mechanisms to prevent distracted driving. On Christmas Eve in 2014, the family's vehicle was struck by a distracted driver who admitted to using FaceTime while driving. The accident caused one fatality.
Apple has faced other similar lawsuits in the past. In response to a Texas lawsuit filed in 2015, Apple indicated the responsibility is on the driver to avoid distractions in a statement provided to The New York Times:Ceja himself was rear ended by a driver who was texting behind the wheel. Whether this latest complaint has merit will be up to the court to decide. Apple has yet to publicly comment on the matter.
Article Link: Apple Sued for Choosing Not to 'Lock-Out' iPhones Behind the Wheel to Prevent Texting and Driving
You're missing the main points. If you're a doctor on call 24/7 and are out to grab a bite to eat, it's okay to be blocked from answering the call that might save a little boy/girls life? What exactly do you consider to be safe enough to protect people from themselves?
So we remove the phone out of the equation. You'll still have speeding, drunk drivers, people racing, hell old people who drive 30 on the highway...
This guy is insane; why not also sue LG, Samsung, Sony, etc and why not the make up companies, the newspapers, food companies....anything can distract you from driving only if you allow it. This lawsuit should be thrown out. kid just wants money.
What did people do before driving was invented? There is no relevance. Texting is here, it's convenient, it's an effective way to communicate in real time to tell someone you're early, you're late, you're in trouble, or anything else.
My county recently did make eating while driving illegal as it is consider distracted driving. It is NEVER enforced but can be used to punish a driver who causes an accident because they were eating.
Did you know that LTE already has different bandwidth for people in motion, due to RF interference effects?
Might as well make this an actual public policy to disable communications while in motion.
Let's take it one step further and apply this same principle to the fast food industry. Imagine if the law allowed people to sue McDonalds, Wendy's, Jack-in-the-Box, etc., when someone who eats that crap is either diagnosed with heart disease or dies from a heart attack. Don't laugh, that could be coming.
If it were up to California we'd all be in containment bubbles so our carbon won't leak out. Free speech, guns, probably even meat would be barred.
Apple shouldn't choose to lock out drivers in a moving car. It's up to the voters to decide (if they want the freedom to facebork versus the hazard of being killed by a texting driver).
Apple should create and allow drivers to enable such a lock-out mode (detect using the front-camera, accelerometer, gyros, magnetometer, and gps, etc.). Each state could then mandate that drivers enable and keep this mode turned on (except in emergencies), and have whether they turned on this mode logged. Then make these logs subpoena-able in any court case, and publically hang drivers who are found to have had an accident while playing with their iPhone.
Apple should create and allow drivers to enable such a lock-out mode (detect using the front-camera, accelerometer, gyros, magnetometer, and gps, etc.). Each state could then mandate that drivers enable and keep this mode turned on (except in emergencies), and have whether they turned on this mode logged. Then make these logs subpoena-able in any court case, and publically hang drivers who are found to have had an accident while playing with their iPhone.
Cool, so if I am driving and my GF or someone in my family gets into a fatal accident, I wouldn't know. Until I stop driving over an hour later? Thanks..
[doublepost=1484762971][/doublepost]
If it were up to California we'd all be in containment bubbles so our carbon won't leak out. Free speech, guns, probably even meat would be barred.
Hey hey hey. Not all of California is like that. I may not be conservative but some things are a little excessive. But without the GDP of California, the rest of the country would have bigger problems.
Of course they do, I forgot that.
Sorry, when I said 80mph, that was for UK roads where the absolute maximum is 70mph.
As for "faster you pass, the safer," that's nonsense. There's no reason or excuse for breaking the limit of a road. If you need to break the limit to pass, you need to wait for a safer stretch of road.
Just imagine if human beings could be controlled through software updates. These people would demand all kinds of sensible controls on your behavior.
This feature probably hasn't been introduced because Apple hasn't been able to get it to work reliably. I imagine it's incredibly difficult for an iPhone to know whether it is being held in the driver's seat vs. the passenger's seat. Are we going to lock out everyone in a moving vehicle?
If we're going to talk about hypotheticals, what about this: Your teenage daughter is being followed after she gets off of work in the evening. It's dark, they're tailgating her—possibly trying to run her off the road so they can rape her. Should her phone be disabled? It's not enough to call the police. Hopefully something like this would allow her to call out to a list of people such as parents.
I also want to know this: The lawsuit makes it sound like everyone should be automatically restricted. Is this going to be a parental control that can be turned off or forced on everyone? I have a cell mount in my car that I use to switch music tracks over bluetooth. It's not any different than using my stereo. Would I be locked out of using that?
Furthermore, if Apple is allowed to be sued—then shouldn't any company that poses a distraction? Should auto makers be forced to lock out stereo controls while driving, otherwise they open themselves up to lawsuit if someone was fiddling with the stereo and not keeping their eyes on the road? What about Taco bell for selling you that burrito that fell apart and poured molten cheese and sauce down your face, causing you to cross the median and kill that family of five. Obviously Taco Bell is being negligent for having drive-thrus and would also be open to lawsuit. What about makeup companies? That lady driving down the highway putting on eye shadow that rolled her SUV and took out that guy on his motorcycle in the process. Or that guy who was running late to work, so he decided to shave in the car. Is Gillette liable?
All of these sorts of lawsuits and other nonsensical crap are going to lead to manual driving becoming illegal once autonomous vehicles are standard. But then who is at fault for a crash? Tesla? Apple? Google? Ford? Would you need insurance or would it be covered by a warranty? Things are going to get really complicated in the coming years.
As for this lawsuit, I can see this happening if we're forced to be locked out of our phones: People will dangerously pull off the side of the road constantly to check texts. I'd argue that's even more risky! Tons of cars on the shoulders, people not moving at stop lights while they furiously try to finish messages. Traffic would grind to a halt at the worst times of the day (even more than they do now), and during the best times of the day things would simply be really dangerous from people swerving around like madmen. Yeah, I see this going really well! And the people who really want to get around it would just jailbreak—the people who would be the worst offenders. So everyone gets punished except those committing the crimes, per the usual for our system. This is almost like the government wanting a backdoor into everything and to remove encryption—now only the bad guys will have encryption and everyone else will suffer.
If we're going to talk about hypotheticals, what about this: Your teenage daughter is being followed after she gets off of work in the evening. It's dark, they're tailgating her—possibly trying to run her off the road so they can rape her. Should her phone be disabled? It's not enough to call the police. Hopefully something like this would allow her to call out to a list of people such as parents.
I also want to know this: The lawsuit makes it sound like everyone should be automatically restricted. Is this going to be a parental control that can be turned off or forced on everyone? I have a cell mount in my car that I use to switch music tracks over bluetooth. It's not any different than using my stereo. Would I be locked out of using that?
Furthermore, if Apple is allowed to be sued—then shouldn't any company that poses a distraction? Should auto makers be forced to lock out stereo controls while driving, otherwise they open themselves up to lawsuit if someone was fiddling with the stereo and not keeping their eyes on the road? What about Taco bell for selling you that burrito that fell apart and poured molten cheese and sauce down your face, causing you to cross the median and kill that family of five. Obviously Taco Bell is being negligent for having drive-thrus and would also be open to lawsuit. What about makeup companies? That lady driving down the highway putting on eye shadow that rolled her SUV and took out that guy on his motorcycle in the process. Or that guy who was running late to work, so he decided to shave in the car. Is Gillette liable?
All of these sorts of lawsuits and other nonsensical crap are going to lead to manual driving becoming illegal once autonomous vehicles are standard. But then who is at fault for a crash? Tesla? Apple? Google? Ford? Would you need insurance or would it be covered by a warranty? Things are going to get really complicated in the coming years.
As for this lawsuit, I can see this happening if we're forced to be locked out of our phones: People will dangerously pull off the side of the road constantly to check texts. I'd argue that's even more risky! Tons of cars on the shoulders, people not moving at stop lights while they furiously try to finish messages. Traffic would grind to a halt at the worst times of the day (even more than they do now), and during the best times of the day things would simply be really dangerous from people swerving around like madmen. Yeah, I see this going really well! And the people who really want to get around it would just jailbreak—the people who would be the worst offenders. So everyone gets punished except those committing the crimes, per the usual for our system. This is almost like the government wanting a backdoor into everything and to remove encryption—now only the bad guys will have encryption and everyone else will suffer.
Actually, drivers education does teach to pass as fast as possible. Now that doesn't mean bury your foot into the accelerator, but to go 5-10mph above the speed limit to get back on your side faster, that is definitely the smarter thing to do. There are roads on the way to Las Vegas from Los Angeles that are one lane highways with a speed limit of 70mph. Passing requires 80-85mph to do it quickly and safely.
Last edited: