Technically. Not the whole million. Usually lawyer takes 30%. But still good money back on $1 purchase.
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
This is the kind of stuff I like to read when I want to get distracted from the political **** going down over here.
A great reminder that yes indeed, politics-wise I'm well off!
It may not be legal where you are, but if you apply common sense you'll see how it's a broken concept to insist on bicycles having to drive on the road instead of the pavement.
Quick: which is worse? A collision of a pedestrian and a bicycle or a bicycle and a car or truck?
Exactly.
Glassed Silver:ios
A great reminder that yes indeed, politics-wise I'm well off!
Avoid driving on the road if possible.
It may not be legal where you are, but if you apply common sense you'll see how it's a broken concept to insist on bicycles having to drive on the road instead of the pavement.
Quick: which is worse? A collision of a pedestrian and a bicycle or a bicycle and a car or truck?
Exactly.
Glassed Silver:ios
Where did you find that claim? It contradicts virtually everything that has ever been reported on that case. Also from the same era (since you capitalized million dollars)
Not Americans, just Californians. Don't judge us all based on those infants.
This is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. I don't drive often but when I do, and I absolutely need to text someone back, I'll have my wife text for me. Done. Simple solution for us. If I'm alone, I'll wait 'til I arrive at my destination.
On that note, what if my wife wants to text while she sits safely in the passenger seat while I drive. Why should the fact that she is also traveling at 65-70mph keep her from texting if she's not actually the one managing the vehicle? Not all Californians are stupid and irresponsible. But to turn this feature on all the time...stupid.
I would consider this feature as an option for a device controlled with Parental restrictions for someone's child but to put it on all phones all the time, that's just ridiculous.
Morons... I don't know if someone said this already, but good luck with a long car trip with kids without videos on their phones to keep them entertained.
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
So what is supposed happen if you're riding in an Uber, Lyft, Bus, Train, any public transportation? Fool. Folks need to take responsibility for their own actions. Quit trying to legislate common sense!
---RASTER
If you needed to call 911 you would probably be stopped at which point your phone would be active again. Unless you are being road raged and trying to escape a gang of gun totting meth heads that didnt like you.
This is a stupid suggestion to sue Apple. Just as many Android dicks are using their phones, illegally, while driving.
All telcos should cut off data/calls over a certain speed. If you wanted to stop this. Downside, passengers lose out.
Having seen more and more people "driving" and using their phones and swerving into other lanes, I'm almost ready to say cut phones off when moving regardless of who else it affects. Ask the numerous people who have lost family from reckless drivers who were texting and killed people. What would they think? Phone addicts cannot be trusted to voluntarily put their phones down. If you want to check your phone, pull over and park. Simple. But it wont happen. I counted cars going past me the other day on the way the shops. Suburban road. 1 in 4 using their phones. It's out of control.
All telcos should cut off data/calls over a certain speed. If you wanted to stop this. Downside, passengers lose out.
Having seen more and more people "driving" and using their phones and swerving into other lanes, I'm almost ready to say cut phones off when moving regardless of who else it affects. Ask the numerous people who have lost family from reckless drivers who were texting and killed people. What would they think? Phone addicts cannot be trusted to voluntarily put their phones down. If you want to check your phone, pull over and park. Simple. But it wont happen. I counted cars going past me the other day on the way the shops. Suburban road. 1 in 4 using their phones. It's out of control.
Check out how California votes, and you'll understand the mentality of wanting to control and baby everyone else because no one else is competent to do so.
Texting while driving should carry an automatic prison sentance everywhere as it's extremely dangerous.
Not exactly sure what you're saying here. Do you expect people so stop texting and punish themselves voluntarily?
I agree there should be more responsibility - such as a NEW LAW that treats any phone operation while driving like a DUI. 1 year suspension and heavy fines. Without teeth people will still text and kill people because of it.
There are many things to object to here, but that's not one of them. The manufacturer would just design the disabling mechanism to allow calls to 911!
This may be the solution. At the minimum would be accident avoidance. You can still drive the car, but the tech is so good that a computer will take control if it detects an imminent collision, red light, or even detects that your device is being held.
I am getting the feeling that majority adoption of self driving cars is far, far out. Like 25 years.
Most of the world hasn't cottoned on to this yet. In recent years I've worked in west Africa, India and various places in Europe and often have to be driven. I've lost count of the number of times I have to tell the driver to put his mobile down and it often leads to angry exchanges as they don't think they are doing anything wrong. I've recently been working in Malta and it seems that texting/phoning while driving is considered perfectly normal. On the other hand, employers are equally negligent as at the very least they should be providing vehicles with hands-free bluetooth.
A few foreign truck drivers have found that, in the UK at least, killing someone while driving and using a mobile will, quite rightly, put you behind bars for a good few years.
No, she sought $20k to reimburse medical expenses and lost income.
While the jury did find her to be 20% liable for placing the coffee between her legs (she wasn't the driver, though), the larger issue was that McDonald's required its coffee to be served at a temperature between 180–190 °F despite knowing that the temperature was well above what can be safely served (140 °F) and that third-degree burns could be caused in as little as two to seven seconds. Served at a safe temperature, Stella Liebeck likely would have been able to remove the soaked sweatpants prior in time to limit her burns.
The coffee's placement contributed to the incident, but it was McDonald's negligence in failing to exercise due caution in how they served coffee that was the primary factor in the incident. McDonald's knew that the temperature was too high, their own market research showed that a number of their drive-thru customers intended to drink immediately (despite their argument that those customers ordered it to drink later when they arrive at their destination), and over 700 previous reports of burns caused by their coffee.
The high punitive damages award is meant to force a defendant to change their behavior. A smaller number likely wouldn't achieve that. Anyhow, the $2.7 million in punitive damages was reduced to $480k (not including compensatory damages calculated at $160k of the original $200k awarded), and the parties later settled for under $600k total instead of going through the appeals process.
It has a hideously distorted reputation amongst the public, but the truth is, Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants is an excellent example of product liability done right.
Should definitely be a feature you can enable/disable - your discretion.
Easiest implementation - when your iPhone does the automatic bluetooth pairing with your car.
Multiple car household, rental vehicles or new vehicle - you get a prompt to enable/disable and remember this choice for future use.
But, the lawsuit? Sorry...nuisance...people are responsible for their own actions.
Easiest implementation - when your iPhone does the automatic bluetooth pairing with your car.
Multiple car household, rental vehicles or new vehicle - you get a prompt to enable/disable and remember this choice for future use.
But, the lawsuit? Sorry...nuisance...people are responsible for their own actions.
Off topic, but I spoke with an attorney who heard her attorney speak at a conference. What isn't widely communicated is the mountain of documents from McDonald's employees and legal staff talking about how hot the coffee was and how it would cause injury if spilled, all prior to her incident.
All that being said, it sure looks like the concept of personal responsibility has simply gone out the window in America...
Nabby
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