Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
I have seen the picture and I do not believe it. I have spilled boiling water on my hand and it did not give me anything like that. I have seen someone hit with steam and while it burned him it was not as bad. When in the USN I was on an old ship before overhaul the showers would put out straight steam sometimes. Several got burned, nothing like that. I got burned on my back. Do you really think the water was boiling when they gave it to her? Steam? Do you think non boiling coffee could cause a need for skin grafts? It was a scam. I believe she burned herself another way.
[doublepost=1484792406][/doublepost]

That too. I don't believe coffee below boiling point can cause that type of burns so I think she got it another way, but what's next? Banning sizzling fajitas? Sizzling steaks? You don't put them between your legs either.

How many other people had to have skin grafts? How many mouths, throat's etc? It would surely fry that tender area? Not buying it.

I personally know someone who had to have skin grafts after a cup of coffee spilled over them. Happened just last month.

The amount of injury caused is relative to how much heat is maintained while the liquid falls, and how much is transferred to the skin. Both of those are determined by factors such as whether the liquid is in a large or small volume, whether it disperses into a wide spread of droplets, whether it sloshes off the skin or whether it is held there by clothing etc. Pouring hot liquid between your legs while sitting is a dangerous scenario because there is nowhere for the heat to go but into the skin

Your steam anecdotes are not worth what you think. Water transfers heat about 30x faster than steam, and steam doesn't cling to your skin like an 88˚C pair of wet trousers.
 
Why "Americans?" Don't lump me in the same category as some idiot looking for his 15 minutes.
Sorry, should I have said Californians? :^) (no but really, it's a generalization, obviously there's some smart people out there like I presume you are, I just wish there were more)
[doublepost=1484814081][/doublepost]
To most Americans the State of California is the crazy uncle that you have in your family that everyone tolerates because he's blood, but most try to steer clear of outside of family reunions.

Truth be told, even most Californians would probably roll their eyes at a story like this.
lol, yes, was gonna say, in my head I see the stereotype of the woman with her cellphone out while driving with a Starbucks and her pet toy dog in the car. Maybe coked up? Certainly not caring too much about the road and pedestrians. (Note, there is a lot of this in my own city even if it's not in the US. lots of housewives and college girls (and some daft guys too) with big SUVs texting and driving. They are particularly annoying at stoplights, even though it's preferable they do it there than in motion. See my city, specifically my district, is the Los Angeles of my country.)
 
FANTASTIC!!! You are an utter fool and blind to what happens every single day on thn planets roads to not support this! Millions use their phones whilst driveing every....single.....day

And you are incapable of stopping that then perhaps draconian systems like this will stop you!

Maybe then the thousands of lives lost every year to drivers using their phones will stop.

It's a proven fact, using your phone when driving costs lives!

If you don't want things like this case, then STOP USING YOUR PHONE WHEN DRIVING!!
 
  • Like
Reactions: interstella
I want to sue Philips for selling razors that work on batteries because I can shave myself while driving to work and get distracted... o_O

But seriously, the fact that you can actually sue a company for this in the US proves that there's something really wrong with the system or the mentality of certain people. How about having a little more personal responsibility?
 
  • Like
Reactions: zaaach48
Speeds limits are definitely treated differently in the states. Most officers will not pull you over if you are going within 5 over the speed limit. Unless it's a work zone or a zero tolerance speeding zone. Hell, I've flown by an officer going 15mph over and 5 minutes later he passed me at least doing 100mph.

I have very little knowledge of traffic laws in the U.K., but according to Top Gear (avid watcher of Clarkson era Top Gear) you guys have a lot of speed cams. Is that true? We have hardly any and more are being decommissioned yearly.
We have quite a few speed cameras. We're getting more average speed cameras now where a cameras can work out your average speed along a stretch of road, sometimes over many miles. I love watching people slow down as they pass the camera and then speed up again.
 
Well then add McDonalds Wendy's , Jack-in-the-Box and all of the fast food places plus all of the supermarkets because eating while driving can be just as distracting and dangerous.
Don't bring ideas !

On the other hand why not sue the car industry. Because they don't produce cars which are distraction proof ?
 
Just going to say if Apple caves (even remotely) to the loud yelling progressive (yes, they are really great at yelling loud and getting their way but do not represent a major coalition) and locks out my phone in my personal vehicle, after using Apple products almost exclusively since the 70s and going through the ups and downs RE features, this is a true deal breaker.
[doublepost=1484816452][/doublepost]
Or it goes before the worse judge on the planet.

Filed in California. Don't be surprised.
 
Yes sure, and when I'm riding a train or bus, then I may not use my Phone anymore. How *exactly* do you know whether somebody is driving when using a device.

And ultimately. I should not be reading a Newspaper or book neither. So sue Amazon as well? Where does this stop and when do people finally understand, that we are all responsible for reasonable behavior ourselves. Not anybody else, not a company, not other people. Us.
 
Even though I am an American, I am often glad I live overseas where I do not have to experience this level of insanity. We only haver to worry about free universities, free healthcare, no homeless people unless they want to be.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zaaach48



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.

distracted-driving.jpg

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
[doublepost=1484818068][/doublepost]Try composing an e-mail and attaching a photo while driving - now that takes skill! People drive so slowly in Australia now that my mind wanders so to occupy myself I SMS, MMS, e-mail and access Police Apps.
 



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.

distracted-driving.jpg

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
[doublepost=1484818437][/doublepost]A: Never gonna win ...because it's the texter's decision/fault. it's like suing a gun manufacturer because they didn't put a lock on it, preventing firing when in front of something it could hit.

B: Why not sue car manufacturers for not implementing a signal blocker whilst the car is in motion? oh, yeah ...because of point A
 
the backstory to that was the link to McD's internal policy to make the coffee extra hot to have it take longer to cool. Tin foilers say this was to not have McD's give out as much free refills for it. this what I was told. And as much as I like tin foil...I don't have this hat.

Maybe its because I am a guy. Even mildly hot I tend to not put stuff near that area. Hell even cold. Some ass hat drives bad, quick driving correction and that stuff is all over the area. Or you know its just there...area tends to be, you know, sensitive. Hell lets make it tap water temps....same situation and it looks like someone couldn't control their bladder comments to start...now.

Imagine I buy a coffee at McDonald's and then I don't go to my car, but to an empty table. Past lots of people. And I'm a bit clumsy, stumble over my own feet, and the coffee goes all over some innocent customer sitting there. That's a reasonably common risk. I don't know how often this happens, maybe one in 10,000 coffees, maybe one in a million, but McDonald's sells an awful lot of coffee, and if spilling coffee causes third degree burns, then you get a lot of third degree burns.

What I don't like at all is your ad hominem attack - McDonald's _did_ save a lot of money because nobody could manage to drink another free coffee. It's a fact. Using the term "tin foiler" is an insult and just shows that you are very willing to use informal fallacies to further your arguments.
[doublepost=1484820338][/doublepost]
Yes sure, and when I'm riding a train or bus, then I may not use my Phone anymore. How *exactly* do you know whether somebody is driving when using a device.
The problem isn't just that you need to distinguish drivers from passengers. You need to distinguish drivers who want to make a phone call or send a text message and who will do anything to convince the phone that they are not the driver, (god what an awful long sentence) from passengers. Which then makes them even more dangerous.

Imagine the iPhone uses its camera to detect that you have a hand on a steering wheel. If you can get that to work, that's a fairly good way to distinguish passengers from drivers. Unless you are Maggie Simpson with a fake steering wheel, but she doesn't have a phone. What will happen is that drivers find out and take both hands off the steering wheel to make phone calls.
[doublepost=1484820688][/doublepost]
We have quite a few speed cameras. We're getting more average speed cameras now where a cameras can work out your average speed along a stretch of road, sometimes over many miles. I love watching people slow down as they pass the camera and then speed up again.
There are also lots of speed cameras that are not operational; where I live I'm told one in four is operational - but which ones changes. That's what happens if it is used as a security device and not as a money maker. It's the speed camera (working or not) that makes people slow down, and it's hidden and operational speed cameras that make money.

And the worst f***ing idiots are those that flash you when you are in front of them within or a reasonable bit above the speed limit, you let them pass, then they spot a camera and slow down so hard that you have to brake for the idiots. That's where average speed cameras are a godsend.
 
When did common sense get lost? Sorry, if a person is texting and driving they are to blame for all accidents. Imagine the same thing with a kitchen knife: I cut myself because I wasn't paying attention. Is the knife to blame? Nope. It's my sorry a** because I didn't focus when I needed to. The same goes for texting and driving. The fact that some people do not see the difference really frightens me.
 
They are making the same mistake as those who are suing gun manufacturers claiming their guns kill people. NO, people kill people. Likewise those who text kill people, not their phones. It's called personal responsibility.
No, people with guns kill people.

What's worse, while almost everyone would be able to figure out a way to kill an enemy without a gun if they are determined, most gun deaths are caused through accidents, through momentary madness (including suicide), through stupidity, and of course most gun murderers would have been too cowardly to kill someone if they had to get close to that person where the victim could defend themselves.
[doublepost=1484821782][/doublepost]
I think the idea is, after the seventh or eighth widely publicized execution of someone who caused a death or severe injury while driving distracted, likely a lot of those stupid people might decide that driving distracted is worth avoiding.
I think Heinlein wrote a SF book where at some point in the future, the punishment for causing injury by a car accident was an exact reproduction of the accident, with the perpetrator put in the role of the victim. Ambulance would of course be nearby, and if an ambulance reached the original accident say in 37 minutes, the ambulance crew in the reproduction would wait exactly 37 minutes until they started helping.
 
Last edited:
When did common sense get lost? Sorry, if a person is texting and driving they are to blame for all accidents. Imagine the same thing with a kitchen knife: I cut myself because I wasn't paying attention. Is the knife to blame? Nope. It's my sorry a** because I didn't focus when I needed to. The same goes for texting and driving. The fact that some people do not see the difference really frightens me.

And yet countless millions and millions use their mobile phones every single day whilst being in control of a vehicle and lives are lost due to it, despite countless laws stating not to do it. So if people are incapable of stopping as apparently they are, then electronic systems should be enforced.
Obviously ones that don't lock out passenger phones.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nzgeorge
I think people need to realise that the reason WHY Apple haven't enabled this feature is precisely BECAUSE it is not feasible to implement in a way that won't interfere with non-driver's use. As soon as the technology exists to accurately identify a driver vs. a passenger, I'm sure Apple will implement this.

Texting while driving is proven to be dangerous and is a purely selfish act, you're basically asserting that your social life is more important than other people's actual lives. I support any way to curb its's prevalence.

Having said all that, I suspect the technology to achieve this will be out-run by the technology of driverless cars, so it will become unnecessary in any case.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CarlJ
Wow, americans need to be babied like this? Just put the damn phone down and use it when you're at your destination. Not hard.
It's too scary for the liberal hipsters to not look at their Facebook likes so government has to step in and take care of them.
[doublepost=1484837724][/doublepost]Why the lawsuit now? No cellphones have this feature, ever. And Apple is not the first nor only cellphone maker.
 
The highway fatality rate has actually INCREASED because of cell phones.

The people against this idea have literally never seen Americans drive.

You see all sorts of stories of people crashing and killing multiple other people because of texting and driving.

And every time they get caught doing this, they should be charged in court, fined, ticketed, etc.
[doublepost=1484839130][/doublepost]
It's too scary for the liberal hipsters to not look at their Facebook likes so government has to step in and take care of them.
[doublepost=1484837724][/doublepost]Why the lawsuit now? No cellphones have this feature, ever. And Apple is not the first nor only cellphone maker.

Because Apple is a very wealthy company. ;)
[doublepost=1484839229][/doublepost]
And yet countless millions and millions use their mobile phones every single day whilst being in control of a vehicle and lives are lost due to it, despite countless laws stating not to do it. So if people are incapable of stopping as apparently they are, then electronic systems should be enforced.
Obviously ones that don't lock out passenger phones.

How in the world would one even implement such a thing? What about parents who have phones and give them to their kids to use while they drive? I mean, come on... this lawsuit is frivolous. I agree that people should not be careening down the road while texting and ignoring traffic, but sheesh.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CarlJ
PATENT DOES NOT EQUAL PLAUSIBLE TECHNOLOGY
Just because Apple filed a patent, was granted a patent, does not mean the technology exists, is developed, is feasible, or is plausible. It is preposterous/asinine to think Apple could be liable. Examples...

These are just some of Apple’s patents that fall into the categories mentioned above:

Apple MacBook Fuel Cell - http://www.wired.co.uk/article/apple-macbook-fuel-cell-patent

Apple iOS Devices w/ Laser Mapping - http://www.patentlyapple.com/patent...with-built-in-laser-mapping-capabilities.html

Apple Anti-Filming Device - http://m.slashdot.org/story/313027

None of these patents are even on the table.

Words cannot describe how idiotic this lawsuit is.

ETA: This is the equivalent of someone suing Apple because their MacBook does not have a fuel-cell battery... Because if it did, they would not have been hit by a vehicle on their way to the store to buy a replacement battery.
 
Last edited:
Love it. SO if the lady that had hit Julio had been on a Samsung he would have sued them instead? I pulled up the complaint and it states the driver that rear ended him was using her iPhone. Why make this about a single manufacturer? I love how it becomes convenient to look at Apple as the leader in cases like this but in other situations, site global Android numbers to put Apple #2.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CarlJ
Android Auto LOCKS out the phone.

CarPlay does not.

I can't believe in 14 pages no one has realized this or known.

You cannot use your phone when using AA and your car (technically you can get out of the lock out but its far more distracting than taking a selfie while driving so its highly unlikely anyone would bother).

CarPlay does not do that. You have full access to your phone.

That AA feature along with the other which is limiting the number of successive touches you can make to 5 are safety features.

The fact Apple doesn't do this and Google do would suggest to me that they have a very STRONG case.

yea but carplay requires the proper head unit to be installed, it is very new...IE no one uses it yet. is android auto similar? knowing the fragmentation in the android world, it probably only works with certain devices running the right OS version and the right head unit.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.