Distracted Driving Laws Yet to Catch Up With Apple Watch

[gnasher729]

I think you're missing the point. It's not that you will always die when you glance at a text message, it's just showing how little time it takes being distracted for you to die.

If you do something that has a one in thousand chance of killing you, and you do this every day, you have a life expectancy of three years. If you do something that has a one in thousand chance of killing someone else, and you do that every day, and nobody stopped you, you would be worse than most serial killers.

 

[gnasher729]

Drunk drivers may not be in the best state of mind when they chose to go behind the wheel. Distracted drivers, on the other hand, are fully aware of what they are doing. Unless you're the President, your text, post, call, food, makeup, etc can wait a few seconds or minutes

Up to some point, the problem with drunk drivers is not the ability to drive, but the ability to estimate risks. The little voice in your head that says "this is a bad idea" and stops you before you do something stupid is the first thing to go.

There are also people who claim that being distracted doesn't make you drive badly, but that there are bad drivers and good drivers, and good drivers don't allow themselves to get distracted while bad drivers do. So the person who kills while texting would have killed without texting as well. No idea if this is true or not.

 

[lk400]

Kinda crazy that I'm wearing almost the exact same thing at work today.

Image

Except the big bracelet! May I ask what that is?

 

[Piggie]

Up to some point, the problem with drunk drivers is not the ability to drive, but the ability to estimate risks. The little voice in your head that says "this is a bad idea" and stops you before you do something stupid is the first thing to go.

There are also people who claim that being distracted doesn't make you drive badly, but that there are bad drivers and good drivers, and good drivers don't allow themselves to get distracted while bad drivers do. So the person who kills while texting would have killed without texting as well. No idea if this is true or not.

I think we can assume reaction times may not be as sharp as when sober.

I also think it's a fact that a little drink has been shown to actually improve some drivers (less nervous) but of course such studies would be very much buried/hushed up.

The problem with blaming drunk drivers, is that the drunk driver will be the one to blame, generally irrespective of who's fault.
I pull out in front of you as I'm a rubbish driver and not concentrating, but hey, you are drunk, so it's your fault.

Medically I don't know how you can actually prosecute a drunk driver.
How can you punish someone for taking a decision, when their brain is under the influence of a drug and they are not thinking rationally.

No one ever wants to tackle that one either

 

[CFreymarc]

It's just a matter of time before operating anything electronic or having buttons, including the radio or climate controls, inside cars will be illegal.

When the first car radios came out, several states tried to ban them says staring music played in cars distracted the driver. Motorola (that is how they got the name) fought back hard and had these laws voided in court. Wondered these Motorola cases are used to help define the distracted driver laws.

 

[roadbloc]

It's really simple. Don't be that dick who uses his/her Apple Watch whilst driving and causes a collision. Don't do that. Pull over if you need to use it. You should be focused on your car, the road and other cars whilst driving.

 

[Lictor]

I actually think the touchscreen controls of modern cars are about the biggest setback in automotive safety in years

They're a setback in anything where you don't actively look at the screen. They're great for smartphone, because you're interacting with the screen. But they're awful at about anything else.

For instance, they're just awful on camera. When you're taking photos, you want to focus on the scene in front of you, not on the GUI of your camera.
That's why I own a prosumer DSLR. It scares people because it's full of buttons and knobs. But having a lot of these is great, it means that you mostly have a single function for each button. It means that I can rely on a wonderful thing called muscle memory to operate the camera with my eye on the viewfinder. It means that I can use it in the dark with the screen disabled (not to impair my night vision and not to bother people around me).

Indeed, touch screen are great for smartphones and tablets, because they make the interaction direct - you touch what you want to interact with. But anywhere else they're bad user experience design...

 

[NovemberWhiskey]

They should never pass this law. Can you imagine getting a ticket because a cop saw your screen turn on as you were turning your wheel? Cops are already looking for every excuse to nail you to fill their quota.

 

[Lictor]

There are also people who claim that being distracted doesn't make you drive badly, but that there are bad drivers and good drivers, and good drivers don't allow themselves to get distracted while bad drivers do.

I would guess a huge majority of people who kill others with their car pictured themselves as good drivers... Like you also have people who will claim they drive better when drunk (I have known a few)...

The truth is that all brains are wired more or less the same way. Cars have existed for a mere century, evolution hasn't had the time to rewire our brains to adjust to cars. Evolution has not had the time to eliminate bad drivers and to select good drivers. Evolution has not yet had the time to give us the ability to drive without paying attention, like most of us can do with walking.
So, to drive, we just take existing stuff (ability to recognize objects, ability to follow patterns, ability to predict the behaviour of others...) and we attempt to adapt them to the activity of driving a vehicle at 130 km/h. Doing this with our full attention is taxing - this is why you're usually exhausted after driving for hours.

A good driver is just someone who pays full attention all the time and who takes a break from driving when he cannot anymore...

 

[prowlmedia]

It's really simple. Don't be a fecking idiot and look at your watch while driving.

Apple could have course implement a software solution for this. Speed Based acknowledgment or something.

But to be fair I have a 2013 Range Rover and the actual Interface is the most unintuitive I've ever used. Shocking in fact. Buttons not where they should be - Back button in the middle of the screen, what that all about? So if something like that can appear in a 100mph+ car....

I know the new interface is supposed to be better and faster and also hooks into carplay, but you can bet it's not remotely upgradable on mine. Hence the main problem with Cars. The CPU and screen should just be easily changeable.

----------

I think we can assume reaction times may not be as sharp as when sober.

I also think it's a fact that a little drink has been shown to actually improve some drivers (less nervous) but of course such studies would be very much buried/hushed up.

The problem with blaming drunk drivers, is that the drunk driver will be the one to blame, generally irrespective of who's fault.
I pull out in front of you as I'm a rubbish driver and not concentrating, but hey, you are drunk, so it's your fault.

Medically I don't know how you can actually prosecute a drunk driver.
How can you punish someone for taking a decision, when their brain is under the influence of a drug and they are not thinking rationally.

No one ever wants to tackle that one either

Sorry that is complete bull. Drink stops you being nervous!!! Did you really just write that. And then claim it's a conspiracy!

At Best it's a placebo that you BELIEVE you are more relaxed.

IF YOU ARE DRUNK IT'S YOUR FAULT. You can wash it any way you want but people shouldn't ever drink drive.

"Medically I don't know how you can actually prosecute a drunk driver."
Easy. Being Drunk is not a mental disorder. It's a conscious decision to get that way. So you are responsible for everything you do while under the influence. Same with drugs.

I am not against drinking or some rec. Drugs for that matter. But you know what some People are just complete idiots and will always do the wrong thing.

 

[2457282]

looking at this article, for the first time I felt fortunate that Apple refuses to send me a watch that I ordered on day 1. without the watch, i cannot get distracted and risk injury or death. Thanks Apple.

/s

 

[iKen1]

I'm sure it will be responsible for distraction and deaths just like phones.

and just like your car radio

 

[Poochi]

How is a quick glance on Apple Watch any worse than quick glance for time on a traditional dumb watch?

In all fairness, what's more distracting is a hot lady (your wife, gf, or else) next to you while driving.

 

[maflynn]

How is a quick glance on Apple Watch any worse than quick glance for time on a traditional dumb watch?

The problem is that it won't end with a quick glance.

 

[scott911]

4 accidents, five years.

I live on a relatively gentle turn - and have had four cars drift into my yard over the past five years. I suspect all were caused by distracted driving. Prior forty years involved no accidents.

Won't be surprised if I see car number five's driver with a smart watch on a wrist hanging off the stretcher.

 

[bbeagle]

IF YOU ARE DRUNK IT'S YOUR FAULT. You can wash it any way you want but people shouldn't ever drink drive.

"Medically I don't know how you can actually prosecute a drunk driver."
Easy. Being Drunk is not a mental disorder. It's a conscious decision to get that way. So you are responsible for everything you do while under the influence. Same with drugs.

This is the strange logic I never get.

A girl is inebriated, all over a guy, asks for sex, gets it, then claims later she was raped, because she was drinking and couldn't control herself. The GUY needs to do time for this - EVEN IF HE WAS DRUNK TOO.

So, the GUY needs to control himself while drunk, but not the GIRL.

Then a GIRL gets behind a car drunk and crashes - SHE is responsible for it. But if she can't control herself in one instance, why can she in the other?

It's all confusing the way the law works.

 

[winston1236]

They should never pass this law. Can you imagine getting a ticket because a cop saw your screen turn on as you were turning your wheel? Cops are already looking for every excuse to nail you to fill their quota.

I don't think they even stop ppl for that where I live. I see idiots all the time weaving back and forth staring at a bright phone screen.

 

[maflynn]

My state has a law against texting, not just a distracted driver law but one that specifically and explicitly prohibits smart phone usage while driving. I can safely say this law has zero impact on people's habits, I continually see people text and drive on major highways, surface roads and city roads. Nothing is changed and even if a law is passed for smart watches it won't do anything.

You cannot legislate common sense (to murder a George Washington quote).

 

[iReality85]

I imagine that at some point, Apple Watch will gain cellular capabilities, which I think would be less distracting than using a phone, especially when coupled with Siri and Bluetooth. A person's wrist is closer to them when driving than most mounted phones would be.

An interesting dynamic to this will be on which wrist you wear your watch, and how that impacts safety. Righties usually wear their watches on their left wrist (and vise versa), but drivers in right-side-of-the-road countries usually one-hand the steering wheel with their left hand (and I imagine the opposite is also true). Considering that the majority of people are right hand/left watch, I would have to think that drivers in right-side-of-the-road-countries would be less accident prone than their left-side neighbors.

 

[DudeDad]

Genuine Q to a probable joke, but do people really read websites whilst driving? I've never known any of my friends+family to do it. Curious now!

My guess is most just read emails and text. They are easy to spot....they drive slower and start to drift in their lanes. Drives me nuts. I emailed the Maryland highway admin about the problem, and suggested a billboard "If you can read this sign, you are not texting. Thank you" Never heard back. Of course, everyone would slow down to take pic of it for Facebook. We cannot win. Thank goodness Google Glass as a fail...just what we need on the roads.

 

[is1234]

Soon there will be a bill that will ban all electronic use while driving. But we still can eat, drink (a beverage) and put on make up while driving.

It is sad that the world needs such overly specific laws to prevent distracted driving. Just make 'distracted driving' illegal in general and leave the specifics to common sense.

It took a while (just a few years ago) to have any sort of "hands free" driving, but we now have exactly that, no distracted driving, here in Alberta (Canada). Includes things like makeup, reading, electronics.

Sounds good, but now all I see is people holding their phones in their laps looking down to text. Almost worse!

 

[Pilgrim1099]

I imagine that at some point, Apple Watch will gain cellular capabilities, which I think would be less distracting than using a phone, especially when coupled with Siri and Bluetooth. A person's wrist is closer to them when driving than most mounted phones would be.

An interesting dynamic to this will be on which wrist you wear your watch, and how that impacts safety. Righties usually wear their watches on their left wrist (and vise versa), but drivers in right-side-of-the-road countries usually one-hand the steering wheel with their left hand (and I imagine the opposite is also true). Considering that the majority of people are right hand/left watch, I would have to think that drivers in right-side-of-the-road-countries would be less accident prone than their left-side neighbors.

The minute Apple does this, it will be a lot more distracting. That's what car speakerphones are designed for in the first place using Bluetooth with any phone for hands free communication. Because of that, I get a lot of wind noise from my side and don't have a speakerphone. The adapter cost me $40 and also can hook up with any headset for wireless listening to music or anything around the house. Really, really handy.

The second you raise your watch hand close to your mouth and a cop SEES that during traffic, you'll get pulled over. Or if one day you get pulled over and the officer SEES you have a smart watch, he/she will ask " Are you using this watch to make calls? Because if you are, it's a distraction and you must use a speakerphone or headset. I'll have to write you a ticket. ".

Game. over.

This is why I have a small bluetooth adapter that has a microphone that clips on to my collar to communicate with Siri on certain functions while driving to cut down on wind noise from the driver side.

And lastly, you'll get distracted once you FUMBLE with the CROWN while driving. This is why I think Apple screwed the pooch with this.

 

[oneMadRssn]

Because not defining the thing that is illegal makes any kind of behaviour open for interpretation and, inevitably, abuse.

But there will always be something up to interpretation, and you can always chop up a concept into smaller bits. Is it helping anyone, or preventing abuse, to have a statute code that is hundreds of thousands of pages long, if not millions, because we had to define every conceivable instance? Interpretation is good - it allows the law to adapt to societal changes, and to be timeless.

I like this example: What is the best way to teach chess? By (1) writing and explaining how all the pieces are allowed to move and how they are arranged at the start, or (2) by writing down or drawing every single possible combination of moves of every single possible game and outcome? Option 1 fits on a single sheet of paper. Option 2 would need more paper than there is matter in the universe.

 

[Lictor]

A girl is inebriated, all over a guy, asks for sex, gets it, then claims later she was raped, because she was drinking and couldn't control herself. The GUY needs to do time for this - EVEN IF HE WAS DRUNK TOO.

That's because you're supposed to control yourself and not abuse others when they're not able to give consent - having sex with someone who cannot give consent is called a rape. That's why you should not have sex with kids, unconscious people or drunks, since none of them can give consent.

For sex to be consensual, you have to get consent, or at least explicit signs that the person is giving consent. If the person is drunk beyond being in control of herself, this is not consent and you should recognize it as such. The fact that the person is responsible for getting drunk in the first place doesn't matter since if doesn't impact your ability to assess consent.
And, again, getting drunk is a voluntary act. If you get drunk to the point that you're unable to correctly assess consent, this is your responsibility.

It's pretty simple actually... Rape is always rape and the guilty party is always the rapist, not the victim. The fact that the victim was drunk, naked in public, a prostitute or whatever doesn't change the fact that if there was no consent (or no ability to give consent), then it's a rapide and that the guilty party is the rapist.
And driving under the influence is driving under the influence and it's an awful thing to do because you're putting other people lives at risk. It's explicitly forbidden by law, so, yes, if you do that, you're guilty to.

----------

My guess is most just read emails and text. They are easy to spot....they drive slower and start to drift in their lanes. Drives me nuts.

The solution would be simple : scandinavian style income based fines. If you're endangering innocent people because you're a moron who can't let go of his toys while he's driving, you should have a fine based on your income (like 30% of your annual income), lose your licence and your car. For instance, Finland has issued the equivalent of $100k speeding tickets and this is dissuasive.

A lot of drivers don't realize that they're moving inside vehicles that kill thousands a year. Just today, I saw a truck driver that was on the phone (not hand free, hand with phone on the ear, the other on the wheel) - he was driving in the inner, on small streets and near a school...

 

[bbeagle]

That's because you're supposed to control yourself and not abuse others when they're not able to give consent - having sex with someone who cannot give consent is called a rape. That's why you should not have sex with kids, unconscious people or drunks, since none of them can give consent.

A guy and girl are drunk.... they have sex together... WHO has committed the 'rape'? Has the girl consented? No. Has the guy consented? No. According to the law, they BOTH have not consented. So how can either be charged with a crime? Or should BOTH be charged with a crime?