To have distracted driving you actually HAVE to be driving, what most Americans do with a car is hardly classified driving. They should call it distracted motor vehicle operation. A properly trained driver will not look at devices, eat, drink, put makeup, and here is an idea obey the traffic rules and laws.
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.
Distracted Driving Laws Yet to Catch Up With Apple Watch
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I use my iPhone as my turn by turn guide so unless your idea leaves that functional I wouldn't want it.
As one of the few women here, I'll chime in with my two cents. If both people are drunk and they both consent to sex while drunk but the girl regrets it later, it's not rape. She made a mistake if she regrets it, should learn not to do it again and move on. I've done it myself and I take responsibility for it and don't blame the guy in any way whatsoever. If they were both drunk and the girl is too drunk to say anything yes or no or definitely says no and they have sex because the guy decides FOR her, it's rape. Women are just as responsible for their drunken behavior as men but they are usually physically weaker so if they are overpowered, it's a problem that deserves punishment for the guy who takes advantage.
I get what you're saying... and I agree in principle... but in many cases I've heard, it's not cut and dry like that.
Guy and girl are drunk, Girl teases guy, both flirting, both get touchy/feely, both get undressed and huggy, but girl hesitates at actual sex... but does not forcefully say no.... she's like 'I'm not ready'. he's like 'I think we are'... she then pushes away a bit, he continues to see if she'll change her mind, but she then touches more and gets into it, and they both have sex. She enjoys it the whole time.
Remember the GUY is drunk too - both aren't in their right mind.
I can understand a guy who physically assaults a woman, and her cries of 'No, no, no!' and he continues... but BOTH seem to be prosecuted the same way, which is wrong.
I've had many situations where I've been touched inappropriately by drunk women and fended them off. It was extremely hard to fend off some sober women when I was drinking. As a guy, I can't do anything. I've got to take it and laugh it off. It's very sexist and wrong.
How about an angled notification display for drivers? This problem was solved 40 years ago!
https://poshtime.com/vintagewatches-Bulova-Computron-Drivers-LED-watch-c.1977_452.002.php
https://poshtime.com/vintagewatches-Bulova-Computron-Drivers-LED-watch-c.1977_452.002.php
Frankly, I agree it's not fair sometimes. I don't think women should be able to tease like that, willingly go 90% of the way and get a free pass when they change their mind later when they're not drunk anymore and disappointed in their decision. BUT, if there's any hesitation on her part like you describe, the guy MUST stop, even if only to protect himself from being accused of rape later. How would you like it if you went shopping for a car, took the test drive, negotiated the deal, have your credit checked and are at the desk to sign the contract but think again and decide not to do it but the sales guy says "too bad, we're too close to doing it and you're not going to waste my time so you're too committed to buying the car now to back out. I'm taking your money and you have nothing to say about it". Is that fair?
Bottom line is, don't get so drunk you don't have control of what you do. That goes for everyone.
The first sentence of my post addresses your first paragraph. For the second, the people who say that being distracted has no negative effects are at minimum in denial. I forgot the exact numbers, but when you sneeze while driving down the freeway, you would've gone say 10 yards in that brief moment your eyes are closed. Now imagine voluntarily looking down for a few occasional seconds. Some people are just bafflingly stupid. Heck it seems like the DMV gives licenses away like candy.
It would leave the sound running, not the audio. It would only let you plan and modify the route while you're pulled over.
Way to go U.S. lawmakers and National Safety Council CEO Deborah Hersman! Let's all sit on our hands until a distracted driver using Apple Watch kills some innocent families on our highways. Only then we can re-formulate our laws? (Ontario, Canada has certainly got this one right and the U.S. should be following its lead.)
Your letter must have had some impact because on our route to school there's now one of those temporary digitally lit signs that proclaims something like "it's not worth your life to text while driving" or something like that. I didn't really read it because I never text or phone while driving and the sign being on the side of the road was actually kind of distracting!
One hand total because the hand the watch is on stays holding the steering wheel. I don't see what the issue is with the watch while driving. If a driver is already using a phone for messages and calls, using the watch instead would be an improvement because the interactions are more limited and much faster to execute. For those of us who don't do texting and such with a phone while driving because we know it's dangerous, we won't use the watch for it either and if I glance at it to see what the notification is it's no worse than reading a billboard which I do hundreds of times while driving already and don't have an accident. I don't think people should use either device while driving, except for gps directions, but I think we need to be realistic about human behavior. A silly law that depends on people actually obeying it won't really help anything and just makes lawmakers feel good about "doing" something. If you really want to keep people from texting and phoning while driving, it will take technology preventing it outright without humans involved.
You're an accident waiting to happen with that attitude. You must be very young to overestimate your skills that way and I hope no one else gets hurt when you learn your lesson.
Well considering the slow crawl americans see as driving - ANYTHING is harmless at that "speed".
There's something else people are overlooking. It's the FUMBLING with the crown with the other hand that would be very distracting when using the watch.
Apple should have built in a way to have the motion detector sense car movement and block the use of the crown.
Waze actually senses car movement and blocks the ability to tap the screen until motion is stopped which I think was forward thinking of them, UNLIKELY the other company that keeps thinking of vanity and fashion.
What fumbling? You either click it or roll it. Not that hard. Do you have trouble operating the knobs on your dashboard without looking at them?
----------
I don't consider 70 mph a crawl but I guess compared to the autobahn it would be
Not the same thing. Knobs in the car is easy since its analog. But with the watch, you have to LOOK at the screen to do it.
Not really different. If I'm turning the knob on the radio to dial in a different station, I have to look at the screen. If I'm just changing the volume, I don't. When I turn the knob to change where the heated air is coming out, I have to look at the knob. If I'm just scrolling to see the end of a notification on the watch, I just have to roll the crown without looking and look again at the screen. But most of the notifications probably won't need scrolling because I'll be more interested at the top where it says who it's from. People shouldn't be doing anything more complex than that with the watch while driving anyway. Answering a call doesn't require scrolling. A quick tap to reply to a text with the canned reply "I'm driving now" won't take scrolling. People just have to use common sense. I know a lot of people don't have common sense but a law won't help with that.
Many of these laws specifically exempt activities performed via the use of a bluetooth headset, so what you refer to as being discreet very probably amounts to following the law.
----------
It depends where you are. Many of our interstate highways have speed limits that exceed the 130 km/h Richtgeschwindigkeit. In cities, I would agree with you, but there arguably is good reason for that.
You only have to show that people crash more often (or come close to crashing) when having a phone conversation compared to not having a phone conversation. You mostly cannot prove things 100% for a given accident as one cannot prove that the accident would not have happened without the phone conversation but if people crash more often in a simulator while being on the phone compared to not being on phone than it is obvious that being on the phone increases the risk.
It is all about what risk level is considered acceptable and how much outlawing something would 'inconvenience' people, about being proportionate. In addition, rules shouldn't be too specific or detailed, for once because the more specific a rule is, the smaller the data base is it is based on (and thus less reliable). It also makes it harder for people to obey the rules and it makes it harder to enforce it. It also makes it more likely to be out-of-date. A related aspect is general enforceability.
So to summarize:
- rules have to be proportionate to the risk and the 'inconvenience' they cause
- rule should not be very specific or detailed
In your examples, (2) is something which has a lower risk than talking on the phone and outlawing it would be considered to cause more 'inconvenience' than outlawing the use of the phone. (3) is way too specific (a: it is extremely unlikely that a single song has that effect but others don't and thus is almost certainly a rule with an extremely low 'cost'-effectiveness, b: has a very high 'inconvenience' factor.
The 'inconvenience' factor is to a significant degree subjective and is partly also based on a subjective risk assessment but it underlies lots of legal rules.