I guess Apple should issue a company-wide bulletin reminding their employees to not overdose on heroin too. Because how would they know not to if Apple didn't tell them?
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.
NTSB Criticizes Apple After Fatal Tesla Autopilot Crash for Not Banning Employee Smartphone Use While Driving
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I was going to run a red light the other day. But instead, I texted my company's HR department; and they texted back "don't do it."
Accurate but a kind of a ******** critique as Apple not doing this is likely the most trivial point among many more important points.
Am I veering too far into conspiracy land to say that I think the swipe at Apple was purely to increase media attention on this story?
Does it take me over the edge if I say I think somebody shorting Tesla influenced the NTSB (or maybe just works at the NTSB) to get that swipe at Apple included, purely to increase media attention and maximize the decline in Tesla's stock price? I'm not sure what other financial motive there'd be for someone wanting more coverage of the story...
It is very common for employers to conduct pre-employment, random, and post-accident drug testing on employees performing safety functions (driving a forklift, operating machinery), in hospitals, law enforcement, etc. This is usually not directly required by law but is a company policy, potentially required by their insurers.
In the transportation and nuclear industries, laws require companies do this. For example, a trucking company or airline will have to have a drug testing program monitored by DOT and FAA.
So yes, many companies that hire blue-collar workers do indeed have policies on drug use, even legal substances like alcohol and prescription drugs.
Do you work for Tesla PR?
“Autonomous vehicle” and “autopilot” are interchangeable. Point being, driver gives piloting control to an outside force. Quit quibbling over yourself, man.
There's a huge difference to some drunk of dope head driving a forklift in your factory [where the employer creates a safe environment for all] vs. an employee driving his own car on the public road and using his phone (even if it's a company provided one). [where the law already creates a safe environment if all follow the law, adding more rules by private companies only muddies the water]
FWIW: Out here that phone would be considered part of the wages (and literally be counted as a value in severance calculations as mandated by law)
Last edited:
That's not very helpful if he's in the car with a colleague who needs to look something up.
I'd rather see more effort put in fully automated driving.. It would be so amazing to finally be able to use all this wasted travel time staring at the roadPersonally I hate driving (though I'm lucky to live in a city with amazing public transport now)
Um, who doesn't own their smartphone now? especially a tech firm employee.
We're talking about company issued phones here. It's a mode that can definitely help with distracted driving.
But people would probably carry their own personal phones too, as many do because company phones are too restricted in many ways, and all communications sent/received can be monitored by the company who issued it.
A false assumption. As pointed out, states do not have the same laws. Montana has no ban, Florida's ban is secondary (cannot pull somebody over), some ban all use and calls, some only handheld, some depend on the driver's age etc.
California weakened their ban by allowing hands-free text use due to pressure from industry. And even if you get caught it's $20.
Last edited:
Another example of somebody with dollars, but no sense. Spending close to $100k on a car, then assume its "autopilot" is flawless and you can just ignore the road? When people loaded money act like they got it based on merit, cases like this show it’s often not true.
Part of it is California. When people in most places get their hands on $100k, they go buy a house. $100k is nowhere close to getting a decent house in the Bay Area, so they spend it on cars and other toys instead.
Then pressure the lawmakers to create better laws, stop messing with the employers because the politicians don't do their job.A false assumption. As pointed out, states do not have the same laws. Montana has no ban, Florida's ban is secondary (cannot pull somebody over), some ban all use and calls, some only handheld, some depend on the driver's age etc.
California weakened their ban by allowing hands-free text use due to pressure from industry. And even if you get caught it's $20.
Traffic fines are unpopular and supporting bans and other such measures get people voted out of office. Welcome to democracy where people get a vote each.
People in Arizona got so upset over traffic cameras, they were going to pass a constitutional amendment to ban them before the state government backed down.
Federal regulations and executive orders are less accountable and therefore there is a Federal ban as far as can be allowed by the Constitution (a ban on truck drivers/CDL and for government business).
Employers have the right and responsibility to control how their company equipment is used. Many commercial vehicles have speed limiters and GPS tracking. Many companies require defensive driving test. Laws cannot mandate common sense or being cautious.
For crying out loud! It's not my fault, no one told me not to do it, so the blame is shifted off me because you should of told me.
Actually what you're trying to do is fix a problem (in your perception) that people at large don't want to be fixed.
The whole point of democracy as that those laws people don't want, don't happen!
What's is anti-democatic is to try to sneak that unwanted fix in via the employers instead of going through the right channels. It's just wrong.
[don't take the "you" as singular or personal]
Where I live that statement is FALSE.
Employers out here have no such right based on privacy laws alone. Also there are a lot of company cars and company phone that are simply considered part of the renumeration package. Who pays for it doesn't change that the user can do as they please (within the law), but outside of any checks or restrictions of the employer.
Let alone a company would have a responsibility to control things they don't even have a right to check.
To show you that it can be done:In all of the EU all trucks are by law required to have a speed limiter that can't be overridden of 90km/h (56 mph). Trucks also have a device that tracks their speed over time and there are laws out here that force truckers to get enough rest. Simple traffic stops of trucks will always check that tracking device.
The rules of the roads out here do require one to use common sense and be cautious, judges will enforce that even if they get involved after one gets too many fines (or too bad ones), or after an accident. E.g. driving below the speed limit, can still yield you a conviction for driving too fast if the local conditions made the speed you used to be unsafe.
I understand this incident occurred in the US, but it doesn't mean the solution you propose isn't flawed to say the least.
Friend of mine works for Apple and says tonight he received a memo with a list of things not to do.
1) Don’t drive distracted
2) Don’t run with scissors
3) Don’t break any laws
4) Don’t eat crackers in bed
5) Don’t light your shoes on fire
6) Don’t hit on a hard 16 if the dealer is showing less than a 7
7) Don’t taunt the happy fun ball
8) Don’t forget to call your mom on her birthday
9) Don’t make any graven images
10) Don’t be Nicolas Cage’s accent in Con Air
1) Don’t drive distracted
2) Don’t run with scissors
3) Don’t break any laws
4) Don’t eat crackers in bed
5) Don’t light your shoes on fire
6) Don’t hit on a hard 16 if the dealer is showing less than a 7
7) Don’t taunt the happy fun ball
8) Don’t forget to call your mom on her birthday
9) Don’t make any graven images
10) Don’t be Nicolas Cage’s accent in Con Air
Yes on the flip side, you take more responsibility, civilly and criminally, for actions undertaken in your line of work. That is, engineers and executives have been held criminally liable in the case of train and airplane crashes. This creates a highly risk adverse society. Prime example: health and safety obsession of the UK.
Why do you think all the Internet and biotech startups are in the US?
Of course, your reasoning is what Amazon has been using. Crash your car delivering packages? Your problem. Profit? Ours.
I totally disagree. Tesla constantly pushes their cars as essentially self-driving. And it's not accurate. And, after insinuating they are self-driving, Tesla is the only manufacturer that refuses tp implement the recommended safety mechanisms to prevent improper use of the systems. The fault lies somewhere in between.
Murder is strictly against company policy here at Acme Corp. Not only is it against the law, we also consider it highly unethical. Acme Corp. reminds you that we will treat any violations of this company policy seriously.
Using phones during driving is a tremendous problem (far, far worse than drink driving) but criticizing employers for not having "policies" that state you can't use your phones while driving is utterly ridiculous. There's this thing called laws and that is what matters, not some company policy.
As far as texting, posting on FB, or playing video games while driving, there needs to be massively stiff penalties and they need to be enforced. I would suggest that fines start at a minimum of $2,500 for the first offense and then you lose your license for one year on the second offense. There has to be some kind of move like this to get society to wake the heck up and make some changes...
As far as texting, posting on FB, or playing video games while driving, there needs to be massively stiff penalties and they need to be enforced. I would suggest that fines start at a minimum of $2,500 for the first offense and then you lose your license for one year on the second offense. There has to be some kind of move like this to get society to wake the heck up and make some changes...
No they don't push their cars as "essentially" self-driving. Please show me where they do that? Even when you're on the order page for their cars it says:
"Autopilot advanced safety and convenience features are designed to assist you with the most burdensome parts of driving."
See that word, "assist"?
And then also, at the bottom of the page:
"The currently enabled features require active driver supervision and do not make the vehicle autonomous."
Design Your Model 3 | Tesla
Design and order your Tesla Model 3, the car of the future. Learn about lease, loan and cash payment options, warranties, electric vehicle incentives, gasoline savings and more.
www.tesla.com
It drives me absolutely insane that people who have ZERO clue about Teslas continue to push the myth that they drive completely by themselves with zero intervention required on a human's part.
Moving on to the blame game: What about people who speed and crash their cars? Should we be blaming the manufacturers that allow these cars to travel in excess of 100mph on city streets? At some point we as individuals need to own up to the stupid mistakes we make in our lives, and stop blaming someone else or something else for those idiotic choices.