Anyone think the new CA distracted driving law will make a difference?

[sfhbike]

I'm all for it. I hope it gets enforced.

http://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/06/us/california-today-distracted-driving-law.html

[Stevemikesteve]

Definitely a step in the right direction that I too hope gets enforced. Some folks are so blatant, makes me wonder if they've had previous hands free tickets and just don't care...

[smead]

Not until the cost of getting caught becomes something other than a joke - $20 first offense, $50 second.

You can have two beers and end up over the legal limit and it'll cost you well over $10000 in fines, jail time, lost license, etc ... I just don't get it, at least the buzzed driver is trying to drive OK ...

I am of course not condoning DUI in any way, I just don't understand the discrepancy between the punishment of the two offenses. I'd be curious if anyone had any data comparing the number of accidents caused by booze vs. phones. And you have to wonder how many phone related crashes are not reported (i.e. it's pretty easy to throw the phone under the seat after the crunch, but if you are drunk, it's kind of hard to hide it ..).

[Steve in SLO]

I hope so but think not.

[donevwil]

No law makes a difference if it's no enforced and from what I've seen many, many times our understaffed local police focus on "more important or more lucrative" issues.

While at a light on my bike commute home I've seen a driver 100% distracted by their phone (light had turned green and they were still stopped looking at the phone in plain sight). To my right was a local cop waiting to make a right, but looking straight at the distracted individual. I look at the cop with my best "Well, whatcha gonna do?" gesture and he shrugs his shoulders and begins his right turn. Nothing.

Me thinks they're getting instruction from higher up to specifically ignore distracted driving, likely because the penalties don't make it worth their while.

[AngryScientist]

has anyone seen this hot mess of a lawsuit?

http://abcnews.go.com/US/family-sues-apple-claiming-facetime-distracted-driver-crash/story?id=44506168

people are actually suing Apple for not making it harder for a driver to use facetime while driving.

nothing is really going to change until people start to accept personal responsibility for their actions. I dont know what they teach in drivers-ed these days, but when i took it ages ago, it was made clear to me that i, as the vehicle driver was solely responsible for what the vehicle did.

bald tires and i crash in a rain storm - my fault

another car sporadically stops short in front of me and i hit him - my fault

spilled my hot coffee in my lap and hit a street sign - my fault

it needs to be drilled into people's heads that their actions have consequences. it needs to be reinforced that drivers are solely and exclusively responsible for whatever happens to their car when they are behind the wheel.

everyone you talk to at a cocktail party knows full well that looking at a smartphone while driving IS dangerous, and they all do it anyway

the law is a good first step, but it wont solve it all.

[sfhbike]

everyone you talk to at a cocktail party knows full well that looking at a smartphone while driving IS dangerous, and they all do it anyway


This is a huge problem because it is not just a matter of ignorance, but negligence, even addiction. The problem is that smartphones work in the human brain along some of the same pathways that other addictive behaviors do--dopamine hits when it dings, etc. Its true the law won't solve everything, but in the meantime it has come to a pretty dangerous point out there. I simply can't trust drivers to do the right thing (and even catch myself "self-distracting" when driving occasionally and have to stop myself, especially when the traffic sucks).

Psychology/science are just beginning to understand the power of this digital world on people--children especially, but also adults. I don't think legislation has fully caught up, nor do people realize that they have become "addicts."

[Tony T]

has anyone seen this hot mess of a lawsuit?

http://abcnews.go.com/US/family-sues-apple-claiming-facetime-distracted-driver-crash/story?id=44506168

people are actually suing Apple for not making it harder for a driver to use facetime while driving.

Shouldn't require a lawsuit.
Smartphone manufactures should have their phones programed to turn off (except for 911) while the car is in motion (and I don't really care about the passengers who can't use facebook while in the car).


bald tires and i crash in a rain storm - my fault
another car sporadically stops short in front of me and i hit him - my fault


Doesn't really help the person that is hit that it's 'your fault'

If I can be fined for driving without a seatbelt and my car can beep at me incessantly if I drive without a seatbelt, then something can be done to prevent the other driver from texting.

[AngryScientist]

Shouldn't require a lawsuit.
Smartphone manufactures should have their phones programed to turn off (except for 911) while the car is in motion (and I don't really care about the passengers who can't use facebook while in the car).

sorry, but i absolutely disagree with you.

personal accountability. people need to learn it. period. we dont need big corporations to keep us safe from ourselves.

i spend hours a week on trains, should i not be able to use my phone?

[jtakeda]

I hope so but think not.


Agree

Riding down market st in sf today saw about 20 people on their phones.
Uber drivers tapping away at their screens.

Sigh

[Tony T]

sorry, but i absolutely disagree with you.

personal accountability. people need to learn it. period. we dont need big corporations to keep us safe from ourselves.

i spend hours a week on trains, should i not be able to use my phone?

Need them to save me from the other guy, not from myself.
A seatbelt law saves me from myself. Should be my decision, not the government's.
I care if the other guy is texting behind me, I don't really give a **** if he's wearing his seatbelt.

That the other guy takes personal responsibility and goes to jail for killing someone doesn't help the family of the one that was killed.

I really don't think its a tragedy for someone not to text/facebook/phone while on a train, however, if they work at it, Apple could figure out how to allow for a train commuter and not a driver.

[sfhbike]

sorry, but i absolutely disagree with you.

personal accountability. people need to learn it. period. we dont need big corporations to keep us safe from ourselves.

i spend hours a week on trains, should i not be able to use my phone?

I think there is some middle ground here. I actually don't think people can simply learn "personal accountability"--you can't really teach someone to be "moral" like you can teach math and science or bike mechanics. Virtue and character are critical, but built over a lifetime. When they fail in a society, we need laws that protect the public. Certainly individual laws to force people to be accountable to their actions, but I think laws that force corporations to recognize science-backed psychology are not entirely misguided. I just think we haven't fully figured that out yet.

[BobO]

sorry, but i absolutely disagree with you.

personal accountability. people need to learn it. period. we dont need big corporations to keep us safe from ourselves.

Agree. That accountability needs to come with consequences for screwing up. If you're texting and run someone over, there should be at a minimum the threat of very serious prison time for manslaughter. Not to mention the very serious bills from a defense attorney.

[AngryScientist]

I just think we haven't fully figured that out yet.

agree!

[JAllen]

I'd say it's a start. I hope this is the foot into the door for more aggressive and proactive plans to eliminate (greatly reduce. I doubt it would be eliminated) distracted driving.

I agree about the personal responsibility, but I also like the idea of hedging bets and limiting phone function while the vehicle is in motion.

[vqdriver]

that law's fine, and i like that it's fairly broad in scope. but in the end, it's just another law that can be cited to charge someone AFTER an accident. without proactive enforcement, there's little teeth to it.

i can see how there may be a push at the beginning to ticket drivers at night (since it's easy to see the screen glaring up at someone's face) and get the word out there. but much like seatbelt laws, there hasn't been great follow thru.

[Don49]

I'd propose that a cellphone should be treated like a handgun when being transported in a motor vehicle, i.e. in a locked container.

California law says: "The term "locked container" means a secure container which is fully enclosed and locked by a padlock, key lock, combination lock, or similar locking device This includes the trunk of a motor vehicle, but does not include the utility or glove compartment".

This can be something as simple as a fabric briefcase with the zipper locked. The idea is to make the gun/phone inaccessible to the driver.
And penalties for improper transport should be the same for a cellphone as for a handgun.

[livingminimal]

I am in CA almost got hit on my bike this morning because a driver was distracted. Not by her phone, but by looking at a multi-million dollar house.

On the way to work, in my car, a driver was ****ing up a routine merge into traffic because they were looking at their phone. They of course opted not to merge and got off the freeway, almost causing an accident over nothing.

I think whatever happens with all this new, automated technology, at some point we need cars to make phone use obsolete. Full integration of communication and navigation, made easy so any dumb**** uses that as the default mode instead of picking up a device.

[OtayBW]

I asked a cop about why no enforcement recently. His answer: they simply can't see into many cars and therefore cannot clearly identify both the behavior and the culprit. Pretty tough nut to crack, but good on CA for giving it a try...

[sfhbike]

I asked a cop about why no enforcement recently. His answer: they simply can't see into many cars and therefore cannot clearly identify both the behavior and the culprit. Pretty tough nut to crack, but good on CA for giving it a try...

This is a very good point. We can see much more from the saddle into a person's car than most car-bound police officers. Those on motorcycle are a little more able to enforce. By far the best mode of enforcing this is from a bicycle, by a cop with his cameras on. It can and has been done, and to have an officer "bike a mile in our shoes" is actually very valuable (talk about motivation to enforce this particular violation). This video from September of a bicycle officer in action was priceless: https://www.facebook.com/circa/videos/1125709460829111/

That said, I doubt most cities will put the resources toward this or understand the implications of how to enforce effectively. Perhaps the cycling community can assist with that? Especially on major bike routes that have a lot of vehicular users, I bet this can work well. I'm thinking of Ohio on my commute between UCLA and Santa Monica. Cars are often gridlocked and almost everyone is on their phone. There are accidents on the street regularly and some aggressive/impatient drivers. A cop in a saddle can navigate this situation very well.

[Black Dog]

Well, driving under the influence is a criminal act. The carnage from distracted driving has exceeded that of DUI yet it remains a misdemeanour. If you want to really take on this colossal beast you can start with criminalizing the act of distracted driving, as the stick, and tons of education initiatives about the behaviour, as the carrot. We have arrived at the point where the only precious life on the road is that of the person driving, not the pedestrians, cyclists, or even other drivers. Time for us all to grow up and have the adult conversation about our increasingly narcissistic behaviour and how it effects other humans. There are jurisdictions in the world where the driver of a car is always accountable for their actions and the penalties are serious and enforced, in these locals the driver is not the victim, the victim is the victim.

Edit. Rant over, jumping off my soap box now. :o

[sfhbike]

Well Driving under the influence is a criminal act. The carnage from distracted driving has exceeded that of DUI yet it remains a misdemeanour. If you want to really take on this colossal beast you can start with criminalizing the act of distracted driving as the stick and tons of education initiatives about the behaviour as the carrot. We have arrived at the point where the only precious life on the road is that of the person driving, not the pedestrians, cyclists, or even other drivers. Time for us all to grow up and have the adult conversation about our increasingly narcissistic behaviour and how it effects other humans. There are jurisdictions in the world where the driver of a car is always accountable for their actions and the penalties are serious and enforced, in these locals the driver is not the victim, the victim is the victim.

Well-stated. In the USA especially, car is king and our attitude toward the automobile borders on idolatry (to put it religiously). Guns and cars have many, many similarities in our level of tolerance for the havoc they can cause and our inability as a society to find reasonable solutions. I'll leave it at that before I get in trouble.

[rePhil]

When I was hit by a distracted driver I got 45k in medical bills, an ambulance ride, and trauma treatment,and followup visits, while the driver got a ticket and went on his way (I am thankful for good insurance) Something needs to change.

[John H.]

There has been pretty much zero enforcement of the prior hands free cell phone law.
The same will be true of the new law.
Most cops think they are too busy to enforce this.
They only use the law to "pile on" if they are already going to ticket you for something else and they see you are also playing around with your phone.

I agree with the post that said that drivers should have to turn their phone off and put it away when they get in the car. This is the only way that people will not be distracted by their phone.

[cmbicycles]

As has been mentioned, increase enforcement and penalties and the problem will start to lessen, but some people will still be too self absorbed to care. I was beside a car just last night at a stop light. Lady had her cell phone wedged in front of the speedometer cluster watching TV... glad she was turning off the road I was taking.

[bironi]

The American culture is racing away from civil authority. It's hard to put the Genie back in the bottle. The technology has trumped civility. I still remember the first time I saw someone driving toward me talking on a cell phone on my morning pedal commute thru Seattle. A smiling driver coming straight at me. It was a near miss, but her head was on another planet.

[adub]

Well, driving under the influence is a criminal act. The carnage from distracted driving has exceeded that of DUI yet it remains a misdemeanour. If you want to really take on this colossal beast you can start with criminalizing the act of distracted driving, as the stick, and tons of education initiatives about the behaviour, as the carrot. We have arrived at the point where the only precious life on the road is that of the person driving, not the pedestrians, cyclists, or even other drivers. Time for us all to grow up and have the adult conversation about our increasingly narcissistic behaviour and how it effects other humans. There are jurisdictions in the world where the driver of a car is always accountable for their actions and the penalties are serious and enforced, in these locals the driver is not the victim, the victim is the victim.

Edit. Rant over, jumping off my soap box now. :o

Well said, fully in agreement!

[Elefantino]

The law didn't go far enough. I agree with others: Phones should be in the armrest console or the glove box when a driver is behind the wheel. Mine always is. I can access my music and incoming calls through my bluetooth. Yes, those also distract, but not to the dangerous degree that holding a phone does.

If police see an open container when they pull over someone for a moving violation, the driver is f***ed. Gun? F***ed. Same should be true for a phone. There is no reason anyone needs to send or read a text operating the car. And if your car doesn't have bluetooth, too bad. Use a Borg earphone for calls. And rurn on FM for music.

[oldpotatoe]

I'm all for it. I hope it gets enforced.

http://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/06/us/california-today-distracted-driving-law.html

"A California law that went into effect on Sunday barring drivers from holding phones while operating vehicles is among the most stringent in the nation."

Which 'forces' people to look down so the police don't see the phone. Sounds nice, almost unenforceable.

[Rusty Luggs]

sorry, but i absolutely disagree with you.

personal accountability. people need to learn it. period. we dont need big corporations to keep us safe from ourselves.

i spend hours a week on trains, should i not be able to use my phone?

So, you are saying that a simple technological fix is unacceptable to you, and folks will just have to continue dying (including cyclists) because the inability to use your phone for "hours a week" is too great a sacrifice to be asked of you?

[oldpotatoe]

sorry, but i absolutely disagree with you.

personal accountability. people need to learn it. period. we dont need big corporations to keep us safe from ourselves.

i spend hours a week on trains, should i not be able to use my phone?

Yup, and how? For how many decades have people been 'stupid in public'?

'Seat Belts save lives', and they do..but people still drive w/o them.

A law to prevent car drivers from being distracted by a cell phone isn't 'protecting us from ourselves'..it's NOT a 'nanny' law. Seat belt laws are. No distractions protect ME from that idiot on his smart phone..I don't care about him and whther or not he's inconvenienced.

I'd say some really strong punishments, like a BUNCH of $, maybe losing driver's license. Akin to DUI..3 times and go to jail.

BUT I think an industry thing to prevent the driver from using their phone is a GOOD thing and easy. BUT too many bribes being paid to people in government from the telecommunication industry for this to ever happen.

[jlwdm]

From the facts in the referenced article I don't see how this law is very different than the current laws in many states.

Jeff

[Tony T]

The previous laws in California specifically addressed talking or texting while driving. The new law broadens the restrictions on using cell phones to include any distracting activity, including taking photographs, playing videos and checking maps.

Ca Vehicle Code Sect. 23123.5 provides that people may only use their cell phones while they are driving if the phones are mounted on their dashes and are set up for voice activation or hands-free use.

So now when the a-hole hits someone from behind because he was looking at his cell phone and not at the road, he won't be in violation of any laws.

⬆⬆
THIS is why we need to look to manufacturers like Apple to solve the problem, as government is incapable of protecting its citizens.

[54ny77]

Heck, people still drive drunk. Think people care about a distracted driving law that condemns their ability to use instagram at all times, esp. at 70mph?

Offenses should be as punitive as DUI laws. Get caught 1st time, lose license, huge fine. Next time, jail. Period.

[Black Dog]

The previous laws in California specifically addressed talking or texting while driving. The new law broadens the restrictions on using cell phones to include any distracting activity, including taking photographs, playing videos and checking maps.

Ca Vehicle Code Sect. 23123.5 provides that people may only use their cell phones while they are driving if the phones are mounted on their dashes and are set up for voice activation or hands-free use.

So now when the a-hole hits someone from behind because he was looking at his cell phone and not at the road, he won't be in violation of any laws.

⬆⬆
THIS is why we need to look to manufacturers like Apple to solve the problem, as government is incapable of protecting its citizens.

The gov is protecting its citizens. They are protected from not being able to do what they want when they want and certainly are being protected from the conciquences of their actions. All the data shows that distracted driving is every bit as dangerous as drunk driving.

[Tony T]

And studies have shown that hands-free devices are no safer than handheld as the brain remains distracted.

[OtayBW]

The gov is protecting its citizens. They are protected from not being able to do what they want when they want and certainly are being protected from the conciquences of their actions. All the data shows that distracted driving is every bit as dangerous as drunk driving.I agree, except I think more dangerous, actually. We can cite all kinds of studies on either side of the argument, but I'd be willing to bet, for example, that a helluva lot more people have ridden with a texting driver - and continue to do so on a ~regular basis - than they have with a drunk driver. It is just SO pervasive these days.

As drivers, we all know how bad it's gotten lately. As cyclists who have seen this impact our personal lives and discussions on this Forum, we should be particularly outraged at this reckless, selfish behavior. And that's just what it is: selfish behavior by people who either think they are invulnerable, or are just plain clueless about the potential consequences and their responsibility. And worse, thinking that people will voluntarily regulate this kind of selfish behavior is extremely myopic, IMO.

So, if the (regulatory, or legislative, or enforcement) pendulum initially swings a little in the more conservative direction in order to at least temporarily find some balance, I see it as a small sacrifice for a much larger good. Think of it as the 'activation energy' needed to initiate a chemical reaction, to borrow from Mr. Arrhenius.....

Now, I'm getting down off my own damn soapbox!...

[shovelhd]

Used properly, it will have an incremental effect. Suppose a cop observes someone driving erratically. He can pull the driver over, suspecting DUI. Today, if the guy passes, he walks, as long as erratic isn't reckless. With this law, and proof of phone use, he can issue a citation. That's about all of the good I see in it.

[marciero]

Laws are already skewed away from personal responsibility with respect to alcohol and guns. For example, what is the harm in an open container in the car if you dont drink it? Similarly, many gun control laws have nothing to do with their actual use. A lot Paceliners seem to agree that distracted driving is analogous to, or is a form of driving while impaired. You ARE impaired while using a cel phone. If this framework for advocacy is pursued we should accept and be prepared-perhaps even embrace- for cel phones to be regulated in ways that alcohol and substances are. That could include laws requiring that manufacturers build certain controls into the phones.

Though generally not in favor of laws that dictate or restrict personal behavior in the absence of personal responsibility, I can see the rationale from a public health and cost perspective. Some of these are "nanny laws" like seat belt laws and motorcycle helmet laws, or even controlled substance laws. There are societal impacts-economic, health, etc- if no one wears a seat belt. The use of substances-alcohol, cigarettes, drugs, even sugar-has a public health and societal impact beyond harm done to oneself. This is pretty clear with respect to something like drug addiction. But think of the enormous public resources spent studying, treating, and generally dealing with so-called life-style diseases. So the public has an interest in regulating these things.

[bikingshearer]

has anyone seen this hot mess of a lawsuit?

http://abcnews.go.com/US/family-sues-apple-claiming-facetime-distracted-driver-crash/story?id=44506168

people are actually suing Apple for not making it harder for a driver to use facetime while driving.



I have a different view of this (and one that, in my experience, most do not share). I do not think the lawsuit mentioned here is inherently stupid. I also do not think the McDonald's spilled coffee lawsuit was inherently ridiculous. Before the flames begin, hear me out.

Also, please note that the referenced case is not one where the driver using FaceTime is trying to sue Apple, it's the family of the victim killed by the FaceTime-using distracted driver.

Both in the case of Apple with Facetime and with McDonald's selling scalding hot coffee through a drive-through window, you have an enterprise selling a product that the know to absolute moral certainty injects a risk of harm to others. With McDonald's, the risk was obvious. With Apple, the risk may not have been obvious before, but it is now.

McDonald's and Apple are both making money on the products that are creating the known risk. If they are going to profit from there acts, they should bear the cost of the risk their acts create. Doing that involves two things: buying insurance to cover those risks and making the price of the goods or services reflect their true costs. Put another way, one should have to make a cost-benefit analysis of selling a good or service based on the actual, true costs of that good or service; dumping the cost of the harm on the poor sap who loses the risk lottery is not right. Saying "I get the benefit of the risk, someone else bears the cost of the risk" is inherently unfair.

I do not think this analysis is the be all-end all. There are very few absolutes in this world, and this is not one of them. And I absolutely agree that personal responsibility has to factor in. But I think it is wrong to simply give Apple an automatic pass here. The circumstances of this individual case may make it appropriate to let Apple off the hook in this instance, but not as a sweeping, "one size fits all" matter.

As an aside, personal responsibility already does factor into personal injury cases in the form of a doctrine called "comparative fault, which applies in some form in most states, and maybe all of them by now. Assume for the sake of argument that the FaceTime case goes to trial and Apple is found to be liable, I will guarantee you that the driver who was using FaceTime will also be found to be at fault (Apple will certainly bring the driver in via a cross-complaint.) The jury will then have to (1) make a determination of the amount of damages to award and (2) apportion the fault, i.e. assign a percentage of fault to Apple, the driver, and whoever else may be in the picture. That would be in the form of finding the drive x% responsible, Apple y$ responsible, and whoever else z% responsible. That is what happened in the McDonald's hot coffee case. Juries are asked to make these kind of determinations every day.

[Tony T]

Comparing Facetime to Hot Coffee is like, well, Apples to Oranges.
Anyway, the thrust of the Facetime lawsuit is that Apple has not impemented "a patented ability to "'lock out' the ability of drivers to utilize the FaceTime application on the Apple iPhone when driving a motor vehicle."

The claim is that Apple "..has made a "less safe" than possible version of the telecommunications utility available, and as such is responsible for the crash" (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/01/apples-facetime-app-blamed-for-crash-as-distracted-driving-deaths-mount/)

One could argue that until all smartphones are required to have this ability that Apple would be at a disadvantage if they utilized this patent, and competitors could argue that they are prevented from doing so as Apple has the patent (https://www.google.com/patents/US8706143)!


Gotta love this summary in the Apple patent:
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
Texting while driving has become a major concern of parents, law enforcement, and the general public. An April 2006 study found that 80 percent of auto accidents are caused by distractions such as applying makeup, eating, and text messaging on handheld computing devices (texting). According to the Liberty Mutual Research Institute for Safety and Students Against Destruction Decisions, teens report that texting is their number one distraction while driving. Teens understand that texting while driving is dangerous, but this is often not enough motivation to end the practice.

New laws are being written to make texting illegal while driving. However, law enforcement officials report that their ability to catch offenders is limited because the texting device can be used out of sight (e.g., on the driver's lap), thus making texting while driving even more dangerous. Texting while driving has become so widespread it is doubtful that law enforcement will have any significant effect on stopping the practice.

.

[jlwdm]

I have a different view of this (and one that, in my experience, most do not share). I do not think the lawsuit mentioned here is inherently stupid. I also do not think the McDonald's spilled coffee lawsuit was inherently ridiculous. Before the flames begin, hear me out.

Also, please note that the referenced case is not one where the driver using FaceTime is trying to sue Apple, it's the family of the victim killed by the FaceTime-using distracted driver.

Both in the case of Apple with Facetime and with McDonald's selling scalding hot coffee through a drive-through window, you have an enterprise selling a product that the know to absolute moral certainty injects a risk of harm to others. With McDonald's, the risk was obvious. With Apple, the risk may not have been obvious before, but it is now.

McDonald's and Apple are both making money on the products that are creating the known risk. If they are going to profit from there acts, they should bear the cost of the risk their acts create. Doing that involves two things: buying insurance to cover those risks and making the price of the goods or services reflect their true costs. Put another way, one should have to make a cost-benefit analysis of selling a good or service based on the actual, true costs of that good or service; dumping the cost of the harm on the poor sap who loses the risk lottery is not right. Saying "I get the benefit of the risk, someone else bears the cost of the risk" is inherently unfair.

I do not think this analysis is the be all-end all. There are very few absolutes in this world, and this is not one of them. And I absolutely agree that personal responsibility has to factor in. But I think it is wrong to simply give Apple an automatic pass here. The circumstances of this individual case may make it appropriate to let Apple off the hook in this instance, but not as a sweeping, "one size fits all" matter.

As an aside, personal responsibility already does factor into personal injury cases in the form of a doctrine called "comparative fault, which applies in some form in most states, and maybe all of them by now. Assume for the sake of argument that the FaceTime case goes to trial and Apple is found to be liable, I will guarantee you that the driver who was using FaceTime will also be found to be at fault (Apple will certainly bring the driver in via a cross-complaint.) The jury will then have to (1) make a determination of the amount of damages to award and (2) apportion the fault, i.e. assign a percentage of fault to Apple, the driver, and whoever else may be in the picture. That would be in the form of finding the drive x% responsible, Apple y$ responsible, and whoever else z% responsible. That is what happened in the McDonald's hot coffee case. Juries are asked to make these kind of determinations every day.

You live in a different world than I do. Face Time is creating a known risk? It is ridiculous for Apple to be liable in any way. The only way it would happen is I guess a few people like you on a jury that must be anti big business and do not follow the jury instructions. No wonder or legal system is such a mess.

You don't seem to really believe in personal responsibility.

Jeff

[AngryScientist]

McDonald's and Apple are both making money on the products that are creating the known risk.

for the sake of argument - let us take the rubix cube. is this also a "known risk" to drivers?? if someone is driving down the road, trying to solve the rubix cube - is it the fault of the manufacturer for not preventing a user from solving it while driving??

how is facetime any different that that. any licensed driver should CLEARLY know that staring at anything other than the road is dangerous and cause for liability. facetime, rubix cube, putting on makup, doing a crossword puzzle, whatever.

they are all distractions, but you dont need hasbro to tell you not to play monopoly while driving, so why should Apple be responsible for stupidty?

http://mariashriver.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/rubicks-cube.jpg

[AngryScientist]

EDIT: Just pursuing the conversation here, no offense intended to anyone, differing opinions are always welcome to discuss as long as we are respectful. cheers,

[Tony T]

You don't seem to really believe in personal responsibility.
Jeff

If a corporation patents technology that will result in a safer device, yet does not implement that technology (and with the patent having the effect of preventing competitors implementing the technology), then this is a question of corporate responsibility.

[Tony T]

so why should Apple be responsible for stupidty?


The argument in the lawsuit is that Apple has patented the technology to prevent Facetime from being used in a moving car, but has failed to implement this feature.

I for one hope that this lawsuit has the effect of Apple implementing a lock-out technology in a moving vehicle.
I disagree that Apple (or other smartphone manufacturers) have no responsibility to make a safer product.

For example, I think everyone would agree that you should not use a hairdryer in the bathtub, however, all hair dryers have an ALCI (Appliance Leakage Circuit Interrupter) to prevent someone from electrocuting themselves.

In regard to smartphones, if the only one at risk was the user, then I would have more sympathy for the corporation, but that is not the case here (especially when the corporation admits that law enforcement will not solve the problem).

"New laws are being written to make texting illegal while driving. However, law enforcement officials report that their ability to catch offenders is limited because the texting device can be used out of sight (e.g., on the driver's lap), thus making texting while driving even more dangerous. Texting while driving has become so widespread it is doubtful that law enforcement will have any significant effect on stopping the practice."


.

[OtayBW]

I have a different view of this (and one that, in my experience, most do not share). I do not think the lawsuit mentioned here is inherently stupid. I also do not think the McDonald's spilled coffee lawsuit was inherently ridiculous. Before the flames begin, hear me out....

McDonald's and Apple are both making money on the products that are creating the known risk. If they are going to profit from there acts, they should bear the cost of the risk their acts create.
The MacDonalds coffee case was not just a nuiscance lawsuit as many think. It was established in court that they were heating up their coffee to higher than health board standards in order to mask the fact that they were purchasing a lower grade (cheaper) of coffee. So, absolutely, they should (and did) bear the cost of the risk their acts create. In this case, corporate ethics fell down. In the case of distracted driving, personal responsibility fails as well...

[Tony T]

Ultimately the award was reduced due to her being partly at fault (for opening the lid with the cup between her legs).

And in the Facetime case, it's not the user that filed the lawsuit, but the person hit by the user, so while I understand the argument of "personal responsibility", I don't see how Apple has no liability as they could (and should) have produced a safer product.

[shovelhd]

What about YouTube? Facebook Live? Both companies encourage bad behavior to drive ads.

[Peter P.]

If I understand the Apple lockout feature, it would be turned on by default, disabling the phone features while in motion.

If the phone user turns OFF the feature, then at that point the phone user becomes responsible for their actions and any consequences.

That seems to be the legal end of this issue. I anticipate most users would disable the feature and we'd be back at square one, except Apple would then be out of the equation.

[Tony T]

Based on my reading of Apple's patent, this is not a feature that can be turned off ("This relates generally to safe operation of handheld computing devices, and more particularly, to providing a lock-out mechanism to prevent operation of one or more functions of handheld computing devices by drivers when operating vehicles..")

Also, the patent describes the lockout mechanism as being able to determine the location of the phone in the car, so looks like passengers (and train commuters) will not be locked-out.

[bikingshearer]

The MacDonalds coffee case was not just a nuiscance lawsuit as many think. It was established in court that they were heating up their coffee to higher than health board standards in order to mask the fact that they were purchasing a lower grade (cheaper) of coffee. So, absolutely, they should (and did) bear the cost of the risk their acts create. In this case, corporate ethics fell down. In the case of distracted driving, personal responsibility fails as well...

Ultimately the award was reduced due to her being partly at fault (for opening the lid with the cup between her legs).

And in the Facetime case, it's not the user that filed the lawsuit, but the person hit by the user, so while I understand the argument of "personal responsibility", I don't see how Apple has no liability as they could (and should) have produced a safer product.

This is exactly the way a comparative fault system works, with personal responsibility and corporate responsibility both taken into account.

Now if only tobacco companies (and their executives) could be held liable for their putting a known killer out on the market. (Can you think of another legal product that has no known medicinal or other beneficial use that is guaranteed to kill or seriously injure a large percentage of its users when used as directed?) No, I do not buy the "personal choice/personal responsibility" argument they have skated by on for years. I also do not expect it to change in my lifetime.

[bikingshearer]

for the sake of argument - let us take the rubix cube. is this also a "known risk" to drivers?? if someone is driving down the road, trying to solve the rubix cube - is it the fault of the manufacturer for not preventing a user from solving it while driving??

how is facetime any different that that. any licensed driver should CLEARLY know that staring at anything other than the road is dangerous and cause for liability. facetime, rubix cube, putting on makup, doing a crossword puzzle, whatever.

they are all distractions, but you dont need hasbro to tell you not to play monopoly while driving, so why should Apple be responsible for stupidty?

The difference is notice. It is well known that cell phones (and whatever application is on them) are a major risk for distracted driving. Apple knows this. By contrast, there have been no rash of Rubik's cube-related distracted driver incidents. Unless and until that happens (and I'm not holding my breath waiting for it), Hasbro is in the clear.

And yes, the driver should know better than to use FaceTime when driving. I am not saying that they are not responsible for their own stupidity. But I am saying that McDonald's was, and Apple should be, also responsible for injecting the known or obvious risk. As with the McDonald's coffee case, it is up to juries to apportion the fault between the stupid driver and the corporate injector of risk.

[54ny77]

it's a sad commentary of humanity that we have to legislate against stupidity, i.e., driving 70 mph and not even looking at the road.

i'd prefer darwin to sort those folks out, but unfortunately we cyclists get caught in that fray.

The difference is notice. It is well known that cell phones (and whatever application is on them) are a major risk for distracted driving. Apple knows this. By contrast, there have been no rash of Rubik's cube-related distracted driver incidents. Unless and until that happens (and I'm not holding my breath waiting for it), Hasbro is in the clear.

And yes, the driver should know better than to use FaceTime when driving. I am not saying that they are not responsible for their own stupidity. But I am saying that McDonald's was, and Apple should be, also responsible for injecting the known or obvious risk. As with the McDonald's coffee case, it is up to juries to apportion the fault between the stupid driver and the corporate injector of risk.

[Tony T]

…Now if only tobacco companies (and their executives) could be held liable for their putting a known killer out on the market. (Can you think of another legal product that has no known medicinal or other beneficial use that is guaranteed to kill or seriously injure a large percentage of its users when used as directed?).

Sugar? What Not to Eat: ‘The Case Against Sugar’ (http://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/02/books/review/case-against-sugar-gary-taubes.html?hpw&rref=books&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=well-region&region=bottom-well&WT.nav=bottom-well)

[Tony T]

The mitigating factor that I see (and already stated), it not that Apple is responsible for creating a product that has a risk when not used as directed, but that Apple not only recognizes a need to prevent their product from being used in an unsafe manner, but has worked on it and has received a patent for a possible solution (8 years ago!). The smart phone market is no longer owned by Apple. They have to remain competitive, and it could be argued that if Apple created a driver lock-out that this would put them at a competitive disadvantage. Apple has made the situation worse by obtaining a patent for the lock-out, in effect making it harder for other manufacturers to create a driver lock-out (even if they wanted to). Apple has no incentive to produce a driver lock-out (they actually have a disincentive to do so). We cannot expect a corporation to make a change to a top selling product out of 'corporate responsibility' when doing so would be harmful to their shareholders. We could wait for our legislators to create and enforce stronger laws, but that should have occurred years ago. I see a lawsuit as the only solution to this mess. The Facetime lawsuit alone will not force Smartphone manufactures to change their product, however, once precedent is set they will scramble to protect themselves by making a safer product.

[cnighbor1]

A lot of laws are ridden mainly to establish in a court of law who is at fault
Take the 3'clearance for passing cyclists
There is almost no way to enforce it To issue a ticket a precise measurement would have had to been taken
Motorist could always state I passed with more than three feet clear with no way to prove overwise
But if cyclist is hit by the motorist he is at fault has how can you get hit by a passing car if your required to provide 3' clear
case is clear who is at fault in court room but not enforced on the strrets

[OtayBW]

it's a sad commentary of humanity that we have to legislate against stupidity, i.e., driving 70 mph and not even looking at the road.

i'd prefer darwin to sort those folks out, but unfortunately we cyclists get caught in that fray.
The Darwin effect is supposed to enhance the gene pool, not exterminate it! :help:

[bikingshearer]

it's a sad commentary of humanity that we have to legislate against stupidity, i.e., driving 70 mph and not even looking at the road.

Agreed. Sad, but oh, so necessary. There are many, many laws, rules and regulations that exist solely because a significant minority of people simply cannot exercise good judgment. They spoil it for everyone else. I have no doubt that we all can cite a number of examples.

As I always say: (1) common sense isn't; and (2) the average person is way below average.

And closely related: Nothing can be made fool-proof because fools are so ingenious.

[classtimesailer]

I live, ride, and drive in CA. It has not made a difference. The majority of Americans are very selfish/ignorant/ mal-educated. Almost half the respondents on a cycling forum that is focused on cycling safety admit that they wear earbuds while riding. ***? Be careful out there.

[Elefantino]

On the way home today I was behind an Infiniti SUV that nearly ran into a parked fire truck. It swerved at the last minute, nearly running into a Prius in the other lane. I pulled alongside the Infiniti and sure enough, the driver had the cell phone in the right hand, right at eye level, the other hand on the wheel.

You cannot legislate against stupidity. Stupidity is a constant. Stupidity is, sadly, the natural order of things.

[buddybikes]

3 nights ago driving through Somervilla MA at 6:30 PM, down Mass Ave. Saw exactly 1 cyclist stop at red light, saw multiple without even a tail light one.

First time I said to myself, Boston area doesn't deserve bike lanes, when they have them, they act like assholes.

[Tony T]

Another lawsuit:
Suit says Apple fears losing market share with a "lock-out" feature on iPhones. (https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/01/apple-sued-again-for-not-deploying-iphone-tech-to-block-distracted-driving/)

The plaintiff is not looking for a payday:

This lawsuit from accident victim Julio Ceja, who was rear-ended by a texting driver, does not seek any monetary damages. Instead, it demands that a Los Angeles Superior Court judge block Apple from selling iPhones in the Golden State until the devices are updated to include Apple's patented technology to lock drivers out of their phones while driving.

"Apple has the ability to outfit its iPhones with a lock-out device that would disable the smartphone while being used by motorists. In fact, it has had this technology since 2008, and was granted a patent on it by the US Patent and Trademark Office in 2014. Yet, fearful that such a device would cause it to lose valuable market share, Apple refuses to employ the technology, choosing instead to allow the massive carnage to occur," according to the motorist's lawsuit.