Apple Watch owner fined $120 for changing songs while driving

12346

Comments

  • Reply 101 of 124
    sacto joesacto joe Posts: 895member

    its moron not moran i think, otherwise - good post!

    relic wrote: »
    Please reframe from doing that, pointing out peoples spelling mistakes. We all know what he meant, you even typed that it was a good post, so why then, pointing out such mistakes is only beneficial to you and no one else. Sorry but I just really dislike it when someone does this, if the post was full of grammar mistakes than fine, but a single letter, just let it go in the future, please.
    It wasn't a mistake, or at least not one by me:

    http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/get-a-brain-morans
  • Reply 102 of 124
    sacto joesacto joe Posts: 895member
    mac_128 wrote: »

    You clearly don't own an iPhone. I can currently access Siri hands free without taking my hands off the wheel at all. So yes, I think the iPhone that's sitting in the car as a requirement for the use of the ?Watch is a LOT safer than using the watch.

    And you obviously didn't read what I wrote, because it's not about glancing at your wrist for a half-second for the time, its about shifting your attention substantially from the road, and potentially engaging with the ?Watch without realizing how much time your gaze is averted from the road, because it does more than display the time. 
    I'm thrilled for you. I don't have a car that lets me do that. A $500 watch that does that is a LOT cheaper than a new car, and lets anyone join the parade. And you continually miss the point; one doesn't blame the tool for the fault of the person using it. Well, you do, but that's another issue....
  • Reply 103 of 124
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Sacto Joe View Post







    It wasn't a mistake, or at least not one by me:



    http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/get-a-brain-morans



    i never said it ws a mistake, its get a brain moran, or its a moron, isn't the original get a brain a play on moron?

  • Reply 104 of 124
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post





    You can keep one hand on the steering wheel whilst changing the station on the car radio. To manipulate the Apple Watch neither hand can be used to steer the vehicle effectively.



    to manipulate the apple watch with siri, which to me makes sense when i am driving, both hands remain on the wheel.

  • Reply 105 of 124
    mac_128mac_128 Posts: 3,454member
    sacto joe wrote: »
    I'm thrilled for you. I don't have a car that lets me do that. A $500 watch that does that is a LOT cheaper than a new car, and lets anyone join the parade. And you continually miss the point; one doesn't blame the tool for the fault of the person using it. Well, you do, but that's another issue....
    I don't have a car that does that for me either. And no need for a $500 watch either. My iPhone does it all perfectly by itself, and I don't have to move a hand or lift a finger off the steering whee to do it. The speaker and mic is far better than the watches, and I can hear the caller clearly over the traffic, and they can hear me. Not necessarily so with the watch, which usually requires raising it closer to the mouth and ear, which means taking ones hand off the wheel.

    I'm not blaming the tool either, but then you'd know that if you bothered to read what I wrote.
  • Reply 106 of 124
    scottjdscottjd Posts: 64member
    mac_128 wrote: »
    I don't have a car that does that for me either. And no need for a $500 watch either.
    Not necessarily so with the watch, which usually requires raising it closer to the mouth and ear, which means taking ones hand off the wheel.

    I don't want to get in the middle of you little argument, but as a reader I'm truly confused on your statements.
    You admit you don't have a watch saying you have no need for a $500 watch.
    Then you state that you know the quality of the mic on the watch making assumptions that you have to move the watch closer to talk into it????!
    But, you don't have one, correct?

    I do own one, and on the day apple ,put out the demos in the store, the store was noisy with a lot of people in the store to look at the watch. And when I tested Siri even in a very loud environment at a distance from the demo unit that would be the same distance if it was on my wrist while holding the steering wheel.......and it heard every word just fine and carried out the commands and dictations when I tested both before I even bought it. And the store was about 10X louder then the road noise traveling in my car at 70Mph.
    And now that I've owned the watch for 4 weeks I can say it works better than the demo did with commands and dictation since the 1.0.1 update.
    I also have no issues hearing a voicemail from the watch, but my hearing may be better than some even being deaf in my left ear.

    I just wish people would stop making assumptions and talking about things like they own it and know these facts because they are able to try it on the item they own, when in truth they don't own it. So they have not tried in in real life situations, and shouldn't talk about it as if they know all the facts and are just making assumptions.

    Thank you for your time.... I'm done, now back to your little spat with the other person.
  • Reply 107 of 124
    ktappektappe Posts: 808member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by A Hawkins View Post



    it might not be handheld, but it's even more distract you than a smartphone

     

    That's not even remotely true. Have you read anything about how the Apple watch was designed? It was specifically programmed and tested and reprogrammed to allow interactions to take place in 5 seconds or less. The entire point of the watch is to be less distracting than the iPhone. It was very specifically made to be the exact opposite of what you are claiming. So please stop spreading your misinformation.

  • Reply 108 of 124
    tyler82tyler82 Posts: 976member

    Then we should outlaw car stereos. 

     

    And operable windows. 

     

    And windshield wipers.

     

    And turn signals. 

     

    And stick shifts.

     

    And rear view mirrors. 

  • Reply 109 of 124
    ktappektappe Posts: 808member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by AnalogJack View Post

     

    will not work in court because it is clear that 'hand held' is not meant to be taken literally


     

    The moment you claim the law is not meant to be taken literally, you step into the morass of "intent of the law" vs "letter of the law". Once you start interpreting intent, the defendant is able to start questioning the reason behind the law. As in, "is the law meant to prevent distracted driving? Yes? Well, I wasn't distracted. The nature of Apple Watch allows me to keep my eyes on the road and my hands on the wheel much better than if I were using a radio built into the car." Or somesuch. However good his lawyer is at making the argument is how likely he is to get off. 

     

    Or you could stick to the letter of the law. In which case he will get off. This appears to be a no-win for the government if the accused and his representation argue properly (and get an unbiased judge.)

  • Reply 110 of 124
    clemynxclemynx Posts: 1,512member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tyler82 View Post

     

    Then we should outlaw car stereos. 

     

    And operable windows. 

     

    And windshield wipers.

     

    And turn signals. 

     

    And stick shifts.

     

    And rear view mirrors. 


     

    Except there are studies showing how these things are way less distracting that talking on the phone, or using an electronic device to communicate with someone else. It's the abstraction that we need to make to imagine the person on the other end of the line that's distracting.

  • Reply 111 of 124
    mac_128mac_128 Posts: 3,454member
    scottjd wrote: »
    I don't want to get in the middle of you little argument, but as a reader I'm truly confused on your statements.
    You admit you don't have a watch saying you have no need for a $500 watch.
    Then you state that you know the quality of the mic on the watch making assumptions that you have to move the watch closer to talk into it????!
    But, you don't have one, correct?

    I do own one, and on the day apple ,put out the demos in the store, the store was noisy with a lot of people in the store to look at the watch. And when I tested Siri even in a very loud environment at a distance from the demo unit that would be the same distance if it was on my wrist while holding the steering wheel.......and it heard every word just fine and carried out the commands and dictations when I tested both before I even bought it. And the store was about 10X louder then the road noise traveling in my car at 70Mph.
    And now that I've owned the watch for 4 weeks I can say it works better than the demo did with commands and dictation since the 1.0.1 update.
    I also have no issues hearing a voicemail from the watch, but my hearing may be better than some even being deaf in my left ear.

    I just wish people would stop making assumptions and talking about things like they own it and know these facts because they are able to try it on the item they own, when in truth they don't own it. So they have not tried in in real life situations, and shouldn't talk about it as if they know all the facts and are just making assumptions.

    Thank you for your time.... I'm done, now back to your little spat with the other person.

    Well your assumptions are wrong. The phrase "No Need for a watch" means just that -- no one needs a watch (or an integrated car system for that matter) to use Siri hands free on an iPhone. But taken out of context, I can understand why you might be confused, of course you were reading it in context. It certainly does not mean I have not used an ?Watch similar situations. And I'm not the only one by far who has reportedly had problems with Siri on the watch, both with clarity and even getting "Hey Siri" to respond After multiple attempts. Your anecdotal experience aside, and I'm thrilled your particular watch works flawlessly for you, that stil does not make the watch "without peer" for car safety than any other solution as has been claimed, whether you have to raise your watch to your head to hear it or not, which was the point. But here's my assumption, you had a "bone to pick" and inferred something from my comments in order to go ahead and do it, before you received my confirmation one way or the other.
  • Reply 112 of 124
    arlomediaarlomedia Posts: 271member

    This article caught my attention because just yesterday a cyclist in my community was seriously injured by a driver who drifted into the bike lane while looking up directions on a smartphone.

     

    This response sums it up pretty well for me:

     

    Originally Posted by Arlor View Post

     

    Almost everybody thinks that they are a better driver and less distractable than they actually are. That suggests we shouldn't leave the question of whether an individual driver can function safely up to that driver. The texts can wait. Until the past few years, people mostly lived without them. Astonishing, I know. 


     

    As for the arguments that other things on the road or in the car are also distracting, and therefore the known distractions of mobile devices should be left alone ... that isn't really logical, is it? That's like saying you might as well smoke cigarettes because there are so many other things that could also kill you. It's just a rationalization for doing something you don't have the self-control to stop.

  • Reply 113 of 124
    rezwitsrezwits Posts: 776member
    taking out your phone and using two hands to type a text while "knee driving" is totally different the glancing at your watch and saying hey siri. Or sitting at a stop light and waking then punching a button. This is all bs tho, since when did using your stereo constitute a violation, only because of texting and dialing phone numbers! LAME
  • Reply 114 of 124
    jfc1138jfc1138 Posts: 3,090member

    The New York Times did a pivotal series on the entire issue of driving and distraction, including emergency responders distraction as some mentioned. Well worth the read regarding the neuro-physiology alone (corroborating while so many of use, when looking for an address, turn down the radio...)

    http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/technology/series/driven_to_distraction/index.html

  • Reply 115 of 124
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member
    Originally Posted by Stephen Joseph View Post

    We have sued Apple regarding distracted driving and the Apple Watch.



    Are you brain dead? Honestly, do you suffer from mental illness?

  • Reply 116 of 124
    hungoverhungover Posts: 603member
    Honestly constable, the only time that I interacted with my watch was whilst the car was sitting at a red light. I completely ignored all notifications and was happy to listen to my play list whilst in transit
  • Reply 117 of 124
    a hawkinsa hawkins Posts: 21member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ktappe View Post

     

     

    That's not even remotely true. Have you read anything about how the Apple watch was designed? It was specifically programmed and tested and reprogrammed to allow interactions to take place in 5 seconds or less. The entire point of the watch is to be less distracting than the iPhone. It was very specifically made to be the exact opposite of what you are claiming. So please stop spreading your misinformation.




    Well, I would say, as an Apple Fanboy, I've read every piece of articles about Apple Watch. (And yes I own both iPhone and an Apple Watch.) It does intend to be used in less than 5 seconds. But I'm 100% sure that it does not intend to be used WHILE DRIVING where only 1-2 seconds of distraction is enough to cause accident.

     

    As to explain my point let me attach a photo. I took this photo in my car and placed images of iPhone and Apple Watch in it. You can see an iPhone sit in a winshield-mount holder and an Apple Watch on the left wrist. Now see for yourself what is more distracted between iPhone and Apple Watch. For iPhone you can easily glance to read text or notification thanks to big screen, while still having vision of the road. You can use one hand to quickly tap a button to interact with it.

     

    When using Apple Watch, in order to read anything, you have to either stare down or move your hand up to read. In both case it is way more distracted because of the small screen and small text. This get worst when you want to interact. You have to use another hand to tap the screen. In a case your left hand remains holding steering wheel and you use right hand. And you have to surely stare down because it is touch screen, thus losing sight of the road. In another case when you doesn't want to lose sight of the road ahead, you have to raise left hand up at eyes level and use right hand to tap. This case need you to put both hands off your steering wheel --  hardly a way to drive safely.

     

     

    I would not argue that using the phone on a holder while driving is legal or safe. Both way are distract your driving and should be banned if the safety is concerned. That's why Apple and other firms developed Car Play and similar solution for drivers.

     

    So there's no misconception here. Apple Watch is intended to be less distracted, but there can be some cases that it is even more distracted. Don't just read articles and believe everything they said. Try it yourself.

  • Reply 118 of 124
    mr. memr. me Posts: 3,221member
    a hawkins wrote: »

    Well, I would say, as an Apple Fanboy, I've read every piece of articles about Apple Watch. (And yes I own both iPhone and an Apple Watch.) It does intend to be used in less than 5 seconds. But I'm 100% sure that it does not intend to be used WHILE DRIVING where only 1-2 seconds of distraction is enough to cause accident.

    As to explain my point let me attach a photo. I took this photo in my car and placed images of iPhone and Apple Watch in it. You can see an iPhone sit in a winshield-mount holder and an Apple Watch on the left wrist. Now see for yourself what is more distracted between iPhone and Apple Watch. For iPhone you can easily glance to read text or notification thanks to big screen, while still having vision of the road. You can use one hand to quickly tap a button to interact with it.

    When using Apple Watch, in order to read anything, you have to either stare down or move your hand up to read. In both case it is way more distracted because of the small screen and small text. This get worst when you want to interact. You have to use another hand to tap the screen. In a case your left hand remains holding steering wheel and you use right hand. And you have to surely stare down because it is touch screen, thus losing sight of the road. In another case when you doesn't want to lose sight of the road ahead, you have to raise left hand up at eyes level and use right hand to tap. This case need you to put both hands off your steering wheel --  hardly a way to drive safely.

    ....

    So there's no misconception here. Apple Watch is intended to be less distracted, but there can be some cases that it is even more distracted. Don't just read articles and believe everything they said. Try it yourself.</span>

    You do realize that you example is complete nonsense? No, I guess you don't.

    Let me explain it to you. That iPhone is located about 1-2 feet from your eyes. The visible road is located 8 feet or more from your eyes. If you focus on the iPhone, then you cannot see the road. If you focus on the road, then you cannot see the iPhone.

    Step into a car with HUD--heads-up display. You will see that HUD focuses its image over your hood which allows you to simultaneously view the HUD and the road. I know because I've owned two cars with HUD. That's how they work.

    The ?Watch is far superior to the iPhone in this regard because it displays limited information that can be viewed in 1-2 seconds. This is the case of most traditional watches. The idiot in Canada who is the subject of the OP most likely did something to call attention to the fact that he was distracted. I don't believe that distracted driving is legal irrespective of the cause.
  • Reply 119 of 124
    a hawkinsa hawkins Posts: 21member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mr. Me View Post





    You do realize that you example is complete nonsense? No, I guess you don't.



    Let me explain it to you. That iPhone is located about 1-2 feet from your eyes. The visible road is located 8 feet or more from your eyes. If you focus on the iPhone, then you cannot see the road. If you focus on the road, then you cannot see the iPhone.



    Step into a car with HUD--heads-up display. You will see that HUD focuses its image over your hood which allows you to simultaneously view the HUD and the road. I know because I've owned two cars with HUD. That's how they work.



    The ?Watch is far superior to the iPhone in this regard because it displays limited information that can be viewed in 1-2 seconds. This is the case of most traditional watches. The idiot in Canada who is the subject of the OP most likely did something to call attention to the fact that he was distracted. I don't believe that distracted driving is legal irrespective of the cause.



    So you have HUD and I have my holder. HUD works with you same as mine. Same concept -- check your content over the hood. This idea can be found in car design lately (such as Japanese version of Toyota Prius) where they place dashboard over the middle console and not under the hood behind steering wheel. Because you can glance over the hood without nodding your head down. You mentioned focus which is reasonable but don't forget that car console over the hood has the same focus as iPhone.

     

    Your example is opposite with your conclusion. While HUD, Over-the-Hood Dashboard and phone on the holder let you see content over dashboard hood, Apple Watch is not.

     

    Now, let's not argue the different between phone holder and HUD.

    Let's focus on Apple Watch.

     

    Apple Watch is not like traditional watch which is always on. The Apple Watch need you to either tap on screen or raise your wrist up to activate the screen. If you just check the information such as complications in the watch screen or incoming notifications, it is perfect because you just glance. But if you want to check Glances and interact, that's completely different story. You have to move another hand (which you suppose to use it to hold the wheel) to tap and swipe. With small touch screen and small buttons, you have to move your eyes to focus when you operate. Let's say you want to change song like the man in the article, you need to do these steps:

     

    1. Tap the screen or raise your wrist

    2. Swipe Glances up and if the Music Glances is not there, you have to swipe left or right a few times to get to that glance. Or you can use "Hey Siri, Open Music"

    3. With Music App/Glance on screen, you have to tap the small Rewind or Forward button.

     

    These three steps surely take you longer than 1 second.

     

    Add more pain to that, given it's the first generation of the product line, the watch sometimes refuses to response and keep you in loading screen. That will draw more attention than 10 seconds, while iPhone rarely behave that way.

     

    Now I would like to ask you one questions before argue further:

    Do you own an Apple Watch and trying to change song while driving once?

     

    If not, please get one and try. You will understand my point clearly. And if you still think it's not make sense, at least you have real information to explain with. Maybe my watch is defect so it response slowly? (Unfortunately if you see reviews from many blogs you can see they experience the same thing.)

     

    P.S. Smarter than the steps above, which I'm sure it's not the case of the man in the article, you just raise your wrist and tell "Hey Siri, next song." and enjoy. But expect a low chance that Siri just don't want to take your order.

  • Reply 120 of 124
    mr. memr. me Posts: 3,221member
    a hawkins wrote: »

    So you have HUD and I have my holder. HUD works with you same as mine. Same concept -- check your content over the hood. This idea can be found in car design lately (such as Japanese version of Toyota Prius) where they place dashboard over the middle console and not under the hood behind steering wheel. Because you can glance over the hood without nodding your head down. You mentioned focus which is reasonable but don't forget that car console over the hood has the same focus as iPhone.

    ....
    Complete and utter nonsense. Hanging an iPhone from your rear view mirror is a completely different concept that focusing the image of a HUD over the hood of your car. As I said in my previous post, the HUD is designed to be viewed simultaneously with the road. That is to say that seeing the road and the HUD can be done simultaneously without having to refocus to view either. Your iPhone placed where it is requires you to refocus your vision to see it. Thus, road is rendered invisible to you. To view the road, the iPhone will be out of focus and, thus, invisible. Viewing the road and the iPhone located where you have it are mutually exclusive.

    Got it?
Sign In or Register to comment.