Apple Watch owner fined $120 for changing songs while driving



  • Reply 121 of 124

    Originally Posted by Mr. Me View Post

    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?


    HUD aside, let's compare these.




    Are they the same position?

  • Reply 122 of 124
    analogjackanalogjack Posts: 1,073member

    Originally Posted by ktappe View Post

    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.)



    Well the back of your hand is still your hand, and your wrist and your hand are not clearly defined. I don't think there's an issue on this one.

  • Reply 123 of 124
    rivertriprivertrip Posts: 131member

    Originally Posted by tenly View Post

    That's not true. While stopped at a red light, it's plenty safe to go ahead and clear some notifications.

    What constitutes *USE* of the watch? Do you have to touch the watch with the opposite hand or does glancing at an incoming notification count as use? The law needs to have language that clearly defines these terms. Activating Siri requires a long press of the crown. That can easily be done without taking your eyes off the road. Would that constitute illegal use?

    Most of the people that comment on this thread probably don't even have one yet, but they'll be convinced that they know what's distracting and what's not. Most of them will be wrong. Replying to a text on the watch is not nearly as distracting as doing so from a phone. One large reply button, followed by a choice of 2-3 predefined answers or a microphone button and then a dictated message is all it takes to reply to a message. For me, it's less distracting to send a quick reply from the watch than it is to adjust the HVAC, tha built-in radio or taking a sip from my coffe.

    I don't like the double-standard in the wording of these laws. If they are going to explicitly outlaw the use of handheld devices because they are a distraction tothe driver, then do it! But they don't ban handheld devices - they ban handheld ELECTRONIC devices! So putting on your lipstick or your makeup or even fumbling with a paper map is all completely legal...

    Putting lipstick on while driving is not covered by laws that ban the use of electronic devices, but still is illegal. Distracted drivers were a problem before the iPhone was invented.

  • Reply 124 of 124
    jfc1138jfc1138 Posts: 3,090member

    Originally Posted by rivertrip View Post


    Putting lipstick on while driving is not covered by laws that ban the use of electronic devices, but still is illegal. Distracted drivers were a problem before the iPhone was invented.

    Indeed; I recently read that the original bans on drinking while driving were aimed at drinking anything while driving, to avoid the distraction in the act and not the effects of the substance being consumed....


    Makes a certain amount of sense, when motorized vehicles first came out people were skeptical. IIRC one of those old obsolete funny laws left on the books required a person with a lit lantern to walk in front of a car when it was on the road at nigjht....

Sign In or Register to comment.