Lawsuit blames Apple's 'less safe' FaceTime implementation for fatal traffic accident

12467

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 125
    dysamoriadysamoria Posts: 3,430member

    steveh said:
    mac_128 said:
    Horrible idea. Why don't we scrap all safety laws and make them the sole responsibility of the individual? I hate safety belts. Yes they're a good idea, but why do we need a law? And air bags ... expensive, they should be optional? Turn signals are a good idea, but heck, they cost extra, and my arm sticking out the window works just as well? Yeah, you're onto a really bad idea there ...
    I started wearing safety belts long before their use was mandated. Simple risk management. I started wearing a helmet when riding bike/motorcycle before their use was mandated in my state. Simple risk management.

    Air bags are a mixed blessing; they can cause serious injury, particularly to children, in some cases. I suspect that if some manufacturers had offered them without government mandate, we might have seen whether or not they would have been a selling point, just as some other safety features have proven to be.

    Turn signals appeared on cars before they were required by law ... I'm still disappointed that my old Morris Minor's trafficators were disabled before I got the machine years ago.

    I think that government intervention as a first resort for any given issue is more than a little suboptimal. It's not like there are no other options for solutions to problems.
    Your very last sentence is where your reasoning falls down. Most of these laws tend to be a response to a lack of use of safety equipment. It's the same reason we have regulation of any kind: it is a response to a problem that "personal accountability" is just not solving. It's not unsolicited meddling. It is governing the people where they are not governing themselves. Because you are more sensible than others in your usage of safety equipment, you might assume that everyone else is like you, or that it's not necessary to compel others to do what you do by your own logic. The conscientious people don't need these laws to make them do things, but they do need them to make the REST of the people around them more apt to be conscientious. We don't live in our own little universes. We impact each other. Turn signals are a fantastic example of how that impact works.
    apple jockeytzm41
  • Reply 62 of 125
    radarthekatradarthekat Posts: 3,541moderator
    jsmythe00 said:
    MalyOpa said:
    Maybe someone should sue state of Texas of not implementing a law which prohibit people from using phones while driving
    Or maybe personal responsibility can be a thing still, and we don't need The Almighty Government to tell everyone what to do. 
    I like this idea. And do away with helmet laws too
    Wearing a proper crash helmet saved my life more than once. It is risky enough already riding a bike. Stupid car drivers are everywhere. They don't care as they are nice and safely locked up inside their tin cans. I now wear body armour (kevlar) on my shoulders, elbows and knees when riding.
    I'm still here aged 60+ and have been riding bikes since Man landed on the moon. If I hadn't been wearing a helmet back on '72 I'd be long dead.
    No reason to repeal helmet laws in my opinion.
    I'd advocate a stricter version of Florida's approach. In FL, you have to show you've got $10k in bank deposits if you want to ride without a helmet. The idea being you'll have some skin in the game to cover potential head injury costs. I'd up that to $50k, and make you post it as a bond. You wanna ride with no helmet, sure, you have that freedom, if you can cover some of the costs often bore by society for the brain injuries that often result from accidents where the rider wasn't wearing a helmet. That's a measure of personal responsibility combined with retaining the right of freedom to do something stupid.
    roundaboutnowapple jockey
  • Reply 63 of 125
    SoliSoli Posts: 10,033member
    jsmythe00 said:
    MalyOpa said:
    Maybe someone should sue state of Texas of not implementing a law which prohibit people from using phones while driving
    Or maybe personal responsibility can be a thing still, and we don't need The Almighty Government to tell everyone what to do. 
    I like this idea. And do away with helmet laws too
    Wearing a proper crash helmet saved my life more than once. It is risky enough already riding a bike. Stupid car drivers are everywhere. They don't care as they are nice and safely locked up inside their tin cans. I now wear body armour (kevlar) on my shoulders, elbows and knees when riding.
    I'm still here aged 60+ and have been riding bikes since Man landed on the moon. If I hadn't been wearing a helmet back on '72 I'd be long dead.
    No reason to repeal helmet laws in my opinion.
    The idea being you'll have some skin in the game to cover potential head injury costs.
    Read literally, that's pretty funny.
  • Reply 64 of 125
    Notsofast said:
    jkichline said:

    dewme said:
    Speaking of patents, this lawsuit is patently ridiculous. It's no different than suing a gun manufacturer for not implementing a fingerprint recognition guard on a firearm involved in an accidental shooting (the technology is available), suing an automobile manufacturer for not implementing breathalyzer interlock on a vehicle involved in a drunk driving fatality (the technology is available), or suing the US Park Service for not putting a 20 foot climb proof fence with razor wire around the entire perimeter of the Grand Canyon (no technology required). It's impossible to guard against all possible forms of stupidity. As we've witnessed on numerous occasions just in the past year, there is no upper limit on stupidity. Just when you thought you've witnessed the stupidest thing humanly possible, whammo, you are proven wrong! If anything needs a military grade stupidity filter, it's Twitter, not FaceTime.
    Personally I think Apple should buy Twitter, shut them down, and give the money back to the shareholders.  Boy that would be awesome and we all know why.
    How does that censorship thing work when someone is saying something you support?  We don't do it then right?   Like all this talk about fake news.  Who gets to decide?  Is MSNBC shut down because of all the fake news put out by their anchor Brian Williams?  How about CNN and Donna Brazille giving the questions out to HC, was that debate they hosted fake news then because she had the questions in advance?  You see it's easy to be upset when your candidate wins, but to call for censorship is not the answer because you won't like it when it happens to you or something you support, but it will be too late then.
    Generally you have three classifications of speech. Fact, Fiction and Opinion. While you do have a human elements to consider publications that lean in the direction of one of those three categories are very easy to identify. When most people talk intelligently about "fake news" they aren't talking about editorial misconduct or getting the facts wrong, or even sloppy reporting. Not even lying journalists that fake interviews. They are talking about organizations and individuals that purposely publish fictional news, knowing that it is purely fabricated, misleading, and published solely for financial gain because it will cause controversy or lend support to a popular opinion. In the old days these would be referred to as supermarket tabloids. e.g. "The Enquirer." Now these are teams of people in places Veles, Macedonia or St. Petersburg, Russia publishing absolutely bogus articles to wordpress sites cloned under hundreds of different publication names and domains and posting links under hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of fake twitter and Facebook account for both financial gain and propagandized goals.
    Once you curtail the means for truly fake news to reach its audience then it makes it easier to address editorial standards in traditional media. I'm not against flagging articles from "reputable" publications as "fake" if it meets the criteria. Most of them do respond to criticism when they don't meet journalistic standards where as fake news outlets just keep posting more fake news. 
    apple jockey
  • Reply 65 of 125
    chris_cachris_ca Posts: 2,543member
    jsmythe00 said:
    MalyOpa said:
    Maybe someone should sue state of Texas of not implementing a law which prohibit people from using phones while driving
    Or maybe personal responsibility can be a thing still, and we don't need The Almighty Government to tell everyone what to do. 
    I like this idea. And do away with helmet laws too
    What helmet laws? (From Colorado)
  • Reply 66 of 125
    chris_cachris_ca Posts: 2,543member
    You're hilarious. People don't give a crap about the laws as they stand, but with a law the family who gets totaled by those a-holes have a course of action beyond, ``We're sorry, this prick didn't use common sense, but we can't do anything to compensate your family for their lack of self-reliance: a fantasy of the Right.''
    So you're saying that right now, the family now has no course of action to sue the FT driver?
    After all, there is currently no law against using phone while driving. 
  • Reply 67 of 125
    SoliSoli Posts: 10,033member
    chris_ca said:
    You're hilarious. People don't give a crap about the laws as they stand, but with a law the family who gets totaled by those a-holes have a course of action beyond, ``We're sorry, this prick didn't use common sense, but we can't do anything to compensate your family for their lack of self-reliance: a fantasy of the Right.''
    So you're saying that right now, the family now has no course of action to sue the FT driver?
    After all, there is currently no law against using phone while driving. 
    They can sue him and he's also accountable under criminal law for reckless endangerment, careless driving, yada yada yada. The problem for the family (and the lawyers) is this 20yo likely has nothing worth having. They could sue for money in a civil case and win, but likely never see a penny. I was hit by an uninsured motorist and I didn't have that protection on my insurance because I thought "what jackass wouldn't have auto insurance?" I found out. :smile: 
  • Reply 68 of 125
    chris_cachris_ca Posts: 2,543member
    Soli said:
    They can sue him and he's also accountable under criminal law for reckless endangerment, careless driving, yada yada yada. 
    My point exactly.
    Soli
  • Reply 69 of 125
    jsmythe00 said:
    MalyOpa said:
    Maybe someone should sue state of Texas of not implementing a law which prohibit people from using phones while driving
    Or maybe personal responsibility can be a thing still, and we don't need The Almighty Government to tell everyone what to do. 
    I like this idea. And do away with helmet laws too
    Are you being sarcastic about helmets? They allow people to "live in the fast lane" and they save lives. Would you go mountain climbing without the proper safety gear? Why should any other activity that involves fast-moving-action be any different?
  • Reply 70 of 125

    Rather than blaming Apple for providing a distraction for one particularly careless driver, perhaps they would get more closure by launching a public information campaign about the dangers of using ANY mobile device while driving.  To think that most of these tragic cases involving phone use while driving - almost always young drivers - could be prevented by education and perhaps a law is very distressing.  That could have been anyone's kid. It is up to 'us', not Apple to keep our kids safe.



    Yup, they are angry at the wrong party. Apple's money will not bring back their daughter.

  • Reply 71 of 125
    chris_cachris_ca Posts: 2,543member
    Are you being sarcastic about helmets? They allow people to "live in the fast lane" and they save lives. Would you go mountain climbing without the proper safety gear? Why should any other activity that involves fast-moving-action be any different?
    Doing it because it’s the smart thing to do vs having a law mandating it is different.
    Which law is it that mandates proper safety gear while mountain climbing?
    edited December 2016
  • Reply 72 of 125
    jr_b said:
    This is the very definition of a frivolous lawsuit.
    The judge should throw this out on the first day and sanction the lawyer that agreed to bring this case to the court.  Until lawyers are held to the standards and ethics their state's bar association claim to have, lawyers will bring lawsuits for anything.
    In Texas, we have a law that makes the plaintiff pay both their court costs as well as the defendant's court costs and attorneys' fees. We try to keep things sensible, but sometimes people are beyond stupid.

    Also, how many times has Apple been sued by a company who has a patent on something that not only have they never built, but they wouldn't know where to even start? Companies get patents just to protect themselves in the event that they are able to eventually figure out how to patent. Maybe patent reform would fix this: you have to demonstrate a working prototype to get a patent, not just a theory.
  • Reply 73 of 125
    SoliSoli Posts: 10,033member
    chris_ca said:
    Are you being sarcastic about helmets? They allow people to "live in the fast lane" and they save lives. Would you go mountain climbing without the proper safety gear? Why should any other activity that involves fast-moving-action be any different?
    Doing it because it’s the smart thing to do vs having a law mandating it is different.
    Which law is it that mandates proper safety gear while mountain climbing?
    On this we'll probably disagree. There are definitely laws that restrict access because the cost of life was too high and therefore too costly for the city/county/state, and there are regulations that require permits as well as certain gear to be used for mountain climbing. Would a state park's regulations and penalties for not following said regulation be considered a law? Yosemite has a $5,000 fine for keeping food in a vehicle, and I know that national parks do have restrictions on which bear canisters can be used by backpackers. I would assume they also have restrictions, regulations, and fines with gear and where you can climb. I'd call that a mandate.
    edited December 2016
  • Reply 74 of 125
    NW CommenterNW Commenter Posts: 2unconfirmed, member
    Are you serious???... This is called a LACK of personal responsibility. This is not Apple's fault whatsoever.
  • Reply 75 of 125
    chris_cachris_ca Posts: 2,543member
    Soli said:
    On this we'll probably disagree. There are definitely laws that restrict access because the cost of life was too high and therefore too costly for the city/county/state, and there are regulations that require permits as well as certain gear to be used for mountain climbing. Would a state park's regulations and penalties for not following said regulation be considered a law? Yosemite has a $5,000 fine for keeping food in a vehicle, and I know that national parks do have restrictions on which bear canisters can be used by backpackers. I would assume they also have restrictions, regulations, and fines with gear and where you can climb. I'd call that a mandate?
    Dangit! I knew I shouldn’t have written that!
    Yeah, those are laws/mandates and I pretty much agree they should be there.

    However, people still get hurt because they aren’t following these.
    Perhaps if we make it "Super Duper illegal”, it’ll somehow stop people who don’t care about the law?
    Soli
  • Reply 76 of 125
    jdwjdw Posts: 1,125member
    The suit should be thrown out and the family who brought the suit should have to pay all expenses pertaining to it.  

    We need to start taking a tough stance against lawsuits of all kinds.  Americans are way too sue happy.  Life is hard.  Turn the other cheek.  Bite your tongue.  Grin and bear it.  Chin up.  Toughen up.  Be a man.
  • Reply 77 of 125
    jfc1138jfc1138 Posts: 3,090member
    Soli said:
    jkichline said:
    Apple doesn't hold the patent for an in-dash cutoff of FaceTime.

    They do hold it for a handheld implementation, which is what the crux of the suit is about. Apple has the patent, they haven't used it in a fashion that would have prevented the crash.
    That's because it doesn't work in practice.  You simply can't differentiate between a passenger in the car and the driver using only GPS information.  You can only know that the passenger is "moving" and that they are on a "road".  So you would prevent everyone in the vehicle from using a phone which may be for a critical reason (you also don't know the use of the phone call at the time).

    In the end, accidents are left up to the responsibility of the driver. Period.  Why not sue the radio manufacturer for making a device that can play music that can distract the driver? Why not sue billboard manufacturers or makers of fine, short skirts?  Look, I say this having an uncle who was killed when a driver in a pickup truck with a lift kit crossed over the median as he adjusted his radio.  The vehicle went right over my uncles car and killed him instantly. (should we also sue makers of lift kits and large, heavy vehicles?) The point is that no matter what, there will always be something that distracts a driver.  It's up to the driver to discern and control the vehicle. Stop passing blame.
    This would be cause FaceTime to quit even when stationary in many buildings where the GPS timing signals gets distorted.
    Great point. I get that nagging "you're going too fast" Pokémon go message in heavy structure cover while walking just from the gps location bouncing around. 
    edited December 2016
  • Reply 78 of 125
    jfc1138jfc1138 Posts: 3,090member
    jsmythe00 said:
    MalyOpa said:
    Maybe someone should sue state of Texas of not implementing a law which prohibit people from using phones while driving
    Or maybe personal responsibility can be a thing still, and we don't need The Almighty Government to tell everyone what to do. 
    I like this idea. And do away with helmet laws too
    Are you being sarcastic about helmets? They allow people to "live in the fast lane" and they save lives. Would you go mountain climbing without the proper safety gear? Why should any other activity that involves fast-moving-action be any different?
    We need more organ donors. Just stamp their drivers licence "Do not resuscitate when their money runs out" and send them in their way. 
  • Reply 79 of 125
    What a completely moronic lawsuit!  If you cannot take responsibility for driving your car properly then you have no business trying to sue others who make technology which YOU decided to use and distracted you from what you should be doing.  For those impacted by the foolish driver, the blame is with the foolish driver, not a maker of technology.  How do you blame a CHOICE on a maker of technology.  i.e. the CHOICE to use something distracting while driving?  There are a million things which are distracting when driving, do you sue the makers or all those distraction causing implements?!  As John Stossel would say, GIVE ME A BREAK!



    Education of young people is the key to improvements in these areas, expecting corporate or government nannies to make everything in bubble wrap for all is insane and unrealistic.  The solutions are in what parents teach their children, educators in schools and drivers education teach new drivers, and children who become adults making good decisions for themselves and those around them.  
    edited December 2016
  • Reply 80 of 125
    Rather than blaming Apple for providing a distraction for one particularly careless driver, perhaps they would get more closure by launching a public information campaign about the dangers of using ANY mobile device while driving.  To think that most of these tragic cases involving phone use while driving - almost always young drivers - could be prevented by education and perhaps a law is very distressing.  That could have been anyone's kid. It is up to 'us', not Apple to keep our kids safe.



    Well, this wouldn't work because it is an overload of perfect sense!
Sign In or Register to comment.