Class-action suit demands Apple add lock-out system to iPhone to prevent texting while dri...
A new class action lawsuit filed in California seeks to force Apple into adding features to the iPhone that will help prevent drivers from texting while behind the wheel, while also alleging Apple is putting profit before consumer safety.
Filed at the Los Angeles County Superior Court by MLG Automotive Law, the lawsuit claims Apple "had the technology to prevent texting and driving since 2008," noting also that it was granted a related patent in 2014. Despite this, it is alleged Apple refuses to implement the technology in the iPhone "over concerns that it will lose market share to other phone-makers who do not limit consumer use."
The suit identifies Julio Ceja of Costa Mesa, California as the plaintiff, involved in a car accident where his vehicle was hit from behind by another driver, reportedly distracted by using her iPhone.
To bolster the lawsuit, data from the U.S. Department of Transportation claiming 1.5 million people are texting and driving on public roads at any given moment. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration classifies texting and driving as six times more dangerous than driving while drunk.
It is also alleged the iPhone is responsible for 52,000 automobile accidents in California each year, based on data from the California Highway Patrol and the Federal Highway Administration, as well as an average of 312 deaths annually.
"Texting and driving has become one of the most serious issues that confronts all of us on a daily basis," said MLG Automotive Law founding member Jonathan Michaels. "Legislating against drivers will unfortunately not solve the problem.
"The relationship consumers have with their phones is just too great, and the ability to slide under the eye of the law is just too easy. Embedding lock-out devices is the only solution."
The class action wants to halt all iPhone sales in the state of California until Apple introduces some form of lock-out device that can prevent texting while driving.
Some may consider the class action lawsuit to be frivolous, as it is filed one month after another similar lawsuit against Apple, blaming FaceTime for distracting a driver involved in a fatal car crash. That suit also brings up the apparent availability of the technology to lock-out iPhone use while driving, as well as the 2014 patent, but rather than forcing Apple to implement a solution, that suit seeks damages and medical expenses.
Filed at the Los Angeles County Superior Court by MLG Automotive Law, the lawsuit claims Apple "had the technology to prevent texting and driving since 2008," noting also that it was granted a related patent in 2014. Despite this, it is alleged Apple refuses to implement the technology in the iPhone "over concerns that it will lose market share to other phone-makers who do not limit consumer use."
The suit identifies Julio Ceja of Costa Mesa, California as the plaintiff, involved in a car accident where his vehicle was hit from behind by another driver, reportedly distracted by using her iPhone.
To bolster the lawsuit, data from the U.S. Department of Transportation claiming 1.5 million people are texting and driving on public roads at any given moment. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration classifies texting and driving as six times more dangerous than driving while drunk.
"The relationship consumers have with their phones is just too great, and the ability to slide under the eye of the law is just too easy," the lawsuit reads. "Embedding lock-out devices is the only solution."
It is also alleged the iPhone is responsible for 52,000 automobile accidents in California each year, based on data from the California Highway Patrol and the Federal Highway Administration, as well as an average of 312 deaths annually.
"Texting and driving has become one of the most serious issues that confronts all of us on a daily basis," said MLG Automotive Law founding member Jonathan Michaels. "Legislating against drivers will unfortunately not solve the problem.
"The relationship consumers have with their phones is just too great, and the ability to slide under the eye of the law is just too easy. Embedding lock-out devices is the only solution."
The class action wants to halt all iPhone sales in the state of California until Apple introduces some form of lock-out device that can prevent texting while driving.
Some may consider the class action lawsuit to be frivolous, as it is filed one month after another similar lawsuit against Apple, blaming FaceTime for distracting a driver involved in a fatal car crash. That suit also brings up the apparent availability of the technology to lock-out iPhone use while driving, as well as the 2014 patent, but rather than forcing Apple to implement a solution, that suit seeks damages and medical expenses.
2017 01 17 Ceja v Apple Class Action Complaint by MalcolmOwen on Scribd
Comments
I find this line and the idealogical mentality behind it very concerning.
Apple can put lock-out feature but has to be ON/OFF in settings.
My wife was sent to the hospital and our VW totaled when she was rear ended by a distracted driver. No ticket was issued.
There is no way an iPhone can determine whether someone is a driver or a passenger or a rider on a bus.
It's based on good intentions but ultimately it will fail spectacularly. Restricting people's behaviour does not change their character and the more and more laws we have the less we feel personal responsibility. This approach will eventually collapse with painful results.
There re are other arguments that can be made, such as "how do you prevent a driver from texting but not a passenger?" and "I can text using the interface provided by my car, without looking at my phone." but, while valid, they are also irrelevant in terms of a person's safety. The issue is simply one of who is responsible for the safe operation of a vehicle: the driver, or the phone?
What about passengers on a commuter train or subway?
What about passengers on buses?
What about people in airplanes?
How about just putting the blame on irresponsible users rather than punishing everybody?
As a previous poster said, it is the person's responsibility. However, in this case, the 'person' probably didn't have enough money to satisfy the family suffering the loss, and they figured the deep Apple pockets would make them happier.
It should also be that car manufacturers build the inhibitors directly into the car. If the ignition is on, the inhibitor is on.
Oh oh so simple but complicated by idiots.
When will dumb sh** like this stop and people with the privelage to operate a vehicle do it responsibly and with accountibility if you can't wait until stop before texting, or use a voice asistant to send that text for you if you absolutely need to text someone and you are actively driving...?