Apple Watch owner fined $120 for changing songs while driving

12357

Comments

  • Reply 81 of 124
    anantksundaramanantksundaram Posts: 20,305member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by electraluxx View Post



    Distraction while driving is clearly a serious problem.



    The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration reported that in 2012 driver distraction was the cause of 18 percent of all fatal crashes %u2013 with 3,328 people killed %u2013 and crashes resulting in an injury %u2013 with 421,000 people wounded.



    https://www.fcc.gov/guides/texting-while-driving



    It will be interesting to see how this plays out in the courts. Reading that law, I think the gentleman will probably be exonerated. The few laws that are on the books need to be tested and tried. Obviously, the bigger issue is the whether the laws we have mitigate distraction and increase safety. With that said, there is a big difference in usage between handheld, wrist worn, head worn computers and a wristwatch and traditional car radio. People look at their phones 150 times a day on average.



    http://elitedaily.com/news/world/study-people-check-cell-phones-minutes-150-times-day/



    These devices could increase safety as drivers are less likely to become lost and are able to find needed locations such as gas stations, food, etc. with less milage on the road. Unfortunately, we are not at this point yet.



    http://news.health.com/2014/04/03/hands-free-cellphones-dont-make-driving-safer-review-shows/

    Don't drive, if you can't responsibly.

  • Reply 82 of 124
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member

    If our city government wanted to raise some serious additional revenue, all they would need to do is station a couple concealed motorcycle officers on the thoroughfare near my street and ticket every driver using a smartphone while driving. That would probably be about one out of five. The fine can be up to $250 in California. Stupidity is that prevalent. 

  • Reply 83 of 124
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by auxio View Post

     

     

    My car is actually almost 5 years old now, and worth far less than $40k (probably around half that).  It's possible to get cars which have these types of controls for a reasonable price.  Even the bargain car brands have them as options nowadays.




    you said it  - options -

  • Reply 84 of 124
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

     

    Don't drive, if you can't responsibly.




    +1e99

  • Reply 85 of 124
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

     

    Don't drive, if you can't responsibly.


    Unfortunately, many folks choose to drive irresponsibly.  There is plenty of people who get drunk and drive.  There are plenty of folks who read and write texts while driving.  If most of us are honest with ourselves, we would all admit to have doing so at least once and probably more than once.  

     

    I agree that local governments need to create clear laws regarding driving and the use of mobile computers with serious fines, $250 as posted by mstone for first time offenders seems about right and then severely enforce.  As posted, they won't have trouble finding people using their devices while driving behind the wheel and the fine will seriously reduce usage.  

     

    I appreciate the people who make responsible decisions for themselves and society but legislation is needed in this area.

  • Reply 86 of 124
    sacto joesacto joe Posts: 895member
    mac_128 wrote: »
    If you need to look at your pedometer for two full seconds to make sure you're not speeding, then you should probably get your eyes checked. 

    The issue as I see it, is that any interaction with the watch is going to A) change your optical and cognitive focus from the road for an extended period of time. In order to see the watch your hand will have to be brought up to your face, thus changing your optical focus, changing your ability to see the road. The speedometer by comparison is just under the horizon of the primary focal point. Add to that, any interaction with the watch is likely to involve more cognitive focus to select music, or read a notification, or whatever. And depending on the result of that interaction, a person may become further engaged with the watch as a result. The net result is becoming distracted from what's happening on the road. And finally one has to somehow tap the watch face with the other hand while driving, in order to interact with it. 

    Now I'm the first to admit that I'm guilty of taking both hands off the wheel momentarily to do something, say open a food package. And I'm guilty of changing my focus and concentration from the road to the car radio, or navigation system while driving. However, generally for both of those, the eyes are not refocusing on an object immediately in front of your eyes, but at something on the dash, which is again just below the horizon providing a general field of vision. The danger of distraction by the device is just as real however.

    While I'm not a fan of lawsuits in general, unfortunately, sometimes that's what it takes to focus people on the potential dangers. The smart watch poses a danger when used irresponsibly, and better somebody wage a frivolous lawsuit to make somebody think twice about what they are doing than die behind the wheel oblivious to how irresponsible they're being. But this is certainly not Apple's problem, at least not exclusively. Should Apple be proactive in assisting their customers to the proper use of new technology which has the potential for customers to abuse in some situations? I think so. Smartwatches do so much more than a traditional wristwatch that it's possible for someone who might have just glanced at their wrist for the time while driving, to now become absorbed in the content it now displays, without even realizing it, or giving thought to the fact they shouldn't be doing it. 
    You clearly don't own an Apple Watch. The whole point is that, via Siri, it allows hands free access. A simple tip of the wrist and a verbal request activates Siri. I can call, I can answer, I can pick a new song to listen to - all without removing my hands from the wheel or even looking at the Watch.

    If you don't think that's a LOT safer than any other mechanism then you're full of it. Yes, it's possible to abuse the device and cause an accident. But for purely making driving a car safer in the modern age it's without peer.

    Oh, and for the people who want to sue Apple for making things safer, good luck with that.

    Edit: And as regards glancing at your wrist, you need to make it illegal to wear a wrist watch of any kind. Again, good luck with that.
  • Reply 87 of 124
    elehcdnelehcdn Posts: 385member
    From what I have seen, there are plenty of people that are immersed in conversations while driving that are talking for their whole car ride - these people are far more distracted than most of the situations discussed here, and yet not only are you allowed to talk on a hands free device, you are actually allowed to have passengers to talk to when driving!

    So tell me, how many people have accidents from highway hypnosis or zombie-Ing while driving - all symptoms that happen when you "concentrate" on driving for long monotonous drives. Who remembers Drivers Ed classes where they told you you had to take your eyes off the road occasionally or you would fall under road hypnosis.

    Distracted drivers, non-distracted drivers ... How about we just figure out if people are good or bad drivers and leave it at that ...
  • Reply 88 of 124
    longfanglongfang Posts: 281member
    auxio wrote: »
    Some of the discussions in this thread are unbelievably stupid.

    To the people who want to try and find a loophole in the wording of the legislation so that it's legal to use an Apple Watch while driving (even while stopped): you are the reason why we waste billions of dollars on our legal system (court cases, amending laws to close loopholes, etc).  Money which could be put to something far more useful.  The next time you complain about high taxes, think about the fact that you are part of the problem by trying to scam the system instead of just using common sense.  Anything which requires you to take your eyes off the road while operating a motorized vehicle should be covered by the law, period.  Zero loopholes/exceptions.  Human life is worth far more than anything you could need to be doing with a device.

    To the person who is suing Apple because of the watch: same thing applies -- common sense.  There is absolutely no problem with wearing an Apple Watch while driving if you never look at it.  Yes, it buzzes for notifications, but you still make the choice to look at it or not.  So again, wasting money on a lawsuit.  Don't want to hear you complaining about taxes either.

    So would that include the speedometer that i look at to check that im within the spped limit? And if so by extension speed limits are a distraction to driving.
  • Reply 89 of 124
    relicrelic Posts: 4,735member
    Should your car be allowed to have a clock since looking at that would distract you from looking at the road?

    That wasn't the question, it was should other watch manufacturers be sued as well, which is no, what your saying is maybe the car manufacturers should be sued instead for having a clock. I don't know what is considered to be distracting in a car but I do feel the polic personin this story was just hunting for ways to fill a personal quota for the day. Maybe it's like the Girls Scouts selling cookies to finance their yearly jamboree or a Scouts Masters cocain habit, the police do this to fill theirs coffers so they can support their yearly Policeman's Ball or again maybe it's just a way to finance a cocain habit.
  • Reply 90 of 124
    mac_128mac_128 Posts: 3,454member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Sacto Joe View Post





    You clearly don't own an Apple Watch. The whole point is that, via Siri, it allows hands free access. A simple tip of the wrist and a verbal request activates Siri. I can call, I can answer, I can pick a new song to listen to - all without removing my hands from the wheel or even looking at the Watch.



    If you don't think that's a LOT safer than any other mechanism then you're full of it. Yes, it's possible to abuse the device and cause an accident. But for purely making driving a car safer in the modern age it's without peer.



    Oh, and for the "morans" who want to sue Apple for making things safer, good luck with that.



    Edit: And as regards glancing at your wrist, you need to make it illegal to wear a wrist watch of any kind. Again, good luck with that.



    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. 

  • Reply 91 of 124
    dysamoriadysamoria Posts: 3,430member
    If your eyes have to move such that your peripheral vision leaves the roadway, that's a distraction.

    Of course, police can't tell where someone's eyes are unless they're leaving their lane in distraction. So the laws should be carefully written to specify devices by USE, not by what features they may or may not have.

    Touch screens are utter bollocks for car environments. Screens set low on dashboards are similarly foolish. Watches are fine to glance at while driving because you can lift your arm to driving vision space, rather than lower your eyes from the roadway. Operating controls on a watch isn't critical to driving like operating a GPS on a phone or tablet might be (are we still allowed to drive with maps?).

    Etc. Existing laws are written badly to accomplish the goal without crippling acceptable use/fining people unjustly.
  • Reply 92 of 124
    dysamoriadysamoria Posts: 3,430member
    auxio wrote: »
    My car is actually almost 5 years old now, and worth far less than $40k (probably around half that).  It's possible to get cars which have these types of controls for a reasonable price.  Even the bargain car brands have them as options nowadays.

    I just started driving a $20K Mazda with eyes-free controls on the steering wheel, and voice control (still need to learn to try to use that). It also has a screen which is positioned high on the dash (where a glance doesn't remove peripheral vision from the roadway), and has a right-hand physical control to navigate that screen, just in front of the gear shifter, not requiring eyes to use.

    It's getting less expensive to have these features. The car I'm driving would've been a luxury vehicle ten years ago but is now just a very nice car.
  • Reply 93 of 124
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Sacto Joe View Post





    You clearly don't own an Apple Watch. The whole point is that, via Siri, it allows hands free access. A simple tip of the wrist and a verbal request activates Siri. I can call, I can answer, I can pick a new song to listen to - all without removing my hands from the wheel or even looking at the Watch.



    If you don't think that's a LOT safer than any other mechanism then you're full of it. Yes, it's possible to abuse the device and cause an accident. But for purely making driving a car safer in the modern age it's without peer.



    Oh, and for the "morans" who want to sue Apple for making things safer, good luck with that.



    Edit: And as regards glancing at your wrist, you need to make it illegal to wear a wrist watch of any kind. Again, good luck with that.



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

  • Reply 94 of 124
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Right_said_fred View Post

     



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


     

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by dysamoria View Post





    I just started driving a $20K Mazda with eyes-free controls on the steering wheel, and voice control (still need to learn to try to use that). It also has a screen which is positioned high on the dash (where a glance doesn't remove peripheral vision from the roadway), and has a right-hand physical control to navigate that screen, just in front of the gear shifter, not requiring eyes to use.



    It's getting less expensive to have these features. The car I'm driving would've been a luxury vehicle ten years ago but is now just a very nice car.



    my wife just bought a 2015 ford explorer with ford touch sync....

    now i quite like the vehicle, despite it being an 18mpg monster- but its my wife choice not mine.

    now the touch sync isn't terrible, and in fact bluets carphone syncs each and every time flawlessly with her iPhone 5.

    BUT

    it has its own voice control, but its not natural speak like siri, you have to say things like "climate control set 72" or some such...

    so as a result you are often needing to LOOK at a 7 inch display ( there is no feel here - virtual buttons) to set all manner of things....

     

    the difference between that kind of distraction and merely hold up an apple watch and hey siri.... type stuff is night and day.

    so before apple gets sued - lets compare it to the norm shall we?

     

    i am also ready for a new motor - and I keep holding off for carplay. fully integrated i would be the least distracted driver on the road, merrily changing temperature, choosing audio... 

  • Reply 95 of 124
    auxioauxio Posts: 2,460member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by longfang View Post





    So would that include the speedometer that i look at to check that im within the spped limit? And if so by extension speed limits are a distraction to driving.



    I simply don't have the desire to argue with people who think that a quick glance down/up at something (and your windshield is still in your peripheral vision) is the same as interacting with a device which requires concentration to see what's on the screen and tap the right spot (potentially multiple times).  The proof is in the accident rate increase due to phone/device usage while driving.

     

    But I'm sure many people will waste money on lawsuits which argue every letter of the legal wording if this forum is any indication.

  • Reply 96 of 124
    relicrelic Posts: 4,735member

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

    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.
  • Reply 97 of 124
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Relic View Post





    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.



    in 600 posts it might be the first time - i thought his mis-spell was slightly amusing - and indeed was a lead in to my point, which was i liked and agree with his post, whereas i disagree and dislike yours. honestly some of the junk and silly comments in all these posts, and you have to walk into mine..

  • Reply 98 of 124
    analogjackanalogjack Posts: 1,073member

    Claiming a watch is not a 'hand held' device, will not work in court because it is clear that 'hand held' is not meant to be taken literally, if it were then you could simply operate your phone while it was on the seat or taped to your dashboard. The watch will qualify as 'hand held'.

     

    The law becomes literal in cases like where it may say that the alcohol proscribed limit is '0.08 ml of alcohol in 1 litre of blood', which it was at one time in NSW till a lawyer challenged the word, 'in', which should have been 'per'. It was asked in court which particular litre of blood are they referring to. The DUI charged was dropped and the law was reworded.

  • Reply 99 of 124
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,001member
    I think this ticket is perfect as it will help clear-up what is permitted or not. As others have pointed out, if you can change a song using the car's own music system, doing it from a watch is not that much more distracting.

    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.
  • Reply 100 of 124
    sacto joesacto joe Posts: 895member
    Didn't you see that sign calling Democrats "morans"? It's a well known political joke.

    http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/get-a-brain-morans
Sign In or Register to comment.