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.
What a strange concept in today's day and age: taking personal responsibility instead of blaming someone else. If Texas doesn't require drivers or passengers to wear seat belts and an accident occurs, is it the government's fault? Duh! Fully agree with the white falcon!
There are many ways drivers can be distracted but I've never heard of a lawsuit against coffee, soft drinks, shaving, makeup, or any other businesses that sell items that, when used in a moving vehicle, distract drivers. Of course, nobody is ever responsible for anything they do, it's always someone else's fault.
There are many ways drivers can be distracted but I've never heard of a lawsuit against coffee, soft drinks, shaving, makeup, or any other businesses that sell items that, when used in a moving vehicle, distract drivers. Of course, nobody is ever responsible for anything they do, it's always someone else's fault.
1) I'm surprised this is just now appearing on this thread, and not in the typical way its presented.
2) While Liebeck was in her car and technology driving, the lawsuit wasn't over causing a traffic incident.
3) McDonald's was absolutely culpable for her burns. The Wikipedia page goes into the details of why it wasn't about spilling some coffee in your lap and the excessively hot temperature they gave her and the resulting accident that occurred. From the link:
Liebeck was taken to the hospital, where it was determined that she had suffered third-degree burns on six percent of her skin and lesser burns over sixteen percent.[11] She remained in the hospital for eight days while she underwent skin grafting. During this period, Liebeck lost 20 pounds (9 kg, nearly 20% of her body weight), reducing her to 83 pounds (38 kg). After the hospital stay, Liebeck needed care for 3 weeks, which was provided by her daughter.[12] Liebeck suffered permanent disfigurement after the incident and was partially disabled for two years.
During the case, Liebeck's attorneys discovered that McDonald's required franchisees to hold coffee at 180–190 °F (82–88 °C). At 190 °F (88 °C), the coffee would cause a third-degree burn in two to seven seconds. Liebeck's attorney argued that coffee should never be served hotter than 140 °F (60 °C), and that a number of other establishments served coffee at a substantially lower temperature than McDonald's. Liebeck's lawyers presented the jury with evidence that 180 °F (82 °C) coffee like that McDonald's served may produce third-degree burns (where skin grafting is necessary) in about 12 to 15 seconds.
McDonald's claimed that the reason for serving such hot coffee in its drive-through windows was that those who purchased the coffee typically were commuters who wanted to drive a distance with the coffee; the high initial temperature would keep the coffee hot during the trip. However, the company's own research showed that some customers intend to consume the coffee immediately while driving.
I think there was some other evidence that they also kept well about a reasonable temperature because it allowed them to use older coffee for longer periods of time.
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.
Wow, amazing how easily you throw out "curtail the means" for what you call "fake" news to reach its audience. So, I guess that means the new administration can "curtail" outlets that publish what they consider to be "fake" news about Russian hacking? Or, if HC had won, her administration could have curtailed outlets that publish what she considers "fake" news about her use of a private server to circumvent rules on classified information? See how flawed your approach is? As long as you agree with the censorship, I guess you'd be happy with "curtailing" publishing various items. It's also interesting that you use the Enquirer as an example. How did we ever survive as a country with the supermarket tabloids exposing millions of Americans to "fake" news every day? LOL. Back then, we gave Americans an ounce of credit to be able to decide how much credibility to place on their sources of information. It never occurred to folks that the First Amendment would allow us to censor these publications and remove them from our supermarkets. Now we have unlimited access to an amazing diversity of sources of information and the first time an election turns out the way some folks don't like, they decide Americans are all idiots and we have to censor their sources of information. Sad.
I am sad for all involved, but to reuse a concept my guess most Texans would embrace, iPhones don't kill people, people kill people.
Honestly, Texas should ban cell phone use while driving. Not much else can be done at this point, other than to insert one of those affirmations that you're not driving (nor walking?) while using an app,which we all know we can deny.
You should wear a helmet because it can save your life. (Saved mine too.). That doesn't mean there should be a law.
Sorry, some people need laws to help protect themselves and others. Seat belts. Speed limits. Solid lines and passing zones. Stop lights. All apply whether someone else is at risk in the moment or not. And we all pay when someone gets hurt. I suppose we don't need laws on drinking and driving enforced unless someone gets hurt?
Ridiculous. This is so U.S.! I always wondered how people even bothered to sue e.g. Starbucks for hot coffee they spilled on themselves. And i wondered as well that the law allows you to. Common sense seems to be rationed.
How the bulk of the responsibility can't be on the driver but on their difficulty in doing something that they shouldn't be doing while driving -- really?
I presume the plaintiff's counsel isn't up to the level of an ambulance chaser yet.
Why not sue the person on the other side of the call. As they would have know he was driving while being distracted and encouraged him by participating in the call . Does the U.S not have standard driving laws. It's illegal In the U.K to watch TV etc including FaceTime while driving. Someone actually got done for eating an apple while driving last year in our papers.
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.
I didn't say I was in favor of the suit, nor did I imply it.
Perhaps sue the carmakers for making a car that was less safe than it could have been, than if it had pillows strapped to the entire outside of the car body. It's a terrible loss, but blaming another company for what was clearly a stupid act by the offending driver is like suing gun makers every time there is a shooting. It tells people that they don't have to be responsible for their own actions. I realise that the 20 years old driver probably doesn't have any money worth suing him for, but it's sad that they just want to go after Apple as a cash cow.
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).
It's really up to the car manufacturer to implement something because there's no way to cover everything the driver can be doing by modifying every device. There are full body motion scanners like Kinect that can point at the driver to see what they are doing. They might be eating a bowl of cereal, using a laptop, using a phone, reading a book, changing clothes, applying makeup, shaving, all of which have been caught on camera and can only be dealt with using in-car technology. A full body motion capture device on the steering wheel or above the window would be able to track what the driver is doing at a given time. If they do anything distracting like using a phone or leaning down out of view, the vehicle can slow down.
External sensors need to become more widely used too. There was a video recently showing a Tesla slowing down on noticing a fast approaching vehicle:
The news headlines ran with it predicting there would be a crash and some have pointed out that it just saw the car in front appearing suddenly rather than the collision but regardless, it automatically detects a fast approaching vehicle and takes the appropriate measures, likely before the driver can react in time. There are videos here of truck drivers texting and crashing:
They look like they are keeping an eye on the road but their attention is obviously elsewhere. Having sensors on the vehicle would also accommodate the driver having medical issues or being inebriated:
They can also prevent vehicles being driven erratically like a stolen vehicle or people speeding excessively in towns/cities. There are stats on accidents here showing the main causes of accidents with over 2 million samples and it's primarily poor attentiveness or decision making on the part of the driver:
A Kinect-like device is inexpensive (<$100) relative to the cost of a vehicle. A full computer capable of slowing the vehicle would cost more to integrate but it pays for itself within a year or two and can eventually lower everybody's insurance costs.
Device manufacturers could include some protection on top but the vehicle would still need some hardware for it to be reliable. It can't just work on speed because a taxi or bus would set it off for every passenger. Driver seats or steering wheels would need a sensor e.g Bluetooth or passive sensor so the devices can check proximity to it. Drivers can find ways round this by blocking the sensor but every measure will help reduce the number of accidents.
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.
Found the Libertarian.
Maybe would should sue the government for not requiring people under the age of 18 to wear helmets within moving vehicles. (Which would also save lives). Then we can sue the government for not requiring vehicles to have enough headroom for said vehicles.
Then, the new law is expanded to all ages to not appear ageist. Then, all old vehicles are banned from the road because they don't have sufficient helmet headroom. FYI the last law was sponsored and written by the car companies.
/sarcasm /found another Libertarian /I shouldn't have made BS suggestions because someone will try regulate it into law
It could be done in Car Play, if it were programmed to only work while the parking break was activated. Upon deactivation of the parking break, it could close out the Face Time app without the users input.
You should wear a helmet because it can save your life. (Saved mine too.). That doesn't mean there should be a law.
Sorry, some people need laws to help protect themselves and others. Seat belts. Speed limits. Solid lines and passing zones. Stop lights. All apply whether someone else is at risk in the moment or not. And we all pay when someone gets hurt. I suppose we don't need laws on drinking and driving enforced unless someone gets hurt?
There should just be a blanket law against reckless driving which would cover drinking and distracted driving as well as driving like a jackass, which are all equally dangerous. As far as safety laws, that should be left up to the individual. It doesn't affect me one way or the other whether or not you want to wear a helmet or seat belt so I don't really care. I do it for myself because I believe in it.
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.
As noted by others, the patent does not indicate a way to determine if the user is driver or passenger, so it wasn't implemented. If they implemented it with a bypass option where someone indicates he/she is a passenger, then it still could not have prevented the crash. If they implemented it without a bypass option, then it could not be used by passengers on cars (including taxis), busses, or trains.
Sorry for their loss but what a joke lawsuit. Say the dumb driver was switching cds, would they sue the cd manufacturer, the audio system manufacturer, or the car manufacturer?
Comments
Fully agree with the white falcon!
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Restaurants
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2347347/Nearly-HALF-women-apply-make-wheel-causing-450-000-car-accidents-year.html
http://www.legalexaminer.com/automobile-accidents/distractred-driving-reaches-new-low-woman-rear-ends-vehicle-while-shaving-her-privates/
2) While Liebeck was in her car and technology driving, the lawsuit wasn't over causing a traffic incident.
3) McDonald's was absolutely culpable for her burns. The Wikipedia page goes into the details of why it wasn't about spilling some coffee in your lap and the excessively hot temperature they gave her and the resulting accident that occurred. From the link:
I think there was some other evidence that they also kept well about a reasonable temperature because it allowed them to use older coffee for longer periods of time.
Honestly, Texas should ban cell phone use while driving. Not much else can be done at this point, other than to insert one of those affirmations that you're not driving (nor walking?) while using an app,which we all know we can deny.
How the bulk of the responsibility can't be on the driver but on their difficulty in doing something that they shouldn't be doing while driving -- really?
I presume the plaintiff's counsel isn't up to the level of an ambulance chaser yet.
Pathetic reply.
External sensors need to become more widely used too. There was a video recently showing a Tesla slowing down on noticing a fast approaching vehicle:
The news headlines ran with it predicting there would be a crash and some have pointed out that it just saw the car in front appearing suddenly rather than the collision but regardless, it automatically detects a fast approaching vehicle and takes the appropriate measures, likely before the driver can react in time. There are videos here of truck drivers texting and crashing:
They look like they are keeping an eye on the road but their attention is obviously elsewhere. Having sensors on the vehicle would also accommodate the driver having medical issues or being inebriated:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2900323/Glasgow-bin-lorry-driver-hospital-two-weeks-runaway-truck-killed-six-people.html
http://www.itv.com/news/2016-09-28/police-officer-saves-unconscious-driver-and-baby-by-ramming-car-off-motorway/
They can also prevent vehicles being driven erratically like a stolen vehicle or people speeding excessively in towns/cities. There are stats on accidents here showing the main causes of accidents with over 2 million samples and it's primarily poor attentiveness or decision making on the part of the driver:
https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/812115
A Kinect-like device is inexpensive (<$100) relative to the cost of a vehicle. A full computer capable of slowing the vehicle would cost more to integrate but it pays for itself within a year or two and can eventually lower everybody's insurance costs.
Device manufacturers could include some protection on top but the vehicle would still need some hardware for it to be reliable. It can't just work on speed because a taxi or bus would set it off for every passenger. Driver seats or steering wheels would need a sensor e.g Bluetooth or passive sensor so the devices can check proximity to it. Drivers can find ways round this by blocking the sensor but every measure will help reduce the number of accidents.
Then, the new law is expanded to all ages to not appear ageist. Then, all old vehicles are banned from the road because they don't have sufficient helmet headroom. FYI the last law was sponsored and written by the car companies.
/sarcasm
/found another Libertarian
/I shouldn't have made BS suggestions because someone will try regulate it into law
Stop looking for deep pockets