I have suggested for years that Apple (and others) implement a parental lock feature that prevents all phone use/input when traveling over 5-10 MPH. Offered as a "feature" for phones, it would prevent many accidents from "indestructible" teenagers that drive/text/talk and would sell a lot of phones to concerned parents. It could be voluntarily implemented by adults with low will power to not look at phones themselves. Please Apple add this ability to your phones.
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.
Actually, it does affect all of us. Laws in place that help people behave less stupid will lower the overall cost of medical expense, auto and medical insurance, transfer payments in the form of unpaid medical bills, etc. This has more to do with economics than politics.
Way to crap all over their sons life by trying to con money out of Apple. I know there is a generation brought up on x-factor and big brother and there is no longer personal responsibility but that isn't the fault of Apple. It's down to parents.
It's not the Facetime driver's parents who are suing. It's the people in the car he hit, killing their daughter.
I have suggested for years that Apple (and others) implement a parental lock feature that prevents all phone use/input when traveling over 5-10 MPH. Offered as a "feature" for phones, it would prevent many accidents from "indestructible" teenagers that drive/text/talk and would sell a lot of phones to concerned parents. It could be voluntarily implemented by adults with low will power to not look at phones themselves. Please Apple add this ability to your phones.
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
Texas doesn't have helmet laws.
Also, if the plaintiffs are suing Apple in TX, they aren't likely to get much sympathy considering their generous malpractice laws -- not only does the plaintif have to prove the physician demonstrated incompetence, or gross negligence, but also that the physician intended to cause the harm of which they're being accused.
Yes, Texas has some laws that defy you to use them.
I have suggested for years that Apple (and others) implement a parental lock feature that prevents all phone use/input when traveling over 5-10 MPH. Offered as a "feature" for phones, it would prevent many accidents from "indestructible" teenagers that drive/text/talk and would sell a lot of phones to concerned parents. It could be voluntarily implemented by adults with low will power to not look at phones themselves. Please Apple add this ability to your phones.
What if you're a passenger?
What if you're on a bus, or a train, or you wake up in the trunk of a moving car but still have your phone which you can't use because it's moving? And then there's the aforementioned issues with GPS signals bouncing around in buildings even when you're stationary. Someone pointed out this is an issue with Pokemon GO thinking you're no longer on foot.
Idiots who would use a distracting app such as FaceTime while driving are what should be locked out of cars. How in the world could this be Apple's fault. Perhaps one should have to take an intelligence test before buying an iPhone?!
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.
Actually, it does affect all of us. Laws in place that help people behave less stupid will lower the overall cost of medical expense, auto and medical insurance, transfer payments in the form of unpaid medical bills, etc. This has more to do with economics than politics.
We should just outlaw motorcycles outright then. Motorcyclists are far more susceptible to serious spinal cord injuries. Those injuries are quite costly. How about outlawing horse back riding. Or at the very minimum, requiring a helmet. Perhaps requiring that everyone over 70 require the use of a walker or a cane. The costs of caring for hip fractures after falls in the elderly are quite costly. Perhaps the NFL should be outlawed as the risk of post traumatic encephalopathy is quite high in playing the game. The game should probably be outlawed at the Junior and High School levels.
Perhaps alcohol consumption should be made illegal or cigarette smoking. If not, then why should things like marijuana or narcotics be kept illegal for recreational use. People can either be responsible or not.
Laws are necessary, but the indiscriminate use of them only makes things worse. And making a law to control every stupid or irresponsible action an individual or entity could commit is ridiculous.
Our elected representatives should represent the will of the people in the laws that they make. They are paid to carefully and thoughtfully draft the laws to maximize benefit and minimize negative impacts. Unfortunately, they no longer write laws that represent the will of the people, but the interests of maximizing the profits of big business. Hence motorcycle helmet laws that represent the interests of the insurance companies and not the will of the people. Especially when the majority of accidents are the result of the automobile driver. These issues are going to be problematic with the development of self driving technology.
For example, a motorcyclist abruptly drives into the path of a self driving vehicle. For whatever reason, perhaps something legitimate such as avoiding hitting a child that darted into the roadway. The autonomous vehicle decides to put the vehicle into a tree to avoid certain death to the motorcyclist but seriously injuring the driver in the process.
This isn't anything that can be fixed by technology. Human judgement and behavior are not fixed by technology and laws. I cannot say it emphatically enough.
Technology exists to make life more convenient. Laws exist to regulate human behaviors toward each other and should be determined by the will of the people, not because my leaders decide it's in my best interest. Because whether I decide to drink and smoke is my own business much like wearing a helmet.
First off, my condolences to the family. BUT, the problem here is, AGAIN, stupid greedy lawyers (emphasis on stupid). Maybe it was the car that was unsafe. If it wasn't moving, it would be much safer. I think the lawyers need to jump on this right away. What do you call a thousand lawyer at the bottom of the ocean.... a good start. :-)
Many Laws are provided to protect and regulate the citizenry of a nation.
Thus far, personal responsibility 'law', created in the hopes of protecting dumb, incapacitated, self absorbed or 'libertarian' individuals, and especially the innocents preyed on by their misdeeds or misadventures, is an area of jurisprudence which has had successes and also glaring failures. Many of which have been recounted in the comments above. This lawsuit would constitute an attempt to reap undue profits from the glaring failure end of the scale, and should be dismissed.
In each instance of the above mentioned case, the lawyers, the aggrieved family and the self absorbed teen, the concept of personal, ethical/professional and legal responsibility for this terrible tragedy has been shirked.
The lack of a propensity to live up to personal/professional responsibility or to try to maneuver into a position of advantage in a tragedy such as this, or the pure disregard of others safety is a symptom of a greater disease; a larger, less defined but surely more dangerous reality.
this so called disease would be loosely described as the breakdown of the society, on many functional, psychological and philosophical basis.
When an ever increasing segment of a population cannot govern their own actions or play a reasonable role in their own wellbeing or others, through attempts to weaken attitudes regarding personal responsibility, this leads to the 'personal/institutional anarchy' observed on the roads, sometimes in business and institutions, in families and in us individually and specifically as a functioning society.
The penultimate example of this, resides in the results of the most recent national election. The Founders were very cautious and extremely apprehensive about voters being able to set aside external influences, foreign and domestic, and to be able to vote for a proper and worthy candidate for President. So they included a, 'fail safe', to forestall an electorate to dumb or to self absorbed or one to intellectually empty to select a fit candidate.
so even the Founders in their best effort, sensibilities and conservatism, were unable to legislate a solution to a truly deficient electorate. The era of personal responsibility being passé is upon us.
How would Apple differentiate between the driver and a passenger using Facetime safely?
It can’t without some serious artificial intelligence, nor can any other cameraphone. THat is why Apple has only implemented this with Carplay - contrary to what is assumed this has actually been implemented
I don't think that's true (I'll try it on my CarPlay radio tomorrow), but the question would still stand. How would Apple differentiate between the driver and passenger? There's no reason why my passenger couldn't -- or shouldn't -- use FaceTime while I'm driving. Even if the phone is attached to my CarPlay radio.
And there's no camera in any CarPlay radio, so that doesn't come into the answer. A FaceTime user would have to be using the phone.
Maybe they can sue Foxconn? They test the phones? the car maker? The brake manufacturer? Air Bag manufacturer? and so on. There's so many variables. Maybe they can sue themselves for taking the wrong highway?
I hope Apple doesn't settle this frivolous lawsuit. The parents and their attorney should be ashamed of themselves. This case needs to be thrown out immediately and the judge should order the plaintiff to pay Apple's lawyer fees.
I have suggested for years that Apple (and others) implement a parental lock feature that prevents all phone use/input when traveling over 5-10 MPH. Offered as a "feature" for phones, it would prevent many accidents from "indestructible" teenagers that drive/text/talk and would sell a lot of phones to concerned parents. It could be voluntarily implemented by adults with low will power to not look at phones themselves. Please Apple add this ability to your phones.
What if you're a passenger?
What if you're on a bus, or a train, or you wake up in the trunk of a moving car but still have your phone which you can't use because it's moving? And then there's the aforementioned issues with GPS signals bouncing around in buildings even when you're stationary. Someone pointed out this is an issue with Pokemon GO thinking you're no longer on foot.
The lawsuit is crap. However I do see a point: This is already implemented to a certain degree if you're using waze, if it detects the phone's moving while trying to interact with the app, it throws a confirmation dialog asking you to confirm you're not driving.
A balance between usability for the user and deniability for Apple could be implemented.
Unfortunately the family needs to recognize that they cannot buy back their daughter, and unfortunately that is sad if they are putting a price on their daughter like that. So now we can sue the alcohol companies for drunk drivers, too?
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.
In california there is. It's called reckless driving.... and it does affect every one of us through increased costs for emergency (by far the most expensive cost per employee of any city/county services), and medical services. It's fun and nice to say 'who cares' but in the end it does matter. If we want to force every person to be responsible (a great idea), we need to educate them to be responsible; otherwise, the costs to the state (like this stupid lawsuit) just keep going up.
Comments
Yes, Texas has some laws that defy you to use them.
Perhaps alcohol consumption should be made illegal or cigarette smoking. If not, then why should things like marijuana or narcotics be kept illegal for recreational use. People can either be responsible or not.
Laws are necessary, but the indiscriminate use of them only makes things worse. And making a law to control every stupid or irresponsible action an individual or entity could commit is ridiculous.
Our elected representatives should represent the will of the people in the laws that they make. They are paid to carefully and thoughtfully draft the laws to maximize benefit and minimize negative impacts. Unfortunately, they no longer write laws that represent the will of the people, but the interests of maximizing the profits of big business. Hence motorcycle helmet laws that represent the interests of the insurance companies and not the will of the people. Especially when the majority of accidents are the result of the automobile driver. These issues are going to be problematic with the development of self driving technology.
For example, a motorcyclist abruptly drives into the path of a self driving vehicle. For whatever reason, perhaps something legitimate such as avoiding hitting a child that darted into the roadway. The autonomous vehicle decides to put the vehicle into a tree to avoid certain death to the motorcyclist but seriously injuring the driver in the process.
This isn't anything that can be fixed by technology. Human judgement and behavior are not fixed by technology and laws. I cannot say it emphatically enough.
Technology exists to make life more convenient. Laws exist to regulate human behaviors toward each other and should be determined by the will of the people, not because my leaders decide it's in my best interest. Because whether I decide to drink and smoke is my own business much like wearing a helmet.
...and when the number of lawyers exceeds the number of the general population. ;-)
Thus far, personal responsibility 'law', created in the hopes of protecting dumb, incapacitated, self absorbed or 'libertarian' individuals, and especially the innocents preyed on by their misdeeds or misadventures, is an area of jurisprudence which has had successes and also glaring failures. Many of which have been recounted in the comments above. This lawsuit would constitute an attempt to reap undue profits from the glaring failure end of the scale, and should be dismissed.
In each instance of the above mentioned case, the lawyers, the aggrieved family and the self absorbed teen, the concept of personal, ethical/professional and legal responsibility for this terrible tragedy has been shirked.
The lack of a propensity to live up to personal/professional responsibility or to try to maneuver into a position of advantage in a tragedy such as this, or the pure disregard of others safety is a symptom of a greater disease; a larger, less defined but surely more dangerous reality.
this so called disease would be loosely described as the breakdown of the society, on many functional, psychological and philosophical basis.
When an ever increasing segment of a population cannot govern their own actions or play a reasonable role in their own wellbeing or others, through attempts to weaken attitudes regarding personal responsibility, this leads to the 'personal/institutional anarchy' observed on the roads, sometimes in business and institutions, in families and in us individually and specifically as a functioning society.
The penultimate example of this, resides in the results of the most recent national election. The Founders were very cautious and extremely apprehensive about voters being able to set aside external influences, foreign and domestic, and to be able to vote for a proper and worthy candidate for President. So they included a, 'fail safe', to forestall an electorate to dumb or to self absorbed or one to intellectually empty to select a fit candidate.
so even the Founders in their best effort, sensibilities and conservatism, were unable to legislate a solution to a truly deficient electorate. The era of personal responsibility being passé is upon us.
A balance between usability for the user and deniability for Apple could be implemented.
Sounds like the church... and big business. And the government...