[Brazelton] Family Sues Apple for NOT Implementing Drive Detect Feature

Reactions
299 37 13
#1
This one is interesting: Apple Had Tech To Prevent Fatal Crash On FaceTime: Lawsuit

The background of it is that somebody else in another vehicle was using FaceTime and crashed into this family's car, resulting in the death of their 5-year-old. They're saying that Apple holds responsibility for not stopping the other driver from using their phone while distracted. What's interesting here is that Apple was granted a Patent on such, so it's not just "well they should have figured out how to do it" but they have done it, on their own products no less. And as an added aspect, if they have a patent, it also means they are preventing other companies from implementing the same feature, due to patent protection.


I'm usually more for "close-in" responsibility (thus it's the person who hit them's fault, solely), but there's been SO MUCH chaos from people using their phones while driving, that actually I'm 100% OK with them throwing the book at Apple on this one. It will inspire everybody in the game to get their shit together and get phone-disabling software on EVERYTHING when in motion. And you have to do something REALLY complicated to claim you're a passenger. Every 2 minutes (or less). For at least 10 minutes worth. It's THAT bad (just watch Canada's Worst Driver for examples), and we all need to suffer for the idiots now IMO.
 
Reactions
90 0 0
#2
Isn't Apple notorious for patient trolling?

Personally, I think cellphone use by drivers in cars should have pretty steep fines associated with it. First offense really heavy fine. Second offense heavy fine and 2 week suspension of license. Third heavy fine and 1 year suspension. I really don't think it's harder to enforce than seatbelt laws.

That or using tech like mentioned in the article. GPS in phone detects speeds greater than 25 mph. Locked out unless it detects youre not in the drivers seat somehow.

As a motorcyclist, this is a hot button issue for me. Motorcyclists are way more alert than car drivers, and I can tell you off hand that it's an epidemic. I notice at least 1 in 10 car drivers using their cell phones with their head down on any given ride. I get so fucking angry seeing people using their phones while driving.
 
Reactions
507 176 1
#3
I don't care what patents Apple has. It is the driver's responsibility to be aware and safe at all times. I don't support suing liquor companies when a drunk driver kills someone, and I don't support this.
 
Reactions
90 0 0
#4
I don't care what patents Apple has. It is the driver's responsibility to be aware and safe at all times. I don't support suing liquor companies when a drunk driver kills someone, and I don't support this.
If it curbs patent trolling on useful tech, then it's not a bad lawsuit.
 
Reactions
407 178 0
#5
If it curbs patent trolling on useful tech, then it's not a bad lawsuit.
Making patent-holders liable for the consequences of their patent's lack of implementation or market penetration sounds like a fantastic way to ensure patents remain in the hands of shell company trolls and other liability-shielding wizards. Meanwhile, smaller orgs and individuals would be discouraged from patenting, and big corps might rely more on trade secrets (or overreach further into super-generic patent territory, where it should necessarily harder to draw liability fire).
 
Reactions
1,415 274 6
#6
I don't feel like it's Apple's responsibility to make people not act dangerously. If the person was drunk, you wouldn't sue Budweiser.
 
Reactions
367 78 1
#7
What's interesting here is that Apple was granted a Patent on such, so it's not just "well they should have figured out how to do it" but they have done it, on their own products no less.
What's your source on Apple having this tech? Just because they have a patent on it does NOT mean they've actually built a working version. And even if they do have a working prototype it does not follow that it is ready for consumer release.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
Reactions
7,630 1,619 31
#8
This is no different than suing the manufacturer of a gun for something somebody did with the gun. I'm no apple fan, but there are other ways to deal with the rash of distracted driving cases, and the first and easiest is stiffening up the fines. My town just passed a law that makes it illegal to use a phone for anything while driving, except in a mount as a GPS. If a cop even finds it laying in the seat next to you, they can write you a ticket, much less texting/talking/facetiming.
 
Reactions
299 37 13
#9
What's your source on Apple having this tech? Just because they have a patent on it does NOT mean they've actually built a working version. And even if they do have a working prototype it does not follow that it is ready for consumer release.
I'll admit I'm not certain on that, but one would HOPE that if they have a patent they have something that actually works.... HAHAHAHAHAHA!!! I almost got that out with a straight face. The patent system only working on ACTUAL PRODUCTS? What was I thinking???



In all seriousness, if Pokemon Go can get this feature out in a matter of months/weeks, Apple (and everybody else) have had YEARS to do it. It's really not hard. Here's pseudocode:
Code:
while(AppRunning()) {
  if(GetVelocity() > 20kph){
	DisableUI();
	DisplayPassengerConfirmationWarning();
	EnableUI(); // They pressed the button that they're actually there, so bring the User Interface back
  }
  Sleep(20000);  // Check every 20 seconds
}
Boom, done.

Bonus for coders: there's a way to make that "kph" velocity thing legal C++ See: msdn or cppreference[DOUBLEPOST=1483460786,1483460621][/DOUBLEPOST]
This is no different than suing the manufacturer of a gun for something somebody did with the gun. I'm no apple fan, but there are other ways to deal with the rash of distracted driving cases, and the first and easiest is stiffening up the fines. My town just passed a law that makes it illegal to use a phone for anything while driving, except in a mount as a GPS. If a cop even finds it laying in the seat next to you, they can write you a ticket, much less texting/talking/facetiming.
Gas, I agree with your case, and the alcohol examples here, but I think it's sliding into the "this is now a hazardous product without this feature" rather than that people are merely mis-using it. Like a Gun that just "goes off" randomly at any time. It's just about reaching that level of hazard.

I'm reluctant to be advocating for this (I am definitely on the side of high personal freedom and responsibility on this board), but too many examples are coming up in this one realm. People CAN'T restrain themselves, or at least far too few can, which means that unfortunately the rest of us have to suffer because of the HIGH number of idiots.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
Reactions
7,630 1,619 31
#10
Gas, I agree with your case, and the alcohol examples here, but I think it's sliding into the "this is now a hazardous product without this feature" rather than that people are merely mis-using it. Like a Gun that just "goes off" randomly at any time. It's just about reaching that level of hazard.

I'm reluctant to be advocating for this (I am definitely on the side of high personal freedom and responsibility on this board), but too many examples are coming up in this one realm. People CAN'T restrain themselves, or at least far too few can, which means that unfortunately the rest of us have to suffer because of the HIGH number of idiots.
I bet they'll learn to restrain themselves pretty damn fast when the fine becomes $2000+ and writing the ticket means immediate confiscation of the device, to be returned upon payment of the fine.

Even better, make it also worth "points" on the license (for places that do that, like Texas and Colorado) same as reckless driving, so that you could potentially lose your license over it.
 
Reactions
299 37 13
#11
I bet they'll learn to restrain themselves pretty damn fast when the fine becomes $2000+ and writing the ticket means immediate confiscation of the device, to be returned upon payment of the fine.

Even better, make it also worth "points" on the license (for places that do that, like Texas and Colorado) same as reckless driving, so that you could potentially lose your license over it.
That gets into heavy abuse though IMO. I'm against just about ANY power of law enforcement to confiscate "on the spot" just about anything without conviction. Heavy fine yes, but confiscation gets messy FAST.

But I still don't think it's enough. If 10% (or more) of people are driving recklessly, other measures are needed.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
Reactions
7,630 1,619 31
#12
That gets into heavy abuse though IMO. I'm against just about ANY power of law enforcement to confiscate "on the spot" just about anything without conviction. Heavy fine yes, but confiscation gets messy FAST.

But I still don't think it's enough. If 10% (or more) of people are driving recklessly, other measures are needed.
I guarantee you they confiscate firearms and liquor and such just fine, despite constitutional amendments and whatnot. It may be easier to justify if there's an arrest, and I'm also in favor of making it an arresting offense instead of ticketing.
 
Reactions
1,371 611 31
#13
In all seriousness, if Pokemon Go can get this feature out in a matter of months/weeks, Apple (and everybody else) have had YEARS to do it. It's really not hard. Here's pseudocode:
Code:
while(AppRunning()) {
  if(GetVelocity() > 20kph){
	DisableUI();
	DisplayPassengerConfirmationWarning();
	EnableUI(); // They pressed the button that they're actually there, so bring the User Interface back
  }
  Sleep(20000);  // Check every 20 seconds
}
Boom, done.
That's ok for an app but if that's always running on your phone 100% of the time, that will be a massive battery drain.
 
Reactions
299 37 13
#14
That's ok for an app but if that's always running on your phone 100% of the time, that will be a massive battery drain.
Because of the Sleep() call, I don't think it'll be THAT bad on battery (it's not continually spinning), but it may be "cost of no more bullshit on the roads" type of thing. And it's pseudocode man, that kind of a criticism is for production!
 

Dave

Staff member
Reactions
2,571 1,194 23
#15
Grieving families do stupid shit if prompted by a lawyer. This is one of those cases. I completely disagree with the lawsuit, regardless of patents pending.
 
Reactions
893 353 14
#16
Also, there's plenty of ways to avoid it. heck, my gps is usually off anyway.
I don't see why hundreds of thousands of people on trains or passenger seats should be punished because other people are idiots. Fiddling with your car radio, gps, eating, it's all dangerous behind the wheel. People do all of them. Fines and awareness campaigns.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
Reactions
7,630 1,619 31
#17
I remember back in the 80s there was this PSA on TV where a guy was fiddling with the radio and ran over a child crossing the street. It literally ended with a fade to black behind text that said "Joel didn't like the song on the radio. SO HE KILLED A LITTLE GIRL."
 
Reactions
1,415 274 6
#18
I remember back in the 80s there was this PSA on TV where a guy was fiddling with the radio and ran over a child crossing the street. It literally ended with a fade to black behind text that said "Joel didn't like the song on the radio. SO HE KILLED A LITTLE GIRL."
Yeah, but, have you heard the crap they play on the radio these days?
 
Reactions
2,758 795 25
#21
I'm 100% OK with them throwing the book at Apple on this one.
Kris just made a comic about this (sorta).
We have technology now that could completely eliminate speeding, too. Betcha all the auto companies are competing to see which one of them can implement it last, since it'll negatively impact sales.
Anyone with more than one patent is trying to sue someone else for infringing on their patents, either to defend their patents or as a source of income. It has become the way of the corporate IP world.
In any case, I sincerely hope that Canada would stop looking for ways to become more like Britain's "nanny state" stereotype, otherwise we will be suing clocks for making us late, soft drink mfrs for giving us diabetes, and fast food restaurants for making us fat OH WAIT THAT HAS ALREADY HAPPENED and what was the result? "A lifetime of free food?" Are we sure that was the intended result? I'm sure with access to a literal UNLIMITED supply of McDonalds fare, that he eats much more responsibly now.

--Patrick
 

GasBandit

Staff member
Reactions
7,630 1,619 31
#22
"Okay Google"
Bliddabonk.
"Navigate to 7213 san marino drive el paso texas."
"Ok, navigating..."

No button presses needed.
 
Reactions
110 10 0
#23
A far better solution would be to just require all cars to be manual transmission again. The biggest problem is that we have too many passengers behind the wheel rather than actual drivers. :troll:

Seriously, suing a company because the technology they're developing isn't ready for market yet? WTF? Various auto manufacturers have patents on self-driving technology. So shouldn't they sue the manufacturer of the car the guy was driving for not being self-driving? Or for not implementing collision-avoidance systems that are already on the market (in premium/luxury models) into all their models?
 
Reactions
2,758 795 25
#25
A far better solution would be to just require all cars to be manual transmission again.
I am 100% behind this idea. I miss manuals so much.

I'm sure the only reason Apple is being sued is because the plaintiff('s lawyers) know that Apple has a) a lot of money and b) a history of settling cases if that would cost less than dragging it through the court system, and they know that Apple would not miss a few million as much as you or I.

--Patrick
 

Dave

Staff member
Reactions
2,571 1,194 23
#26
I am 100% behind this idea. I miss manuals so much.

I'm sure the only reason Apple is being sued is because the plaintiff('s lawyers) know that Apple has a) a lot of money and b) a history of settling cases if that would cost less than dragging it through the court system, and they know that Apple would not miss a few million as much as you or I.

--Patrick
I currently drive a manual shift.
 
Reactions
299 37 13
#27
See, to me, that comic says PULL THE FUCK OVER!!! I have done so in that kind of situation. I know when to STOP and pull over. Initiating any non-voice navigation is one such case. People DON'T do that, but they SHOULD. Too many people think they're losing SOOOO much time by doing so. You're losing... 30 seconds? A minute maybe? Unless you're already on the freeway, then maybe it's a bit more, but otherwise, it's trivial.

But it's worth your life.
 
Reactions
2,758 795 25
#28
By bringing up the comic, I was merely commenting on how it seems to be a thing a lot of people want to talk about right now.

--Patrick
 

Dave

Staff member
Reactions
2,571 1,194 23
#30
Thank god motorcycles are gaining in popularity. And the riders err... organ donors will hopefully fill that gap.
That does bring up an interesting point. When autonomous cars become a thing I can see it being illegal to have a human drive as it's too dangerous. So what about motorcycles?
 
Reactions
299 37 13
#31
By bringing up the comic, I was merely commenting on how it seems to be a thing a lot of people want to talk about right now.
Fair enough.

And sorry for my rather "extreme" tone on this one, but I've seen too many HORRIFIC people who insist they can do anything and drive. And if they were only killing themselves then I wouldn't care as much, but they're killing everybody else and often not even themselves. That's what gets me. And anybody who's seen Canada's Worst Driver (especially THIS season and the winner/loser who is an UNREPENTANT texter... try YouTube, or something for you 'mericans) probably agrees to at least some extent.
 
Reactions
471 226 1
#32
I just wonder what logic will be used by self driving cars on who they will KILL when there is and unavoidable accident.
 
Reactions
407 178 0
#34
That does bring up an interesting point. When autonomous cars become a thing I can see it being illegal to have a human drive as it's too dangerous. So what about motorcycles?
What about them? They are no different than any other non-automated vehicle. Additional licensing, lessened road access, separate insurance pooling, and cheaper self-driving options all should gradually phase out non-enthusiast use of non-automated motor vehicles.
 
Reactions
407 178 0
#35
I just wonder what logic will be used by self driving cars on who they will KILL when there is and unavoidable accident.
I'm fond of this very short story.
Killer cars from outer space

1. It has been decades since a human has driven a car, outside of a special interests club or sporting event. They’re no longer designed for us, except as passengers. There’s no front seat, no steering wheel, and no brake pedal (though there is an emergency brake lever, secured behind a heavy pane of glass). Seat-belts are obsolete. The roads have never been safer, though they, too, have transformed: more compact, sharper turns, all the luxuries compensating for poor human reaction time removed. No ugly road signs blotting out the sky — these vehicles coordinate perfectly.
2. Accidents are infrequent, usually occurring at low speeds and by the fault of careless pedestrians. Fatalities are rare. Vehicles register their number of passengers, and are equipped with face and silhouette detecting cameras. In the case of a high speed collision, they are programmed to save as many humans as possible. Thus, a car bearing two passengers will drive off a cliff rather than barrel through a pack of schoolchildren.
3. It is really remarkable this system goes unexploited for so long. Historians will claim that an unprecedented lull in conflict is what allows it to flourish, a golden age of cooperation and political stability. This era will become known as “the eye of the storm”. It begins to end one day in summer, when environmental activists, protesting the construction of a dam, find that they can halt its progress by throwing themselves in front of trucks delivering supplies. The technique isn’t new, exactly, (people have been chaining themselves in the paths of tractors for ages) but their guerrilla tactics are refreshing. They launch themselves in front of the oncoming vehicles, trusting the machines’ perfect reflexes, then scamper away before they can be arrested. Hoards of them lurk in the ditches, daring each other to run into traffic.
4. This continues for two years. The trucks are fully automated, so there are no deaths. Suppliers encrypt their routes, become secretive about the locations of their fleets. Debate is still raging about how best to deal with the environmentalists when the assassinations begin.
5. Controversial politician Juan ████-█████ is being chauffeured across a bridge when throngs of protesters, marching against his regime, appear in front of the automobile. They far outnumber the passengers: Juan plunges to his death. The protesters, recorded on the vehicle’s recovered cam, are tracked down and interrogated. They all claim to have been following the crowd, and the scheme’s mastermind, if there was one, is never found.
6. The story is viral, globally infectious. Copycat crimes spawn across the world, with varying degrees of success. Often enough, the results are lethal. After another high profile death, some publications necro the antiquated term “terrorism”. The mobs are never organised, just collections of dissatisfied citizens hijacked by a few malicious individuals. Police try to limit public gatherings, and negotiate predetermined routes for protests, but these regulations are met with significant resistance. Soon, it becomes apparent that a change in programming is necessary, and with much forewarning and fanfare, they roll out cars that prioritise the lives of their passengers, exclusively for politicians. This is described as “disgusting classism”, and there is talk of leading a group of children into their path, to prove the folly of the new orders.
7. It takes only a month for someone to figure out how to force a cement truck to ram into one of these invulnerable automobiles. Another dead orator. Chaos is escalating. Overnight, an executive decision is made: the network of vehicles becomes definite and unforgiving. Ignore human barriers. Continue driving until you reach your destination. The next day, in what comes to be known as the ███████ incident, hundreds die in traffic on the ███████ freeway, ignoring the broadcasts, not yet believing their protests have been rendered impotent. The following weeks are a bloodbath.
8. The theory is, by giving in to blackmail, we only make future blackmail inevitable. Occasionally, a child darts in front of an empty delivery van and dies, and we accept this death with sadness but conviction: the world is now a safer place, protected against the whims of those that would hold us hostage.
 
Top