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

Reactions
456 66 2
#37
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?
Autonomous motorcycles are already in the works. A totally driverless one was entered in the 2004, and I think also the 2005, DARPA grand challenge.
 
Reactions
2,735 794 25
#38
Reactions
2,075 428 6
#39
Autonomous motorcycles are already in the works. A totally driverless one was entered in the 2004, and I think also the 2005, DARPA grand challenge.
I feel like that completely defeats the purpose though.

Also, I know HOW to drive a manual, because I learned for the hell of it when I was dating my husband because he had one, but I used to get completely panicked when I had to stop on a hill, because people always pulled right up to my back bumper and I could never get it going right away. (My husband would pull the ebrake for me and let it go when I got everything engaged.
 
Reactions
456 66 2
#40
I feel like that completely defeats the purpose though.

Also, I know HOW to drive a manual, because I learned for the hell of it when I was dating my husband because he had one, but I used to get completely panicked when I had to stop on a hill, because people always pulled right up to my back bumper and I could never get it going right away. (My husband would pull the ebrake for me and let it go when I got everything engaged.
Driverless motorcycles I get. Autonomous ones with a passenger I get a lot less.
 
Reactions
90 0 0
#46
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?

If they leave bikes alone, it'll be a utopia of not having to worry about some dipshit slamming into you at an intersection.
 

Dave

Staff member
Reactions
2,549 1,193 23
#47
If they leave bikes alone, it'll be a utopia of not having to worry about some dipshit slamming into you at an intersection.
Yes, but for every good rider there's 10 showboating crotch-rocket morons who are a danger to themselves and everyone else. I have a feeling that autonomous cars will lead to it being illegal for a person to drive their own vehicles. In fact, I have a feeling that most people in urban environments won't even OWN a car any more and will instead call for something like an auto-uber kind of deal.
 
Reactions
882 351 14
#48
I know Americans can't understand it, but that's already happening over here quite quickly. For people in the big cities, PT and car sharing companies are more useful than a car of their own. Families in the suburbs and smaller cities still have your standard 1.8-or-something cars per household, but in the inner cities it's rapidly falling. Zipcar, Cambio, Carshare, Rent-a-car, what-have-you. There's car share systems for short-term "I'm going shopping" trips, there's different systems more aimed towards "I'm going away for the weekend", you always get the choice of size/type of car (up to a point), and while you're paying per kilometer and/or time, you're still far cheaper off than paying taxes, maintenance, gas, etc.
 
Reactions
507 176 1
#49
Yes, but for every good rider there's 10 showboating crotch-rocket morons who are a danger to themselves and everyone else.
I think the ratio is the other way around. For every showboating crotch-rocket moron, there are at least 5 good riders. But guess which one you notice and remember while you drive?
 
Reactions
2,735 794 25
#50
I know Americans can't understand it, but that's already happening over here quite quickly. For people in the big cities, PT and car sharing companies are more useful than a car of their own. Families in the suburbs and smaller cities still have your standard 1.8-or-something cars per household, but in the inner cities it's rapidly falling. Zipcar, Cambio, Carshare, Rent-a-car, what-have-you. There's car share systems for short-term "I'm going shopping" trips, there's different systems more aimed towards "I'm going away for the weekend", you always get the choice of size/type of car (up to a point), and while you're paying per kilometer and/or time, you're still far cheaper off than paying taxes, maintenance, gas, etc.
And don't forget the newer "pay up if you want to drive a car downtown" rules.

--Patrick
 

Dave

Staff member
Reactions
2,549 1,193 23
#52
I think the ratio is the other way around. For every showboating crotch-rocket moron, there are at least 5 good riders. But guess which one you notice and remember while you drive?
I think it kind of depends on where you are at. I see more douchebags than normal riders around here.
 
Reactions
299 37 13
#55
Neither does MI.
Checkmate, Creationists!
Considering the number of idiots that don't use them that keep popping up, AND the widespread proliferation of stupid people, I'd say it argues the opposite in that it's NOT working well enough, but I'm cynical that way.
 
Reactions
90 0 0
#58
I think the ratio is the other way around. For every showboating crotch-rocket moron, there are at least 5 good riders. But guess which one you notice and remember while you drive?

I think it kind of depends on where you are at. I see more douchebags than normal riders around here.

Omaha has a Squid problem?

http://www.bikebandit.com/blog/post/how-not-to-be-a-squid-on-your-motorcycle

I tend to agree with Tress. Most biker dudes really frown upon riding like an idiot (at least the guys I ride with - anecdote!). Crotch rockets are notorious for being the breeding ground for Squidies - they're fast and dirt cheap. I'd say the other class of douchebag are *some* Harley guys. These are your typical biker stereotype assholes - ride in packs and feel they own the road.

Honestly, I don't think I've hit more than 80mph on my Duc more than once or twice. I like being alive and tend to ride like everyone's out to kill me.
 
Reactions
90 0 0
#60
I used to tell my students to drive like everyone else on the road is an idiot.
Defensive riding on a bike is a tricky thing to master. Sometimes it does require some aggressive maneuvering, as slamming on your brakes could lead to worse scenarios. My general rule of thumb (and is recommended by the MSF) is to look 20 seconds ahead down the road and predict situations before they happen. If I see an intersection with a stop sign far down the road, for example, and a car is sitting there while I'm on the main road with no stop. I'll keep my eye on that car waaaaay before I'm right on the intersection. That way if I see him inching or pulling out, I can react in time to either slow down to stop if he's gong left, OR throttle the fuck up and swerve around him if he's jumping out right - depending on the situation. I'd say about 60-70% of the time swerving saves your ass way more than slamming brakes, and that's something that a lot of car drivers don't get. Bikes are REALLY REALLY nimble compared to cars and more stable when they're on throttle, so there's more control dodging and weaving around traffic which presents the false narrative that bikers are being reckless.

Going around bends and turns is another area that freaks out drivers. You WANT to throttle up mid turn on a motorcycle. It plants the rear tire down and gives the bike more stability and handling on the turn. This often leads to a car driver thinking the biker is tailgating them because they're going too slow and leads to things like brake checking etc... A dude screamed at me once and called me reckless because I would get on his ass while following him around turns. I'd then back off on the straights. Believe me, I was fucking tempted to just pass on the double yellow and smoke his ass. But that's where having a cool head prevails and saves your life. I just endured it because in the end me and my bike are 600 lbs while he's stacked at over 3000. I lose.

To be honest, riding has opened my eyes to just how many horrible car drivers there are. Dave says for every 1 good rider there are 10 bad ones. I'd say those 10 bad ones are still more competent than most car drivers in regards to understanding road laws, basic mechanics, and the basic physics at play while riding/driving. It's very mentally taxing to ride. After 2 hours, I'm actually tired because you're brain is going 100%. That's why I refuse to commute on my bike (among other reasons) and why I'd never ride when I'm tired.
 
Last edited:
Reactions
299 37 13
#61
Going around bends and turns is another area that freaks out drivers. You WANT to throttle up mid turn on a motorcycle. It plants the rear tire down and gives the bike more stability and handling on the turn.
I remember being taught that for basic driving for a CAR, so that's not unique to bikes. People just drive like idiots. Slow down into the curve, accelerate OUT of the curve. It works! DO NOT reverse that order or you'll likely flip/spin your vehicle.
 
Reactions
90 0 0
#62
I remember being taught that for basic driving for a CAR, so that's not unique to bikes. People just drive like idiots. Slow down into the curve, accelerate OUT of the curve. It works! DO NOT reverse that order or you'll likely flip/spin your vehicle.
I see people slamming their brakes mid-turn all the freaking time. The worst is when it snows. Slamming brakes in the snow is a recipe for a bad time. Downshift! Engine braking gives you far more control!
 
Reactions
299 37 13
#63
I didn't see a self-driving cars thread, so this is going here: House passes bill to speed deployment of self-driving cars
Self-driving cars are forecast to dramatically lower traffic fatalities once they are on roads in significant numbers, among other benefits. Early estimates indicate there were more than 40,000 traffic fatalities last year. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration says 94 percent of crashes involve human error.
Only? I would have guessed higher.

In general, this may be a good thing (uniformity of regulation) or just another power-grab federally. I'm guessing its the latter, but it still may have the benefits of the former. We'll see.
 
Reactions
2,735 794 25
#65
The iPhone X proves the Unabomber was right
That's...quite a leap.
...the individual has little power to resist. Technological innovation is a one-way street. Once you enter it, you are obligated to proceed, even if it leads someplace you would not have chosen to go. Once the latest iPhone is in stores, some consumers will decide they simply can’t live without it. The rest of us may eventually find that whatever our preferences, neither can we.
Dude, if you don't like it, just get a Galaxy or wait for the Pixel to come out. Nobody is making you get a X*.

--Patrick
*Yes, I know that's not his point.
 
Reactions
2,735 794 25
#66
To sorta clarify my comment in the above post*, the person writing the article is talking about the Unabomber's manifesto which described how once humanity creates a technology, we then become dependent on that technology, to the point where we could supposedly no longer function without it ("chained to it," I think are his words). This has happened plenty over the years...indoor plumbing, agriculture, the automobile, radio/television, the Internet, public transportation, computers, electrification, the gas light/light bulb, the post office, weather (and other) satellites, and on and on, but no what is it that finally proves the Unabomber was right? THE IPHONE X OH MY GOD.

(Soo...basically the author has a chip on his boner for Apple and is attempting to make people think of the Unabomber when they think of the iPhone X? I guess?)

--Patrick
*Because this is a thing I seem to have to do frequently
 
Reactions
504 140 7
#67
More to the point of this thread, iOS 11 implements a driving distraction feature, and during the setup process it's on by default and tells you to go to settings if you want to disable it.

It prevents you from receiving any app, text, or phone alerts when the phone is traveling faster than a set (unknown) speed, though you can click the button and press "I'm not driving" if you like.

So while the lawsuit ultimately failed, Apple did implement the feature that makes it harder for people to drive distracted, and they essentially have to tell the device they aren't driving or disable the feature altogether if they want to use the phone while driving.

Further pushing the liability away from Apple and onto the user.
 
Reactions
882 351 14
#68
More to the point of this thread, iOS 11 implements a driving distraction feature, and during the setup process it's on by default and tells you to go to settings if you want to disable it.

It prevents you from receiving any app, text, or phone alerts when the phone is traveling faster than a set (unknown) speed, though you can click the button and press "I'm not driving" if you like.

So while the lawsuit ultimately failed, Apple did implement the feature that makes it harder for people to drive distracted, and they essentially have to tell the device they aren't driving or disable the feature altogether if they want to use the phone while driving.

Further pushing the liability away from Apple and onto the user.
Of course, if there's one thing we've learned from Pokémon Go, it's that a "I'm a passenger" button is completely impossible to press from behind the wheel.
Sure, liability-wise, it's useful, but otherwise, such a button does nothing.

Might as well replace the electronic key with a slot to insert your smartphone - and the smartphone being used as a key cannot be otherwise used while driving. Probably more effective.
 
Reactions
504 140 7
#69
Deterrence and a forced reminder is useful for some. I don't think forcing people to comply is the right way to go for this sort of thing anyway.

However, if we force car manufacturers to include hands free text, phone, and mapping usage in the vehicle, connected wirelessly and automatically to the phone, then we may be able to eliminate most of the reasons to pick up the phone.

I'd rather go the route of making it pointless to pick up the phone than making it impossible.
 
Top