Skip to main content

iPhones Don't Kill People, People Kill People

A California lawsuit is seeking to ban the sales of iPhones in the state, whilst another seeks damages following the death of a five year old girl in a car crash. The link between the two is Apple's 'failure' to implement a 2008 patent to prevent Facetime being used whilst driving.

It's an emotive subject and I feel for the parents of the girl, who was killed when a driver using Facetime ran into the back of their family car at 65mph. There are also the estimated 300+ other people killed by iPhone use in cars, and that's just in California.

The thing here is that its very hard to argue that Apple is responsible for any of this. Otherwise one would have to argue that every accident caused by inappropriate speed should be laid at the feet of car manufacturers. They certainly have the technology to ensure that speeding could be eliminated as a cause of road death.

It is the people who continue to use their phones whilst driving who are responsible and California, along with other states, and the rest of the modern world needs to stamp it out by making it as socially irresponsible as drink driving.

Hand in hand with an education campaign there needs to be a greater effort paid to detecting users who are on the phone on anything but a hands free setup; and punitive punishments for those caught.

I wonder how many drivers would continue to use their phones if they faced the prospect of losing their driving licence for three months for a first offence and jail time for a second offence?

Changing driver's attitudes, better detection and punishment as a deterrent are the mechanisms likely to reduce deaths from distracted driving. Punishing Apple for something for which it has almost no responsibility for won't.


Popular posts from this blog

F1: Robert Kubica Impresses In Renault Test Run

The car may be old but its the performance of the driver that's the story here. Robert Kubica returned to F1, after a fashion, earlier this week with an extensive test run in a 2012 Lotus Renault F1 car at Valencia.
The age of the car and the circuit were likely determined by F1's current rules which ban testing, but the reason for Kubica being in the car is far more interesting. Considered by many to be a potential World Champion and certainly one of the fastest drivers of his generation, Kubica's F1 career seemed to be over after a 2011 crash whilst driving in the Rally of Andora. His Skoda Fabia was penetrated by a guardrail in the high speed accident partially severing his right arm.
Up until last year Kubica has been competing in rallying, with the expectation that the limited movement in his repaired arm would prohibit a return to single seater racing.
So this week's test is both interesting and confusing. Interesting because Kubica completed 115 laps of the ret…

F1: Robert Kubica's Williams Test Asks More Questions Than It Answers

Comparing driver's times at a tyre evaluation test like last week's Abu Dhabi event is difficult at the best of times, but when trying to assess the performance of a driver who has been out of the sport for six years, that difficulty level is raised even higher.
On the face of it Robert Kubica's test for Williams was a success. Fastest of the three Williams drivers present the headlines look promising. However, taking into consideration the different tyres used to set those times muddies the water considerably.
Kubica ran a three lap qualifying simulation on the new 'hyper-soft' tyre - which should have given him a two-second advantage. Correcting for tyres it would appear that Kubica was significantly slower than Sergei Sorotkin - who was on the harder 'soft' tyre - and marginally quicker than Lance Stroll, the team's only contracted driver.

Stroll's family fortune currently funds Williams, so there' no chance that he will be anywhere but in a…

Panos Panay's Defence Of Microsoft Surface Hardware Sounds Eerily Familiar

This weekend I went out with my ten year old daughter to select a laptop for her school year beginning in January. The schools requirements are quite specific, requiring a Windows 10 device, with a preference for a touchscreen and a stylus. She chose a Surface Pro, after trying a large number of different options. Having seen the way I use my own Surface Pro - and tried it herself there was only ever going to be two options - and the other was a Surface Laptop.
I tell you this so that you understand I am a buyer of Microsoft's products through choice, not compulsion. I'm on my third Surface device now. 
So when Panos Panay dismissed reports of the death of the Surface hardware line, I was very interested to see exactly how strong these denials were. Especially how they reflect what has gone before. To whit: Windows 10 Mobile.
Panay claimed that Microsoft is in hardware for the long haul. Almost exactly mirroring the words of Terry Myerson, when he claimed Windows Mobile was g…