Slashdot Mirror
Woman Looking At Apple Watch Found Guilty of Distracted Driving (nationalpost.com)
Ontario law defines distracted driving as "holding or using a handheld wireless communication device" -- and a judge just fined Victoria Ambrose $400 for checking her Apple Watch while waiting at a stoplight. Long-time Slashdot reader innocent_white_lamb quotes the National Post:
Even with its miniaturization and trendy technology, an Apple Watch is no safer "than a cellphone taped to someone's wrist," said a justice of the peace, while convicting a Guelph woman this month of holding or using a hand-held wireless communication device while driving... "The key to determining this matter is distraction. It is abundantly clear from the evidence that Ms. Ambrose was distracted..."
When the light turned green Ambrose had remained parked at an intersection, according to the officer who ticketed her, though two cars ahead of her had moved forward. Ambrose testified that she was only checking the time, but the officer told the court he'd seen Ambrose check her watch four different times.
When the light turned green Ambrose had remained parked at an intersection, according to the officer who ticketed her, though two cars ahead of her had moved forward. Ambrose testified that she was only checking the time, but the officer told the court he'd seen Ambrose check her watch four different times.
Lying in court.
Guess what officer, time actually changes. Surprising, I know!
Clearly, she wanted to know if the time had changed from a few seconds before, because cars don't have things like clocks on the dashboard.
Women should lose th right to vote. Bx shinji look at her. She's mad.
Ever been to Montreal, people don't drive properly regardless of looking at a wireless device. Go catch a real criminal. Quit wasting my tax dollars looking for the petty crime.
The lever is handheld and it communicates my intentions wirelessly to other road users. If I ever get pulled over for not using it, I will have a good argument to defend myself.
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
How many people crashed their cars because the were tuning the radio, adjusting the heater, checking the speedometer, spilled hot coffee in their laps, talking to the passenger, looked to the left instead of to the right...
The only solution is the self driving car. Humans are obviously incompetent. They can't even properly operate an elevator.
Isn't the car radio responsible for for displaying CallerID and time these days?
Guelph ?? Canada sure is a strange country.
If they want to fine this lady, then how about they broaden the definition of distracted driving first, and catch her again?
I'm sure a crying baby or a dog jumping around can be just as distracting. Are these also handheld wireless communication devices?
I grew up on this city, and was beaten so badly by the local cops that I now,walk with a limp. They are abusive and have no idea what they're doing.
What she was looking at/using should have 0 bearing on this considering "when the light turned green Ambrose had remained parked at an intersection."
I don't care if someone's looking at the sky, people who do this shit deserve a distracted driving ticket, and there's a special place in hell for people who do this and make you wait through multiple light cycles.
Apple devices aren't capable of wireless communication.
Have gnu, will travel.
What is the difference between a watch and a smart watch?
I still drive a 2002 Mazda. No caller anything.
I stick my phone in the console and even if I hear something, I won't pull it out until I'm stopped at a light.
Most I don't respond to. But No One has ever derided me for not responding fast enough. IF someone did, I would explain the situation and if they had a problem with it ("No Excuses!!"), I would terminate the relationship at my earliest convenience.
There is NO need what-so-ever to answer the phone while driving. IF someone - like a head of state or US state department has to be that accessible - they have drivers.
My doc tennis partner doesn't even answer the phone when driving.
Me, "What if there's an Emergency?"
Doc, "There are people to do the job. They stabilize and do whatever. The ER docs are much better at it than me anyway. I'll come in the morning and check."
I wish they would define being distracted while stopped at a red light differently from driving down the road. Sure, it can cause problems and it should be something you get a ticket for, but $400 seems excessive, and takes away from the importance of the message of not being distracted while actually driving.
Woman Looking At Apple Watch Found Guilty of Delusional Driving... Still fits though.
This reminds me of the need to separate texting while stopped and texting while moving offences.
A moron with power preaching about safety. And when he'll kill someone while drunk driving, his buddies will get him out with a slap on the wrist. Justice has been done. And the cop will get a bonus from the money collected by the state.
IMHO, the important consideration here is that she wasn't just ticketed for checking her watch, but she failed to respond to the light turning green, while checking her watch. Seems like this is good use of police discretion, in that she first exhibited symptoms of distraction, and only then did the officer determine what the distraction was, and ticket her accordingly.
Having been given a ticket for looking at my phone when driving (when I absolutely had not been doing so), I appreciate the idea that the whole incident was a response to the driver's failure to drive appropriately, rather than simply an excuse for a ticket.
Two clarifications:
1) I'm assuming it's true that she was first acting distracted, as described by the police officer. Not that I believe officers never lie, just that is sounds like the driver didn't dispute getting a late start when the light turned green.
2) I'm not saying I've never checked my phone while driving. Just that the one time I actually got a ticket for it I had NOT been checking my phone. No surprise that it was the last day of the month, during the period back when the NYPD has been accused of having implicit ticket quotas for officers.
She technically would fail a driving exam for such behavior, as would many drivers for other common driving inattentiveness. She was stopped and often drivers while stopped take time to adjust temperature, check navigation , sip a beverage etc... all reasonable activities. A delay at the light is not a major danger to others. $50 plus the hassle of getting pulled over and insurance implications should be enough wake up call to her and others. The lady lied or is unfit to drive if she thinks checking time takes so long. She was likely checking other stuff perhaps weather , messages etc...
This is absurd. We shouldn't be penalizing people for looking at devices when they are STOPPED at a light. This will only encourage people to play with the devices when their vehicles are in motion and police are less likely to see them doing it.
When the hell did common sense go out the window?
The problem was she didn't drive forwards on a green light, and has nothing to do with the Apple Watch. If she drove forward when she should of, then nothing would happened. Stop making this about the watch and make it about the total lack of driver responsibility.
That's one stupid judge. The car was not moving, therefore she wasn't driving distracted.
Title says all
Some dingus trying to get cute with the intent of the law.
If you believed slashdotters, it is also practically impossible to detect if someone is speeding and the reasons why not are convoluted and entertaining.
yea, the texas law is similar to NYS as well. it even goes one step further. as long as your car isnt moving, you can look at your phone. this includes not only stopped at a stop light, but sitting in traffic as well.
Well, from a "danger* point of view, it makes sense :
- if your car is moving, if you're distracted, you're at heavy risk of causing some accident.
- if your car is immobile (no matter if it's because you've parked and shut down the engine, or simply because the traffice is stoped), if you're distracted, at worse you're only at risk at make the people behind you angry because you didn't resume driving as fast a they would have wished, but otherwise you don't cause any danger.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Just waiting for people to get ticketed for checking their speed. We need some clear definition of what "distracted" is.
This is retarded, plan and simple.
If looking at a phone or a watch is now unlawful. Then the following must be unlawful as well.
1. adjusting your set
2. adjusting climate controls
3. adjusting radio/audio controls
4. adjusting the rear view mirror or side mirrors
5. reading into the passenger side area for anything (say a book)
6. using storage locations, center arm areas, glove compartments
7. reaching behind or below the seat for anything (say a book)
8. grooming
9. eating
disagree, don't care.
You're responsible to be alert until you're legally parked.