Apple Watch

[dbm]

It's interesting. I could see ladies as the primary audience for Apple Watches, and typically fashion factors are more important to them than most men (fitting with the fashion push as part of the launch). As they are 51% of the population that wouldn't be a bad target to aim for.

 

[vansmith]

Don't take this the wrong way, but you're a little out of touch with women. Have you seen the clothes they wear? Have you seen their purses? My mother-in-law could lose a small child in her purse. And there's no way she would routinely carry a phone in her pocket.

Given that I teach college students and work with women on a regular basis, I'm very well aware of what they wear and I stand by my suggestion. Aside from issues generalizing the types of clothing women wear, I think it's problematic to suggest that women only ever put their phone in their purse. And, even if they do, why would women (and men for that matter) need constant connections to their phones? It's already bad enough that most people walk around with their phones in their hands.

 

[chscag]

It's already bad enough that most people walk around with their phones in their hands.

Even worse when they're driving. I don't how it is during the busy hours in Toronto, but here in the Dallas-Fort Worth area I can easily count one out three drivers talking on their phones while trying to navigate traffic at the same time.

 

[vansmith]

Even worse when they're driving. I don't how it is during the busy hours in Toronto, but here in the Dallas-Fort Worth area I can easily count one out three drivers talking on their phones while trying to navigate traffic at the same time.

A distracted driving law was passed a few years back in Ontario to curb this behaviour (which hasn't really worked) since people do it all the time. In fact, I don't think I've ever heard of someone getting pulled over for that. I think the worst part though is the disjoint between people's awareness of the law and their inaction (often saying "yes, I know this is against the law but I just need to call...").

 

[Slydude]

A distracted driving law was passed a few years back in Ontario to curb this behaviour (which hasn't really worked) since people do it all the time. In fact, I don't think I've ever heard of someone getting pulled over for that. I think the worst part though is the disjoint between people's awareness of the law and their inaction (often saying "yes, I know this is against the law but I just need to call...").

Same is true for many cities here in the U.S. The laws are in place in many cities/states. When a headline making accident occurs everyone is aware of the tragic consequences but within a day or two everything back to the status quo.

Even the hands free devices don't really help. The conversation is still a major distraction.

 

[vansmith]

Even the hands free devices don't really help. The conversation is still a major distraction.

It's actually amazing how much more distracting conversations are when they're dependent on technology. You even see this with people on their phones walking down the street.

 

[Slydude]

It's actually amazing how much more distracting conversations are when they're dependent on technology. You even see this with people on their phones walking down the street.

Exactly. You wouldn't believe how many times I've encountered people who say hello as they're passing and I respond only to discover they were talking to someone on the phone via one of the in ear headsets.

 

[vansmith]

The one thing that really bothers me are people who are oblivious to the world around them and walk without looking (and in those cases, they almost walk into everything). Thinking back to the watch, I actually see this getting worse if it's much easier for people to be distracted as they travel.

I wonder where smartwatches will fall with regards to distracted driving laws...

 

[Slydude]

I agree. The distractions do seem to be getting worse. I used to think it was the cranky old man in me screaming the digital equivalent of "Hey you kids get off my lawn". Even some of my younger friends have noticed it though.

With regard to the law. I'm not a lawyer obviously but I bet the same distracted driving laws covering cell phones are going to be applied not only to the Apple watch but wearables in general. To me it doesn't take much of a stretch in logic to say that the intent of these laws is to reduce the number of distracted drivers.

If judges conclude these laws don't apply it probably won't be long before they are amended.

 

[IWT]

I'm coming in to this 6 pages from the start and most of anything worth saying has been said.

To reassure chas-m, I'm not in any way knocking the Apple Watch which I don't have and never will.

Not because it doesn't work, not because some clown throwing it on the ground causes it to malfunction, not because I don't believe versions .2 .3 and so on will be a huge improvement and certainly not because I'm a Luddite.

I have a beautiful watch which, for me, is as much jewellery as a timekeeper and I wouldn't swap it for....most anything.

If we recognise that there are those with mobile (cell) phones who drive and phone; drive and text, then how about the "watch" (any make). Got a text, look at watch. Got a notification, look at watch. Got an email, look at watch, and so forth. This is a recipe for dangerous driving. And even more difficult to prosecute. Observe a person with phone to ear; see someone texting with both hands on their phone and steering the car with their knees—even then prosecutions are rare. But fiddling with your watch. Who's to know or see. Even the person they knock down won't ever know.

Hands-free communication. An oxymoron.

Great technology, but in the wrong environment, a potential killer.

Ian

 

[chas_m]

Ian: well put. I would argue that notifications on the Apple Watch are going to be easier to handle than with an iPhone, but its a distraction nonetheless. I personally don't find that I have much a problem with notifications on the iPhone, and have little temptation to reply to them when I'm driving. I do look at the notification to see if it is urgent, but early on I trained myself to find a spot to pull over if I need to respond, and that has worked out well (and needs to happen far less often than one might think -- most messages in life are just not that important).

Since your wrist is right in your eyeline, notifications will be easier to see, which may or may not be a good thing (an early tip I've heard from friends with the Watch is that you really have to pare down to just the VIPs and alarmed events your notifications when using the Apple Watch). I fear the driver who is using the watch to have a chat just as I do the driver who is using their iPhone while driving.

I imagine in time these device manufacturers will be forced by law (or just decide to do so themselves) to implement a technology that turns off certain more common kinds of notifications when the device detects that it is moving in such a way that indicates car driving and just lets the intelligently-detected "important" ones through, kind of like "do not disturb" on iPhones works now (and which is brilliant, btw). The technology is getting more intelligent, and ultimately I think that will help. Siri might one day say to me "you have a message from your wife. Do you want me to read it to you?" Where the only responses are "yes" and "no," but no matter how much you try and safeguard drivers they have a disturbing tendency to put themselves in danger ...

 

[TattooedMac]

I wonder where smartwatches will fall with regards to distracted driving laws...

Got a notification, look at watch. Got an email, look at watch, and so forth. This is a recipe for dangerous driving. And even more difficult to prosecute. Observe a person with phone to ear; see someone texting with both hands on their phone and steering the car with their knees—even then prosecutions are rare. But fiddling with your watch. Who's to know or see. Even the person they knock down won't ever know.

Great technology, but in the wrong environment, a potential killer.

Down here, the Law says, something like "If you are driving recklessly, then you can be charged" and they define Recklessly, as if you don't have your eyes on the road, and/or you don't have 2 hands on the steering wheel.

I know this, because I carry a small HandHeld UHF in my car. Being a ex truckie, I like to chat with other drivers, and find out where the 'Speed Traps' are, and tell them to drive safe and make it home tonight, and being pulled over by said 'Cops', he was going to charge me with talking on my Phone, until I pulled it out of my bag, and showed him it had no battery power.
I showed him I had a handheld UHF and then he then rattled off the "reckless driving" thing.

I argued that if I was in a Truck right now, he couldn't charge me with using the UHF, because every truck has one. He then reminded me, that yes he could, but because of the 'truckies law' he let me go.
So I could guarantee that if the Police saw someone playing around with their wrist, then they would be pulled over and charged with 'Reckless Driving' . . . .

 

[Rod]

So now that the Apple Watch has been released what do people think about it. I have read some accounts and some are rather funny i have to say. This site describes a conversation between Siri on his iPhone and "Rocky" on his Apple Watch.
Here's how silly taking a call on Apple Watch might be - CNET
Humour aside I can see some issues, as it is whenever I am with my wife in the office and she receives a phone call, her iPhone, iPad and laptop all ring at the same time. Yesterday I received a phone call on my iPhone which I answered but was surprised when I returned to my MBP to see a notification stating one missed call. What if I'd had an Apple Watch as well? Would 2 out of 3 register missed calls? No just kidding, the Apple Watch of course works via Bluetooth from my mobile phone but the picture of someone taking a call on one is, well, kinda funny.

 

[Slydude]

I
I imagine in time these device manufacturers will be forced by law (or just decide to do so themselves) to implement a technology that turns off certain more common kinds of notifications when the device detects that it is moving in such a way that indicates car driving and just lets the intelligently-detected "important" ones through, kind of like "do not disturb" on iPhones works now (and which is brilliant, btw). ...

I don't have a problem with this idea in theory as long as manufacturers are doing it voluntarily. I do have problems with manufacturers (and by extension their users) being forced not to have notifications /only have them in certain ways.

My first objection is purely philosophical and some may think trivial: I'm getting a bit tired of having the entire world adapt the the lowest common denominator / attempting to correct for the fact someone might behave irresponsibly. Someone behaves irresponsibly and the rest of the world is treated like a toddler as a consequence? There's something wrong with that.

Second, if watches / other devices are going to "intelligently" decide what gets responded to based in part on whether it senses motion, I want the ability to set the rules for that. Intelligently responding to messages from certain contacts might be useful to me. Responding based upon whether the device detects a certain degree of motion is not. Not being a driver, my responding to notifications while in motion is not an issue for me.

 

[chas_m]

Good point. At present, users have great control over what notifications do or do not appear on the iPhone or the Watch, and should use good judgement on what gets to pass through and what can wait for later.

You've punched a nice hole in my motion-based idea, so I doubt that will ever happen. Forgot about passengers (as I'm the one who does ALL the driving in my family). That could still work, but it would have to be a pref the user set ("disable notifications while driving except for VIP/Emergency"), and yes there is already a way to get emergency messages through. Even runners would find too many notifications distracting, so I expect that is something most people will limit themselves, but as you point out the bad apples who can't behave responsibly will probably ruin it for the rest of us.

Of course, part of the problem is that a LOT of people imagine themselves more responsible than they actually are ...

 

[Slydude]

Of course, part of the problem is that a LOT of people imagine themselves more responsible than they actually are ...

How right you are about that. Like everything else each driver thinks it's the other guy that's a menace.

I actually think motion based notification might be fun. Since I'm pushing my wheelchair throughout the day, I wonder if I could get going fast enough to trigger the motion warning that would prevent notifications.

 

[MacInWin]

I was aircrew in the US Navy. See my avatar. We learned to fly, run weapons systems, communicate and execute the mission, all simultaneously. I'm also an amateur radio operator (ham) and I have a radio in my car with a handheld microphone. I use it practically ever day while driving. It's an issue of training. Nobody trains drivers on how to multiprocess, or when to stop multiprocessing and single focus. But with training, one CAN learn to fly (drive) and communicate at the same time. One CAN learn when the flying (driving) needs more attention than communications, and vice versa. So maybe what is needed is NOT more laws about distractors in the cockpit, but a change of training emphasis to include how to drive with the distractors. Maybe we should include distractors in our drivers' education courses, both classroom and on the road. Train drivers HOW to use the technology safely before we let them get a license.

If we did that, then all NEW drivers would be trained, but what about the old guys? Well, we could, if we wanted, say to existing drivers, if you want to use your distractors, get trained, come in, take a test with distractors in use to show you can do it safely and get a new license and we'll endorse your license that you have been trained how to use those distractors. Now, if you get stopped by a policeman, or get into an accident and your distractors had any role (even if YOU are not the primary cause) and you don't have a "distractor endorsement" on your license, you get charged with distracted driving. If you do have the endorsement, no charge unless YOU are the primary cause of the accident. Insurance companies could then be the financial incentive to get that training and endorsement...they can charge a higher rate for folks without the endorsement.

BTW, "distractors" are defined as not just phones and watches, but all the screens, nav gear, and "features" being built in to the cockpit these days. I saw one ad for a car (Mercedes, I think) that has a screen as big as an iPad at steering wheel height in the middle of the dash! Just imagine Gramps buying that beast and driving down the road watching not the road, but the display! And more cars will come down the road with the so-called head's up display on the inside of the windshield. How about THAT for a distractor!

As for motion-disabled functions, they just don't work well. I had one that prevented texting when it was moving, but then my wife couldn't text as the passenger, so I disabled it.

What we need is to train people how to use the technology safely.

 

[TattooedMac]

^^^^ Jake, I agree wholeheartedly with your perception of people CAN be trained to multitask. I like you am a Military brat. I grew up on a farm, so learning to multitask, was with me at a early age, driving a tractor, reading the instruments, while at the same time, changing the depths of tines.
That was simple, but when in the Army, to pass our license, with had to pass a advanced driving course, on a Skid pan. Then driving Armoured vehicles, while listening to the commander, and/or radioing in co-ordinates was he same.
Then it took me to driving Multi-Combination Trucks, mainly Road Trains, B-Doubles and B-Triples where there was 3-5 pivot points. I could drive these while on the UHF, and even reversing one around a corner, while talking to a operator, it isn't easy. (eevn reversing a B-Double requires thinking 2-3 steps ahead)
In all these situations, there are only certain people that can do this. When I became a Driving Instructor in the Military, I would fail 35-40% of participants, because they couldn't reverse even a single pivot trailer. No matter how hard we worked at training the individual, they just couldn't pick it up.
Its because of this, they would of been a danger on the road to other users, because it weeded them out, that they couldn't multitask like others could.

As I said above, I agree people CAN be trained, I have to say, that training people to multitask for the road, would be a bad idea. As it is now, there are instructors that will put people through the test and pass them, for one reason or another (we have all seen those drivers that you say "How on earth did they get a license"?? I do it every day more than once). So add to that, people being distracted while driving, and you would double the danger on the road.
I have never had a accident, in the 1,000,000's of Kilometres I have driven around the biggest Island on earth, and I know I could watch my NavMan, read text msgs, write text messages, and if possible, watch a TV show while I was driving, but there are people out there, that would crash, even if they were only listening to a Audio Book, because they would try to process the words being said, more than concentrating on the road. . . . Its too dangerous to let such legislation into the Law of the Road !!!

 

[MacInWin]

TM, the real challenge is that drivers are distracted by more than just technology. Phones and watches may be easy targets, but what about food, cigarettes, children, etc? I was rear-ended in city traffic once. I was sitting there at a light, looked in the mirror to see a car coming with the woman driver facing the back seat! She never saw me at all. Slammed right into me, still looking at her child. Because I saw her coming, I braced and held the brakes really hard to keep from being pushed into the car in front of me. Fortunately, nobody was hurt and because my car was a rental, I got to leave it to them to sort out with her insurance company. But my point is that she was distracted.

What is different now is that we have a lot of drivers who have no idea what they are doing with the phone and their car. Training them on it, testing them on it, licensing them according to the testing and letting insurance companies provide incentives could reduce the risk overall.

How about this: Let the Insurance companies certify the trainers/instructors/testers. That way the insurance companies will have a profit motive to make sure the trainers/instructors/testers actually performed as they are supposed to. If a trainer/instructor/tester has too many graduates involved in distracted accidents, the insurance company can either retrain the trainer or simply suspend them and refuse to accept the training/certification.

I am generally opposed to having the government make more laws. We have enough laws. We have enough lawyers. Let's try letting good old profit motive drive some behavioral changes.

 

[IWT]

I'm really glad I brought up this subject because it has generated some wise thinking. The solutions to distractions are not straightforward and, of course Brent & Jake are military-trained. I find it hard to see how we prepare 17 year olds, with the attention span of a mayfly, not to end up with the same life expectancy. Especially those who regard mobile devices as a extra limb. Still, my sole aim was to raise awareness of a problem. And it did!

A year or two ago, the Welsh Police commissioned a team to produce a safety video highlighting the dangers of texting while driving. This video won international awards and for those interested in viewing this top quality production, here is the link:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0LCmStIw9E

Ian