Man Fined For Using Apple,watch Whilst Driving

[Zacs-Master]

He's appealing because the device was not 'hand held' which is the wording of the Canadian law, under which he was fined. He has a point, doesn't he?

[Zacs-Master]

Link
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/mediatechnologyandtelecoms/electronics/11640040/Man-fined-for-using-Apple-Watch-while-driving.html

[mikey4444]

I think that this twit should have been fined for buying the daft Apple Watch in the first place...the only watch in the world that won't work unless you also have an iphone !

[Zacs-Master]

I love apple products and the watch looks beautiful but yes, it's just a remote control for an iPhone. A gimmick too far for,me.

[mikey4444]

Zacs...I love my iphone as well !

But you are right.....,this new watch is just a gimmick, but I guess that as they have been so popular all over the world.

It just proves the old adage that nobody ever got poor underestimating the taste of the buying public.

Apple could produce a itoaster and they would have people queueing up over night to buy them.

[jno]

to answer the question, yes. The law seems to be aimed at getting drivers to keep both hands on the wheel (a lost cause anyway), but it's been framed in terms that will stop them holding mobile phones in their hands. I don't think it covers watches.

HJowever, you can even be fined for eating an apple...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-335291/Pipped-Woman-driver-fined-eating-apple.html

[ToraToraTora]

No, I imagine that there is a general law about paying attention. The mobile phone law is basically unnecessary really.

[Fitzer]

Mikey, the watch works perfectly well as a watch without the phone and has other basic 'smart' functionality, haven't got one, don't want one but lets not perpetuate untruths :-)

[Nibble]

Watching how a large number of drivers have great difficulty in controlling their vehicles without anything electronic to distract them, then the quicker the manufacturer is deemed culpable for any incident for which their equipment is deemed to have contributed, then they should be held jointly guilty of e offence.

[razza]

Nibbles post is a bit stupid charge the manufacturers,knives,guns etc for murder,cars,vehicles etc for road deaths,the list is endless,knives,guns etc dont kill,its the stupid morons on the other end of them

[EDDIE51]

If the appeal succeeds (unlikely in my view) look out for people strapping their mobile phone to their wrist to avoid the law on driving while using a mobile phone.

[jno]

it depends what the law says, Eddie. If it bans drivers from using mobile phones then they're guilty. If it bans them from using hand-held devices then they're not, or shouldn't be. Laws should be precise and hand-held should mean hand-held.

[-Talbot-]

Nibble's post is not a bit stupid, it is a lot stupid.


Nibble, you can not really believe in what you have just posted?

[sp1814]

This is an example of the law being out of date with technology. When these laws were drafted, there were no smartwatches on the market (at least not in any significant numbers).

The question that needs to be address is whether the person was using the watch with his hands on the steering wheel. If he was, then his appeal has some merit, because effectively, he was using it as a hands-free device.

By the way, I'm the happy owner of an Apple Watch, and it is genuinely not a gimmick. I used to have to take my iPhone to the gym to listen to music and enter stats on my running app.

Now, I can leave my iPhone in the office and listen to music which is loaded onto my Watch via bluetooth headphones.

And the maps solution is well thought out too. I was meeting friends at a bar I'd never been to last night, so when I came out of the tube, i simply looked up the post code, and let the watch guide me there without having to constantly whip my phone out to check directions (the watch taps you one way to turn right, and another to turn left until you reach your destination).

I think of the watch like those steering wheel remote controls for car stereos. You really don't need them, because for decades, we were all perfectly able to use the stereo controls on the unit...steering wheel controls are simply a nicer way to do this.

[-Talbot-]

Can you phone anyone on it when your iphone is at home, sp?

[Baldric]

http://www.macrumors.com/roundup/apple-watch/

Apple's Watch is designed to be a companion device to the iPhone, and as such, it requires an iPhone to function. The Watch is not a standalone device because it relies on the iPhone for many features like relaying notifications and messages. In fact, initial Apple Watch apps are entirely powered by the iPhone to preserve battery. The Apple Watch lasts for 18 hours per charge with mixed usage and up to 72 hours in Power Reserve Mode, which limits functionality.
Though dependent on the iPhone, the Apple Watch is able to connect to known Wi-Fi networks without an iPhone, letting it perform some basic functions like sending and receiving texts, querying Siri, and sending and receiving drawings.

[Baldric]

Another one for Fitzer here
http://www.pcadvisor.co.uk/opinion/apple/3572518/5-reasons-why-you-shouldnt-buy-apple-watch/
Apple Watch: Limited compatibility
It's comes as no surprise but you'll need an iPhone 5 or later running iOS 8 for the Apple Watch to work properly so this is a one reason you might need to avoid the smartwatch.

[sp1814]

-Talbot-

No...but to be honest, I wouldn't want to. It may have looked cool when Dick Tracy spoke into his phone in the comics, but it's the very opposite of 'cool' to do that in real life.

Without the phone, you can still use all the 'time-based' functions (stopwatch, alarms, timers etc), and all the fitness tracking apps still monitor your movements and exercise (including the heart rate function).

Oh, and when we finally get Apple pay, you'll be able to pay for stuff without having your phone on you.

[-Talbot-]

It's a choclate chicken then, sp (imo of course)

[-Talbot-]

chocolate with an 'o'

[Zacs-Master]

A very expensive remote control then.