Motoring experts in the UK have warned that individuals using their Apple Watch while driving will face the same penalties as those caught using a mobile phone.
The words of caution come from road safety charity the Institute of Advanced Motorists (IAM), reportedly backed up by the country’s Department of Transport.
In the United Kingdom, this would mean that a driver caught using their Apple Watch while driving faces a £100 ($163) fine and three penalty points on their license.
“An Apple Watch has the potential to be just as distracting as any other smartphone device, indeed more so if you have to take you hand off the wheel to interact with it,” an IAM spokesperson told the Daily Telegraph newspaper.
As to why it is only now that (after smart watches have already been around for a few years) that this is getting attention in a legal context, the spokesperson essentially backs up analyst reports that the Apple Watch could bring wearables into the mass market.
“The concern is that it’s Apple doing it. It’s now widely publicised and they become widespread. The concern is that despite more and more functions, drivers still need to be paying attention to their driving.” said the same IAM spokesman.
Given that the Apple Watch is essentially a computer in the form factor of a wristwatch (just as the iPhone was a computer in the form factor of a phone) it is no surprise that the technology would be subject to the same rules that would stop you using any other monitor when you drive.
Nonetheless it’s interesting to see how the law must constantly adapt as wearables become more widespread. Last year a Google Glass user in California became the first person in the world to receive a ticket for using the head-mounted technology while driving.
People who are desperate to use iOS while travelling can use Apple’s in-vehicle operating system iOS in the Car, which is currently in the process of being rolled out.
Luke Dormehl is a U.K.-based journalist and author, with a background working in documentary film for Channel 4 and the BBC. He is the author of The Apple Revolution and The Formula: How Algorithms Solve All Our Problems … and Create More, both published by Penguin/Random House. His tech writing has also appeared in Wired, Fast Company, Techmeme and other publications.
29 responses to “Using your Apple Watch while driving could land you a ticket”
I don’t understand this article. AppleWatch isn’t even available to the consumer this year or does this apply to any smartwatch. I know there’s features to type text messages on the Galaxy Gear 2. Wouldn’t the article be more appropriate for a shipping smartwatch? Even using a Casio watch could be a driver distraction if you were to access some of its deeper features that also require a press of two buttons.
The whole concept of policing the interior of a car is non-sense. Either you’re a dangerous driver and your car is all over the road, or your car is doing exactly what it needs to do. Think about drunk drivers: why are they pulled over – because their car was swerving, not signaling, etc. It’s easier now to pull over someone eating a burger that is driving well than it is to pull over a drunk driver that is driving well because the police can “see the burger” but they can’t “see your BAC”.
Good theory but no, I was stopped at light a year ago when the driver behind me was looking at his cellphone and did not see the red light. He slammed into the back of my car going 45 mph. Under your reasoning he would not have shown poor driving skills until he hit me.
Thats the difference between drunk driving and looking at a cellphone, if you are drunk your driving is impaired throughout your entire commute. As opposed to cellphones where you are only impaired while using them
I see it as a secondary offense – if you can prove or they admit they were distracted, it’s tacked on to the other violation as an aggravating factor. Primary traffic laws should be about the movement and control of the vehicle, which are observations about the vehicle, not the driver.
Your 2nd paragraph proves my point. If you are drunk and driving well, no problem. You wouldn’t be pulled over until you crash, swerve, drive erratically, or make an illegal lane change.
Your reasoning is that if a cop sees watch on your wrist, you should be pulled over and ticketed. “I was just checking the time…” too bad. You were driving well and safe, but you were still distracted checking the time.
The reality is that we are always distracted while driving. We’re monitoring other cars, we’re adjusting the volume of the radio. We’re taking a sip of water. We’re trying to stop our 3-yr old from choking in the backseat. Distraction isn’t a problem. Management of distraction can be. It’s only when the car does something that it should not that we should only then allow police to get involved. Otherwise, what you are saying is that police have reasonable suspicion to stop any car at any time for the most petty of reasons.
Hey dude I really don’t want to argue with you you are so right it would be a better world if people did not get pulled over for cell phone driving. So keep using your cellphone while driving and good luck. I hope you don’t stare at that screen too long and hit something. Or I really hope no one hits you.
By the way i never mentioned the watch you made a blanket statement about technology in a car.
Watch was just an example of distraction. I didn’t make a blanket statement about technology in a car. I made a blanket statement not just about any and all distractions in a car, but any interior policing, which, would include having too many passengers or not wearing your seat belt.
Cool Dude I’m not arguing with you. I think you should try out your theories about driving. Driver has no responsibility until he swerves. Your world would be awesome. I could drive down the street drinking a beer or smoking weed as long as i don’t swerve. because that would be interior policing. You convinced me. That would make driving so much better I’m sure everyone will feel more comfortable driving in those conditions and accidents will be way down
You’ve got an interesting way of “not arguing”. You’re probably right about that, but then you go on saying things that should be corrected. So, I’m not arguing either, just correcting:
1) it’s not a theory, it’s a practice in many states. I look at east coast states and cringe. I feel it is my obligation to call out that B.S. and tell people there’s a better way so the insanity doesn’t spread.
2) Driver always has responsibility for the car. Why should a LEO pull over a driver that isn’t swerving, isn’t tailgating, is signaling, and isn’t speeding?
3) I bet I could drink a beer in my car while driving through NYC/NJ easier and get away with it than I could text on a cell phone. Which is my point: interior policing doesn’t work currently and to your line “I could drive..” the reality is “You CAN drive..” and people do. No need for hypothetical situations.
“1) it’s not a theory, it’s a practice in many states. I look at east coast states and cringe. I feel it is my obligation to call out that B.S. and tell people there’s a better way so the insanity doesn’t spread.”
Cool what state does not care about interior rules of cars, Seatbelts, drinking, too many passengers?
Again i don’t disagree. Im just asking this question so when i try to spread the word i can answer the opposition.
“I could drive” meant legally without consequences.
But lets stay on topic here how is it best to spread this word. So this insanity stops.
It’s not about “caring about interior rules of cars”, but how you treat those rules. They should not be primary offense rules, but secondary offense rules. You still care, but not enough to put the full weight of the government on otherwise safe driving. So, for example, I live in Colorado. Here, you can transport your legal marijuana while talking on your cell phone and not wearing your seat belt… all without legally getting pulled over. Does Colorado care about all of those things? Yes. Will they pull you over JUST for those things? No. But if you allow your car to violate the laws of how the vehicle travels, everything that you are doing wrong is eligible to be added to your ticket. It’s the right balance.
Actually, you meant “without fear of legal consequences”. I’m not advocating approval or legalization of such things, just how we prioritize LEOs and what approvals we give LEOs in stopping and detaining people. Ergo, I still want the consequences there, just not the blanket approval of power for LEOs to make it a priority.
Thats weird because the dmv says texting and driving in colorado is a primary offense and not putting your kid in the proper seatbelt is a primary offense. Sure your own seatbelt is a secondary offense, which i believe is ok as it only puts you in jeopardy not others.
By you i mean the driver of the vehicle not you specifically.
So colorado does seem to care what is going on in the car.
As fro transporting weed, that is totally different than smoking it while driving. Im in california we can do the same
First of all, while I did say “talking on a cell phone” and driving, which is fully legal in Colorado, I’ll admit that I didn’t know the texting and driving was illegal. I even asked a bunch of my friends just now and they could have sworn it was limited just to the under 18 novice drivers. Learn something new every day. Obviously, it’s not well enforced, so while “the state” might care, I think since 2009, no one has cared since.
So let’s move the conversation down the road you’re obviously interested in:
On Marijuana:
How does one tell the difference between someone smoking marijuana and someone smoking tobacco whilst driving in traffic? How does one distinguish between a marijuana edible cookie and just a regular cookie? Maybe we should pull over all the cookie eaters and test their treat to see if it’s a marijuana cookie.
On Kids:
How does one judge the height and weight of a kid who’s on a booster instead of a full car-seat by only glancing? If a parent is driving and their kid gets to that rebellious age where they start off in the seat and let themselves loose should the driver get the ticket?
Do we really need government agents looking into our car and our lives for 2 seconds as they pass us by and making a snap-judgement about what they see?
The answer is simple: Move along. Judge my car, not me. If my car does something wrong, come ticket the operator and if you see something else going on, point it out and write a citation. But if the car is traveling according the laws and the license/registration is clean – stay away.
As an aside: I am enjoying this conversation. I think we’re being civil. If you don’t want to continue, my feelings won’t be hurt. I know we can’t solve the problems of the world like this, but I do think it helps to have this back-and-forth once in a while.
Dude i actually think we are having a very civil conversation also. which is quite amazing with such a difference of opinion.
Usually by this time someone resorts to name calling.
Im actually for the government to stay out of things to.
Earlier in the convo you had mentioned and I’m paraphrasing. Distracted driving is everywhere and it is the management of the distraction that can cause the problems. I think you are actually being a little naive to the fact that there are a lot of idiots in the world who can’t make that distinction. Beleive me i would love less laws for certain things but when it comes to safety I tend to go the other way.
Even with the laws here i see people texting and driving all the time and there focus is not on the road. Even though they aren’t doing anything else illegal they aren’t swerving or tailgating but they are obviously distracted, and distractions cause accidents.
About the difference between weed and tobacco, i can tell when someone is smoking a joint not a cigarette. That is pretty obvious to me and i think LEO would be able to tell the difference.
You are correct about where does this end, is eating a taco dangerous while driving? Do we need laws for that? I personally don’t think so. i believe the line lies with your line of sight. It is very easy to eat and keep your eyes on the road most of the time. Not so much for reading or texting. Those demand attention of your brain and eyes.
I doubt wearing this watch and glancing will get you pulled over but if you start rolling that crown around and reading tweets thats a different story entirely.
When the cell phone laws passed in california i was not a happy camper but after a year of it being in effect i really did see a difference. Everytime someone is driving way slower than traffic or doing something “odd” i pull up next to them and they are fiddling with their phone.
as for the wild kid thing i think the parent needs to pull over and strap that kid in thats the parents responsibility. If the kid gets out pull over again.
And hey I’m apologizing for being a little snarky earlier. Im not use to civil convos on the interwebs. Sorry dude.
One other thing that I’m really concerned about is the fact that we may not have the luxury of using phones in cars much longer. Without people following the current rules, or being smart about distracted driving the next step will be drastic.
I believe the government would mandate that cellphones cannot be used if the gps on it senses you are going over a certain mph. Then passengers wouldn’t even be able to use a phone. I can’t cite any articles but i have read that discussion is currently being had by politicians
Right- I read that too about the Staten Island lawmaker. She’s an idiot. (Not you.) She wants cell phones disabled at high speeds and that will never fly. Think: Hot Pursuit of a crime use, passenger use. People won’t support it that far. A simpleton like me could come up with a better solution: much like a breathalyzer to start the car, install hand sensors on the steering wheel that will slowly deactivate the car if the hand is away for more than 3 seconds. (Have to have some leeway for making turns, etc.)
But then, isn’t trying to accommodate those sensors on the wheel a bit distracting?
You keep supporting my case, though I don’t think you know you are doing it. “Everytime someone is driving way slower than traffic or doing something “odd” i pull up next to them and they are fiddling with their phone.”
You seem to notice the distracted drivers by what their car does. That’s what I ask of LEOs. Don’t have checkpoints and catch people stopped at red-lights who are safely using their phones. Wait until they are doing something “odd” or obstructing traffic by going slow to make the citation.
Where is the primary infraction in what i said. If using the phone was a secondary infraction you wouldn’t be able to pull someone over for something “odd” such as driving 45 on the freeway which is totally legal.
Ive been under the impression you think it should be a secondary infraction.
So, your contention is that if someone is driving in a totally legal way that frustrates you, the deciding factor of whether they should be pulled over is that they are texting?
“I know I shouldn’t have been a jackass officer, but I was paying attention, had my eyes forward and hands on the wheel, so…it’s all good.”
I was assuming that going 45 in the fast lane while traffic is moving at 75 would be an unsafe vehicle and regardless of the situation, they would be pulled over for impeding the flow of traffic. But if they’re going 45 and traffic is going 45, I don’t really see a problem and wouldn’t invoke that primary offense of impeding the flow of traffic.
No I’m saying they are not paying attention and if traffic stops in front of them they will hit that car. While still being totally legal. It doesn’t matter that he is a danger on the road before he hits that car, only after does it matter.
If the only criteria for distracted driving or an offense for texting and driving was an infraction before, the law would be meaningless. I would rather not wait until that car makes the infraction, or something unexpected happens in front of them.
I don’t know if you live in a populated area but in bigger cities, slamming on your brakes for a clueless pedestrian is a daily occurrence. “I know I shouldn’t have been a jackass officer, but I was paying attention, had my eyes forward and hands on the wheel, so…it’s all good.”
So what your saying is your secondary offense policy is completely unenforceable. Why even have a law about it in the first place
“Why even have a law about it in the first place?” – My thoughts on this are simple: to assign fault.
But beside my feelings on that – let’s look at the progression. We have something undesirable: an accident. Instead of just accepting that and moving on, we look at every factor that contributed to that accident and we outlaw it in hopes of preventing it. Does pulling someone over for texting and driving prevent them from texting and driving in the future? Doubtful. So what we’ve done is create a category of “pre-crime”. We’ve criminalized something that CAN lead to something bad or can be completely innocuous.
“…they are not paying attention and if traffic stops in front of them they will hit that car.”
1) You assume they are not paying attention.
2) You assume they WILL hit that car, not MAY hit that car.
So rather than see if they’re driving undistracted even though they have a distraction present, you assume that because a distraction is present that they are, in fact, distracted. It’s the tip of the slippery slope iceberg.
Studies show people don’t pay attention while they text all the time and that’s the scenario I talked about. If you feel that people texting aren’t dangerous and do pay attention why even have a secondary law
To assign blame and show negligence. All of the accountability, none of the government intrusion.
Either way there is government intrusion is it better to have a law that just punishes instead of preventing
Depending on your view, yes.
I don’t really want to go too far down this tangent – but I feel very strongly towards liberty as opposed to life. Often in our country lately, the discussion has been about saving any life at all cost. I don’t think soldiers go to Afghanistan to prevent us from being killed, but to preserve our liberty so we don’t end up living under a tyrannical government. So I always will pick the view that places Liberty on a higher pedestal than Life.
Therefore, I like accountability and consequences for actions, but I dislike consequences for pre-crime.
Sorry for the late reply on this though – “yes” also because in my case, government intrusion only comes if there is an actual crime, not the thought of a crime.
its not a thought of crime. It comes down to the fact that i believe driving down the road in a 3000lb car not paying attention to the road is a criminal act. When you grab your phone and text you are not paying attention to the road.
As to your previous comment I 100% agree with less government intervention. Except in times were your actions are dangerous to others.
If you want to ride a motorcycle with no helmet go ahead. If you want to eat transfats go ahead. if you want to smoke go ahead. But don’t impead my liberties to drive safely down the road.
Still backwards though. You want government to protect your life by inserting itself into others’ life. They will either do so in an inept way that won’t be effective and will be meaningless, or they will do it so effectively that we won’t be able to get in a car without getting a daily fine for some innocent transgression. Do you really feel safe from texting drivers with your law? Will you be happy to have an officer pull you over and easily assert that he saw you texting when you actually were not even using your phone? Or have you taken the proper precaution to mount in-cab video cameras to refute the honorable LEO’s never-inaccurate assertions and testimony?
Those aren’t arguments for a single law like this. Those are arguments for the ineptitude and corruption of law enforcement. Texting laws are not the only way a cop can do that.
As for feeling safer from texting drivers because of the law. The answer is yes i see very few people texting and driving compared to before the law. Therefore less chance of being hit.
As i told you i was hit by a driver who was texting, and this was after the law was in effect. Before the law i had been hit twice by texting drivers. So yes i feel safer.
I can listen and reply to text messages from the touch display in my car. My eyes are off the road for the exact same amount of time as if I had my phone in my hand. The laws are stupid, but I digress.
It’s relatively easy to see when people are texting while driving. Take a look the next time you’re out and you’ll notice it more and more. It’s going to be a lot harder for police officers to catch people using their Apple Watch or similar device.