Sometimes, it takes a lawsuit to get industries to do the right thing - and for mobile computing, I have the sense it's overdue. Given the NTSA statistics on accidents by distracted drivers that result in injury (1,200 per day) or fatality (15 per day), it's only a matter of time before a victim or survivor seeks to collect from the device or software manufacturer ... and wins.
In most instances, news of a case in which an object is blamed for the willful act of a person is at least mildly offensive, as I generally maintain the perspective that it's the person who did something, rather than whatever object he used to do it, that is ultimately responsible. But this conclusion can't be taken as a universal: there are instances in which a product that is used exactly as intended by the manufacturer causes harm, or in which a manufacturer encouraged or did too little to discourage irresponsible use. These instances tend to be rare.
However, all it takes is for the sympathy of the voting public to align with a person who did something irresponsible, and seek instead to blame instead the object used in the irresponsible act and the legal system falls in line. Periodically, there's a high-profile case in which a person hoist by their own petard wins a lawsuit.
For some industries, it's quite common: alcohol companies are sued by the people whose family members were killed by drunk drivers, handgun companies are sued by the survivors of accidental shooting deaths, tobacco companies are sued by the survivors of people who died of cancer. These specific industries are at the far extreme, but the result is a costly nuisance for some firms and a crippling blow to others.
Public opinion still seems to maintain that a person who chooses to use a mobile device while driving is held responsible for that choice, and the hardware and software producers have not become the target. But it's just a matter of time until an incident arises involving a person who has certain qualities that make them immune to blame (a popular entertainer, an attractive young mother, etc.) and the sights will shift to the object rather than the actor.
Manufacturers can use the "we didn't intend" defense for a time, but my sense is that it will wear thin quickly. Mobile computing is, by its very name, intended to be used while a person is in motion, and some applications are clearly intended to be used while a person is operating a vehicle.
Device manufacturers can make it much worse for themselves: they can offer an accessory that affixes their device to the steering wheel or dashboard so it may be used while driving or use video or print advertising that depicts people using their devices while behind the wheel or include statements about their devices being easy-to-use while driving. I wouldn't be surprised if they have not already done so.
Software producers also are culpable when they develop applications specifically for the mobile platform that are designed to require the user's complete attention while driving, or are likewise depicted as being something that should be used while "on the way" to a destination. In considering the ratio of blame to assign for poor design, software developers are far more culpable for their applications than are the manufacturers on whose devices those applications are used.
I'm also assuming that the problem will be limited to using mobile computing while driving an automobile, but mobile computing is unsafe at any speed. It's become a constant nuisance in pedestrian areas to have to cope with people who are walking recklessly - stutter-stepping, changing direction without the typical nonverbal cues, coming to a dead stop in a moving crowd, or standing still in a high-traffic area. And while a pedestrian collision at walking speed typically does little damage (unless you ram into an elderly or handicapped person or bump someone off a train platform), there's still a case to be made, and won, on this basis - though I expect an automobile collision will lead the way.
As with many potential problems, I don't expect many firms will take a proactive stance until someone is injured or killed ... though to return to the statistics at the top of this piece, people are already being injured and killed regularly. So instead, I have to say that it will take a multi-million-dollar lawsuit and widespread public outrage for them to consider doing what they should have been doing all along: to design mobile applications to be used while a person is mobile, requiring only intermittent attention over a short period of time, perhaps offering a notice or warning at the beginning of any task that will require intense focus. Even at that, "intense focus" is entirely subjective, and the argument remains that, especially while driving, even a split-second distraction can result in tragedy.
The only truly effective solution is responsibility on the part of the consumer: to avoid any use of mobile devices while driving or walking. But it is exactly the nature of mobile computing to give people the ability to do things that they should refrain from doing, and encourage them if only by providing an affordance to do so. And it is this encouragement that creates a liability for the firms in our litigious society, and provides an opportunity for people who do not practice or accept personal responsibility to use the legal system to cash in.
No comments:
Post a Comment