Snapchat Can Be Sued Over Role In Fatal Car Crash, Court Rules (npr.org) 215
An anonymous reader shares a report: Three young men got into a car in Walworth County, Wis., in May 2017. They were set on driving at rapid speeds down a long, cornfield-lined road -- and sharing their escapade on social media. As the 17-year-old behind the wheel accelerated to 123 miles per hour, one of the passengers opened Snapchat. His parents say their son wanted to capture the experience using an app feature -- the controversial "speed filter" -- that documents real-life speed, hoping for engagement and attention from followers on the messaging app. It was one of the last things the trio did before the vehicle ran off the road and crashed into a tree, killing all of them. Was Snapchat partially to blame? The boys' parents think so. And, in a surprise decision on Tuesday, a federal appeals court ordered that the parents should have the right to sue Snap.
The ruling, from a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, has set off intense debate among legal watchers about the future of a decades-old law that has shielded tech companies from civil lawsuits. The boys' parents sued Snap, the maker of Snapchat, after the tragedy. They alleged that the company "knowingly created a dangerous game" through its filter and bore some responsibility. The district court responded how courts usually do when a tech platform is sued in a civil lawsuit: by dismissing the case. The judge cited the sweeping immunity that social media companies enjoy under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. The law provides legal immunity to tech companies from libel and other civil suits for what people post on sites, regardless of how harmful it may be. But the appeals court's reversal paves a way around the all-powerful law, saying it doesn't apply because this case is not about what someone posted to Snapchat, but rather the design of the app itself.
The ruling, from a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, has set off intense debate among legal watchers about the future of a decades-old law that has shielded tech companies from civil lawsuits. The boys' parents sued Snap, the maker of Snapchat, after the tragedy. They alleged that the company "knowingly created a dangerous game" through its filter and bore some responsibility. The district court responded how courts usually do when a tech platform is sued in a civil lawsuit: by dismissing the case. The judge cited the sweeping immunity that social media companies enjoy under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. The law provides legal immunity to tech companies from libel and other civil suits for what people post on sites, regardless of how harmful it may be. But the appeals court's reversal paves a way around the all-powerful law, saying it doesn't apply because this case is not about what someone posted to Snapchat, but rather the design of the app itself.
Sue car makers because, trees. (Score:4, Insightful)
Does this mean every speedometer app should be sued? No.
Does this mean that end users should be educated better not to be fucking retards? Yes.
Re:Sue car makers because, trees. (Score:4, Insightful)
Speedometer apps don't create a natural setup for a game to be played on social media to see how fast you can go complete with a way for all your friends and even complete strangers to "like" your speed.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
So if they hit a tree at 60MPH, using a phone that they should not have been whilst driving, then that would have been ok?
How about 30 miles an hour and hitting a child?
or 10 miles an hour and hitting a dog?
Re: (Score:2)
So if they hit a tree at 60MPH, using a phone that they should not have been whilst driving, then that would have been ok?
Driver wasn't using a phone; 63mph is about ¼ the kinetic energy of 120mph. Other than that you made some good points.
Re: (Score:2)
You could also see this as hitting an oncoming vehicle at 60mph.
Re:Sue car makers because, trees. (Score:5, Funny)
Who planted the tree? Sue them too.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, but they have a good lobbying group in the forestry service.
Sue car makers because, car chases. (Score:2)
No, sue car companies because there is no possible reason a car should have the ability to go 123 miles per hour.
Popular media has shown people need the speed to escape from the bad guys.
Re: (Score:2)
Here, here!! Cars killed over 40,000 people last year in the US, they need to be outlawed!
Re: (Score:3)
Hear, hear! It's about listening, not location....
Need for acceleration (Score:5, Insightful)
There is no reason a consumer vehicle should be able to reach those speeds.
Actually, there is. If you want to have a reasonable acceleration up to the legal speed limit you actually need a car whose engine is capable of going a reasonable degree faster than the legal speed limit. If you actually made a car whose engine was only just capable of reaching the maximum legal speed limit its acceleration at that speed would be insanely low making reaching that speed very hard.
Of course, what you could do would be to put in a more powerful engine and then add a speed limiter but that adds cost and really does very little in terms of safety since the limit would have to be set to the highest limit anywhere that the car can drive and if that includes places like Germany then there is no legal speed limit, just a "gentleman's agreement" to 250 km/h (155 mph) which is faster than the speed in this accident. Then there are the people who race consumer vehicles on tracks, not really professionally but for fun at the weekend.
I know it is a hopelessly out-of-date idea in today's world but at some point, we do have to be responsible and accountable for our own choices and actions. Just because a car can go at 123 mph does not make it the manufacturer's responsibility that some idiot chose to go that fast when it was incredibly unsafe to do so.
Re: (Score:3)
Not only that, but you would then be operating the engine at its maximum capacity all the time which probably wouldn't be very good for it.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Sue car makers because, trees. (Score:3)
Sure, I do. Deal with it and get over it.
Re:Sue car makers because, trees. (Score:4)
What If I'm racing on a sanctioned track in the "street" class?
You seem to forget that this is America.
Talking about what one "needs" COMPLETELY MISSES THE FUCKING POINT OF THIS COUNTRY.
This is a responsibility problem. Not a "let's intrude on people's lives and force them to do or not do something" problem.
Guns don't kill people, laws do. (Score:5, Insightful)
The ruling, from a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, has set off intense debate among legal watchers about the future of a decades-old law that has shielded tech companies from civil lawsuits.
Whew. Good thing the gun industry doesn't have this kind of problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
The shooter in Colorado who killed ten people at a grocery store bought his Ruger AR-556 pistol on March 16th. He killed the people on March 22nd.
The guy who killed eight people at a FedEx facility in Indianapolis purchased his guns in July and September of 2020 despite having his family contacting authorities about his mental condition and Indiana's "red flag" law.
The Saudi national who killed 3 and injured 8 at a Pensacola naval air stati
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
There are background checks when you buy from a licensed gun dealer.
You cannot do anything to prevent someone that legally buys a gun from snapping and doing something illegal with it.
Just like you cannot prevent someone that legally buys a car or rents a truck from driving it into a crowd of people and killing them.
Geez....
I"m saying the contrary to the person I was replying to's comment, they do not willy nilly hand out guns to anyone at any time.
They just do not.
The vast, overwh
Re: (Score:2)
No, I don't think that was his point.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Guns don't kill people, laws do. (Score:5, Funny)
Aw man, what would open-source do without the fork industry?
Re: (Score:2)
Real question... (Score:2)
The real question is, do you really want a Rust(y) fork?
Re:Guns don't kill people, laws do. (Score:5, Insightful)
Neither industry should have this kind of problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Did the Snapchat app drive the car? Did the shoes of the driver drive the car?
There are many tools in life if not used appropriately that can injure and kill. It's sad that we have to instruct idiots about all the dangers. The driver with his license certification should have been proficient enough to understand. If not then the state that issued the drivers license should bear the responsibility for certifying the incompetent driver. Or do you believe the government should licences all items that could pot
Re: (Score:2)
And sensible phone safety laws too.
You know, if they raised the driving age to 21, this wouldn't have happened.
This can get ridiculous quickly.
business based in part on the stupidity of users (Score:5, Insightful)
I do not know if there is an “achievement” for a posted filter image above 100 mph or not, but it makes sense that companies that are built in part on the stupidity of their users should be in part responsible when this stupidity has consequences.
If nothing else, the speed filter that recorded/noted speeds on public roads well in excess of legal limits was not a good idea. Which should allow the case to be heard by the court.
Re:business based in part on the stupidity of user (Score:5, Funny)
I do not know if there is an “achievement” for a posted filter image above 100 mph or not, but it makes sense that companies that are built in part on the stupidity of their users should be in part responsible when this stupidity has consequences.
What do you have against slashdot?
Re: (Score:2)
Slashdot wasn't built like this. I got taken over.
Re: (Score:2)
+1 Insightful
Re: (Score:2)
The "achievement" may be a feature but that's irrelevant. The attention that people receive for doing stupid shit and being celebrated for it by other stupid people is the prize. How you convince people to stop seeking that is the answer.
Re:business based in part on the stupidity of user (Score:5, Interesting)
This right here. I don't know if they should be guilty or not, but it's an interesting case to be heard.
There's more responsible ways of doing things than others.
The speed filter might have very responsible users. Maybe tracking your run.
Kinda of similar, where I live, we have a toll highway that released it's app pretty recently. On it, it shows your trips (entry/exit, time...) which makes it really easy to calculate your speed. But there's a funny thing, the maximum speed it shows is like > 95 km/h or something like that. I don't think they want to show any speed that exceeds the speed limit; just my assumption. Some business analyst probably looked at that and said, this is not a good look if we show that we know the person was speeding.
The point is, they could have just as easily released the app without that limit, but someone put some thought into it.
A lot of tech firms are making decisions without enough thought that can have big impacts.
Just recently, there was the talk of automated driving and how Tesla doesn't do as much as say Ford in terms of systems to determine if the driver is actually at the wheel.
Case for negligence or something? I don't know, but definitely valid to be heard.
Re: (Score:3)
And also it would make the meters a lot more readable. I have one that goes to 220km/h in a car that could anyway barely reach 180 if pushed to the max. So I can hardly tell the difference between 90 and 100 when looking at th
Re: (Score:2)
In that same topic, I always thought that car speedmeters (tachymeters!) should have a limit slightly above the highest legal limit.
The "speedmeters" in cars is called a speedometer a "tachymeters" (I assume you meant tachometer) measures the rotational speed of your engine (more specifically the crank shaft).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Reading comprehension? The GP said exactly this, the car can still go faster in an emergency (or even in a non-emergency). It's just that the speedometer needle stops at the highest number.
Re: (Score:2)
The point is, they could have just as easily released the app without that limit, but someone put some thought into it.
They could also issue tickets as well as the toll if the distance covered took less than the required time. Does it make them liable because they didn't choose to issue tickets? Are they encouraging it?
Re: (Score:2)
On public roads. That should also apply to all cars. Not sure why you would fault an app that was used to break the law and not the registered vehicle and the registered driver who actually passed tests to determine their competency. If I follow your reasoning then the state should be held responsible because it allowed a registered vehicle driven by a licensed occupant to exceed the limit on it's road.
meh (Score:5, Informative)
The court decided that they could sue, since it's over something not covered by Section 230. And they're right. It's not a post. It's about a feature built into Snapchat.
Whether or not they'll win in the end - who knows. (I'd hope not because there are plenty of other ways to get your speed onto Snapchat, like just pointing the camera at the speedometer itself.)
I suppose if Snapchat were promoting videos of people driving very fast and offering rewards for doing so they might be liable, but my understanding is Snapchat only shows your posts to people who explicitly follow you, and not to people in general. But I don't use Snapchat so I don't know how it really works.
Re: (Score:2)
Did you read the article? The district court dropped the case based on section 230. The appeals court said it didn't apply. So it has everything to do with section 230. (Although the appeals court is right, this isn't a section 230 issue and the case should be heard, or dropped for another reason).
This is a stupid ruling (Score:5, Insightful)
A stupid ruling that further encourages stupid behavior. Individuals have no reason to take responsibility for their own actions today aside from basic self-preservation and that seems to be in a state of decline as well. If your kid isn't smart enough to understand this then you win a dead kid. If you want to blame someone go find a mirror.
Re: (Score:2)
The people who were in the car speeding and using Snap are dead. That seems like some level of responsibility was been taken.
The families want a hearing to look into some of the factors that led to their deaths. Perhaps changes can be made that might make it a bit less likely for others to suffer similar fates in the future.
Re: (Score:2)
How about why the state issued a drivers license to an individual who did not understand speed limits? If the driver wasn't licensed then how about to the individual who the car is registered to. I feel the US is bordering on insanity. We want freedom when it suits us but to blame others when it doesn't. You can't be free to choose, when others limit your action. If Snapchat is responsible then gun manufacturers should also be responsible if their "tool" injures or kills another.
Re: (Score:2)
...and car manufacturers, tool manufacturers, electronics manufacturers, furniture manufacturers, and so on.
Re: (Score:2)
>Perhaps changes can be made that might make it a bit less likely for others to suffer similar fates in the future.
Those idiots wont pass their genes one. So job done.
Re:This is a stupid ruling (Score:5, Insightful)
The ruling is far from stupid.
It says that this auit clearly doesn't fail due to S230 (overturning the lower court ruling), because the suit is *not* about user-posted content, but about Snapchat allegedly encouraging certain behaviour, which S230 has nothing to say about.
The ruling *doesn't* say that the suit has any significant merit, just that it was dismissed on legally incorrect grounds.
You would have grounds to call it stupid if the suit actually succeeded. But not at this stage.
will they sue speedometer maker? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I see plenty of photos of speedometers way above speed limit? Is speedometer also encouraging stupidity?
Depends, is the purpose of the speedometer purely to share information on social media like a snapchat filter? When people call Ford an "influencer" I don't think they meant that kind of influencer.
Your strawman isn't a very good one.
Re:will they sue speedometer maker? (Score:4, Interesting)
When did they "encourage" people to do this? Is there a Snapchat contest going on for the fastest video? does the filter advertise itself as a way to show your friends how far above the speed limit you're traveling? Your "attractive nuance" argument is complete shit and only attention-seeking idiots would think that doing that was the point of using your phone's GPS to track your speed.
Re: (Score:2)
If you read the appellate court ruling you will see that the plaintiff argues that the young people killed in the accident believed that a “achievement” would awarded by snap for having a submission with a recorded speed greater than 100 mph.
Re: (Score:2)
Was there actually an award for this from Snapchat, or was this just some stupid teenage gravevine rumour they heard?
If Snapchat had no such achievement, then it really doesn't matter what the drivers believed, or what the parents' believe their children believed.
If they did, however, then that would overturn any such 'reasonable use' arguments discussed in these comments.
Re: (Score:2)
It is not known, at least not be the courts.
Snap does not announce what the “achievements” are. I gather that this is part of the gameaficaction factor designed to keep people engaged.
From what has been published, Snap has yet to confirm nor deny if this or a similar “achievement“ exist. It now that the case is allowed to move forward, I suspect it will come out in the discovery phase.
Re: (Score:3)
There may be hidden trophies but I did a quick search and found these list of trophy achievements for Snapchat:
https://turbofuture.com/intern... [turbofuture.com]
https://www.hitc.com/en-gb/202... [hitc.com]
https://trophylist.com/trophie... [trophylist.com]
In those lists I am unable to find any achievement for excessive speeding.
Re: (Score:3)
Good heavens, what kind of job satisfaction are dev getting writing this shit? Is this what universities are putting out now, people skilled in developing apps to encourage you to spins your phone 5 times to achieve an award? How do they sleep at night? Thank god I code in C and make real things.
Re: (Score:2)
Young people believe a lot of things. If it can be proved that Snapchat in any way did encourage this then sure. Point taken and all arguments from me to the contrary withdrawn. if this was some "stupid teenage grapevine rumor" then it's just a case of these peoples children being dumb enough to make themselves dead.
Re: (Score:3)
My understanding of attractive nuisance is that it applies to property and children. For example, children trespass in my front garden, subsequently injuring themselves on a dangerous pile of old machinery I left laying around. Are there examples of this doctrine being applied in a case such as this one with Snapchat?
Liability (Score:2)
Does that mean other social media apps can be sued over things like participating in the January 6th Capitol events? This does seem like a pretty dangerous precedent. Can I sue the fork manufacturer for enabling me to become fat?
Re: (Score:2)
Social media apps (that is, the design of the apps' software itself) didn't encourage sedition -- user content did.
The argument about Snap is that by designing a filter that overlays your speed onto your content, Snap is encouraging unlawful and dangerous behavior since nobody uses the filter to overlay a lawful and safe speed.
Note: I am not saying whether I agree with the argument. I'm
Re: (Score:2)
Note: I am not saying whether I agree with the argument. I'm just explaining the argument.
Good to know, I'm not a Snap-Chatter (if that's what they're called?), so I can't really imagine how that would be useful that's anything but dangerous.
This may be less of a dangerous precedent than I first thought.
Re: (Score:2)
>Can I sue the fork manufacturer for enabling me to become fat?
It's the food you eat not the fork, so yes, in your country.
Understandable (Score:2)
IMHO companies should indeed be shielded from responsibility for abuse or misuse by the actual user. That's in the users responsibility.
As long as they can provide a legitimate use case and prove that they are not actually market it for abuse(*). The bar can be reasonably low here. Works for the liquor, drug and gun industry, too.
But that is a point that (from what I just read) would to hear from Snapchat: What - besides documenting speeding - could be the legitimate use case for a "speed filter"? Play "How
Re: (Score:2)
What - besides documenting speeding - could be the legitimate use case for a "speed filter"?
The speed filter could be used to show how fast:
your last run was.
you skied down a mountain.
the plane you were flying in was going.
etc.
It could even be used to show how slow something is going (weird example but maybe you want to measure how slow a turtle/tortoise is going).
Passenger usage (Score:2)
Is the argument that the only reason they went on that ride was because of said app?
Re: (Score:2)
There is no argument made that Snap speed filter was the sole reason for the accident, they are arguing that it is a contributing factor as the stupid people seemed to believe that by going well over 100 mph they could earn an “achievement” from Snap.
Re: (Score:2)
The logic goes like this:
Snapchat: Boy, wouldn't it be cool if you went faster?
Passenger: Drive faster so we can get some sick snaps bruh!
Driver: OK!
The court has said that the facts of the case can be put in front of a jury, who can decide how much fault lies with each of these parties.
Why not just blame the auto manufacturer? (Score:2)
They built the car with the capability to go that fast, after all.
My question is facetious, in case there was any doubt. This whole thing is absurd.
Somebody please stop the earth for a minute, I'm pretty sure I missed my stop.
Re: (Score:2)
Out of common courtesy, just wait for the next stop and walk back.
If you missed your stop, there's no need to fling the rest of humanity forward 1600km/hr. :P
Yo Grark
Re: (Score:3)
This will get overturned... (Score:3)
A distraction caused the crash, so let's sue the source of the distraction?
Okay, so what if the distraction was a billboard. Or the phone ringing. Or a cop car on the side of the road. Or the burger and fries they're trying to eat.
I'm sorry, but just because snapchat has this feature doesn't make them liable for stupid.
Re: (Score:3)
They are saying it incentivized speeding, not that it distracted.
Re: (Score:2)
What will get overturned, and on what grounds? Generally you have the right to sue anybody you claim caused you harm. Whether you WIN that suit or not is a completely different story. This ruling just says that Snapchat is not special (in this case) and can be sued like everyone else.
I don't see anything about distraction causing the crash. The crash seems to have been caused by excessive speed, encouraged by the 'look how cool we are speeding' snapchat filter.
As for your other points: if the parties in
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I'm sorry, but just because snapchat has this feature doesn't make them liable for stupid.
If, as an Uber passenger, my driver chose to put on a blindfold and hit a pedestrian, no jury would convict me of anything.
If, as an Uber passenger, I told my driver "If you can drive a mile blindfolded without getting in an accident, I'll give you $10,000", there's no way I'm not going to prison.
Section 230 isn't involved here (Score:5, Insightful)
There's a concerted effort to destroy the projections from S230. The corporate Dems want it gone because they think it'll help them prevent another Jan 6th or the next authoritarian populist (they're wrong), the GOP want to be able to use lawsuits to silence their critics (they're actually right, ending S230 will chill free speech).
Don't let them do it. Along with Net Neutrality S230 is the bedrock of the internet.
Re: (Score:2)
Did it encourage it? Did it simply make it possible for people to do stupid shit with their phones? We're surrounded all the time with items that can be used for incredibly dumb stuff and much of it can be used for dangerous dumb stuff. All I see is a filter for an app that I don't even use which tells you how fast you're going using the phone's GPS. Is it advertised as a way for you to show your friends how far over the speed limit you are going? Unless it is I'm just not seeing how anyone can suggest a wi
Re: (Score:2)
This
Re:Section 230 isn't involved here (Score:5, Insightful)
There's a concerted effort to destroy the projections from S230. The corporate Dems want it gone because they think it'll help them prevent another Jan 6th or the next authoritarian populist (they're wrong), the GOP want to be able to use lawsuits to silence their critics (they're actually right, ending S230 will chill free speech).
The Dems aren't wholly incorrect. By removing S230 the platforms will become extremely paranoid about hosting anything controversial. Who are the kings of controversial content designed to drive rage? Reps. Who are the people who demonstrably used the most (from Facebook hired internal AND external investigators, not meant to be shared, but which were leaked after someone developed a conscience) outright false content to drive engagement and whip up conspiracy theories? Reps again. What do countries who want to sow division and rage use to drive engagement? Yep, provably false content. That's the problem for conservatives, removing S230 doesn't just mean they get to sue. They are the kings of provably false content, and if Facebook / Twitter / Reddit / Chan are going to be sued every time someone decides to create a false narrative, think Q and Comet Pizza, holy -expletive- folks. They're going to be ban happy on content.
The flip side of that is there won't be an critical discussion because the GOP will threaten to sue everyone. Big deal? Yes. However the Reps will find out that, in their zeal to silence critics, they will have silenced themselves. How the -expletive- is someone like Donald Trump supposed to say incendiary things online? Remember that without S230 anyone hosting incendiary things will get sued, often repeatedly. Hint: You can't. Anyone who studies authoritarian populists will also tell you that removing the ability to say outrageous things would kill them in a heartbeat. The authoritarian populist relies on tossing metaphorical firebombs, to try and generate rage where there normally is none. Or, in the words of Salvor Hardin, "A fire-eater must eat fire even if he has to kindle it himself." No S230 protections? No more tossing metaphorical firebombs to whip up the mob.
Removing S230 will destroy Republicans like MTG, Boebert, Trump, and so on. The perpetual outrage machine requires outrageous imagery to work, and you can't have that without S230 protections. Imagine someone suing Facebook because someone posted demonstrably false information to generate outrage, because without S230 that's what will happen. If you think for one picosecond Facebook (or any other company) is going to risk their money to host controversial content, I've got several bridges to sell you for cheap.
Parents Should Teach Personal Responsibility (Score:3)
Actually, you could perhaps praise Snapchat... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
That was sarcasm? Shame. It was on point. I fully support the right for morons to kill themselves, just don't endanger others in the process.
Re: (Score:2)
Spot on.
Selfies (Score:2)
Waiting for someone to sue Snap Inc. (or would that be smartphone makers?) for taking selfies. Snapchat app encourages people to take selfies which has lead to many injuries and deaths [wikipedia.org].
Was the district court just stupid or corrupt? (Score:2)
The reasoning from the district court was total fucking bullshit ... snapchat is accused of making a negligent design in their own content they add to a published snap, so lets pretend that the CDA somehow shields them entirely from prosecution when they add that to someone else's content?
How much money, favours and/or nudge nudge wink wink promises of quid pro quo changed hands to make the district court reach that conclusion?
Using that logic (Score:2)
the owner of the tree should be able to sue the parents for raising stupid kids. After all, were it not for them the tree would be alive and well today.
Kidding aside, when does this madness end? Everything that goes wrong is now somebody else's fault. Everyone is a victim. There is no personal responsibility for anything at all.
Re: (Score:2)
And the only winners are the lawyers.
I can see parents (Score:2)
A bit broad? (Score:2)
I'm assuming Snapchat didn't do something stupid here, such as providing achievements for very high speeds or giving some kind of visual reward for unsafe speeds.
Wouldn't the same logic apply to a very broad range of similar applications that provide numbers without any judgment? Being overweight or underweight is dangerous, so apps that allow sharing of weight could be implicated where a person does something stupid. Apps that share activity (e.g. running, weights lifted) could be linked to stupid behaviou
I remember this story (Score:2)
This was the story of how Darwin Award nominees are created. To claim Snapchat, or anything else, is responsible for their actions is ludicrous. No one forced them to drive at an excessive rate of speed.
If we're going to claim Snapchat is partially liable, then we can claim YouTube is also partially responsible since they could just as easily put up their video on that service for the world to see.
As a side note, it seems we've definitely come to the conclusion video games do not (overtly) promote violenc
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Where does the responsibility lie? (Score:4, Insightful)
The speedometer in my car died. I'm halfway through a 600 mile trip and faced with the prospect of having to drive 300 miles without being able to tell my exact speed. Oh look there's an app with a filter I can use. I know it's an unlikely scenario but yeah, it is personal responsibility and there's nothing about this event that screams anything more than really, really stupid kids and desperate grieving parents looking for someone to blame. It's a tragedy of course but the people casting about for someone to blame are the same people who raised the really stupid kids.
Re: (Score:3)
This 'speed filter' feature seems poorly thought out. I'm assuming it overlays a GPS-derived speed on top of the video it takes. Now what's the point of this, given speed limits?
GoPro has had this feature since they added GPS to the cameras. (Technically I think it's a post-processing feature - it records the GPS coordinates over time as metadata along with the AV data, and they offer software that can overlay the information as a map and speed after the fact.)
For GoPro, the intended use case is fairly simple: it's an "action camera" that they advertise as being a thing you can take with you while biking or hiking or sailing or skiing or whatever, and in those cases your speed is s
Re: (Score:2)
Now what's the point of this, given speed limits?
Maybe you're on an east bound transatlantic flight, and want to brag about going > 1200km/h? You're in Germany on the autobahn, and the van you're a passenger in cracked 200km/h?
"70MPH" is not the maximum safe speed under all conditions. Why does the whole world have to be limited based on the action of stupid kids?
Re: (Score:2)
This is what we call an attractive nuance. It was specifically set to attract people to do these actions that were performed.
Bars and drunk driving.
Re:Yes. Sue them. (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, they should be able to sue them and win. This is what we call an attractive nuance. It was specifically set to attract people to do these actions that were performed. Lead them into temptation and you should pay the price.
Attractive nuisance.. seriously? What the fuck are children who are incapable of understanding the dangers of driving 123 mph doing behind the wheel in the first place? This seems rather ridiculous on its face.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe people will sue the porn industry. Like they aren't leading into temptation.
Re: (Score:2)
Let me guess. You're one of those who believe someone who is already selling drugs, and is asked by an undercover cop to sell them drugs, was "entrapped". Or when police leave an unlocked vehicle on the street with a bag in the backseat and someone steals the bag, they were "entrapped".