Category: Cell Phone

The 21^st century has been associated with an advanced technology and in particular an enhancement in information technology. The advancement in communication through the use of mobile phone has greatly impacted many sectors positively. Cell phones are very important devices in the modern world because they have greatly boosted successful communication.

Effective and efficient communication has in return facilitated the performances of businesses and organizations. Despite the many advantages that are associated with cell phones, cell phones have also been associated with a number of challenges among them being linked with facilitating an increase in crimes and accidents.

Many people have blamed the cell phones to the current high increases in the number of road accidents witnessed worldwide, while others argue that the use of mobile phones while driving is not wholly to blame for the rise in accidents since there are also other vital causes such as over speeding, bad weather, sleepiness, driving while drunk among others.

Road accidents account for about 1.3 million deaths and an approximately between 20 to 50 million injuries annually. It is noted that road accidents is among the three most prevalent causes of deaths for those people aged between five to fifty years. In addition it is noted that the governments use billion of dollars annually as costs that results from these accidents.

Thus, there is a dare need to implement better road usage mechanisms that will guarantee responsible road usage (Powers 2). The introduction of these mechanisms will ensure adherence of proper road usage practices that will help to cut down the high rates of accidents that are associated with poor road usage and especially to those drivers that use their cell phone while driving.

It is common that any law legislation that aims at prohibiting usage of cell phone while driving is likely to experience a lot of resistance from many people globally. Most resistance is likely to come from those people that are of the opinion that there is no offense in simultaneously driving and using the cell phone. This is in contrast to many researches conducted on the causes of road accidents.

Majority of these researches have identified the use of cell phone while driving as a major contributing factor to the high increase in the road accidents witnessed nowadays. They depict that the use of mobile phone while driving disrupts an individual’s concentration significantly such that one is not in a good position to deal with emergencies effectively (Banning the use of cell phones while driving makes sense par. 4).

It is generally accepted that the use of mobile phone while driving creates a considerable rise in the number of accidents both to the user and other road users. This is because its use impairs the drivers’ control of the vehicle and in addition, it reduces a driver’s awareness of the roads happenings. The two major factors contributors of road accidents while driving can be categorized in two; Physical detractors and cognitive distracters (The Royal Society for prevention of accidents 2).

The physical distraction occurs when drivers remove one hand from the steering wheel to use their cell phone. Moreover, drivers occasionally remove their eyes from the road as they pick and replace their cell phone or while dialing. The cognitive disruption occurs when two or more cognitive activities are executed simultaneously.

When this happen, the effectiveness of the performance of these tasks is much compromised compared to a situation where it is only one task that was being executed. The performance is reduced because the attentiveness is often divided or switched between the two activities and the two compete for common cognitive processes. Therefore whenever a driver uses the cell phone while driving, what this means is that he/she has to operate the phone and maintain the phone conversation.

Similarly, the drive will also be required to control the vehicle and ensure he/she responds occasionally to the changing traffic conditions. This is not an easy task for many. These two kinds of disruptions are the one that boosts accidents for those drivers that use the phones while driving (The Royal Society for prevention of accidents 3).

Despite all these allegations that use of mobile phone while driving increases road accidents, it is surprisingly that use of cell phone while driving is not the leading cause of road accidents. Over speeding and bad weather are rated among the leading causes of road accidents worldwide.

Over speeding continuously remains the leading cause of road accidents, despite the various programs launched worldwide aiming to create awareness about the risks associated with speeding. There is no much that have been achieved. The recommended speed limits vary from one nation to the other, but there is one thing that holds; the faster you drive, the more risky you are prone to accident and other road users.

Bad weather is considered as the next leading cause of road accidents. Bad weather such as rain, snow or fog is known to facilitate accidents as a result of slippery roads and blurred visibility. Thus, drivers are advised to drive extra carefully, while driving in these conditions as they have limited control on them. Driving while drunk or high with drugs is also a significant contributor of increased risks of road accidents. Use of alcohol and drugs reduces the body’s reflexes which makes an individual more aggressive.

Drunk drivers exhibit more aggressive behaviors such as driving too close to the vehicle in front or applying the brakes forcefully (Nita par.3). In addition, drunkards are known to be reckless and not able to see the consequences of their actions. This is why driving while drunk is prohibited by law. Sleepiness is also a leading cause of road accidents. For instance approximately 100,000 accidents due to sleepiness are recorded in U.S. annually (Launce par.5).

Thus, the high rise is road accidents cannot only be blamed on the increased use of mobile phones while driving. There are other factors that have been identified that increase road accidents in a greater extent than the use of the mobile phones while driving. Among the other factors highlighted as major cause of accidents are over speeding, bad weather, driving while drunk and sleepiness.

Nevertheless, this does not mean that the use of mobile phone while driving is not an issue to be worried about, drivers should ensure that they put into consideration all the factors that are linked with increase risks in road accident and act responsibly to safeguard their life and that of other road users such as pedestrians. By observing these safety precautions, many lives will be saved and the State will save the huge costs that are associated with road accidents and being invested elsewhere.

Works Cited

Banning the use of cell phones while driving makes sense. 28 Jan. 2011.Web.18 July, 2011

Launce, Kim. Cell Phone Statistics. 19 Aug. 2010. Web..

Nita. Drunk driving is a major cause of accidents in India.7 Dec.2006 Web.

Powers, Tom. 10 Reasons Why Road Accidents Happen And Finding Legal Representation.2005 Web..

The Royal Society for prevention of accidents. The Risk of Using a Mobile Phone while Driving.18 Aug. 2004. Web.18 July, 2011

Introduction

Driving demands a large quantity of attentiveness in order to keep the highway, and the users secure. Currently, scores of citizens have a driving permit without being capable of driving in a liable manner. This reveals the issue regarding handsets. When we reflect on it, numerous other aspects add up to mishaps.

Ingestion, eating, applying makeup, and talking to commuters are as well a number of other rudiments that takes the drivers concentration away from the boulevard. Handsets are not an exemption, although they can furthermore be very helpful. On the other hand, they moreover present a risk for each person; as a result, I concur that handset use should be forbidden while driving.

Many citizens pass on each day from road catastrophes. The gigantic majority of mishaps are because of slapdash driving. In various occasions, the citizens are fortunate enough to dodge of it with only several marks, others are not so fortunate. By chatting on a handset, the driver’s concentration is more on the discussion than on the path, and in case of an urgent situation he or she could not have sufficient moment in time to respond.

The lesson of the penalty that handset use has is imperative, particularly to the juvenile cohort. It is common seeing people sending texts while driving. It appears unlikely that citizens are doing this kind of things even as operating an automobile. Whatever thing distracting the driver’s concentration from the road is competent to cause a mishap (Nilsson 21).

Physical Distraction

When utilizing a hand-held handset, drivers should take away one hand from the steering wheel to grasp and maneuver the phone. They should also get away their eyes off the highway, at any rate shortly, to hoist and lay down the handset and to phone up figures.

Whilst bringing into play a hand-held handset, the driver needs to carry on concurrently operating the automobile that is, bundle, modify gear and apply sign, with just a single hand. Even though the physical distraction is much superior with hand-held handsets, there are several bodily actions with hands-free coordination. Although they do not require to be apprehended at some stage in the call, the drivers have to divert their eyes from the highway to position the handset and (frequently) compress in any case one key.

Cognitive Distraction

When rational (cognitive) functions are carried out concomitantly, the presentation of both duties is regularly shoddier than if they were executed disjointedly, since concentration has to be separated, or toggled, between the chores and the they have to battle for the similar cognitive practice.

When a driver is utilizing a hand-held or hands-free cellular phone at the same time as driving, she or he should dedicate part of their concentration to operating the handset and sustaining the phone discussion and part to operating the automobile and act in response to the relentlessly varying boulevard and traffic state of affairs. The requirements of the handset discussion must battle with the needs of driving the automobile securely.

There is confirmation that older drivers need more glimpses of gadget panels to regain required information, need more time to conclude gadget duties and need more time to shift their eyeballs between the boulevard and an appliance exhibit.

Various researchers have identified that using hands-free cells still divert drivers’ attention and weakens secure driving aptitude, even when driving mechanical automated vehicles, which are perhaps simpler to drive than the physical transmission vehicles mostly used in the UK (Haigney 04).

There is as well proof that using a cellular phone when driving leads to bigger tribulations for those drivers who previously have a towering mishap risk that is the youth, trainee drivers and aged drivers

Effects of Mobile Phone Use

One investigation recommends that the danger of being implicated in an accident is four times more when utilizing a mobile as opposed to when not utilizing it. Conversely, it is hard to enumerate the augmented danger because of insufficient mishap information pertaining to the utility of cellular phone.

This is because, for in instance in the United Kingdom, and the majority of other states, the existence or use of a cell in a van is not documented, apart from at times in very severe mishaps. Several regions States in the USA that are starting to document cellular phone use in their mishap information structures is growing, and, accordingly, it appears as if the enhanced records will happen to be accessible (Alm 86).

In spite relevant information, there is however proof from epidemiological investigations and from mishap intelligence that those drivers who use handsets even as driving have elevated mishap rates as opposed to those who shun away from such behaviors. Since the use of cell is increasing so fast, it is very liable that they will turn out to be a progressively familiar source of road collision.

Company Policies

The big corporations have realized that talking over the phone while driving is harmful. In a recent study conducted within these organizations, those who replied had strategies aimed at forbidding or limiting the use of cell while driving for work rationales.

The companies were soundly alert of their lawful tasks, and of the dangers produced by using a cell when driving. The majority of these corporations control the use of hand-held cells when driving. Nonetheless, numerous of companies offer hands-free equipments to facilitate their employees to use handsets when driving under restricted circumstances.

This puts forward that as companies are familiar with a number of perils in using a hands-free handset when driving, they view that the dangers can be controlled in a number of conditions. By doing this, companies may perhaps be harmonizing the danger alongside the business requirements of production and concluding that the peril of using hands-free handset is not satisfactorily great to totally forbidding their use while driving.

On the other hand, several great corporations proscribe the use of any cell when driving for employment reasons, and demand workers to use their handsets simply when parked in a secure position. One can consider the use of cell phones when driving as imperative for business competence but does not want to calculate the risks involved (Cain 37).

Comparison with other Distractions

The confirmed data points out that chatting to a commuter does not cause equivalent level of disruption as using a cellular phone, possibly because of the image contact indication that escort interpersonal discussion and because a traveler can notice the traffic condition and adjust the discussion consequently. Using a handset can be contrasted with fine-tuning a broadcasting gadget or shifting a videotape, the outcomes generally demonstrate that the cellular phone causes more tribulations.

On the other hand, tuning the broadcasting gadget has furthermore been established to sidetrack drivers and weaken their performance (Lamble et al 45-47). A vicinity of escalating concern is the increase in the quantity and density of electronic apparatus being built-in in cars: steering gadgets, internet processors, and fax equipments, even small screens.

Whereas a number of apparatus, for instance map-reading paraphernalia, might assist in secure driving, nearly all of these gadgets are redundant trappings and must not be used when driving (Verhoef 11). However, just as drivers utilize handsets when driving, countless are expected to use other apparatus as they drive. The interruption and mishap risks appear to be comparable to those shaped by handsets.

Conclusion

Most researches point out that drivers’ preservation of a steady suitable path position is weakened when using a handset. The majority of studies specify that drivers find it trickier to uphold a suitable and unsurprising velocity while using a handset, which from time to time leads to reducing the velocity and occasionally mounting it. The proof point out that drivers take longer to sense and react to variations, for example an automobile in front slowing down, which leading to slow reduction of speed.

When using a handset, drivers are expected to decrease their subsequent space from the automobile ahead. When this outcome is joined with slower response periods, the danger of a crash is even larger. Finally, using a handset moreover spoils drivers’ conclusion of suitable fissures in traffic jams, leading to drivers’ ingoing or tolerating openings that are not big enough.

Works Cited

Alm, Nilsson. “The effects of a mobile telephone task on driver behavior in a car following situation,” Accident Analysis and Prevention, 27.5 1995.

Cain, Burris. Investigation of the use of Mobile Phones While Driving. Florida: University of South Florida, 1999.

Haigney, John. Mobile Phone Use Whilst Driving: The Safest Set-up? London: RoS PA and Aston University, 28, 1998.

Lamble. et al. “Cognitive load and detection thresholds in car following situations: safety implications for using mobile (cellular) telephones while driving”, Accident Analysis & Prevention, 1999. Web.

Nilsson, Nabo. “Evaluation of application 3: Intelligent cruise control simulator experiment. Effects of different levels of automation on driver behavior, workload and attitudes, 1995. Web.

Verhoef, Edward. Pricing in Road Transport: A multidisciplinary Perspectives, Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2008.

A cellphone is a device used to make and receive phone calls. These devices enable you to communicate with anyone, any time no matter the distance and the place as long as there is a network coverage in your area.

It is due to cellphones that the world recently has turned into a global village, and this is a sharp contrast to the past when we did depend on telephone lines for communication. Although cellphones are advantageous and have made our life easier, people are still skeptical about carrying their cellphones everywhere due to their past experiences and fear of the unknown.

The most memorable experience while using my Android smart phone was the way it easily located my position. This happened since the phone was able to synchronize the goggle maps application on my phone. This made me phobic to carry my phone since I had given someone an incorrect address and the person was able to find out that I was lying.

Cellphones pose security threats to many people since they attract thieves who are usually stealing smartphones. Thus, most of the times people who do not want to be victims of robbery go about their daily activities without their cellphones in order to limit their vulnerability to robberies.

This makes them feel safe as most people keep some valuable documents in their cellphones such as work memos, daily schedules and their various personal identification numbers, thus by leaving phones at home or at their work place they stand a lesser chance of losing the data.

Some people use their phones to access social sites and electronic mail, and in case they lose their cellphones most of their personal information is lost as well. This poses a security threat to them and those around them especially if they are distinguished persons in society.

Cellphones ensure people are able to be reached at any time. Hence, when some people do not want to be contacted, they just want to have a peaceful time without interference. Therefore, they tend to leave their cellphones behind so that they are able to go about their daily activities without interference. Carrying the cellphones is sometimes hectic for them too, since such people do not want to be reached at times, thus they will only ensure they carry their cellphones when they want to be reached.

The new designs of cellphone are also scary as some phones especially smart phones usually have global positioning system. Hence, they can be traced in case of anything. Cellphones provide an easier avenue of tracing a person since if a phone is on, there is usually a way of tracing its owner through the use of internet protocol addresses.

More so, if it is used for internet access, this makes phones phobic due to the fear of being traced or followed by someone or even a stalker. Hence, by leaving the cellphone, they tend to be safe and confident that no one can follow them using their cellphones (Kang 6).

In addition, carrying a cellphone around is usually a burden for some people who feel it is a burden, since it is always in their pockets or their hands. This group or category of people is more prone to losing their phones because carrying the phones everywhere around increases the likelihood of forgetting one somewhere. Since they may forget or misplace the cellphone while undertaking their daily activities. Thus, it seems to be wiser to leave the cellphone at home or in the office so that to make sure the phone is not lost or misplaced.

Health factors and risks that are associated with cellphones are also a reason why many people prefer not to carry their cellphones around since recent research shows that the radiation from cellphones tend to cause chronic diseases and cancer that are still under research. Some people are scared of the effects of using their cellphones all the time.

This is most probably caused by various prejudices and stories that people hear about the consequences of using cellphones even though they might not have concrete evidence whether all those diseases are caused by the radiation from the cellphone. People’s reasons are purely speculative but understandable since some people are usually ignorant of these facts, although these are not surefire reasons why some people are afraid of carrying their cellphones (Saylor 12).

Technophobic people do not carry their cellphones along when doing their normal duties, these people sometimes even do not have a cellphone since they are usually highly conservative by nature and ignorant of technology, they do not accept it, or they are not willing to learn more about it.

Such people think technology is not really significant for the present day society. They also are afraid of the costs that are associated to it such as the purchase of airtime, fees for internet and email access. The ignorance is caused by the lack of proper understanding of how technology works and the concept behind the operation of cellphones. This is the reason why people do not carry cellphones since they do not want to incur costs that they do not understand.

Works Cited

Kang, Cecilia. “China to Track Cellphones, Causing Human Rights Concerns.” Washington Post. 2011. Web.11 Nov 2012.

Saylor, Michael. Mobile Wave: How Mobile-Intelligence Will Change Everything. New York: Vanguard Press, 2012.

Introduction

The rate of cell phone use has been increasing since mid 1980, and this industry has been ranked as being the most growing in the world. Cell phone use has got lots of application be in business, between families and between those in transit.

Though all these situations use cell phones, but the equipment is very useful particularly to those in transit, including those driving vehicles most of phone operators have reported to be using the technology. In real sense, a large percentage of phone calls have been found to be initiated by motor vehicle drivers. However, many scholars and government agencies have argued that, the use of cell phones while driving “increases the risk of traffic collisions, property damage, injuries, and fatalities” (Lissy, & Cohen 2000, 2)

This concern however, has made many policymakers to be in a dilemma of whether to prohibit or just regulate this behavior of drivers using cellular phones while vehicle are in motion. This research paper provides benefits accrued from drivers’ use of cell phones while vehicles are in motion should not be prohibited.

Personal Benefits

Using cellular phones while driving reduces unnecessary travels or even minimize trip distance, which at the end reduces total time on the road since it allows efficient communication friends, family members, as well as other parties having traveling schedules that are supposed to be coordinated with the driver. Apart from reducing time and distance, this benefit ends up saving fuel consumption, traffic accident exposure, and vehicle wear and road pollution.

Another benefit is reducing drivers’ tendency of speeding. In case a driver is becoming late, there are higher chances that he will speed up the vehicle to reach at his destination in time to carry out his business. However, a driver can just make a call notifying those waiting for him if his late arrival, hence there will be no need of speeding up. This will at the end reduce the accident chances by a very high percentage, (Gerdes 2008, 56).

Use of cellular phones makes drivers to have peace in their minds. This is because, by making calls, he will be assured that uncertain events of the day can be dealt with effectively, hence reducing worries related to such events. This is because; they can receive and resolve such events calling for urgent attention just through the phone. In addition, cell phones can be used to provide security by reducing stresses and time lost particularly when the driver gets lost. As he can just make a few calls to confirm the road and direction to take.

Family Benefits

Communication among family members particularly when one is on transit enhances household chores accomplishment in an efficient manner, for instance, picking a packet of milk one the way from work. It can also provide notice in case one anticipates arriving home late, or even making eleventh hour changes on a planned schedule (Kiesbye, 2011 67).

In case teenagers and spouses are driving for a very long distance and at night, their family members and other spouses get worried. As a result, calling home while driving leads to relaxation and parental as well as family. In addition, the risk of using cell phones particularly teenagers worries parents so much.

Making calls while driving allows parents to leave their offices earlier, since there are transactions which can be communicated on phone while driving home. As a result, this gives such parents more time to spend with their family especially children. Hence they are in a position of providing parental advice, love and care to their children (Rothman 1996 34).

Social Networking Benefits

Studies have indicated that most Americans are losing their social connectedness, like friends’ networks due to life commercialization (Putnam 1995, 45). This has led to lots of health effects. So, since most people are only free when driving home or to work, so, allowing them to make calls while driving can have substantial impacts in reducing these effects.

In case one is caught up in a traffic jam, drivers can make some calls to their friends whom they have been remiss to call. This time can be used by drivers to reconnect with their associates and friends. In addition, drivers should be allowed to make calls while driving to coordinate some sorts of social engagements, which might have been jeopardized since the driver, is on a transit.

Business Benefits

By using cell phone technology can help workers on transit to keep in touch with their clients and employees. This can be of great help in reducing frustrations among workers, as well as employers. In addition, this will help in saving clients from moving away from the organization, because they can reach their respective partners and organization employees and managers at any time they feel like. These at the end increase production and efficiency, responsiveness to clients and co workers (Hsph.harvard 2011, par 4)

Conclusion

Due to above stated benefits accrued from using cell phones while driving, drivers’ use of cell phones while vehicles are in motion should not be prohibited.

Works Cited

Gerdes, Louise I. “Teen Driving” Detroit: Greenhaven. 2008. Print.

Hsph.harvard.edu. Cellular phones and driving: weighing the risks and Benefits. 2011. Web.

Kiesbye, Stefan. “Cell Phones and Driving.” Farmington Hills, MI: Greenhaven, 2011. Print.

Lissy, Karen. & Cohen, Joshua. Cellular Phone Use While Driving: Risks and Benefits. 2000. Web.

Putnam, Robert. Bowling alone: America’s decline of social capital. Journal of Democracy, 6(1995): 65-78.

Rothman, Kenneth. & Loughlin, John. Overall mortality of cellular telephone customers. Epidemiology, 7.3(1996): 303-305.

Even though technology has helped people in a lot of ways, a person must realize its drawbacks and balance the use of technology with the physical interaction with others. It is important to keep in mind that technology is not always error proof, thus reliability is a relative concept.

There are many examples that show how technology has proven to be a negative influence on society, but people still continue its use. From one point of view, it is possible to see that texting and using other features of a cell phone have become detrimental, but at the same time, there are some advantages to the communication that come out of texting.

An article titled “Generation Text” by Mark Bauerlein talks about the number of text messages that are sent everyday by the younger population. It amounts to such quantities that it has become consuming of lives and time. A cell phone and its features have become a form of social status, and peer pressure plays a role in keeping up the standard.

As Bauerlein fairly notes, “Everyone passes through this phase, but this generation’s experience marks a crucial change in the process” (Wilhoit 34). The private information and the communication itself have become a public occurrence where people put their lives out on social viewing without any concern for security or privacy.

Texting in particular, leads to a lack of emotion in the communication. The only way to express emotion is to put pre-set “smiles” beside words, phrases or to use the capital letters and exclamation marks. When people interact face-to-face, they see each other’s facial expressions.

They can hear the tone of voice and maybe hidden emotions that a person does not want others to know but nonetheless has them. All of this is impossible to see and feel through texting. This makes people similar to robots, where the real emotions are not important anymore. Even if a person is sad, they will put a “smile” beside the word and the other person will not even realize that maybe they must offer a helping hand or console their friend. People are slowly becoming emotionally isolated.

Nowadays, individuals focus on the way their facebook page looks, they pay great attention to the amount of pictures they post, number of responses that they receive to certain posts and comments about their status.

The need to go out and do things became not needed. The interaction between people has come down to words on web pages and comments in relation to behavior of others. It is also cheaper and more practical to live in the word of computers, where there is no need to go out, spend money in cafes, different attractions and games that involve physical participation of the person and others.

Also, it is very time consuming, so people simply have no time to go out and enjoy nature and the company of others. The constant checking for the replies and posts of others, especially if there is an extreme amount of friends, takes up a lot of time. Mark Bauerlein’s research confirms that “…the bedroom is not a private space. It’s a social hub” (Wilhoit 35).

The development of technology has drastically changed the world. As people are unable to calculate the rates of progress, it is impossible to determine what changes will be brought about with an even greater increase in technological advancements.

Works Cited

Wilhoit, Stephen. A Brief Guide to Writing from Readings. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2012. Print.

Introduction

The recent ban of cell phone by drivers should qualify as another of the ‘dumb’ laws that form part of the urban legends regarding quaint laws. The law regarding talking on mobile phones as dangerous while texting was conveniently ignored by shortsighted policy drafters. The whole logic behind the banning was the speaking on the cell phone distracts people and causes them to lose control and then they are involved in an accident (GHSA, 2009).

This is fine, but a driver can be distracted by many other things. Some of them include, smoking, drinking a soda, glancing at the rear view mirror, having a light snack and even talking with other occupants of a car. Will the police catch a mother who is driving with a baby and she turns momentarily to pat the crying baby? What about music and radio FM that people find so engrossing and entertaining and will the government band the radio also. So are we going to hear the song ‘the mobile phone killed the radio star’? So where will this end? Assuming that the law is good enough, how will the police enforce the ban? Many drivers use tinted glasses for the windscreens and these glasses are normally rolled up all the way. The law makes it clear that the driver can be booked for using a cell phone even if she has not committed any other traffic offence.

Main body

The ban on texting is understandable and it would be seen that texting requires a driver to move his vision away from the road ahead, look down at the mobile, read the message or type one and send it. This activity has been known to cause some accidents but a blanket ban on mobile phone use, with or without headsets and speakerphones is simply not tenable. Ban on texting is justified to some extent, but it came as an ‘afterthought’ after cell phone use was banned while driving. So we have a double negative here and is it that two negatives make it positive? Are there any more points that the government has missed and these would come as more laws to safeguard the people. Intrusion by the government into personal affairs of the citizens is not unknown but this type of law that puts the cart before the horse is uncalled for (Spice, 2008).

It is also true that texting has resulted in some horrific accidents and there was the reported case of a truck driver who was texting while driving and he lost control, killing many people. However, truck drivers are known to have accidents for a number of other reasons also and will we see laws that ban the movement of trucks. Not applying thought or seeing the difficulty in enforcement by police officers is a common problem that citizens bear. Framers of the policy can then claim that they have passed the required laws and done their job. Is this sufficient?

It would be more effective if awareness of texting wile driving was highlighted through advertisements and media reports rather than enact laws that cannot be implemented. Since the under 18 Years are regarded as potential offenders, assuming this is true, the government should increase awareness drives, show pictures of accidents that were caused by drivers who texted while driving. It has been known that people tend to break laws that are foolishly designed, just for the heck of it. While driving is a serious business and accidents are critical events, merely passing laws does not help to reduce such incidents.

Conclusion

To sum up, the law that banned use of mobile phones while driving and was passed before the ban on texting while driving, reveals a lack of forethought on the part of policy framers. Merely passing laws that cannot be enforced does not help to make it effective. Instead, an awareness should be initiated that educates and informs people about why texting while driving is bad and how it kills innocent people and children.

References

GHSA, 2009. Cell Phone Driving Laws. Web.

Spice Byron. 2008. Carnegie Mellon Study Shows Just Listening To Cell Phones Significantly Impairs Drivers. Web.

A ban on the use of cellphones while driving can have significant benefits. It has potential life-saving effects by reducing morbidity and injury. In states introducing a legislative ban on the use of cellphones while driving, the rate of observed hand-held phone conversations dropped significantly by 24-76%. Collision rates related to phone use decreased slightly but were not statistically significant. However, states with cellphone bans for all drivers showed significantly lower car fatality rates. In turn, this reduces associated healthcare costs, lost productivity, and other public safety hazards (McCartt, Kidd, & Teoh, 2014). The costs of such bans are difficult to estimate. The only direct cost may be additional expenses to the law enforcement and judicial system in enforcing the ban and punishing offenders. However, some indirect costs may be associated with welfare losses that citizens lose out on due to the inability to communicate. These include social networking, business opportunities, and emotional distress (Lissy, Cohen, Park, & Graham, 2000). It is the aspect that is difficult to classify on a broad policy level.

Using Cost-Benefit Effectiveness Analysis helps to compare financial costs to benefits of a particular policy directly. Expenses of policy enforcement and media campaigns to raise awareness are relatively simple to predict based on the extent of the ban, both in population and area. Others such as lost consumer surplus can be calculated based on annual usage of cell-phone airtime and estimated volumes of driving in the population. In turn, cost offsets are determined by calculating savings within the medical system and productivity lost due to car accidents. Furthermore, an important aspect in this analysis would be calculating quality-adjusted life year (QALY) which is a measure used to determine the burden of specific aspect on the quality and quantity of life lived by a person (Sperber, Shiell, & Fyie, 2010).

Therefore, in a public policy debate, proponents of regulation would argue that per capita healthcare savings and resulting QALY measures are significant enough to justify a ban on the use of private cellphones in driving conditions. Meanwhile, opponents would argue that potential economic losses and personal distress are large enough to justify any potential reduction of QALY within a population, proposing that other solutions should be presented instead of an outright legislative ban. Although seemingly insensible, a price on human life is a widespread practice in many countries. Each citizen is an inherent user of such national resources as healthcare. Such measurements as QALY, help to determine the financial value of human life in order to guide public policy effectively.

References

Lissy, K. S., Cohen, J. T., Park, M. Y., & Graham, J. D. (2000). Cellular phone use while driving: Risks and benefits. Web.

McCartt, A. T., Kidd, D. G., & Teoh, E. R. (2014). Driver cellphone and texting bans in the United States: Evidence of effectiveness. Annals of Advances in Automotive Medicine, 58, 99–114.

Sperber, D., Shiell, A., & Fyie, K. (2010). The cost-effectiveness of a law banning the use of cellular phones by drivers. Health Economics, 19, 1212-1225. doi:10.1002/hec.1546.

The article, titled “The Supreme Court Saves Cellphone Privacy”, reports on an important ruling by the Supreme Court regarding the contested issue of if it is permissible for police officers to search for information from cellphones without a warrant during an arrest except in exceptional circumstances. The issue came into the limelight after police officers were faulted for searching the cellphones of two suspects without first securing a warrant. While these searches helped police to find evidence of drug crimes and gang activity, the nine justices of the Supreme Court upheld the protection of cellphones from searches by the police without a warrant (“The Supreme Court” para. 1-4).

From the article, it is clear that the government advanced an argument that police officers need to be given the power to search cellphones because of the long-established exception to the Fourth Amendment, which makes it permissible for the police to search an individual’s body and immediate surroundings without a warrant, with the view to ensuring their protection as well as preventing the destruction of evidence (“The Supreme Court” para. 5).

A second argument advanced by the government was that, criminals could remotely delete incriminating information contained in the cellphone or even “alert an officer to approaching accomplices who might threaten his safety” (“The Supreme Court” para. 8). However, in their ruling, the justices maintained that cellphones hold vast amounts of personal information and hence the expectation of privacy prevails over the immediate concerns of law enforcement. The justices also ruled that police officer can easily get search warrants upon request, thus there was no immediate need to conduct cellphone searches without warrants.

While the Supreme Court’s ruling to a large extent reaffirms the essence and scope of the Fourth Amendment’s ban on unreasonable searches and seizures (“The Supreme Court” para. 12), it nevertheless raises pertinent security concerns that need to be addressed. In my submission, the justices should have considered the weighty issues raised by the government on why police offices should be allowed to conduct impromptu searches on cellphones confiscated from criminals.

The argument that the expectation of privacy far outweighs the immediate concerns of law enforcement, in my view, is not in the best interests of the American people, particularly in an age where criminals and terrorists communicate via mobile phones to cause havoc to the unsuspecting population (Shelley 303-304).

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s justices may indeed have had reasonable justifications in choosing to protect the privacy of Americans over their security concerns. However such justifications should have been grounded on a framework that underscores privacy while at the same time ensuring that criminals do not take advantage of provisions of the Fourth Amendment to advance their agenda.

Works Cited

Korwin, Alan. Gun Laws of America. 2nd ed. 2007. Phoenix, AZ: Bloomfield Press. Print.

Schultz, Howard. An Open Letter from Howard Schultz, CEO of Starbucks Coffee Company 2013. Web.

Shelley, Louise I. “Organized Crime, Terrorism and Cybercrime.” Security Sector Reform: Institutions, Society, and Good Governance. Ed. Alan Bryden and Phillip Fluri. Indiana: Nomos Publishing. 303-12. Print.

“The Supreme Court Saves Cellphone Privacy.” The New York Times. 2014. Web.

This paper aims to summarize the case of Mian v. City of Ottawa. Irfan M. Mian is an applicant and defendant in this case, and the City of Ottawa is a respondent and prosecution side. Mian is a counsel for himself, and Madeleine Hayes is counseling for the City of Ottawa. The case was heard on March 28, 2017, by Marc R. Labrosse J., and the final judgment was on April 5, 2018.

According to Marc R. Labrosse J., the Applicant is charged with “driving while holding or using a hand-held communication device,” which is contrary to subsection 78.1(1) of the Highway Traffic Act, RSO 1990, c.H.8 (Mian v. City of Ottawa 1). Also, the Applicant seeks the disclosure of first-party records, the disciplinary records, and the employment file for Officer Darren Zorn, who is reported to have had a drug addiction for six years before 2013 (Mian v. City of Ottawa 1).

Considering the position of the Applicant, several principal aspects should be observed. First of all, Mian relies primarily on extraordinary remedies, which are described in para. 140 of the Provincial Offences Act, RSO 1990, c.P.33. However, the judge considers the disclosure of the disciplinary records to be irrelevant to the case. Nevertheless, the Applicant assumes that in these particular circumstances, the criteria for the disclosure were met, and thus there is a miscarriage of justice.

Considering the position of the Crown, there are three critical reasons to dismiss the Application. Primarily, the defendant has failed to comply with the “30-day notice requirements in s. 141(1) of the POA” (Mian v. City of Ottawa 2). Secondly, the Crown argues that, on this stage of proceedings, it is inappropriate to seek “relief by way of certiorari” (Mian v. City of Ottawa 2). Thirdly, it is stated that the disciplinary records should not be disclosed in this particular case.

To further elaborate on the position of the Crown about the relief against a pre-trial ruling, it should be observed that applications for certiorari or a Charter are rarely granted (Mian v. City of Ottawa 2). The Court of Appeal states that such relief is limited to jurisdictional errors, and it is also suggested that the disclosure of documents to defendants should only be granted if non-disclosure has a profound impact on the fairness of the proceeding of the case (Mian v. City of Ottawa 2). It is concluded in the case that the refusal of the Application is not an error that should go to jurisdiction, even if it is an error in fact.

However, the case also provides a perspective on Defendant’s reasoning behind his Application. The Applicant emphasizes the fact that the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in McNeil supports his position. Mian argues that the requests for disciplinary records do not always require an O’Connor Application before disclosure. Primarily, Defendant doubts the credibility of the officer, and thus he strives to justify the first party records disclosure (Mian v. City of Ottawa 3).

However, the Crown specifically stated that the disclosure of these records is not relevant to the case without O’Connor’s Application. Nevertheless, Defendant decided to proceed with his Application despite the Crown’s decision. In conclusion, it is stated that the Charter application and the application for certiorari “to obtain the disciplinary records as part of the first party records disclosure” are dismissed (Mian v. City of Ottawa 3).

Work Cited

Mian v. City of Ottawa, 2018 ONSC 2131, 2018 CarswellOnt 5388.

Introduction

Phone unlocking is now a thing of the past in the United States of America. This has been championed by both the Library of Congress and the Copyright Office. It has since become law and encrypted in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). This new law prohibits all mobile phone users from unlocking their phones in a bid to continue using them once they are locked by their corresponding networks or carriers.

In the past, phone users could freely corrupt their phones that were designed to function on only one carrier so that they could accept new SIM cards (Joanna, 1). This was also done to enable such phones to access data networks that did not necessarily belong to their carrier. This malpractice was done through a software process that bypassed the numerous protocols designed to limit a phone to only one carrier. The process is called ‘phone unlocking’.

However, the enactment of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) has scrapped this malpractice completely. This is an implication that phone unlocking is now observed as a criminal offense in the USA. The law was enacted not to deter people from doing whatever they wanted with their cell phones but to counter copyright infringement. This is a situation whereby cell phone users get to use their devices for purposes not intended for them. Mobile phone carriers normally contract their subscribers by giving them phones at discounted or subsidized rates as a way to be sure of their allegiance. However, unscrupulous people take advantage of this (Joanna, 1). They unlock the phones and resell them expensively. They sometimes use the same phones with some overseas carriers and take advantage of the local rates while abroad.

The USA cellular carriers are the beneficiaries of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). Today, the law ensures that customers are loyal to their cellular carriers once they subscribe to them. If one needs to migrate to another mobile network, he or she is compelled to purchase another device and never uses a device meant for another network. They are forced to buy cell phones that are already unlocked. Since the enactment of this law, cellular carriers have benefited wholesomely. This is because people dare not risk facing punishment after unlocking their phones.

Violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) is punishable by law (Wilbur, 21). One is punishable with a lawsuit if he or she attempts to or unlocks a phone. If the infringement of this law was done for commercial gain, it is considered a criminal act and is associated with grave consequences. A carrier is allowed by the law to sue such a perpetrator for statutory damages or even actual damages. The punishment for a person or civil offense is normally a fine of not more than $2,500. This is usually imposed after a court procedure and presentation of viable evidence of the committed offense. On the other hand, as for criminal offenses or those intending to gain from phone-unlocking like cell phone resellers, the fine imposed could be over $500,000. Additionally, this includes imprisonment (Wilbur, 13).

Conclusion

The illegalization of cell phone unlocking has played a significant role in ensuring that copyright products are protected. Even though the law that defends this right is to be revised soon, it should not leave loopholes for the continuation of this crime. Cellular carriers need as much protection by the law as any other commercial organization.

Works Cited

Joanna, Stern. “Starting today, it is illegal to unlock your cellphone.” ABC News. 2013. Web.

Wilbur, Marcia. Dmca: The Digital Millennium Copyright Act. San Jose: Writers Club Press, 2000. Print.