Category: Distracted Driving

In the era of information technology, most people are guilty of sending text messages while driving. Whether its reading the text just received, sending a quick message to a friend, or having a full-text conversation, everyone has done one of these actions at least once. The invention of the smartphone did everything a person could wish for: get the news quickly, schedule a meeting with a friend, or inquire about how grandmother is feeling. Thus, most communication and entertainment needs can be met with a smartphone within minutes. This fact allows drivers to feel the need to perform multiple tasks at the same time while driving. Although drivers know that this action has legal consequences, many still do it today. The introduction of a ban on sending text messages while driving prevents some drivers from sending text messages while driving, but not all. Therefore, the introduction of stricter laws and tougher punishment would help reduce the number of text messages sent while driving, which would make the environment safer.

With over 330 million wireless users in the United States, texting while driving has become an epidemic. Tontodonato and Drinkard note that over half of drivers admitted to engaging in cell phone-related distractions while driving (827). At the same time, texting while driving not only takes cognitive skills but motor skills as well. Studies have shown that driving while on a cell phone reduces brain activity by 37%. One may think that any distractions while driving, whether it is talking to a passenger or having kids in the car, possess the same distraction as texting. However the Center for Cognitive Brain Imaging reported that texting while driving is a greater distraction than talking to others due to the time eyes are away from the road and the amount of cognitive and motor skills it takes to text (Gupta et al., 89). Thus, many drivers send messages while driving, which is a distraction.

Although sending text messages while driving is prohibited in many US states, drivers continue to break the law. About and Adams state that the initial number of accidents caused by distracted driving decreased in the months after the initial texting ban while driving (180). However, the effect of the prohibition wears off after a few months. They conclude that drivers are reacting to the ban itself and not the act of texting while driving, only to return to their old habits later. Drivers are likely reacting to limited enforcement of bans or learning new ways to not get caught. Ferdinand et al. assert that the relationship between collision claims frequency and texting bans in Washington, California, Montana, and Louisiana reported an increase in collision claims when these states implemented the law (1373). It may be caused by individuals trying to hide their phones while still texting, making it, so their eyes are off the road for a longer period of time, causing more collisions. It shows that even with the current law on texting while driving, many users are still texting on their phones driving.

One of the tools in the fight against the distraction of drivers on their phones can be a license suspension. Since the penalties in most states for violating the ban on texting and driving are very low, in the order of several hundred dollars, this is not an effective deterrent to prevent people from texting while driving. It is noteworthy that some states have already begun the practice of limiting the license for using the phone while driving. For instance, according to McCurley, these include Rhode Island, which has a license suspension of 30 days for the first violation and 3 to 6 months for subsequent violations. Thus, more stringent legislation is required in the form of license suspension.

An even more severe measure against violators can be revocation of the license if the driver repeatedly suppresses the ban on texting while driving. So, if driving is the primary source of livelihood for the offender, trying not to lose the right to drive, people will be more attentive to the legislation. The revocation of a driving license aims to ensure public safety and increase the discipline of road users. Both suspension and revocation of a drivers license include moral condemnation and material impact aimed at increasing discipline, the responsibility of citizens, and improving the social well-being of society.

Thus, as practice shows, most people will follow the law only when they know that they can face big trouble for breaking the law. With the lack of obedience that individuals have to the current laws against texting while driving, it would make sense that if they had harsher consequences for this act, they would have more respect for the law and follow it at a greater rate than they do now. Getting ones license suspended for any period of time negatively affects their life. If the driver knew that this would be the consequence of texting while driving, the situation would surely change, and there would be a decrease in the number of people breaking this law.

Works Cited

Abouk, Rahi, and Scott Adams. Texting Bans and Fatal Accidents on Roadways: Do They Work? Or Do Drivers Just React to Announcements of Bans? American Economic Journal. Applied Economics, vol. 5, no. 2, American Economic Association, 2013, pp. 179199.

Ferdinand, Alva O., et al. Impact of Texting Laws on Motor Vehicular Fatalities in the United States. American Journal of Public Health (1971), vol. 104, no. 8, 2014, pp. 13701377.

Gupta, Pola B., et al. Texting While Driving: An Empirical Investigation of Students Attitudes and Behaviors. Information Systems Management, vol. 33, no. 1, Taylor & Francis, 2016, pp. 88101.

McCurley, John. Rhode Islands Cellphone-Use and Texting-While-Driving Laws. Driving Laws, Web.

Tontodonato, Pamela, and Allyson Drinkard. Social Learning and Distracted Driving Among Young Adults. American Journal of Criminal Justice, vol. 45, no. 5, 2020, pp. 821843.

In many ways, the implementation of the individuals fundamental rights and freedoms depends on those guarantees of a cultural, socio-economic, material, political, organizational, and legal nature that are established and provided by the state. Every citizen should be free as long as he does not harm others. Therefore, when not only the life of the person himself is under threat but also the lives of those around him, the restriction of individual freedom is permissible and justified.

It is well known that social stability and security are associated with the level of material and technical development of society, in which a person is more able to realize his social and creative potential. Their personal and social interests are not in conflict. A developed society is always able to spend more money on the social sphere and the work of those bodies that ensure the implementation of citizens rights. If personal rights are mainly aimed at ensuring freedom from unlawful interference by state power, then social rights are characterized by claims to ensure and implement the interests of the individual through state actions. The state is charged with additional requirements for implementing state social policy based on the resources that the state can allocate for these purposes.

In the modern world, human life is difficult to imagine without numerous portable electronic devices capable of promptly receiving and transmitting a wide variety of information. Today, humanity massively uses them everywhere, in any situation: at work, school, at home, and, of course, while driving. In this regard, it is quite apparent that the problem of legal regulation of individual actions of citizens who use such modern inventions arises. An example of such actions would be the use of mobile communications by a vehicle driver.

Actions that can divert the drivers attention from vehicle control systems include talking on the phone without a special headset, texting, and using various computer programs (instant messengers, games, and many others). According to the Association for Safe International Road Travel, More than 38,000 people die every year in crashes on U.S. roadways. The U.S. traffic fatality rate is 12.4 deaths per 100,000 inhabitants. An additional 4.4 million are injured seriously enough to require medical attention. Road crashes are the leading cause of death in the U.S. for people aged 1-54 (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 2020). The figures given can be related to the victims of a serious military conflict, but we are talking about peacetime, which cannot leave anyone indifferent.

The term distracted driving is used in international law to describe this phenomenon. Twenty years ago, the main risk in using telephones was mostly distracting the driver by dialing a number and driving with one hand. The revolution took place in the late 2000s when social networks and instant messengers began to gain popularity, which many people use while driving (Pope et al. 2017). High-speed mobile and accessible Internet has also been developed.

At the same time, foreign experts began to sound the alarm. Back in 2009, the European Commission referred to studies conducted in different countries in its report: Swedish experts said that every year about 10-20 people died on the roads due to the use of telephones while driving; in Denmark, for the same reason, they recorded about 600 deaths and serious injuries, in the United States  2.6 thousand deaths and 330 thousand injuries on the roads (Gliklich 2016). Today, these numbers are much higher: in 2017, according to estimates by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, more than 3.1 thousand people died due to distracted driving in the United States (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 2020). In parallel with this, the volume of the mobile phone market is growing.

The AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety (an American non-profit organization that researches in traffic safety) evaluates the behavior of drivers annually using sociological surveys. In 2018, it turned out that more than 52% of the surveyed drivers spoke on the phone at least once during a month while driving, holding it in their hand, 41.3%  read something on a smartphone, 32.1%  typed a message and a letter in email while driving (The AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety 2020). Foreign countries are actively developing ways to control the behavior of drivers. In several states in the USA and Canada, police officers, for example, get on a bus or truck to observe what is happening in the car from above. If the police officer sees that the driver uses the phone, they transmit the information over the radio to his colleague on the patrol car, which stops the intruders car.

Consequently, limiting the use of a telephone or other similar mobile device while driving a vehicle is a serious and, of course, urgent task, the solution of which is unlikely to be solely in the plane of increasing liability. However, this problem must be addressed comprehensively, since in reality, the introduction of restrictions is an ambiguous issue. When using a mobile phone, even with a headset, the reaction is reduced to the same level as when driving a car by a driver who is in a state of light alcohol or drug intoxication. This is expressed in the fact that the driver is disoriented and distracted by driving (Qin et al. 2019). As practice shows, a driver who speaks on the phone while driving often creates danger on the road with his inadequate, or rather, unpredictable actions while driving.

It is worth considering the circumstances under which the driver uses the gadgets. It is one thing when a person is talking, say, on the phone, and another thing is when a person uses some device that shows him the way and helps him get to his destination. As a result, if the law prohibits all gadgets while driving, then the police will stop any driver who has a cell phone with a connected navigation program on the stand. According to the survey, young people under 24 are especially active against the ban on devices use (The AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety 2020). At the same time, adherents of restrictions were the most among respondents over 45 years old. Even those who support the ban on using any electronic device while driving will still violate it. There are more men than women among the supporters of a complete ban. At the same time, most women are inclined to believe that it is not necessary to abandon the use of gadgets in traffic jams since, at this time, talking on the phone does not distract the driver in any way.

Thus, the use of a mobile communication device while driving a car should be considered a factor of increased danger, causing a large number of road accidents. The effectiveness of countering such illegal manifestations depends on many factors of a social, legal, and technical nature. It is necessary to solve this urgent problem since communication technologies are proceeding with high intensity.

References

Gliklich, E., Guo, R., and Bergmark, R. W. 2016. Texting While Driving: A Study of 1211 US Adults with the Distracted Driving Survey. Preventive medicine reports, 4, 486-489.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 2020. U Drive. U Text. U Pay. Web.

Pope, C. N., Bell, T. R., and Stavrinos, D. 2017. Mechanisms Behind Distracted Driving Behavior: The Role of Age and Executive Function in the Engagement of Distracted Driving. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 98, 123-129.

Qin, L., Li, Z. R., Chen, Z., Bill, M. A., and Noyce, D. A. 2019. Understanding Driver Distractions in Fatal Crashes: An Exploratory Empirical Analysis. Journal of Safety Research, 69, 23-31.

The AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety. 2020. AAA Distracted Driving. Web.

Mention any holiday or party and what comes to mind of many a youth are thoughts of alcohol. A party in the mind of these youths is a chance to consume lots of alcohol, which as a result, increases the chances of tragedies one of which is fatal accidents due to drunk driving. This causes many accidents in the country, especially during holidays. The federal statistics estimate that 60 % of all teen deaths in car accidents are alcohol related with 55% of them occurring on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday.

When driving, permanent attention to the road and what is happening on the road is required, alcohol in the body impairs the functioning of the body thereby causing fatal accidents. A drunken youth on the road is less aware of traffic signs, other cars or even pedestrians; is not able to control his reactions fully; is slower in responding to situations on the road; judging distances and speed is difficult; and is not able to drive in a straight line. Moreover, driving inexperience, immaturity coupled with a penchant for risk-taking driving increase their chances of being involved in fatal accidents, in that they are less likely to cope with dangerous or difficult situations.

Parents should take this issue seriously rather than thinking that it is a rite of passage and be models of responsible behavior. They should also talk constantly about their expectations of the youths and the consequences of alcohol consumption on their health and life. It might also be a good idea to plan a non-alcoholic party or holiday with the youths just so they can learn that you can have fun without alcohol. It is also the responsibility of young people to conduct themselves responsibly especially when driving as their actions affect other people and take seriously the issues that affect them.

Abstract

Driving and texting is one of the leading causes of road accidents in the United States. Hand-held devices were blamed for the rise of road accidents in the country. The emergence of hands free devices were believed to be the real solution to this problem. However, this study shows that unless these new devices are used responsibly, they can be as dangerous as hand-held devices.

Introduction

The use of mobile phones by drivers is one of the leading causes of road accidents in the United States. A study conducted by Streitz and Markopoulos (2016) shows that most drivers still use their phones while driving. Making phone calls or texting while driving divides the attention of the driver and temporarily impairing his or her judgment on the road. The distractions from these devices have resulted into deadly accidents in the near past. In order to solve this problem, technological advancements in hand-held device have been witnessed to help drivers receive calls or texts without having to handle the devices. Hands free devices and auto responders have emerged to help drivers read texts and receive calls without handling the devices. It means that these devices can be used by drivers with their hands firmly on the wheels and eyes on the road. However, a study by Freitas (2016) says that although these hands free devices have been helpful in reducing distractions to drivers when receiving calls and texts, it is still dangerous to receive calls or texts while driving. Although the eye and the hands will not be distracted, the brain will be impaired as the driver will divide his attention between being on the road and listening to the message. It means that it is still possible for one to cause an accident even when using the hands free devices. In this paper, the researcher seeks to confirm that even though the use of hands free devices and auto responders has their benefits precautions need to be created in order to prevent drivers from texting and driving.

Discussion

Hands free devices

According to Weisberg and Reeves (2013), technology is always considered the solution to most of the problems we face in our socio-economic and political landscapes. The emergence of cell phones was blamed for the increasing rate of road accidents as most drivers would text, receive texts, call or receive calls while driving. Their attention would shift from the road to their phones, making it easy for them to cause accidents. Innovators came up with a way of solving this problem. The emergence of hands free devices was seen as a perfect solution to this problem. These devices allow a driver to receive text messages or phone calls without using their hands. The hands free devices and auto responders are programmed to read the incoming texts and receive phone calls automatically without the driver having to do it in person. The texts are read aloud for the driver. The phone calls also get automatically picked and with Bluetooth headphones already in place, one can chat with the caller with hands firmly on the wheels and eyes on the road. ReadItToMe, DriveSafely, TextnDrive, vBoxHandsFree Messaging, and NissanConnect are some of the hands free devices that are currently available in the market. They allow the driver to read the texts without physically handling their phones. The incoming text is read aloud for the driver. Some of these devices also allow the driver to respond to the messages without handling the phone. The command is issued in voice to the driver and if they want to reply the message, they can do so by speaking out aloud. The voice message is then converted automatically into texts and sent to the recipient.

Arguments in support of hands free devices

Hands free devices have received massive support, especially among the road users who believe that they have helped in reducing road accidents. According to Kaur and Tao (2014), it is almost impossible to convince drivers to switch off their mobile phones when driving. Mobile phones have become basic needs among the Americans as they facilitate instant communication irrespective of ones geographic location. It is, therefore, a fact that drivers will continue using their phones when they are driving. Many people believe receiving a call while driving is not multitasking. With one hand on the wheels and the other receiving the call and eyes focused on the road, many people believe that they can manage to receive and make calls while driving. However, the use of hand held devices creates more distraction to the drivers. The time taken to pick the phone is enough to distract the driver off the road. For a car moving at over 160 kilometers in an hour, 2 or 3 seconds of distraction is enough to cause a fatal accident. The emergence of hands free devices means that a driver can use the mobile phones without having any physical distraction. A study by Munroe (2014) indicates that these new devices have significantly reduced road accidents in the United States. They are a better alternative to the hand held devices which have been blamed for the rise in road accidents in the country. As such, stakeholders should support responsible use of these devices by the drivers.

Arguments against hands free devices

The use of mobile phones by drivers when they are behind the wheels is believed to be one of the leading causes of major road accidents in the United States. Most of these drivers easily get distracted when using these devices, leading to poor judgments while on the road. It is worth appreciating that new technological inventions have led to the emergence of hands free devices and auto responders. These new devices are good, as discussed above, but they are not the perfect solution to the problem of texting or calling when driving. According to a study conducted by Streitz and Markopoulos (2016, p. 41), hands-free devices distract drivers for 27 seconds after use. The problem is no longer the distraction caused by the physical handling of the phone but the mental distraction during and after use. The message received may have a lasting effect on the mind of the driver. For instance, when one receives a stressing message such as death or kidnapping of a loved one, there will be a shock. It does not matter whether or not ones hands are on the wheels and eyes on the road. The mental shock will immediately impair the drivers vision, judgment, and ability to control the vehicle. It is very easy to veer off the road after such shocking information. Such a driver will not only be posing a threat to himself but also to other road users. The figure below shows the mental distraction of various voice-activated systems ranked as per the outcome of a study conducted by Mann and Toles (2016).

As shown in the figure above, almost all the hands free devices have significant impacts on the drivers ability to control a vehicle. Chevy Equinax is believed to have the least mental impact on the drivers while Mazda 6 has been ranked as the most distractive of the currently existing voice-activated systems. The ranking is based on the sound these devices produce and how effective they are in meeting the demands of the drivers without handling them physically. Some of these automated devices are so ineffective that they cause frustrations to the drivers. Instead of demanding the least attention possible from the driver, they become a primary source of distraction as the driver would struggle to ensure that they work while at the same time trying to remain focused on the road. Sometimes the device may make a sound that jolts the driver, making him or her to temporarily lose focus on the road. These are some of the fundamental issues about hands free devices that the stakeholders need to address. It is true that hands free devices are better than hand held devices in terms of reducing accidents. However, they are not the solution to this problem.

Conclusion

It is true that hands free devices and auto responders have helped in reducing road accidents that were related to the use of hand held devices. However, the discussion above proves that even though the use of hands free devices and auto responders has their benefits, precaution need to be taken in order to prevent drivers from texting and driving. Texting, even if the driver will be dictating it verbally, will mean that there will be a divided attention. The distraction caused by the divided attention may lead to serious accidents that would otherwise be avoided if the attention was not divided.

References

Freitas, D. (2016). Happiness effect. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Kaur, H., & Tao, X. (2014). ICTs and the millennium development goals: A United Nations perspective. New York, NY: Springer.

Mann, M. E., & Toles, T. (2016). The madhouse effect: How climate change denial is threatening our planet, destroying our politics, and driving us crazy. New York, NY: Cengage.

Munroe, R. (2014). What if? Serious scientific answers to absurd hypothetical questions. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley & Sons.

Streitz, N., & Markopoulos, P. (2016). Distributed, Ambient and Pervasive Interactions: 4th International Conference, DAPI 2016, Held as Part of HCI International 2016, Toronto, ON, Canada, July 17-22, 2016, Proceedings. London, UK: McMillan.

Weisberg, R. W., & Reeves, L. (2013). Cognition: From memory to creativity. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley & Sons.

Case Descriptive Statistics

Statistical parameters and measurements are employed in analysis of various sets and types of data. These approaches cut across all fields of study and in most cases statistically significant findings are extrapolated in designing policies (Campbell, Machin & Walters, 2007). In the medical arena, data may be statistically significant but not clinically significant and as such, it can not be used in concluding various findings and be employed in daily clinical approaches. Different statistical measures are employed in computing different forms of data. Measures of central tendency include the mean, mode and the median.

Different situations require different forms of the measure of central tendency. The mean is the summation of all the data values over the total of the individual items. The mean finds more use in situations where the data is either in the form of ratios or in intervals (Das, 1989). The mean is subject to various factors, the most important being the presence of outliers which have a major influence on the mean. In this study, the researchers used the mean as the measure of central tendency. The results show presence of outliers who lived for forty-five weeks and this has a pulling effect on the mean obtained rendering the mean not to be the best statistical measure to report the findings. Furthermore, the mean alone does not provide conclusive information on the implication of the results and as such, other statistical measures would have been used by the researchers.

Other measures of central tendency, such as the median are not affected by the presence of outliers in the data set. The median finds wide application as it can be used with ordinal, interval and even ratio types of data. The median is of importance especially in data sets that have outliers that are more likely to distort the mean and result in improper conclusions (Johnson & Bhattacharyya, 2009). The researchers should have considered using the median in reporting their findings to alleviate the influence of outliers. The mode is the other entity of the measure of the central tendency. It is the item that appears regularly in a given sample of data. The mode offers a wide range of versatility as it can be used in various types of data including ordinal, interval, categorical and ratio data (Lü & Fang, 2003). However, it finds wide application in situations where data is categorical. Since the type of data in this study is not categorical, there was no need to use the mode.

Data that is normally distributed employs other statistical measures such as the standard deviation. Standard deviation is one of the measures of dispersion. It shows how far the data set is far from the sample mean (Feinstein, 2002). From the results obtained by the researchers, the standard deviation shows that the values are spread over a wide range from the mean. This implies that the findings obtained are not conclusive enough as they are spread widely around the mean, insinuating the irreproducibility of the intervention as compared to the results obtained in earlier studies. Furthermore, the sample size is small and such may reduce the credibility of the study. As a member of the committee involved in awarding grants to researchers, I would suggest that funding for this study is not necessary as the findings are not clinically significant.

SLP Descriptive Statistics

Hypothesis Statement

Is the use of cell phones and texting while driving a major reason for the increased distracted driving fatalities?

Annotated Bibliography

Redelmeir, D., & Tibshirani, J. (1997). Association between cellular-telephone calls and motor vehicle collisions. The New England Journal of Medicine, 336(7), 453-458.

The study was designed to ascertain the association between cell phone use and automobile incidents and accidents. The researchers employed an epidemiological design in ascertaining the association of cell phone use and increased risk of automobile collisions and they simulated this in a real world scenario. A sample 0f 699 drivers was chosen and put in a cross-over design. In addition, the chosen drivers need to have been involved in an accident that led to destruction of property but without personal injury. Consequently, there must have been a cell phone in the vehicles of interest at the time of accident. Descriptive statistics was used in analysis of circumstantial factors. The drivers acted as their own controls. The frequency of calls by or to the driver were analyzed and matched to the time of the accident. Matched pair studies were used in the estimation of the relative risk posed by cell phone use while driving. The researchers ensured that all the P-values were two tailed to achieve 95% confidence limit. The researchers found out that there was a significant increase in risk of an accident when using a cell phone while driving than when one is not using one. In addition, the researchers found out that there was no risk difference when one was using hands on or hands-free devices while driving. The study article supports my hypothesis that the use of cell phones while driving increases the occurrences of distracted driving fatalities. The study found a four fold increase in incidences of accidents when the driver was using a cell phone while driving.

Violanti, M., & Marshall, R. (1996). Cellular phones and traffic accidents: An epidemiological approach. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 28(1), 2-4.

The researchers carried out statistical analyses to determine the association of traffic accidents and cell phone use while driving. The study was a case control one whereby those subjects involved in accidents were termed as cases, while those not involved were refereed to as controls. Each arm consisted of 100 drivers from the New York state. Multivariate and descriptive statistical analyses were carried out to test the hypotheses of the study. From the descriptive statistical analyses, the researchers found out that on average, the subjects in the case arm had more cell phone talk time, more business calls and more personal calls as compared to those in the control arm. The multivariate analyses showed a linear relationship between the amount of time spent on the phone and traffic accidents. The results showed that, drivers in the case arm spent twice as much time on their cell phones as compared to drivers in the control arm. The researchers employed descriptive statistical analyses to elaborate the reasons behind increased use of cell phones for those in the case arm. They attributed these on more business calls that involved concentrated conversations. This was tied to the increased cases of traffic accidents among members of this arm of the study. The study is tandem with my hypothesis as it reinforces the hypothesis of the relationship of increased distractions to traffic accidents. The study clearly elaborates that there is a direct correlation between the amounts of time spent on the cell phone while driving with the occurrence of traffic accidents.

References

Campbell, M., Machin, D., & Walters, J. (2007). Medical statistics: A textbook for the health sciences. Hoboken: Wiley-Interscience.

Das, M. (1989). Statistical methods and concepts. New Delhi: New Age International.

Feinstein, A. (2002). Principles of medical statistics. London: Chapman & Hall/CRC Press.

Johnson, R., & Bhattacharyya, G. (2009). Statistics: Principles and methods. Hoboken: Wiley-Interscience.

Lü, Y., & Fang, J. (2003). Advanced medical statistics. Singapore: World Scientific.

The use of cell phone while driving should be banned in all states. The cell phone has become one of the best-liked and fascinating technological inventions of the 21^st century. Currently, the cellular phone has turn out to be a major safety concern in our roads. In the United States alone, there are over two hundred million users of this communication device. Driving while drunk was at one time the main reason for road accidents but now the danger has shifted to cell phone users. The possibility of drivers using their cell phones and involving in road accidents is on the rise. Even though the passing of laws on cellular phone usage in some states has occurred, what is the position of the other states concerning this crucial issue? Is it worth to ban its use across all the states?

During this decade, cell phone use while driving has developed into a major crisis that the government should give immediate attention. Although some officials of the government do not recognize its impact on our roads, it is considerable to limit or totally outlaw its use while driving. Robert W. Hahn and Paul C. Tetlock did an analysis in the year 2000 and approximated that about 10,000 severe road accidents would be due to cell phone use that year, and about one hundred lives would be lost. Two years later, another study by the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis took place. In the analysis, they discovered that cell phone use while driving causes about six percent of Americas motor vehicle accidents yearly, leading to 2,600 fatalities and causing harm to about 330,000 other people(Cell phone use while driving fact sheet, para.4). These analyses illustrate the increase level of susceptibility just after two years of research.

The cell phone industry has defended itself by claiming that the device is of great essence during emergencies. The industry is not in favor of cell phone ban while driving as they assert that it is one of the most celebrated safety devices created in modern times. The industry is forgetting that not long ago when no one was in possession of a mobile phone, business was going on as usual. In as much as they are useful in urgent situations, there is absolutely no need for a driver to have it in his or her vehicle and use it. All the other businesses, besides driving, can indeed wait until the individual is motionless. The use of a mobile phone in a vehicle should be restricted to a passenger or a driver to use it in case of a tragedy such as an accident.

Why does a person continue to advocate for cell phone use while driving while it is common sense knowledge that it is a means of drawing attention from the road? It is not an easy task to concentrate behind the wheel and engage in a conversation at the same time (Lee, 1). The use of a cell phone while driving is even more risky than driving a vehicle while drunk. All drivers should concentrate while operating a vehicle on the road. Even if passing a law on common sense is hard, it is possible to liberate and motivate it. Every driver needs to pay close attention of what he or she is doing and where he or she is destined.

Opponents suggest that using a cell phone while driving is acceptable when one is a professional driver. However, the fact is that talking on a cell phone when behind the wheel is an anti-social behavior that risks the lives of other innocent people. This does not depend on how much professional the driver is or his or her level of carefulness. Cell phone use while driving splits the concentration of the driver and puts the lives of other road users in danger. It lowers the drivers degree of competency to take charge of the vehicle and increases the reaction time when faced with a dangerous situation. The responsibility endowed on the driver is huge as his or actions directly relates to the livers of others. By talking on a cell phone while behind the wheel, such a huge task is treated with impunity and the risks associated with it ignored. No driver, regardless of his or her level of professionalism, has the right to drive while at the same time using a mobile phone.

The speaking on a cell phone while driving for long duration of time puts the driver at a risk of experiencing mood changes. Moods and attitudes influence the capability to perform tasks effectively. If the person behind the wheel is engaged in an enjoyable dialogue, his or her attitude regarding other drivers tends to be less hostile. Alternatively, if the person is engaged in a disturbing dialogue, a disagreement, his or her attitude shifts to hostility and forcefulness.

An argument has it that mobile phone use has significantly lowered the level of stress in persons hence prohibiting its use while driving will create hitches associated with loss of competency and time. It comes out as an advantage because most people have developed the habit of using mobile phones particularly when driving to save time at the work place. Conversely, while driving, which one is worth saving? Is it the life of the driver and other road users or time? The value of life is not comparable to the type of saving that one may desire to make. The judgment of a driver deteriorates when he or she is under the influence of something (Drivers on cell phones, para.3) Nowadays, mobile phones are very complicated that they are essential in performing varied tasks. In addition to talking on the phone, some people are texting, searching the internet, and taking photo. The risk of change of attention from driving is high in these circumstances.

It is clear that the use of mobile phones while driving add to the risk of fatal incidents as well as crashing. Nevertheless, why are our legislators too slow to pass laws that prohibit it? About forty nations have strict rules that either totally forbids or limits the use of cell phones while driving. In this great country, only six states have well laid down regulations that ban the use of cell phones while operating a vehicle. This calls for enactment of more laws to curb this deadly practice. Optimistically, in the future all the fifty states will come to terms with this realty and have cell phone regulations. In anticipation of that time, we will not fully grasp the number of fatalities that could have been avoided were the laws to be enacted at this opportune time.

Work cited

Cell phone use while driving fact sheet. National Safety Council. 2009. Web.

Drivers on cell phones. University of Utah. 2006.

Lee, John. Dangers of driver distractions. University of Wisconsin-Madison. 2009. Web.

It used to be that the only thing distracting the average driver was the radio. The urge to turn the knob and scan for the best song available can be so difficult to resist. As a result vehicular accidents may occur as the driver gets distracted. In the 21^st century the need to stay focused on the task of driving has become a very challenging task. In the past few years, the radical improvements on mobile electronic devices made it possible for commuters to bring their work with them as well as maintain their social networking activities while driving. This may be a good way to maximize output but researchers are saying that cell phone use while driving is as dangerous as drunk driving and therefore it must be banned.

Its an Epidemic

It is common to find drivers with one hand on the wheel and the other holding a cell phone pressed close to one ear. They are not doing some form of weird exercise while enduring a long commute they are actually talking to someone on the phone and allowing themselves to be distracted and therefore hampering their reaction time if untoward incidents occur while driving. For many driving is something they do automatically. This means that they had performed this same task countless of times and gone through the same route on a daily basis and therefore they know what to expect at every turn. Still, accidents can happen any time and when they do drivers will need two hands on the wheel as well as their full concentration to avert a disaster.

There are traditional sources of driver distraction such as talking to passengers, eating, drinking, lighting a cigarette, applying make-up, and listening to the radio (Strayer, Drews, & Crouch, 2006). But in recent years there are new electronic devices that were created to be used outside the homes and this means that those who spend a considerable time commuting can maximize their time on the road by using interactive information delivery systems (Strayer, Drews, & Crouch, 2006). For many, using their cell phones means getting more work done and not wasting the precious minutes spent driving to and from work.

Although it is common knowledge that cell phone use while driving increases the risk of collisions and other forms of vehicular accidents it is quite a challenge to quantify the use of electronic devices and how it can hamper reaction time. This prompted many researchers to benchmark &driving performance while using a mobile phone to a clearly dangerous level of performance (Sturnquist, 2006). The breakthrough came when researchers discovered similarities in drunk driving  a blood alcohol level of 0.08%  and cell phone use such as significant delayed brake reaction time as well as the relative risk of motor vehicle collision (Sturnquist, 2006).

Since alcohol impairs driving performance, and this was established scientifically a long time ago, those who wanted to ban cell phone use while driving are using the same argument, that it is as dangerous as drunk driving (Strayer, Drews, & Crouch, 2006). But it will be an uphill battle since interest groups and a significant number of consumers will not allow their cell phone privileges taken away even if they are barreling down a highway at top speeds.

Urge to Use Phones

It will be pointed out later that laws governing cell phone use while driving are specifically tailored to novice drivers and for good reason. Young drivers, especially those who are barely out of their teens are very familiar with new technology that allows them to communicate with their friend even while on the road. For older people the ability to send text messages, e-mail, watch mobile TV and even download information from the Internet while inside the car is amazing as well as ludicrous. Why is it that they cannot wait until they reach home or their workplace before doing all those complicated tasks?

The answer is easy, why wait if these things can be completed while commuting. It is easier to endure the boredom of traveling if mobile devices come in handy. It is irresistible to get more work done with the notion that one is saving time while enduring a long commute. It is acceptable if the one doing the high-tech stuff are seated behind the driver but it is just unfortunate that many are doing the same complex task while behind the wheel.

For the not so young segment of the population the urge to use phones is connected to the need to make more money at the shortest span of time. For many it is not just about earning a living but also the fact that they had to respond to calls. One of the major upside of mobile phones is the ability to reach someone even if they are outside their home or their office. The downside of having a mobile phone is that people can call, even if someone purposely left home or office. In other words callers can sometimes abuse this privilege and force the cell phone user to pick up even if it is not appropriate to do so. When it comes to a boss calling an employee, there is no reason not to accept the call, even while driving.

No Brainer

It does not require an astute scientist to realize that cell phone use while driving can easily distract the driver. Then why is it that many continue to use their phones while behind the wheel? Aside from the reasons given earlier, the demands of social networking and making a living, there is also another major reason why many find it irresistible to talk on a hand held phone or send text messages while driving. These people have the wrong notion that driving is a simple task that they had already mastered. Behavior scientists and psychologists beg to differ and they argue that driving is a very complicated task that requires three levels of mental and physical control. These three levels are described as follows (Drews, Pasupathi, & Strayer, 2008):

• Operational Level  Also known as control level and involves keeping the vehicle on a predetermined course and being mindful of lateral movements so that the car does not drift on the side of the road. This also includes automatic, sensory-motor sequences, such as steering and gear changing (Hole, 2007).
• Tactical Level  This involves keeping a close watch on other vehicles on the road if they are approaching or if the driver is driving too close to another car. This also includes attending to traffic signs and pedestrians.
• Strategic Level  This involves more executive and goal-directed aspects of driving. This also includes choice of route and speed (Hole, 2007).

There is agreement among many researchers that when a driver is distracted they greatly increase their risk of being involved in an automobile accident. According to estimates, approximately 25% of all crashes in the United States result from driver inattention or distraction (Burke, 2006). Researchers are also finding out that due to distraction cell phone users exhibited delay in their response to events (Strayer, Drews, & Crouch, 2006). This is not only about not using the brakes in time but also about the inability to see incoming vehicles even if they are looking in the direction of the vehicles. This can only mean that drivers were seriously distracted so that they were thinking of other things and so that incoming vehicle was just a blurry image even if they were directly looking at it.

The data coming from researchers is not a biased study on the effects of cell phone use while driving. In order to show that their data can pass closer scrutiny from critics, researchers used a variety of methods such as computer-based tracking tasks, high-fidelity simulation, driving vehicles on a closed circuit and epidemiological studies of car crashes (Drews, Pasupathi, & Strayer, 2008). Using these various methods of collating data the conclusion was unanimous, The level of impairment is comparable to being intoxicated at a blood alcohol level of.08 (Drews, Pasupathi, & Strayer, 2008). If drunk driving is a major problem on the streets of America then it is time to curb the problem of cell phone use before it can claim many lives.

The Law

The Governors Highway Safety Association (GHSA) is a nonprofit organization and proclaims itself as the states voice on highway safety. According to the said group there are at least four major discussion points when it comes to legislation aimed at reducing the cell phone related accidents and these are listed as follows:

1. Handheld Cell Phone Bans for All Drivers  There are five states (California, Connecticut, New Jersey, New York and Washington) as well as the District of Columbia and the Virgin Islands prohibiting all drivers from talking on handheld cell phones while driving;
2. All Cell Phone Bans  No state completely bans the use of all types of cell phone use but may prohibit cell phone use by different segments of the population. Yet there are 21 states that ban all cell use by novice drivers and in 18 states school bus drivers are prohibited from all cell phone use when there are passengers present;
3. Driving While Texting  There are only 12 states text messaging is illegal for all drivers. When it comes to Bus drivers there are only 2 states that legally restrict school bus drivers from texting while driving.
4. Preemption Laws  There are currently 8 states that have laws prohibiting local jurisdiction from enacting restrictions while in 6 other states localities are allowed to ban cell phone use (GHSA, 2009).

This data clearly shows that there is no agreement with regards to the harmful effects of cell phone use and thus there are differences in legislation. This can also mean that while it is risky to use cell phones while driving, there are those who will willingly take that risk because they cannot afford to miss a call. Justifying the reason for cell phone use while on the road is a controversial issue. In fact the state of Utah simply considers speaking on a cell phone as a larger distracted driver issue and will consider it only an offense if a driver has committed also another moving violation other than speeding (GHSA, 2009).

It can also be argued that lawmakers needed more time to understand the significant difference between thumbing the phone to send text messages and talking on handheld cell phones. Based on information given above there is not one state that prohibits all types of cell phone use meaning in some places one can only use text messaging and in others one can only talk on the phone. Part of the reason why there is delayed reaction when it comes to banning cell phone use while driving can be attributed to relatively new technology under scrutiny. Depending one ones point of view cell phones only became popular in the last decade or so (Hole, 2007). For some there is not enough data to show the clear link between cell phone use and accidents.

Challenges

Last year California enacted laws that prohibited driving while talking on a handheld phone and since then there are thousands of motorists that had been issued citations (McNichol, 2008). The base fine for the first offense is a mere $20 although subsequent convictions can up to $50. Still, there seems very little that can discourage commuters from ever using their phones. It can be argued that many will try to do it as long as they do not get caught.

They will not be afraid to challenge highway patrolmen in a game of cat and mouse because if they get apprehended they will only have to pay a small amount of money. If indeed cell phone use is as dangerous as drunk driving then it must not only be banned but lawmakers must also make tougher laws to successfully discourage drivers from even considering it while they are behind the wheel.

Texting is difficult to monitor and therefore laws banning driving while texting is tough to enforce (Lynch, 2008). While it is easy to catch a speeding vehicle with a driver holding a phone to his ear, it would be a great challenge to catch someone texting when the phone is clearly out of view, on his lap or held lower than the steering wheel. There are also those who cannot simply resist the urge to show their nimbleness as seen in a Facebook group called I Text Message People While Driving and I Havent Crashed Yet (Lynch, 2008). There are those who vigorously defend their rights to use the phone while on the road and predictably the cell phone industry is supporting them all the way.

For many years wireless firms argue that it is unfair to single out cell phone use from a range of driver distractions (McNichol, 2008). This is supported by one study that says cell phone use was responsible for only 1.5 percent of distracted driving accidents (Weinstein, 2002). The only problem with this study is that it was conducted 8 years ago and since then cell phones are cheaper and loaded with more features that it is difficult to resist the urge to use it while driving.

There are many counter-arguments with regards to the need to ban cell phone use while driving. Wireless firms who oppose anti-cell phone use laws are understandably worried about their profit margins. The more people use their cell phones the more money they will be able to rake in. While it is easy to understand the fervor of lobbyists sent by telecom giants it is harder to understand others who argue that cell-phone is an insignificant contributor to driver distracted accidents.

It is hard to force them especially if laws are not tough enough to compel them to change their behavior. The best thing that others can do is to persuade them to wait at the end of the commute to send those urgent messages. If in an emergency they need to pull over to use their cell phones and not get distracted with office work and social networking while behind the wheel.

Numerous studies support the claim that drivers who use their cell phone while driving can be impaired in the same way as drunk drivers do. It is important to note that researchers used different methods in collating data and yet arrived at the same conclusion  that this activity is as dangerous as having an alcohol level beyond the legal limit.

This means less time to react in an emergency situation. Even without expert opinion it does not require a neurosurgeon to realize that if one is texting he or she must momentarily look into the small screen of his or her cell phone in order to type a message. During those brief moments that they are not aware of their surroundings their cell phone may be the last thing that they see on earth.

References

Burke, M. (2006). Forensic Medical Investigation of Motor Vehicle Incidents. FL: CRC Press.

Drews, F. M. Pasupathi, & D. Strayer. (2008). Passenger and Cell Phone Conversations in Simulated Driving. Journal of Experimental Psychology. 14(4): 392-400.

Governors Highway Safety Association. (2009). Cell Phone Driving Laws. Web.

Hole, G. (2007). The Psychology of Driving. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Lynch, S. (2008). Text-Messaging Behind the Wheel. Time Magazine. Web.

McNichol, Tom. (2008). Cell Phones on the Road: What Goes? Time Magazine. Web.

Strayer, D. F. Drews, & D. Crouch (2006). A Comparison of the Cell Phone Driver and the Drunk Driver. Human Factors. 48(2): 381-391.

Sturnquist, D. (2006). Mobile Phones and Driving. New York: Nova Science Publishers.

Weinstein, L. (2002). Cell Phone Ban Not a Good Call. Web.

Introduction

In todays world, thanks to digitalization and technical globalization, alternative methods of communication to the standard one are available to almost everyone. It includes both communication on the Internet and the verbal and non-verbal use of means of communication, which is actively practiced by many drivers while on the road. The dangers of combining texting processes as one of the most popular methods of communication cannot be overstated. Distraction from the process of driving by using the functionality of a cell phone, especially reading and writing messages, is unacceptable and dangerous for the life of the driver and others.

Dilemma Analysis

In some ways, the popularity of this particular type of communication tends to decline. However, this is no reason to underestimate its danger, especially when one considers that it is replaced or partially replaced by other similar activities (Choudhary & Velaga, 2018). Some of the similar driver distractions involve more activities than just reading and writing. Viewing media files and choosing a reaction, comment, or emoji can have even worse results and occupy a drivers attention for a more extended period of time.

Thus, any similar distractions combined under the concept of texting as an initial and primary example will be taken into account when analyzing the situation and forming conclusions. According to Oviedo-Trespalacios et al. (2018), with the development of personal technical devices, the list of tasks that drivers try to perform on the road has increased. The basic principle and argument can be considered the distraction of a person performing a risky action for a few seconds (Oviedo-Trespalacios et al., 2018). Analogous to this for understanding can be considered driving with eyes closed because attention is not concentrated on the road traffic. When distraction time and speed are taken into account, it is possible to calculate the distance a vehicle travels without driver control.

Attempts to justify such activity do not make sense. The main arguments of proponents of texting in the car are convenience and avoidance of long phone calls. However, convenience cannot be put above ones life, and the lives of those around because an accident can occur in a few seconds at an average speed (Choudhary & Velaga, 2018). As for telephone conversations, they cannot be countered because they are a distraction, but much less so if the rules are followed. A headset or hands-free, with hands and eyes free for the driver, can provide acceptable traffic control.

Reflection

Based on personal experience and numerous observations, it is possible to emphasize the apparent danger of texting while driving. This juxtaposition is especially dangerous in residential areas where there are regulated or unregulated crosswalks or bicycle lanes. For example, an analysis of acceleration, braking, and steering provided by Choudhary and Velaga (2018) demonstrates insufficient responsiveness to react in a non-standard situation. Thus, the driver may not have time to make the necessary decision when a danger to himself or others arises. Creating a threat to another persons life is, among other things, a violation of their rights.

Moreover, developments are being made to automate driving. Theoretically, such a format of driving, in which only simple control will be required of the driver, may allow for the occasional distraction of the driver. However, a fully patented and fully automated autopilot system for ground transportation does not yet exist. Therefore, it is too early to talk about it at this point.

Conclusion

Thus, texting while driving severely violates traffic rules and creates risky situations. Such activity should be condemned in an adequate society where people treat each other with respect and behave appropriately. The risk that appears in the process far exceeds all acceptable thresholds and should be minimized by strengthening the fight against drivers using a smartphone.

References

Choudhary, P., & Velaga, N. R. (2019). Effects of phone use on driving performance: A comparative analysis of young and professional drivers. Safety Science, 111, 179187. Web.

Oviedo-Trespalacios, O., Haque, M. M., King, M., & Washington, S. (2018). Should I text or call here? A situation-based analysis of drivers perceived likelihood of engaging in mobile phone multitasking: Mobile phone multitasking engagement. Risk Analysis: An Official Publication of the Society for Risk Analysis, 38(10), 21442160. Web.

Introduction

Over the years, dogs have been a significant part of human beings offering the necessary company at home. The relationship has grown, and in the current world majority of pet owners have adopted the tendency of having the canines join them, especially when traveling in their cars. Following the close connection between the dog and their respective owners, most of the time, the individuals tend to drive carrying them in their laps. The practice has raised serious concern among road users who have managed to spot some people driving with dogs on their laps. It is believed that the animals demand for attention from the driver may influence the focus, thus making the person have reduced concentration to observe the road and other road users. The behavior is becoming a new threat on the roads, similar to the aspect of driving while drunk. Even though most individuals perceive the conduct as insignificant danger, the distraction by the pet, such as blocking the view, shifting the gear, and jostling the steering wheel, is more likely to cause an accident.

Discussion

Dogs are cunning, and in most cases, they might attempt to climb their owners, kiss, and press their noses on the person, especially when they realize there is little attention given to them. The conduct makes them block the drivers view of the road and thus cannot see clearly the other road users. When people are distracted while they are driving, they are more likely to lose control of the car and hit the vehicle ahead of them or a ramp on the railroads (Hernandez). Therefore, having the pet on ones lap can easily make the individual cause an accident due to the poor visibility resulting from the dogs blockage of the front view.

Similarly, driving with the dog on their lap makes it easier for them to touch the cars gear shift unintentionally. When the command is activated, the driver might not be aware, and thus it can be disastrous, primarily when the vehicle is being driven at high speed. The shifting of the gear may prompt the motor to make sudden moves that can cause a catastrophic accident when the driver fails to correct the adjustment in time. Therefore, keeping the pet near the drivers seat can be dangerous to both the owner and other road users.

Furthermore, following their playful nature, dogs, when carried on the laps, might find themselves under the drivers feet. The movement is more likely to cause the owner to lose focus while trying to retrieve it back to the lap. In the process, the person develops less situational awareness on the road and cannot easily respond in time in case there is a potential threat. For example, if the dog slides from the lap towards the accelerator pedal, the individual will be forced to bring it back to the seat in the process deviating from observing the road. Such involvements are distractive and can easily make the pet owner lose control of the car, thus hitting other vehicles or toppling.

Carrying the pet in a lap makes them sit closer to the steering wheel and thus making it possible for the dog to push it. When the vehicle is being driven at a significant speed, the wheels become sensitive to even a slight jostle (Hernandez). For instance, assuming the dog perceives an exciting event in the front, it might be tempted to lean forward hence touching the steering wheel. Similarly, the pet might stretch, and its leg comes into contact with the wheel as well. The mentioned incidents have the potential of making the car lose control and thus increase the chances of hitting any object nearby.

In addition, when the dog is loose, it might keep moving, thus requiring the driver to remove the hands from the steering wheel to manage it. It is a common scenario, especially when the pet feels excited. The animal will most of the time go close to the window or attempt to jump; hence would need the intervention of the driver to tame its conduct. During the process, the owner will be having divided attention, and the vehicles steering wheel will be free, making it easier for the car to lose control. Therefore, having the dog in the lap while driving is risking the safety of the person as well as other road users.

In addition, having the pet in the drivers lap increases its likelihood of dying in the event of an accident. Generally, cars are designed to eject an airbag to prevent the driver from potential injuries (Hazel et al.). However, when the item is deployed, it generates a significant force that can easily crush a small pet. Based on the finding by AAA, a dog weighing four kilograms can exert a pressure of about 140 kilograms during a crash assuming the vehicle was moving at a speed of 50 kilometers per hour (Bell). The notion implies that it will be challenging for the dog to survive a car crash, especially when sited in the front. In other words, the dog will become a hazardous projectile.

Sometimes, the pet, during the travel, may be tempted to jump through the window and run into the traffic. The aspect can easily make the dog be crashed by other vehicles or cause significant traffic congestion, especially when the owner is in dire need to secure it back safely. Such conduct might endanger the owner as well as other road users. Furthermore, in case of such incidents, the pet owner might face charges from the law enforcement unit following the distraction on the road. Currently, some states, such as Hawaii, have enacted laws that prohibit unsafe travel with dogs implying that in the situation, the individual will have to pay a fine and risk a jail term. Therefore, driving with a pet in a lap might be costly to the owner.

In case of an accident, the dog owner is liable for the damages even if the pet did not cause the distraction. In states such as Delaware, if the dog causes any injury to any other road user, the law will charge the owner and impose a necessary fine. The situation implies that despite the participation of the victim in the incident, they are not regarded as the problem, and thus all the liabilities are transferred to the individual traveling with the pet.

Even though driving with a dog in the lap is considered a dangerous act, some individuals perceive the conduct as a way of developing a healthy relationship with the pet. Generally, dogs are not able to express their feelings; thus, being allowed to sit on the lap makes them feel comfortable around their owner. Furthermore, the proximity ensures they provide affection to the owner, which makes them feel safe as well. Therefore, having the dogs unrestrained is essential for their well-being.

In most cases, individuals are stressed, and they might not be able to concentrate on the road; hence having the dog around them makes them feel relaxed and focused. Pets are attention seekers, and having them near will prompt the driver to remain active and thus concentrate on the highway (Ng and Fine). The aspect may prevent the person from losing attention and remaining vigil throughout the journey. In such a situation, the dog becomes a significant stress reliever for the owner hence lowering the likelihood of involving in an accident.

Conclusion

Dogs cause distraction, and driving with them on their lap can increase the likelihood of involving in an accident. Generally, being a friendly pet, a dog will seek attention from the owner and, in the event, may opt to pressure its nose or even block the drivers view. In such a scenario, the owner will have limited ability to see the road clearly and thus can easily hit other cars. Similarly, in case of an accident, the deployed airbag can crash the pet instantly following the pressure it exerts on it. This will imply that the chances of the pet surviving even minor accidents will be minimal. In addition, the animal might stretch and shift the car gear leading to a control problem. Being unaware of the incident, it might be challenging for the driver to respond immediately to correct the adjustments, which can potentially cause a fatal accident. Therefore, it is inappropriate to dive with the dog in the lap.

Works Cited

Bell, Renee. The Dangers of Driving with a Dog on Your Lap. The Northwest Florida Daily News, Northwest Florida Daily News, Web.

Hazel, Susan J., et al. Restraint of dogs in vehicles in the US, UK and Australia. Preventive veterinary medicine 170 (2019): 104714. Web.

Hernandez, Juan. Why You Shouldnt Let Your Dog Sit on Your Lap While Driving. Hernandez Law Group, P.C., Web.

Ng, Zenithson Y., and Aubrey H. Fine. Considerations for the Retirement of Therapy Animals. Animals, vol. 9, no. 12, 2019. Web.

Introduction

The use of cell phones while driving escalates the risk of harming other motorists and pedestrians due to distracted driving. For instance, sending a text message when driving increases the car crash risk by 23 times (Carroll et al. 289). A study indicated that the accident severity increased to 6.46% when there was an additional text per hour (Atwood 153). The two main issues with drivers typing on phone are that they take their eyes off the road and lose concentration when they get absorbed with the conversation. It is the duty of every citizen and company that upholds corporate social responsibility to implement laws that will mitigate mobile device usage while driving. In this paper, I will propose policies that will guide the use of phones in our company.

Installing Tracking Device in Companys Vehicle

The first policy that our company will have is the installation of tracking devices in all our company vehicles. Our rationale is that when people know that they are being watched, they are likely to deter from committing offenses. Walshe et al. identify that national policies which prohibit using mobile phones fail to indicate a reduction in motor accidents (35). The reason is that, despite such policies being in place, people never adhere to them. Therefore, our enterprise will not just implement the policies that deter texting while driving but also install cameras and trackers to ensure that no worker breaks the law.

Automation of Driving and Communication

The other policy for our company will be striving for digitalization of transport and communication. Implementation of this law will be through the purchase of technologies that allow automation, such as voice recognition, to receive or cancel a call can minimize accidents. Under this clause, the policies will ensure vehicles automation to reduce the risk of a drivers distraction and human error. Our company will install automated communication devices so that the employees do not have to touch the phone while on the road. Alternatively, an automated voice can remind drivers to stop and park the car to respond when the cell phone rings. The policy will include digitalization to alert the driver if there is another driver or a pedestrian along the way. Such an automated vehicle-centric collision avoidance system has been used successfully to reduce human error in aircraft (Van Tooren 1). The automated service can also sort between calls that are important and inform the driver accordingly.

Restriction of Cellphone in Job-site

We will also have a policy that minimizes the use of cell phones within the premises of the company. This order will prevent unethical use of the phone by employees. For instance, the company will punish those who use smartphones while walking because it can cause death when a person concentrates on the phone and fails to see a vehicle coming (Carroll et al. 289). The law will also prevent workers from stealing the companys time by focusing on their devices instead of fulfilling their duties. Our company will have a rule that states employees should not bring their devices in the workplace. Standard communication procedures, such as the use of emails will be used instead of text messages. Also, our enterprise policy will require the personal electronics of laborers to be safely locked for use during break time only.

Conclusion

Our company will have three basic policy clauses to prevent unethical practices of employees misusing cell phones. The focus of these laws will be to mitigate using of mobile devices while driving to minimize the rising car crash cases. The other set of policies is investing in trackers and automation of driving and communication to lower the chances of drivers multitasking with their devices. Within the job site, we will have policies to restrict mobile phones use during working hours or when walking.

Works Cited

Atwood, Jon, et al. The driver-level crash risk associated with daily cellphone use and cellphone use while driving. Accident Analysis & Prevention, vol. 119, 2018, pp. 149-154.

Carroll, Archie, and Ann, Buchholtz Business & Society: Ethics, Sustainability & Stakeholder Management 10^th ed. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning, 2015.

Van Tooren Joost, et al. Collision and Conflict Avoidance System for Autonomous Unmanned Air Vehicles (UAVs). U.S. Patent No. 7,737,878.

Walshe, Elizabeth, et al. 202 Cell phone use and a pattern of risk behaviors associated with crashes in young adult drivers: implications for policy. Oral Presentations, 2020.