Category: Distracted Driving

Introduction

As individuals get progressively older their mental capacities, response times, and physical abilities tend to deteriorate yet despite such limitations people aged 60 and above still continue to drive on America’s roads and highways (Cobb, 411).

Based on data from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, a total of 3,981 individuals age 70 and above died as a direct result of motor vehicle crashes in 2009, this number does not include other drivers and pedestrians affected by the subsequent loss of vehicular control and as such the total number of fatalities as a direct result of such incidences could potentially be double the current number given by the IIHS.

Various studies examining the impact of older drivers on America’s roads today state that as America’s baby boomer generation gets progressively older the amount of individuals aged 70 above on America’s roads has escalated dramatically (Reisman, 356 – 357).

Unfortunately, as shown by data from the IIHS, this has resulted in an actual increase in the number of car accidents in which the elderly have been involved.

What must be understood is that driving a motor vehicle requires a certain degree of spatial awareness, responsiveness and the ability to accurately and succinctly gauge the speed and distance of the car that is being driven relative to other vehicles on the road (Reisman, 356 – 357) (Fox and Fama, 31).

When an individual lacks the ability to express such aspects of regular driving behavior the potential for accidents to occur increases exponentially as the overall lack of spatial awareness, speed and distance results in a driver often misinterpreting the relative distance of their vehicle from either another car, obstacle or exit point which usually results in an accident occurring.

Studies examining elderly drivers all unanimously conclude that physical deterioration in the form of vision problems, depleted mental acuity, and a lack of physical responsiveness result in a reduced capacity to drive properly (Ratner, 23).

They go on further to state that since physical deterioration becomes progressive over the time the same can be said for their ability to drive (McKinnell, 67). In other words as individuals get older their ability to mentally and physically embody the necessary behaviors needed to drive safely diminish up to a point that not only do they become a danger to the themselves but to other drivers and pedestrians as well (Ratner, 23).

It must be noted though that surveys examining drivers aged 55 and above show that when the respondents were questioned as to their ability to drive nearly all of them stated that they drove “rather well” or had “no problems” on the road when driving (McLeod et al., 613 – 618).

When comparing the survey results to accumulated scientific data as well as statistics on the number of vehicular accidents involving the elderly it can be seen that the respondents were unaware of the potential danger they represented both to themselves and other motorists due to an apparent inability to discern that their progressive physical and mental deterioration has had a detrimental effect on their ability to drive (McLeod et al., 613 – 618).

Further examination of the research results also showed that when asked whether they planned to stop driving in the immediate future nearly all the respondents answered that they had no plans to and that they would continue driving for several more years (McLeod et al., 613 – 618).

Based on these responses as well as data from the IIHS and other studies examining elderly drivers and their impact on America’s roads it can be seen that the attitudes as well as the physical and mental deterioration of elderly drivers presents a distinct problem due to their potentially adverse impact on both themselves and other drivers. As such it can be stated that, the government needs to limit the maximum age for driving because elderly drivers have caused many deaths and severe injuries each year.

Similarity in Being Drunk and Being Old

Driving under the influence of alcohol is considered a punishable offense in many states within the U.S. due to the potential dangers an inebriated driver possess to other drivers on the road.

What must be understood though is that the reason why this action is considered illegal is due to the reduced physical and mental capacity of the driver, such a condition has been proven through literally millions of cases within the past several decades that a driver operating a motor vehicle under a diminished capacity due to the presence of alcohol in his system is more liable to cause accidents on the road and as such should be prevented.

Taking the concept of “diminished capacity” into consideration elderly drivers should also be restricted from being allowed to drive since they also possess a diminished capacity similar to people that are drunk.

While there are certain differences such as an elderly individual having a deteriorated physical and mental condition as a direct result of natural causes while an inebriated driver has a diminished capacity as a direct result of the consumption of alcoholic beverages the fact remains that both individuals display behaviors which place them at risk of not only harming themselves but other drivers as well.

For example, one of the main reasons why drunk driving is considered a punishable offense is due to the diminished mental capacity that a drunk driver is under which results in their inability to effectively drive their vehicle.

Studies examining drunk driving show that the diminished mental capacity takes the form of being unable to gauge distance and speed, the inability to formulate fast enough decisions while on the road and finally the propensity to overcompensate resulting in wider turns and faster speeds.

While such symptoms are not present in drivers 55 and below studies examining drivers 70 and above show an almost similar degree of deteriorated mental capacity in the elderly comparable to drunk drivers which makes them just as likely to cause the same type of accidents as the average drunk driver (Branaghan and Gray, 580 – 581).

Another factor that should be taken into consideration is the concept of perception and how drunk and elderly drivers tend to perceive things almost similarly. Studies examining the effect of alcohol on the average person’s ability to perceive objects reveal that a person’s ability to accurately distinguish numbers, colors, warning signs and other similar forms of road safety measures tends to decrease the more alcohol an individual consumes.

This is another reason why driving under the influence of alcohol is considered a punishable offense since the inability to distinguish proper road safety signs makes the driver of the car more liable to cause accidents despite the precautions put into effect in order to prevent them. In the case of the elderly, physical deterioration once more comes into play however in this case the focus of attention is on their vision.

What must be understood is the fact that as a person gets older their vision tends to deteriorate over time, while there are measures available to correct this such as glasses or corrective surgery in some cases elderly individuals suffering from eye deficiencies such as cataracts, glaucoma or macular degeneration are unable to get the necessary corrective surgery (Branaghan and Gray, 580 – 587).

This results in elderly drivers having to contend with either blurred or hazy vision, a distinct reduction in their peripheral vision and even loss of their central portion of vision which can not only cause them to misinterpret road signs but could lead them into not realizing they are approaching and obstacle, car or pedestrian (Friedman et al., 1846). Such cases are similar to what happens to drunk drivers and as such is further evidence of the necessity to place elderly drivers in the same category of “diminished capacity” as drunk drivers.

The last piece of evidence showing the similarity between drunk and elderly drivers is once more connected to the concept of diminished physical and mental capacity but in this case it involves the ability to take in information and react immediately.

In most situations when driving motorists need to take into account other cars in their lane as well as cars from the front and the rear. By taking into account their relative distance, speed and their proximity to the car a driver is able to make decisions within seconds as to how to properly handle their car given the situation at hand.

In the case of drunk drivers their ability to discern information from their general environment and take subsequent action as need be is heavily impaired by the fact that both their physical and mental reaction times are greatly slowed down by the presence of alcohol. This makes them more likely to be slower in taking into account outside information which delays their ability to physically respond to the situation.

The same can be said of elderly drivers wherein their diminished mental capacity combined with their frail physical capabilities makes them less likely to be able to sufficiently take in information from their surroundings when driving and take appropriate actions (Marszalek et al., 1097 – 1103).

In both cases this results in delayed actions in stopping, turning or going resulting in accidents occurring as a direct result. Based on this information it can be seen that when comparing both drunk and elderly drivers, both operate under a state of diminished capacity that not only endangers their own safety but that of others as well. As such, elderly drivers should be categorized under the same category as drunk drivers and be prevented from operating motor vehicles due to the potential threat to public safety that they represent.

Physical Capability

This paper has so far argued that the physical and mental deterioration of elderly drivers places makes them a danger to themselves and others, what hasn’t been mentioned yet is the fact that elderly drivers are more likely to die from car accidents as compared to the average driver.

What must be understood is the fact that traffic accidents can occur at any given time due to a plethora of causes, most of them not limited to the elderly. In such cases though when accidents do occur the elderly are just as likely to be involved in an accident as any other driver however their ability to actually survive such accidents is questionable at best.

Once a person reaches the age of 60 and above a notable decrease in the amount of calcium in their bones is seen as well as muscle lethargy, decreased physical stamina as well as an overall level of deteriorated health (Brock et al., 1284). While this is a natural process for all individuals what must be understood is the fact that people with deteriorated levels of health are not as likely to survive a car accident as compared to an individual who is in the prime of their life (Ehrenfeld, 62).

An examination of data relating to the ability to survive car accidents has shown that as an individual increases in age the less likely they are able to survive a major car accident (Brock et al., 1284). Even minor accidents can cause severe damage on most elderly individuals due to their relatively fragile physical states.

While it may be true that barring an individual from driving on the basis of their fragility has little legal basis, the fact remains that when taking into consideration the inherent physical fragility of elderly drivers aged 70 and up and combining it with the fact that they are more likely to enter into traffic accidents due to their diminished physical and mental capacities, as established by this paper, then it becomes a question of whether the government needs to act on the basis of protecting the elderly from themselves since clearly they are likely to kill themselves (along with others) if they are allowed to continue driving at advanced ages (Brock et al., 1284) (Mitchell and Suen, 17).

Opinion of the Elderly

While this paper has been quick to point out the negative implications of elderly driving an examination of the responses of the elderly towards the concept of limiting the age limit on driving has brought about several compelling arguments.

The first argument presented is the fact that since most elderly individuals live with their spouse or are alone if they are prevented from driving this limits them towards the use of public transportation which is arduous at best which may result in increased stress, a worrisome factor given their advanced ages (USA Today, n.d). It must also be noted that in most cases within the U.S. the elderly do not live with their children and as such have come to rely on their own ability to get things done.

Studies examining the responses of various elderly respondents have shown that most are reluctant to take on the use of caregivers and as such continue to try to remain active. By preventing the elderly from driving this may in turn place either undue financial stress as a direct result of them needing to hire a caregiver since their children would not be around to drive them as they please (Modern Medicine, 5).

Other arguments presented state their inherent legal right as citizens to be able to drive so long as they prove they are capable of doing so. In such cases it has been shown that the elderly can be retrained to drive at advanced ages in order to take into account their physical and mental deficiencies and act accordingly in order to become better drivers.

Based on these following arguments it can be seen that there are alternative methods to outright banning the elderly from driving. On the other hand all the arguments presented neglect to take into account the fact that the elderly account for a large percentage of all automobile based accidents within the U.S. with the number gradually rising by 5 percent each year as a direct result of aging sectors in the U.S. population (Tips, 9).

Conclusion

Despite the counterarguments presented it can clearly be seen that allowing the elderly to drive poses too much of a risk to both themselves and the general public to allow the practice to continue. What must be taken into account is the fact that their continued physical and mental deteriorated coupled with the necessities of being a proficient driver simply do not mesh.

As such, the government should take measures in setting up an appropriate age limit that allows elderly people to drive. By doing so, not only does the government prevent the elderly from potentially harming themselves but also other drivers and pedestrians.

Works Cited

Branaghan, Russell J., and Rob Gray. “NONCONSCIOUS ACTIVATION OF AN ELDERLY STEREOTYPE AND SPEED OF DRIVING.” Perceptual & Motor Skills 110.2 (2010): 580-592. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web.

Cobb, Roger W. “Are elderly drivers a road hazard?: Problem definition and political impact.” Journal of Aging Studies 12.4 (1998): 411. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web.

David S. Friedman, et al. “Driving Cessation and Driving Limitation in Glaucoma: The Salisbury Eye Evaluation Project.” Ophthalmology 116.10 (2009): 1846-1853. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web.

Dwight B. Brock, et al. “Driving Life Expectancy of Persons Aged 70 Years and Older in the United States.” American Journal of Public Health 92.8 (2002): 1284. MasterFILE Premier. EBSCO. Web.

Ehrenfeld, Temma. “Time to Hang Up the Keys.” Newsweek 152.7 (2008): 62. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web.

Fox, Peter D., and Teresa Fama. “Managed care and the elderly: Performance and potential.” Generations 20.2 (1996): 31. MasterFILE Premier. EBSCO. Web.

McKinnell, Julia. “Should Dad really still be driving?.” Maclean’s 119.48 (2006): 67. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web.

Mitchell, C.G.B., and S. Ling Suen. “Urban Travel, Intelligent Transportation Systems, and the Safety of Elderly and Disabled Travelers.” Journal of Urban Technology 5.1 (1998): 17-43. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web.

Modern Medicine.”Gloom lasts in elders who turn over car keys.” Modern Medicine 65.4 (1997): 5. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web.

Ralph Marszalek, et al. “Hearing Impairment Affects Older People’s Ability to Drive in the Presence of Distracters.” Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 58.6 (2010): 1097-1103. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web.

Ratner, Todd C. “Elderly Drivers: an Age-old Problem.” Business West 26.20 (2010): 23. MasterFILE Premier. EBSCO. Web.

Rebecca McLeod, et al. “Self-rated driving performance among elderly drivers referred for driving evaluation.” Accident Analysis & Prevention 37.4 (2005): 613-618.

Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web.

Reisman, Anna. “Surrendering The Keys: A Doctor Tries To Get An Impaired Elderly Patient To Stop Driving.” Health Affairs 30.2 (2011): 356-359. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web.

Tips.”Getting parents to give up their car keys — tips for adult children.” Enterprise/Salt Lake City 40.27 (2011): 9. Regional Business News. EBSCO. Web.

USA Today. “Focus driving tests on safety, not age.” USA Today n.d.: MasterFILE Premier. EBSCO. Web.

A group of researchers on behalf of Taking a STADD and a trauma center set out to investigate the prevalence rates of distracted driving behaviors (DDBs) among the adult population.

This article is a published research study that was carried out at the behest of Taking a STADD Organization in collaboration with a university-affiliated trauma center. The authors note that only two behaviors are usually associated with distracted driving; texting and use of cell phones. The article documents the process of the research study in which a group of adults of varying demographics was presented with a set of seven questions. According to the authors, the aim of the research was to document other forms of DDB other than texting and use of cell phones. The results of the study revealed that the instances of DDB vary according to different demographics. The study’s statistical analysis “was conducted using Kruskal-Wallis analysis of variance and the Chi-square testing” (Hoff et al., 2013). The article notes that the results of the study highlighted the dangers of DDB other than texting and using cell phones. The authors recommend public education that addresses all forms of DDB, mostly targeting adults of eighteen to thirty-four years.

The article begins by noting that distracted driving is mostly restricted to texting and cell phone use. Nonetheless, current technology levels have increased aspects of distractions among road users. The authors of the article realize that the “self-reported perceptions of the drivers about DDB may offer interesting insight” when designing outreach programs (Hoff et al., 2013). The method used in this study involved sending the questionnaires electronically, first to employees of a health-care network, and then to various driving license holders. Online means such as social-networking websites were used to pass the questionnaires to the identified subjects.

Furthermore, the article notes that six different age groups were used in the study. Demographics were categorized in terms of “age groups, level of education, and gender, while four primary questions were used in the study’s questionnaire” (Hoff et al., 2013). These primary questions included whether a sampled driver finds himself/herself distracted while driving, which DDB a sampled driver engages in, whether a sampled driver considers DDB dangerous, and whether a sampled driver has ever been involved in a DDB-related accident.

The study sampled 1857 individuals, but only 1838 of these provided complete and useable data. Out of the interviewed sample, seventy-two percent confessed to being involved in one form of DDB or another. Also, the authors note that the rate of involvement in DDB among respondents increased with age. Furthermore, DDB was less “likely among women and highly educated individuals” (Hoff et al., 2013). According to the article, the most prevalent form of DDB was the use of cell phones at seventy-nine percent, followed by drinking and eating at sixty-seven percent. Reaching for things outside the driver’s compartment accounted for fifty percent of DDBs.

The study’s discussion notes that the effects of DDB have previously been compared to the impact of drunk driving. The debate also references several studies concerning distracted driving. According to the article, earlier research on the use of mobile phones while driving revealed that this behavior leads to ‘inattention blindness.’ Also, the authors claim that conversing on the phone has proven to be different from having a conversation with a passenger. The authors of this article compare their study to a study that was conducted by the American Automobile Association investigating the everyday distractions that are associated with driving. The article concludes by noting that a similar study to examine DDBs among teenage drivers is underway. Also, the report reiterates the need to recognize other forms of DDB other than texting and cell phone use.

An article is an informative tool on the extent of DDBs among adult drivers. The authors work hard to ensure that their audience realizes that texting and cell phone use are not the only forms of DDB. However, this stance makes the authors’ work look more like activism than research. The research that is outlined in this article was commissioned by an activist organization known as Take a STAND. Therefore, the authors of this study look like they are pushing their commissioner’s agenda instead of providing non-partisan research. For instance, the article does not address the study’s weaknesses. The fact that a simple and straightforward study took seven researchers to conduct implies that this study was meant to be a formality.

Moreover, likely, the seven researchers were only meant to prove a point on behalf of Taking a STADD Organization.

Nevertheless, the study’s research questions are well laid out and adequately modeled. The results of the study are also quite convincing and well analyzed. However, the article fails to secure an integral part of formal research by excluding the research-limitations portion. The material would be suitable for road safety campaigners and other road users. Overall, the item is a valuable input to the campaign against DDBs.

Reference

Hoff, J., Grell, J., Lohrman, N., Stehly, C., Stoltzfus, J., Wainwright, G., & Hoff, W. S. (2013). Distracted driving and implications for injury prevention in adults. Journal of Trauma Nursing, 20(1), 31-34.

Introduction

Driving is an important skill that is meant to help people transfer between locations effortlessly. However, managing a moving vehicle may be quite challenging, especially during certain seasons. For example, winter is a very dangerous time for drivers, yet summer months also present substantial difficulties that are likely to result in fatalities (Altman, 2019). Summer and winter driving are associated with distinct risks but require similar techniques for handling the car.

Discussion

Driving in the winter and in the summer can be compared based on recommendations for those sitting behind the steering wheel. In particular, people in control of vehicles are advised to move cautiously, not to rush, and to look far ahead (Altman, 2019; Mackin, 2022; Witzenburg, 2021). Consequently, driving practices during the two seasons have more distinctions than similarities and can be contrasted based on the reasons behind the listed recommendations. First, individuals managing cars should be cautious as hotter temperatures provoke tires to expand, while cold temperatures induce tires to contract, requiring the use of winter tires (Altman, 2019; Witzenburg, 2021). Second, persons behind the wheel should not rush because more people, especially young ones, are on the road in the summer and because of slippery routes in the winter (Altman, 2019; Mackin, 2022; Witzenburg, 2021). Third, drivers should look far ahead to timely notice road closures and detours prevalent in the summer and anticipate sudden actions on wet, snowy, and icy roads in the winter (Altman, 2019; Witzenburg, 2021). Accordingly, suggestions for those in control of cars are determined by each season’s risks.

Conclusion

To conclude, winter and summer driving are comparable in practices of handling the vehicle but are associated with contrasting dangers. In the summer, the temperature is higher, leading to the expansion of tires, and there are more people and road closures that may cause accidents. In the winter, the temperature is lower, which makes the routes slippery and treacherous, requiring the usage of special tires. Therefore, driving in the two distinct seasons demands those in control of cars to be cautious, careful, and observant.

References

Altman & Altman. (2019). Why driving your car in the summer is more dangerous than in the winter? Boston Injury Lawyer Blog. Web.

Mackin, S. (2022). Seasonal driving tips to keep you safe on the road year-round. Mackin’s Auto Body. Web.

Witzenburg, G. (2021). How to drive in snow safely. Car and Driver. Web.

Introduction

Cell phones have become part and parcel of our lives; one cannot imagine a life without cell phones these days. Cell phones have become an integral part of our lives. It is not very safe to use cell phones continuously and research goes to prove the same. There is no doubt that cell phones have made our lives easier but on the contrary people expose themselves to vulnerable circumstances when they use cell phones while driving. This paper will throw light upon the consequences of the same.

“Increased reliance on cell phones has led to a rise in the number of people who use the devices while driving. There are two dangers associated with driving and cell phone use, including text messaging. First, drivers must take their eyes off the road while dialing. Second, people can become so absorbed in their conversations that their ability to concentrate on the act of driving is severely impaired, jeopardizing the safety of vehicle occupants and pedestrians” (Cell Phones and Driving, 2008).

Discussion

Human brain is not capable of doing multi tasking to perfection, all are not Leonardo da Vinci to write with one hand and to paint with the other. A normal human brain is only capable of carrying out a single task with perfection but when it comes to multitasking, the brain often under performs. Accidents take away many a life each day in some part of the world or the other. Most of these accidents are caused by ignorance and one of the most important causes of accidents is the use of mobile phone while driving. The message conveyed over the phone takes priority and driving takes a back seat which inevitably results in an accident, the severity of the same depends on more factors than one, the most important of all is the speed of the car, another important factor is how quickly the driver realizes that the car is out of control and lastly it depends on the reflexes of the driver.

“An estimated 44 percent of all U.S. motorists have a cell phone in the vehicle.” (Should Using a cell phone while driving be Illegal? December 22 2008). There are mainly two types of distractions caused by the mobile phone, namely physical distraction and cognitive distraction. Physical distraction is caused when a driver has to call, hold etc and drive the vehicle simultaneously; cognitive distraction is caused when a driver is required to divert a part of his attention during a conversation over the phone. Both the types of distractions can cause fatal accidents and should be avoided as long as possible. The governments of various countries have realized the risk involved in the same and have restricted the use of mobile phones while driving but the breach of this rule can be witnessed in more countries than one. In spite of the repeated fines and warnings drivers risk their lives even for something which is not very important. It is high time that such people start realizing the value of their life and put an end to risking their life. The technology is developing and so are the risks from it, the hands free mobiles have become very popular these days and drivers feel that it is safe to talk over a hands free phone while driving but research goes to show otherwise. Hands free reduce the risk of accidents is very true but saying that hands free eliminate the risk of accidents would be tomfoolery. Maximum distraction is caused when drivers dial on their phones, hands free provides the facility of voice dialing which reduces the risk of an accident.

A driver is most vulnerable to an accident when sending a text message; research goes to prove the same. It is high time that people who indulge in this deadly act start realizing the risks involved in the same. One minute of distraction can make a person sleep forever and the worst part is that there won’t be chance to regret. Ones a mistake made is made for life, there is no making up for the same. Mobiles can be kept in the car but at no point should the driver touch the phone. The vehicle can be stopped in a case of an emergency and the driver can talk over the phone.

It hardly makes any sense to put countless lives at stake just to speak over the phone for some seconds; the important things can be done in a better way than to risk lives. This has to be understood by all the careless people who in spite of knowing the risk of talking over the cell phone while driving. The government has to take initiative to counter the same. The laws should be made stricter in order to make sure that no person dares to talk on the phone while driving no matter how important it is. People do not realize that because of their mistake an innocent person can lose his/her life. For instance if a driver of a SUV is talking over the phone while driving, he/she may unconsciously fail to take a note of another car which is running close the SUV and both cars may collide at a high speed, the damage to the SUV will be very little but on the other hand the car which was running close to the SUV may end up getting badly damages and in all probability the driver mat lose his/her life too. So keeping this in mind it is high time that something stricter is done about this menace.

Conclusion

People who are careless about this whole issue should think again and change themselves at the earliest. Failing to do so can lead to devastating circumstances. The other people sitting in the vehicle can lose their life because of the ignorance and the carelessness of the driver. To conclude it is very fair to say that mobiles should never be used while driving.

Works Cited

1. Cell Phones and Driving. In Insurance information institute. Web.
2. Should Using a cell phone while driving be Illegal? In Speak out. Web.

Steering Wheel and Smartphone: A Deadly Combination

Smartphones have simplified people’s lives in many ways. We can shop, book tickets online, access directions, and traffic updates in real-time while simultaneously texting someone. Smartphones are great devices when it comes to saving time by multitasking. However, our reliance on smartphones must have some limits. Those restrictions should be set by ourselves and by the manufactures of these phones. Danger lurks behind the fanciful “apps” suggested by cell phones.

The news is riddled with reports of how looking at a picture or for directions, or sending a text message has become a driver’s final act because they were doing that while they were driving. Moreover, distracted driving puts the lives of passengers, other drivers, and pedestrians at risk. I do not doubt that using a phone while driving is as dangerous as drunk driving for several reasons: distracted drivers attempt to multitask and in so doing, cause accidents, hurt themselves and finally, cause harm (often fatal) to other people. Therefore, I believe that cell phone makers and companies providing wireless connection bear the responsibility of preventing the devices from being used by drivers in illegal and dangerous ways.

In his article “Phone Makers Could Cut Off Drivers. So Why Don’t They?”, Matt Richtel discusses the ability of phone manufacturers to eliminate drivers’ access to their devices while on the road. Violating the rules of limited use of phones by drivers indeed leads to a “grisly picture” (Richtel). A growing number of news reports depict the disastrous outcomes of texting or talking on the phone while driving. People think that they can “handle” everything, but in fact, multitasking causes more stress than convenience.

Stress leads to distraction, which, in turn, can lead to drivers committing crimes through a lack of attention to their driving. Each person should realize that even a brief, relatively small distraction can cause an irreversible outcome. To the end of their lives, neither the victims’ loved ones nor the driver will be able to cope with the tragedy that resulted. Therefore, drivers should have one of two options: either to drive or to communicate.

The assertion that driving and texting or talking on the phone is harmful is not a new one. Even the companies that produce mobile phones admit that their products can be employed for “illegal, dangerous, and sometimes deadly activity” (Richtel). Despite a variety of advertisements designed to warn drivers, people ignore common sense and crave to their obsession with the devices, which frequently leads to accidents. Unfortunately, acknowledging the problem is not enough. Basic social responsibility calls for direct resolution, yet smartphone corporations are afraid to introduce limitations for fear that these new regulations will decrease consumers’ loyalty and sales (Richtel). However, the cost of living in a capitalist society should not be the lives of others.

Indeed, the most egregious tragedy is not people hurting themselves but the damage caused to the innocent victims. Numerous cases of negligent driving that led to people’s injuries or deaths have been reported (Richtel). Technology can and must be adjusted in a way that would not allow drivers to put anyone’s life—including their own—in danger. The loss of customer loyalty is a far less price to pay than damages in a wrongful death lawsuit. The multitasking ability that smartphones give us also presents the false impression that we are almighty. However, we simply are not. We are human beings who have only two hands and one head. When driving, our heads should be focused on the road, and both hands should belong on the wheel.

While Matt Richtel explores the reasons why phone companies refuse to implement blocking technologies, David Leonhardt reveals the horrific statistics related to deaths that occur due to inattentive driving. In his article “A Public-Health Crisis That We Can Fix,” Leonhardt paints a frightening picture of the numerous accidents that take away the lives of innocent citizens when drivers prefer their comfort to someone else’s life.

The author uses a puzzle given by Guido Calabresi, a legal scholar, and federal judge, to his students (Leonhardt). The riddle is this: Would you sacrifice one thousand lives in exchange for an extremely smart technology that would make everyday existence much more comfortable and exciting? When students answer the question (and the answer has almost always been “no” over three decades of Calabresi’s teaching), their professor poses another: “What is the difference between this and a car?” (Leonhardt).

In this introduction, Leonhardt leads the audience to the sad but disturbing issue of using smartphones while driving and the consequences brought about by such behavior. I agree with the author that he does not consider banning phone use while driving to be the best possible option. In agreement with Richter, Leonhardt thinks that the greatest problem is not in the device itself but people getting distracted (Leonhardt). At present, it is up to every driver to decide whether to use these devices, but statistics show that neglecting cautionary measures frequently leads to fatal outcomes.

No matter what people are advised to do unless some strict policies are implemented, the situation will likely not change for the better. Therefore, to stop a huge number of accidents caused by inattentive drivers, phone makers must take some action. Technology is causing the problem, and it should be involved in the solution. For instance, Apple and wireless phone companies might introduce a special mode for drivers that is similar to airplane mode—a driving mode (Leonhardt). With its help, all but a few harmless options would be turned off when the car is moving.

Both Richtel and Leonhardt agree that smartphone makers’ unwillingness to install such a mode means that they consider comfort more significant than safety. This state of affairs seems unacceptable, and public awareness concerning the issue is growing. Indeed, if these companies have the opportunity to prevent people from “making a terrible problem worse” and save many lives as a result, it is preposterous of them not to do so (Leonhardt). In this light, the product liability lawsuits filed by the families of victims (Richtel) are likely to grow in number. Unfortunately, until the government takes action on this matter, these suits have little chance of success.

It is undisputed that technology has made our life easier. Still, an easier life does not negate responsibility. Both the consumer and the technology giants have a responsibility to foresee and mitigate the risks presented by the technological advances of smartphones. Every person has the right to operate his or her devices. However, individuals are not entitled to make themselves comfortable at the cost of other people’s wellbeing. Smartphone companies have no right to profit from the risk of the harm their technology presents to others. Thus, the legislation should void Apple’s lockout patent since it was never launched, and the technology should be legally mandated in every cell phone.

It is no news that smartphone producers have the power to shut off the phones while driving. What is surprising and even appalling is that they believe that their profit is more important than people’s lives. Thus, even if someone’s phone may unintentionally be turned off during a ride, it is a small price to pay in comparison with people’s health and lives. Statistics and the broken lives of many families are the best and saddest proofs of how wrong it is to pursue profit and neglect people’s safety.

Work Cited

Leonhardt, David. “A Public-Health Crisis That We Can Fix.” The New York Times. Web.

Richtel, Matt. “Phone Makers Could Cut Off Drivers. So Why Don’t They?” The New York Times. Web.

Introduction

These days, statistics of car crashes even per one day is scary, and this type of vehicle is perceived the most dangerous, comparing to other options. Therefore, cases of car crashes and behavior leading to such catastrophes are actively explored by modern scientists in order to promote driving safety. Hot debates arose around the question of using hand-held cell phones while driving, as it may involve risks of car crash occurrence (Oviedo-Trespalacios et al.; Papadimitriou et al.). Taking this fact into consideration, it is worth prohibiting hand-held cell phone use while driving in all 50 states in the United States.

Limiting the Reaction Time

First of all, communicating via hand-held cell phone at the moment of driving a car may be extremely dangerous, increasing the likelihood of a car crash. While holding a gadget in one hand, a person controls the movement of a vehicle only by one hand. Consequently, an individual is not ready to respond to unexpected situations on the road, such as slipping on ice or a pedestrian in an inappropriate place.

Moreover, the fact that a driver is conversating or listening to a speaker may aggravate the situation, diverting their attention from the road. Choudhary and Velaga (“Modelling Driver Distraction Effects”) marked: “in case of pedestrian crossing event…simple conversation, complex conversation, simple texting and complex texting caused 40%, 95%, 137% and 204% increment in the reaction times” (para. 1). They also highlighted: “in case of road crossing event by parked vehicles, the tasks caused 48%, 65%, 121% and 171% increment in reaction times respectively” (Choudhary and Velaga “Modelling Driver Distraction Effects” para. 1). This problem was also researched by these scientists further, examining effects on speed and effectiveness of compensatory driver behavior. They claim: “the logistic models for accident probabilities showed that the accident probabilities increased by 3 and 4 times respectively when the drivers were conversing or texting on the phone during the driving” (Choudhary and Velaga “Mobile Phone Use during Driving” para. 1). Therefore, in order to increase attention during driving and improve the reaction to road events, it is advisable to prohibiting hand-held phone use while driving in all 50 states.

Ability to Drive without Cell Phones

Arguing against this prohibition, a large number of people claim that mobile phones have become an integral part of the modern world and modern lifestyle, and it is impossible to limit their use while driving. However, in the recent past, people did not struggle to drive cars without the help of these gadgets. In general, life has not changed considerably enough so that people could not control a vehicle without mobile phones. Therefore, their personal liberty will not be restricted to a large extent.

Furthermore, it should be taken into consideration that individuals tend to use mobile phones without necessity. For instance, George et al. (2018) have conducted a study in this regard and revealed that frequently drivers use their gadgets for entertainment purposes. They may turn on and switch music and text or answer messages. Shi et al. investigated this topic as well, and even though their study depicts that people attempt to use mobiles phones only in case of necessity, in fact, they may misuse this possibility. Therefore, applying mobile phones while driving in the majority of cases is not urgent and essential, and banning them will not cause significant ordeals. Moreover, it will decrease the reasons to distract from the road, promoting driving safety.

Legislation

The current laws are not appropriate for controlling mobile use while driving. Driving with a lack of carefulness and attention is difficult to be proven. However, it creates a potential danger on the road, causing health risks both for the car owner and road users. The likelihood of rapid response to unexpected events significantly decreases as people became less focused on road events. Thus, there is a need to introduce new laws on more attentive driving in order to prevent possible offenses. Moreover, it will motivate people to have a more careful attitude to their behavior on the roads. Appropriate legislation will be effective, as billing records will demonstrate if a mobile phone was applied at a particular moment. In addition, today, all the cities are equipped with cameras, which identify the drivers, which exceed the speed limits and break other safety rules. Consequently, these cameras may be improved for indicating the personality of people who use hand-held mobile phones while driving.

The positive outcome of the prohibition of hand-held mobile phone use was researched by modern scientists. Liu, Lu, et al. state: “The ban was found effective in reducing the cellphone usage-caused crashes in terms of both crash frequency and crash proportion (para. 1). In general, this measure improved the safety on roads in California (Liu, Lu, et al. para. 3) However, it is vital to take into consideration possible situations, which will require people to make an urgent phone call or answer text messages immediately. In this context, it is recommended to stop a vehicle and park it in order to use a mobile phone or have a conversation. Such a measure will contribute to making traffic safer and allow people to cope with their urgent problems without risks. Summing up the ideas of legislation, all the objections to the inability to follow it are not relevant. There is sufficient equipment to implement monitoring mobile phones used by drivers. Furthermore, they have an option for urgent situations, which require their interference. Therefore, there are no obstacles to prohibiting hand-held mobile phone use while driving across the United States.

Conclusion

In conclusion, it should be mentioned that prohibiting hand-held mobile phone use driving in all 50 states is worth realizing. It will reduce the number of accidents on roads, as this action is associated with higher risks of car crashes. In addition, refusal to use mobile phones while driving will not be an ordeal to the population, as they predominantly apply it for entertainment purposes. Finally, currently, sufficient technologies exist for controlling drivers breaking this prohibition.

Annotated Bibliography

Choudhary, Pushpa, and Nagendra Velaga. “Modelling Driver Distraction Effects due to Mobile Phone Use on Reaction Time.” Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, vol. 77, 2017, pp. 351-365.

Choudhary and Velaga are scientists, who are deeply engaged in the problem of mobile phone use while driving and finding appropriate responses to these problems, and for this reason, they have published a number of studies in this regard. In the current article, they explore the reaction time changes in modeled situations, which required drivers to distract. The events were divided into two categories: a pedestrian crossing the street and a parked vehicle crossing the road. Moreover, the participants were offered to complete four types of tasks: having a simple and complex dialogue and texting a simple and complex message. The experiment revealed that the more complex the task was, the more distracted the drivers were, which posed considerable safety threats. Mobile phone use significantly delayed the reaction time to road events, increasing the likelihood of car accidents. Therefore, the authors present sufficient reasoning for proposing a prohibition of hand-held mobile phone use while driving.

“Mobile Phone Use during Driving: Effects on Speed and Effectiveness of Driver Compensatory Behaviour.” Accident Analysis & Prevention, vol. 106, pp. 370-378.

The current study is aimed to continue the research of the authors on the topic of harm caused by mobile phone using and driving at the same time. Therefore, it presents an essential supplement for the previous article, making the finding more comprehensive and profound. The scientists intended to explore: “the effects of conversation and texting (each with two difficulty levels) on driving performance of Indian drivers in terms of their mean speed and accident avoiding abilities” (Choudhary and Velaga 353). Pursuing this aim, 100 participants of different age groups were recruited. They were offered to respond to two situations, which were “unexpected crossing of pedestrians and joining of parked vehicles from road side” (Choudhary and Velaga 354). The results demonstrated that drivers tend to decrease the mean speed while having a phone conversation or texting a message. Despite this measure, the likelihood of car accidents increased several times.

George, Brown, et al. “”I Need to Skip a Song because It Sucks”: Exploring Mobile Phone Use While Driving among Young Adults.” Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, vol. 58, pp. 382-391.

One of the arguments in the paper for prohibiting hand-held mobile phones regards the fact that predominantly people apply their gadgets for entertaining purposes. Therefore, the current study was helpful for presenting an argument and support it, as the study focuses on clarifying the reasons why people tend to use mobile phones while driving in general. It covers young adult people and their habits and indicated that this action appeared to be widely spread among these age groups. Despite the fact that there are situations, which require an urgent response, George, Brown, et al. highlight that predominantly, the respondents use mobile phones while driving for entertaining purposes. They may listen to music, switch tracks, browsing the Internet, and texting friends and colleagues. This study was essential to building the argument that people may refuse to use mobile phones and driving at the same time without obstacles.

Liu, Lu, et al. “A Longitudinal Analysis of the Effectiveness of California’s Ban on Cellphone Use While Driving.” Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, vol. 124, 2019, pp. 456-467.

The current study appeared crucial for writing the paper and defending the position for prohibiting hand-held phone use while driving. In general, it was vital for constructing the central argument for the effectiveness of appropriate legislation for making roads safer both for drivers and pedestrians. The article is devoted to exploring the case of mobile phone prohibition while driving in California, which was implemented in 2008. Liu, Lu, et al. confirm the positive results of the established restriction. Moreover, they mark: “the study also confirms that crashes caused by cellphone use produce more severe outcomes than other crashes” (Liu, Lu, et al. 2). In addition, the study revealed that the law motivated the population to adhere to hand0free mobile phones or abandon using them in general. As a result, the statistics of road accidents significantly improved. Consequently, the article was insightful for defending the position for prohibition and understanding that these restrictions may be fruitful in the long run.

Oviedo-Trespalacios, Oscar et al. “Risk Factors of Mobile Phone Use While Driving in Queensland: Prevalence, Attitudes, Crash Risk Perception, and Task-Management Strategies.” PLoS ONE, vol. 12, no. 9, 2017.

Oviedo-Trespalacios et al. explore the issue of mobile phone use while driving comprehensively, including a description of mobile phone use, risk factors, compensatory strategies, and other details. The findings are based on the data received from almost 500 drivers. The study revealed that the majority predominantly do not associate mobile phone use while driving with high risks of road accidents. The researchers conclude that it is recommended to encourage more awareness of safety measures on the road in order to improve the situation. the study was informative to achieve a profound understanding of the problem.

Papadimitriou, Eleonora et al. “Analysis of Driver Behaviour Through Smartphone Data: The Case of Mobile Phone Use While Driving, Safety Science, vol. 119, 2019, p. 91-97.

The purpose of the current study was to examine driver behavior, who use mobile phones in the process, via the data collected with smartphones. 100 participants were involved in the experiment, and a specially developed smartphone application was utilized. The received data was analyzed by Machine Learning algorithms and behavior indicators. In general, mobile phone use during a trip is more likely in the case of driving long distances and off-morning rush. Mobile phone use while driving is frequently accompanied by speed decrease and smooth driving, though it is still associated with significant risks. The article was helpful for getting acquainted with the problem.

Shi, Xiao, et al. “Analysis of Factors Affecting Drivers’ Choice to Engage with a Mobile Phone while Driving in Beijing.” Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, vol. 37, 2016, pp. 1-9.

Shi et al. intended to explore the reasons that prompted drivers to use mobile phones. The study covers the population in Beijing, and the research method implied an internet survey. All the conversations while driving a vehicle were sorted into four categories. The participants were required to define the frequency of mobile phone use while driving and respond to whether they understand the possible threats. In addition, they were asked to evaluate the importance of calls and messages. Shi et al. mark that, unlike the United States, the majority of Beijing drivers are conscious of this topic and report that they use mobile phones only in case of necessity. However, despite the awareness of the dangers involved in mobile phone use while driving and legislation prohibiting it, they may still continue a conversation. The study revealed that, occasionally, drivers might overestimate the importance of calls and messages. This article appeared to be informative for the section, which argues that phone use while driving may be abandoned without significant ordeals.

Works Cited

Choudhary, Pushpa, and Velaga, Nagendra. “Modelling Driver Distraction Effects due to Mobile Phone Use on Reaction Time.” Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, vol. 77, 2017, pp. 351-365.

“Mobile Phone Use during Driving: Effects on Speed and Effectiveness of Driver Compensatory Behaviour.” Accident Analysis & Prevention, vol. 106, pp. 370-378.

George, Brown, et al. “”I Need to Skip a Song because It Sucks”: Exploring Mobile Phone Use While Driving among Young Adults.” Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, vol. 58, pp. 382-391.

Liu, Lu, et al. “A Longitudinal Analysis of the Effectiveness of California’s Ban on Cellphone Use While Driving.” Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, vol. 124, 2019, pp. 456-467.

Oviedo-Trespalacios, Oscar et al. “Risk Factors of Mobile Phone Use While Driving in Queensland: Prevalence, Attitudes, Crash Risk Perception, and Task-Management Strategies.” PLoS ONE, vol. 12, no. 9, 2017.

Papadimitriou, Eleonora et al. “Analysis of Driver Behaviour Through Smartphone Data: The Case of Mobile Phone Use While Driving, Safety Science, vol. 119, 2019, p. 91-97.

Shi, Xiao, et al. “Analysis of Factors Affecting Drivers’ Choice to Engage with a Mobile Phone while Driving in Beijing.” Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, vol. 37, 2016, pp. 1-9.

Abstract

Young people continue to engage in risky behaviors for various reasons. Scholars continue to study the causes and reasons for such behaviors among the youth in order to define ways of controlling and possibly eliminating risky behaviors. The development of technologies used by adolescents for texting while driving leads to increasing the rates of accidents. There are also needs for the further research in the area to identify the factors that predispose the youth to demonstrate certain risky behaviors.

Research Design

Hypothesis: The development of technologies used by adolescents for texting while driving leads to increasing the rates of accidents.

Variables: The independent variable is the development of such mobile technologies as smartphones, iPhones, and iPads which is measured in the annual rate related to appearing new devices and models. The dependent variable is the rate of accidents among those adolescents who prefer texting while driving. The determined variables are related because the process of messaging while driving is discussed as one of the most important causes of the adolescents’ deaths as a result of car accidents.

The Main Findings from the Class Analysis: Many adolescents demonstrate the high level of distraction while driving because of messaging. Individuals note that the concentration of their attention decreases when they try messaging. Those adolescents who have the latest models of mobile devices with the access to the mobile Internet prefer texting while driving.

The first way to further explore the hypothesis is to expand the sample and focus on the youth data from different states instead of using the convenience sampling method. Another way explore the issue is to concentrate on gender differences. There are obvious differences in the behavior of males and females, including the extent to which they engage in risky behaviors. Such a step will narrow the research and provide opportunities to focus on differences in behaviors of male and female adolescents while driving.

Introduction

The article written by Albert et al. (2017) explores the consequences of older people driving and the possible ways to minimize adverse outcomes. Elderly adults must preserve autonomous movement and activity; however, physical infirmity and cognitive constraints have negative impacts on their safety. Hence, the concern of public well-being through encouraging the secure driving of the elderly is vital.

Main body

Research has revealed that suspension of licenses in old age may be harmful because it stimulates dependency, hopelessness, a drop in physical activity, and social communication (Albert et al., 2017). Driving is a complicated activity that demands appropriate health conditions, especially satisfactory eyesight, cognition, and movement abilities (Albert et al., 2017). Overall, research proves that age-related changes in these human factors can cause unsafe behavior on the road and increase the possibility of injuries. Therefore, the author’s arguments are convincing because they explain that elderly drivers can be problematic on the road; however, the use of cars is essential for their emotional well-being. All in all, the issue needs to be addressed without restricting old individuals from driving entirely.

The authors claim that there are two possible ways to address the issue of elderly driving: developing social programs and integrating modern technology. Firstly, training sessions, area outreach, and media campaigns might positively contribute to the independent mobility of the elderly on the road (Albert et al., 2017). These actions will be beneficial to the safety of older individuals and the people around them. Researches discovered that primary driving practice is necessary for older people who perceive significantly fewer road signs (Albert et al., 2017).

Therefore, various governmental organizations suggest sessions specifically directed towards older part of the population. Secondly, virtual reality (VR) technology can be used as drive simulators (Albert et al., 2017). This machinery offers an alternative to traditional driving evaluation and practice methods.

References

Albert et al. (2017). Risky drivers: Young and old drivers share a dubious distinction. Consumer Reports

We can see that, in the contemporary world, there are more and more instances of car accidents that lead to the injuries of a large number of people and even their deaths. However, the question is: why is it so? In order to solve this problem or at least have a beneficial influence on it, professionals have to understand the main causes of the issue and put considerable effort into preventing them. It is believed that the main reasons for the growing number of car accidents and deaths on the roads is the development of new technologies and, as a result, the irresponsible driving of individuals who are largely addicted to them. Therefore, by providing a few essential arguments and taking of the most popular practices as an example, the following speech will prove that individuals should not text while driving.

As it is already mentioned, the most significant reason of why people should stop texting or using their phones overall while driving is because it can lead to serious negative consequences, such as car crashes, injuries, and deaths of a large number of people. According to statistics, “in the United States, one-third of drivers text while they are behind the wheel and distraction is the cause of 25% of all car crashes that involve injuries” (“2019 United States car accidents statistics,” 2020). This is because when you are driving and, at the same time, use phone phone at any capacity, it is impossible to keep all the needed attention on the road. This number is continually rising; therefore, something should be definitely done to stop this growth, and one of the best solutions is to educate individuals about the negative impact of cell phone usage on the road.

In addition, in case you are using your phone for nay purposes while driving, you are not only putting your life at a considerable risk but also endanger you passengers. Transporting other people in a vehicle is a huge responsibility because any mistake can lead to serious consequences for their health and life. Zakhareuski (2020) also puts a specific emphasis on this point while talking about the possible influences of distracted driving. He asks his readers a question of whether they could live with the understanding that their selfish decision to check their messages or turn on a different song caused someone to die or suffer from severe health complications (Zakhareuski, 2020). Thus, for the purpose of ensuring the safety and physical well-being of yourself and all the passengers in the car it is critical to prevent yourself from texting while driving.

Another consequence of using your phone while driving is a considerable increase in the likelihood of receiving a huge monetary fine or a punishment. Even though this issue is not connected to the life of people, it can bring serious damage to your pocket and to the possibility of driving a car for a specific period of time. For example, a speeding ticket can cost you up to 500 dollars; however, in certain situations the fine can be much bigger and lead to the loss of a driving license for a year (“What are the consequences,” n.d.). In general, this problem is all about the responsibility and taking accountability for your actions which is necessary. Nevertheless, such consequences can bring a significant inconvenience to your life which means that it is much better to prevent their appearance.

I mentioned drivers themselves and passengers as people who can suffer from a serious mistake of texting while being behind the wheel. However, there is also one very important group individuals who can be injured and die because of someone’s, from the first sight, very minor mistake – pedestrians. Humans are definitely smaller and less noticeable that vehicles; therefore, it is possible to end up in an accident with them even when paying full attention. Since texting while driving completely switches one’s attention from the road, drivers can decrease the likelihood of seeing a person crossing the road and cause a crash which may result in terrible health consequences for the pedestrian. Therefore, it can be stated that driving is a huge responsibility and there is no place for even a second on the phone.

Overall, texting while driving is a serious issue that becomes more and more relevant in the contemporary world. Many people do not realize to what consequences it may bring and think that it will not harm their performance in the road. However, the reality proves that it is one of the most serious problems that has to be dealt with as soon as possible. There is a number of negative consequences caused by distracted driving and phone usage that range from receiving a speeding ticket to causing the death of another individual. Thus, this speech proved that it is essential to prevent oneself from using a phone while driving no matter what the purpose of that is. In this case you can ensure that your life and the life of other human beings will not be put at risk.

References

2019 United States car accidents statistics: Reckless driving vs. driving while intoxicated. 2020. Web.

What are the consequences of being a risky and irresponsible driver? (n.d.). Web.

Zakhareuski, A. (2020). 10 pragmatic reasons that will make you stop texting and driving today. Web.

Introduction

Effective driving is a task that requires a number of intelligences. The driver should posses kinesthetic intelligence that allows him to skilfully manoeuvre the vehicle, and logical intelligence that enables him to make calculated decisions when facing other drivers (Gardner, 2006). However, many people multi-task while driving as they consider it a “brainless task” that is done habitually, therefore, does not require much effort. Multi-tasking activities such as talking on the mobile phone while driving, applying make-up, or talking to a passenger, ends up being a pitfall for many drivers resulting in road carnage due to careless driving. Consequently, safe and effective driving is a task that demands concentration by the driver, and multi-tasking while driving should be discouraged and avoided for safety.

Experiences and Comfort Levels as a Multi-tasking Driver

Multi-tasking when driving makes a driver very uncomfortable because the driver tries to divide his attention and concentration equally on two or more different things. Hence, the divided attention leads to a driver considering signs on the road and traffic as a bother because he cannot focus enough to follow the traffic rules.

Effect of Divided Attention while Driving

Inability to look at and process what the road signs are stating or to predict the moves of the other drivers makes a driver commit several driving errors, thus impeding his driving. For example, a driver who is talking with a mobile phone cannot see small distractions and can swerve and crash by reflex reaction.

Sensory Perception Issues

The ability to see, internalize and respond to stimuli is sensory and perception. When a driver is multi-tasking, their sensory perception capabilities are so low that they miss obvious distractions and make hasty decisions on the road. For example, swerving is a hasty decision whose aim is to avoid danger, and is a flight response in a high adrenalin situation (Chaudhuri, 2011). This occurs when the driver notes danger and acts on reflex because divided attention does not allow him to see and react with logic. However, a driver concentrating on driving will note a distraction and make a timely decision on how to avert the danger and respond to the stimuli. This can be referred to as high sensory and perception when driving because of the driver’s optimal awareness and response. Therefore, multi-tasking when driving lowers one’s sensory awareness and consequently, their perception of danger on the road, which in turn affects their response while driving.

Recommendations to Lawmakers

There should be strict rules and regulations against any form of distractions when driving, and these rules should be implemented without leniency to encourage safe driving. The penalty for multi-tasking when driving should be so hefty that drivers will endeavour to adhere to the rules and avoid any violation. This will ensure safer roads.

Conclusion

Multi-tasking while driving is common among habitual drivers because routine driving makes them consider their driving skills irreproachable. This leads to many errors in judgement on the road making them poor drivers, unlike the new driver who will be paying attention while driving because of uncertainty of their skills. Therefore, drivers who are often on the road should make an effort to recognise that driving is a task that requires concentration and distractions while driving are harmful to other road users as well. Hence, to be a good driver, one should employ all their senses to the task and pay attention to driving. This will help a person to have better perception of potential dangers and allow time for a logical response in any situation.

References

Chaudhuri, A. (2011). Fundamentals of Sensory Perception. UK: Oxford University Press.

Gardner, E.H. (2006). Multiple Intelligences: New Horizons in Theory and Practice. USA: Basic Books.