There are a lot of deaths caused by road accidents in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Even though the concerned government authorities can institute firm measures to curb the menace, it appears that the existing rules and regulations are easily flouted by most drivers. Despite the fact that poor enforcement of traffic laws has led to careless driving, it is vital to note that drivers are also trained poorly. As a result, they obtain driving licenses quite easily. This report explores the causes of reckless driving by reviewing some of the recent death and injury statistics on the Saudi Arabian roads.
Argument one
According to the first argument, poor training of drivers and drivers licenses that are easily obtained are the main causes of reckless driving. The available statistics indicate that the annual number of deaths caused by road accidents in Saudi Arabia stands at 270,000 (Al-Kinani, 2008). This figure is purportedly among the highest in the Arab world.
Additional g statistics indicate that after every two hours, one person dies while eight others sustained serious body injuries from road accidents. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia also records a total of 32,000 injuries annually.
Defensive driving is being introduced in Saudi Arabia so that the expertise of drivers on the roads can be improved. Most drivers are apparently not adequately skilled to avoid road accidents (Al-Kinani, 2008). According to the report released by the Defensive Driving Academy, poor training is the main cause of reckless driving on Arabian roads. It is possible for a skilled driver to avoid causing an accident even if other people are driving poorly on the road. Local driving conditions can only be met if the current driving course in Saudi Arabia is slightly modified in order to strengthen some modules. For example, driving licenses should not be issued to trainees who fail to pass the core tests.
The training module for drivers should also incorporate the expected conduct while driving. Motorists should be taught the importance of courtesy on the road. According to Al-Shareef and Al-Wuhaimid (2008), errors committed by drivers have been blamed for 85% of all deaths on Arabian roads. It is also unfortunate that close to SR18 billion is spent by the Kingdom every year on cases related to road accidents.
In a report by Nazer (2008), red lights are bypassed by reckless drivers at will. Motorists in Saudi Arabia also drive aggressively with little regard for human life. Young male drivers are the worst culprits of road accidents in the Kingdom.
Argument two
According to the second argument, a lack of thorough enforcement of traffic rules has led to reckless driving in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
When over 400 traffic violations were committed by a Saudi national, it was a clear indication that traffic laws were not being enforced (Al-Huwairini, 2013).
An automatic traffic violations system should be installed in vehicles in order to detect and record motorists who flout traffic rules while driving (Saudi Gazette, 2008).
The violation of traffic rules has increased tremendously. The traffic authorities in the Kingdom are apparently not doing their work well (Al-Harbi, 2013).
Comparison between the two essays
In both arguments, drivers are the main cause of road accidents. For example, when driving licenses are issued haphazardly, it is still the duty of a driver to maintain traffic rules. On the same note, drivers should not wait for traffic laws to be enforced before they can avoid reckless driving.
The contrast between the two essays
In the first essay, poor training of drivers and issuance of driving licenses to unqualified trainees are the main causes of reckless driving. However, the second essay posits that reckless driving is caused by poor enforcement of traffic rules.
Conclusion
From the above arguments, it is evident that drivers should be blamed for all forms of road accidents. Motorists should be ready to adhere to traffic rules without being coerced. Therefore, there is a need to adopt better training standards for drivers. Driving licenses should be issued to qualified individuals only according to the first argument.
This essay considers arguments by Debra Leach in her article Drunken Driving .
The debate on the acceptable level of alcoholic content that a driver should take has been an intriguing one in the past decades. In most countries, the governments have imposed restriction on the amount of alcohol that an individual can consume and still be allowed to drive. The restriction is aimed at reducing the exacerbating road carnage that has been claiming thousands lives each year.
Due to the high death rates, most states in the US have restricted the amount of alcohol drivers should consume to 0.08 BAC. This limit surpass the set limit the victim is liable for heft penalty. However, antagonists of belief have been quick to nullify imposition of tough penalties on drunk drivers as well as restricting the amount of alcohol a driver should take and drive. Since the topic has attracted diverse opinion, this essay attempts to evaluate the arguments of both sides of the divide.
Argument for Tough Drinking Laws
Following the steady increase in drunken driving associated accidents, Christie Wright- the then New Jersey Governor, imposed strict penalties for drunken driving in her state. She helped to enforce the Teris Law , which stipulated the legal amount of alcohol a driver should taken and be allowed to drive. The law set 0.08 Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) and any excess intake would attract penalties such as imprisonment, fines or even confiscation of the driving license.
Her decision was supported by the traffic police reports that asserted that up to 55.3 percent of all the accidents that were experienced in the previous decade originated from drivers under alcohol influence. Further field, similar decisions have been adopted by authorities to restrict drunk drivers from taking to the roads. The penalty that have been imposed in different countries, some have imposed the maximum amount of alcohol one can consume while other have opted to confiscated victims driving Licenses.
Imposition of Teris Law has resulted to a drastic reduction in the road accidents. The traffic report has revealed that up to 7000 people have been saved from road carnage in the previous decade. Regulating alcohol consumption does not only help drivers decision making but also it helps their visibility. It has also been understood that drunk drivers are often victim of losing their control as their vision is impaired by the alcohol content beyond the 0.08 level.
Investigation done by the police on exact of the death that claimed 3 people revealed that the driver had more than twice the amount of alcohol thereby exceeding the legal intake. The report revealed that the vehicle was over speeding and as a result, the driver lost control. Most of the road accidents are of similar nature and the loss of people can be mitigated by imposing the rule.
The adoption of strict driving penalties has not only helped reduce the amount of accidents but also it has promoted morally accepted behaviors amongst people. Most people have refrained from drinking excessively, especially from social palaces. However, they prefer to indulge excessively from the confines of their houses. The tough rules have discouraged the young and practicing addicts from indulging in alcohol while others have been forced to fully refrain from the addiction.
From this point of view, the tough rules have done much good to the entire state. The endeavor to uphold the sanctity of life remains one of the key aims of imposition such strict laws. Majority of the victims are innocent family members driven by a drunken man. The foundation of this argument is stemmed from the point many innocent people should be saved from the action of a single person.
All the states, which have adopted the tough rules, have been counting much progress in curbing unwanted deaths. New Jersey, Alabama and thirteen other states have successively set the maximum alcohol level in the blood that a person should have and drive. All these states are experiencing huge gains from reduction of death resulting from the road accidents. According to the highway traffic, excess of 0.08 alcohol content in the body makes the driver to be a potential killer.
Hence, the need to restrict alcohol consumption need not to be overemphasized because the result of these measure have been encouraging. Although, some section of the government are crying fault due to decrease in revenue as a result is reduced sales, the public good achieved is of more importance. It is evident that the annual revenue generated by the saved lives by far outweighs that of reduced sales and therefore it is imperative to impose the law.
Argument against Tough Drinking Laws
Although the decision to impose the strict law seems beneficial and acceptable, it also has its darker side. A critical assessment of the impacts that Teris law generates reveals that there is much inherent social harm than it meets the eye. Imposition of 0.08 alcohol level would shift the attention of the police to dealing with innocent people rather dealing with the main terror problem that has worse impact.
The rule would mean that American jail would be filled up by the alcoholics and there will be no room for real state offenders. According to the FBI, more than 1.4 million people were arrested in 1994 for impaired driving. This figure arise the question should more people be jailed for excessive drinking. Biased resource allocation means that the country attracts more trouble that it is necessary. The only way to address the issue is to have a holistic perspective of what the country wants and then distributing resources according the need.
On the other hand, allocation of more resources in dealing with alcohol problem would mean that overlooking other crimes that are rampant in the country. Historically, the US has always been a terror target and therefore substantial effort should be put in place to curb the problem.
It is discouraging to note that in US more than 40 percent of murder cases and about 80 per cent of property crimes go unnoticed. Hence, the biased attention to alcoholic drivers paves room for more dangerous crimes to thrive in the country, which is unacceptable. In fact, the country should consider lifting the law to allow the police resources to be utilized for a nobler course. Unless, the government decides to without the alcohol law other crimes will continue to thrive and the public security will be at stake.
According to the study which was carried out by the Harvard Injury control Centre about 67 and 41 per cent of males females who succumbed to road accidents had more than twice the legal amount of 0.08 Blood Alcohol Content (BAC). This implies that setting the BAC at 0.08 misses out the actual killers.
Similarly, some people vision is impaired by overworking, lack of enough sleep or due to poor eyesight. Hence, generalizing that road accidents are only caused by drunken drivers is an erroneous idea. Therefore, the law should either be amended to Increase BAC to target the main victims or be abolished. Whatever the action that is taken some problems are associated and thus the government should be vigilant in dealing the issue without generating more troubles.
The decline in death from road accidents does not justify tightening of the law or increasing the penalty. The government should look for other ways of dealing with the impeding problem rather than witch-hunting drunk drivers. A diversified approach to the problem would provide a better solution while putting into consideration the other aspects, which are affecting the wider population.
Campaign to enhance people to engage in responsible practices can effectively deal with the problem at hand. It should also be borne in that imposing tough penalties will lead to some related issues such as unemployment alcohol related fields. Worse still is the strife that tough penalties would generate, as people will be forced to rebel restriction. Such a situation would aggravate the whole issue.
Conclusion
Although this debate has attracted sharp divisions, the imposition of strict penalties to drunken drivers does not provide sufficient solution to the exact problem. The evidence presented by the police has revealed a strong correlation between fatal accidents and excessive alcohol consumption. However, different researches associate the more fatalities with excessive drinking beyond the legal 0.08 BAC. The conflicting opinions have left this issue with much controversy and more differences are expected to emerge in the future.
Having analyzed the ensuing argument I am convicted that the government should withhold the 0.08 rule and concentrate on the more severe issues such as insecurity and property crimes. Nonetheless, this does not me I encourage drunk driving but all individuals should practice restraint from indulgence of excessive alcohol consumption. An overwhelming adoption of the self-control would save the country much agony and struggles. Eventually, the country will be in position to distribute its resource equally.
In a 2019 overview of the fatality rates in the United States, while teenagers drove less compared to all but the oldest people, the number of deaths and crashes associated with them were disproportionately high. By comparison, between 16 and 19 years, the number of fatal crash rates was three times more than crash rates among drivers over twenty years (Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, n.p.).
Furthermore, the risks of such fatal crashes and deaths were reportedly highest in teenagers aged between 16 and 17 years. With the understanding established, Fritscher argues that, among various reasons, teens should be allowed to drive because it plays a fundamental role in teenage development. The purpose of the essay is to compare, therefore, and contrast the rhetorical elements associated with whether the states should raise the legal driving age to 18. While teenage development is vital in growing up, it does not compare to the risks associated with teenage driving. Hence, the states should raise the legal driving age to 18.
Main body
Fritscher on Reasons why teens should drive shows that despite research showing the risks that come with teenage driving, the majority of the people in the U.S. consider teen going an essential element of life. By 16, getting a drivers license is regarded as a rite of passage in the majority of the states in the U.S. (Fritscher, n.p.). In the understanding by Erik Erikson, developmental theorist, this rite of passage contributes to discovering the identity and plays a fundamental role in teenage development. Teenagers require space to break away from their parents, develop personal values and morals, and spend time with their peers (Fritscher, n.p.). While some metropolitan regions in the U.S. have excellent public transport systems, most similar areas do not and thus, require teenagers to drive in search of their independence.
While teenage development is a significant aspect of growing up, the search for independence, personal values, and morals might come at a cost, both in the lives of teenagers and other road users as well. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety in Fatality Facts 2019: Teenagers aims to show that the independence sought after by teenagers comes at a high cost. In a study to analyze the licensing systems in the U.S. between 1990 and 2019, the graduated licensing for National studies found that lower fatal crashes were reported when every state adopted graduated techniques. In the presence of solid laws, there were associated lower fatal crashes and substantially lower insurance claim rates among teenagers (Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, n.p.).
With substantial restrictions on teen passengers and nighttime driving, alongside raising the licensing age for teen drivers, the insurance firms encountered a decline in insurance collision claims resulting in reduced fatal crash rates.
From the findings of the study by the fatality analysis reporting system (FARS) of the U.S. transportation department, reports posted in March 2021 showed that in 2019, there were over 2,370 teenagers involved in automobile crashes. Compared to the same statement made in 1975, the figures associated with 2019 were over 70 percent more than in 1975 and 5 percent more than the previous year (Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, n.p.). By breaking down the number of deaths, in terms of gender, the Institute discovered that two-thirds of the teenagers killed were male, and the number of male deaths since 1975 has been on the rise. Compared to their female counterparts, the rate of male teenage drivers who were reported dead rose by 76 percent, unlike 64 percent of female adolescent drivers.
Rouse, on the Pros and cons of driving at the age of 16, seeks to show that while teenage driving is essential, it might be inappropriate to allow teenagers to drive. It might be problematic for teenagers to go because it is the main contributor to the increase in fatal crashes among teen drivers. An increase in fatal crashes has been highly linked to the lack of experience by these young drivers (Rouse, n.p.).
Since these young drivers have only been driving for a shorter timeframe, they encounter dangerous or challenging situations where they lack experience in understanding how to respond safely. In a 2008 article by the New York Daily, the article reported that because of the lack of experience, the leading cause attributed to teenage deaths was car crashes (Rouse, n.p.). Minimizing the possibilities that come with adolescent driving might require all states to raise the legal driving age to 18 years.
Conclusion
While teenage driving, like a rite of passage in most Americans, might seem appealing, considering the risks and rates of fatal crashes is an equally attractive point to emphasize in the lives of Americans. The absence of experience from teen maturity levels, while it might be argued to increase responsibility, threatens the lives of many others due to the possibility of encountering dangerous and challenging situations. A high time has come when all states should legalize the driving age to 18 years, primarily as a way of combating the increased number of fatal crashes attributed to teenage driving.
Work Cited
Fritscher, Lisa. Howtoadult. 2017. Web.
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. 2020. Arlington, VA.
Driving under the influence is a serious issue, which affects not only the driver but also puts other vehicles and their passengers at risk. Aside from the fact that consuming alcohol for teens is illegal in the first place, moreover deciding to drive while impaired puts them in four times bigger risk of getting into the car accident than adults (Childrens Hospital of Philadelphia). Alcohol seems tempting for adolescents, and it is no secret that most teenagers consume alcohol while in high school; thus, some neglect being responsible and end up driving cars when drunk.
According to the statistics, the leading cause of death among teenagers in the United States is motor vehicle crashes, with one in three deaths caused by impaired driving (Hafner et al.). Therefore, because of such high rates of fatal accidents, there is a vital need to find a way to decrease the number of car crashes involving drunk teenagers. In this proposal, I would like to reach out to the local school principal with an offer to conduct a unique program that should influence teenagers regarding the topic of adolescent driving under the influence (DUI).
Such devastating statistics about deadly vehicle crashes that involve drunk teenagers urges to serious actions for prevention of adolescents from sitting behind the wheel while under the influence. In 2016, 2,433 Americans died from getting into a car accident in 2016; among them, a quarter of the fatal incidents occurred because of driving under the influence (Hafner, et al.). A school is a place where teenagers spend most of their time during the weekdays, where it is easy to influence them. I encourage the principle to join the initiative with a goal to prevent teenage DUI as much as possible because it is an important issue that has to be addressed. With creative and innovative methods, it is possible to influence the high schoolers and show them the correct models of behavior.
Various methods are used for the prevention of teenage drunk driving; they vary from strict administrative laws to psychological influence. In the article by Perri Klass, it is stated that adopting more restriction policies for DUI overall is generally associated with less fatal incidents (Klass). Undeniably, that restrictive policies must exist, and violating them must have an according punishment; however, it is not that simple.
Such policies must be individual to not only each state but also every town due to their specific characteristic: like lengthy highways, amount of vehicles, etc. Adding a single policy to the regulation would not change the overall situation drastically; it may decrease a small percentage of the accidents, and thus, will not show a significant result in the general picture. Klass said, Its really the collection of them all that seems to be effective . Therefore, creating more restriction policies is individual to every town and would not make a significant impact on the problem as a whole.
One more proposed solution to the problem of teenage drinking and driving is stricter parent control. Yale Universitys article states that strong parenting can act as a great form of prevention and may be able to eliminate the problem at its beginning (Belli). The writer says that protective parenthood and stricter teenage control can be useful even after a few years when children leave for college. No doubt, that good parenting, in most cases, has a good influence on children, but in the position of total control, it can bring more harm than good behavior.
One more reason for its ineffectiveness is each parent has his or her own methods of upbringing, which has a significant influence too. Therefore, such a way of fighting teenage drunk driving has many nuances; thus, we cannot talk about its universal effectiveness for all teenagers.
One more suggested solution is having much stricter policies referring to selling alcohol. The author of the referenced article, Katherine Du, believes that creating new policies, which are aimed at the more general audience, would have more influence than targeting only the teenage population. Du suggests limiting hours when alcohol can be sold, raising taxes for alcohol, and even eliminating some stores that sell alcohol.
The author and the pediatrician she interviewed say that because of the age, the adolescents become a sensitive group when it comes to the price, therefore, raising the bar on alcohol sells should reduce the consumption of alcohol among teenagers, which consequently will reduce drinking and driving car accidents among them (Du). Undoubtedly, the adoption of such policies would have an impact on teenagers and their choice when it comes to buying alcohol; however, it may not work that way. Looking from the perspective of being a teenager, after adopting such policies, adolescents would still find a way to buy alcohol; however, it might be a worse version of it, which could influence the organism in a harmful way. Moreover, in theory, such a method might even raise the probability of a drunk teenager to sit behind the wheel.
The solution, which would work the best, in my opinion, must be based on influencing the mindset of teenagers. Visualization is always a great way to show and make people feel certain emotions. That is why mock crashes held in schools have shown higher effectiveness than any other suggested method of fighting teenage drinking and driving. The majority of simulated crashes events target teenagers and seek a goal of raising awareness concerning fatal drinking and driving. Such re-enactments show students actual staged car accidents involving the police and ambulance who show the victims and their death right in front of the students. After the act high schoolers face a serious talk where the effect of fatal DUI on the close people is explained.
In Houston, a program called Shattered Dreams that focuses explicitly on organizing such 2-days events exists. After their first mock crash in one of the high schools, students were stunt and not only were genuinely influenced by it.
Teenagers wrote numerous thank-you letters to the hospital, saying that this re-enactment changed their mindset about drinking and driving (Bare and Garza). In the state of Illinois, a similar mock-crash program was conducted by the Red Cross organization, which was called Operation Prom Night. Logically the program took place around prom season for high schoolers, which main goal was to promote alcohol abstinence and safe behavior during this time and after-prom (Hafner, et al.). Such an event became an every-year activity.
It is a community-sponsored with the help of grants from the Illinois Department of Transportation, so it does not require any budgeting directly from the school. After the event, students were 1.39 times (95%) less likely to report drinking and driving or get into a car with someone a drunk person. In addition, they reported they were 1.7 times more likely (95%) to often think of the risks associated with drinking and driving (Hafner, et al., 86). Such a method of raising awareness about teenage DUI would be the most effective and could be implemented with the help of the town and the community; therefore, all that is needed from a principal is his/her approval and an active participation in it.
Though, contradicting audience might have arguments that such crashes require too much effort, time, peoples input, and money, it is possible to refute. Participation for the program is voluntary, and by doing so, for example, the police department will increase the rate of social responsibility and show that it supports community projects. Moreover, the crash re-enactment program should be funded by the community and the city; such initiatives must be recognized as essential for teenagers because they show tremendous success, as stated above.
Concluding, the adolescent DUI problem is not one to avoid, as 1 in 4 teenage fatal vehicle crashes occur with a drunk driver. There are many possible methods of fighting with it; however, physiologically influencing teenagers shows the most effectiveness. Crash re-enactment programs visually show high schoolers the tragic consequences of impaired driving, which affects their mindset. Local governments, as well as health and police departments must support such an initiative. I urge the principal to review this proposal and implement it in the school, as it can help save the lives of adolescents.
Works Cited
Bare, Katherine, and Robin Garza. Shattered Dreams: A County Hospitals Commitment to Preventing Teenage Drinking and Driving. Journal of Emergency Nursing, vol. 45, no. 5, 2019, pp. 579581. Web.
Childrens Hospital of Philadelphia. Teen Dui Statistics and Impaired Driving. Teen Driver Source. Web.
Du, Katherine. Tighter Alcohol Curbs For All Help Reduce Teen Motor Vehicle Deaths. NPR. 2016. Web.
Hafner, John W., et al. The Effect of a Community Crash Reenactment Program on Teen Alcohol Awareness and Behavior. Adolescent Health, Medicine and Therapeutics, vol. 10, 2019, pp. 8390. Web.
Klass, Perri. When Teenagers Drink, Avoiding the Risks From Driving. The New York Times. 2017. Web.
Over the years, the automobile industry has seen many technological changes, the most notable one being self-driving cars. These vehicles do not need human drivers; instead, they use software and sensors to navigate, control, and move (Nielsen & Haustein, 2018). These cars can have substantial economic savings in the U.S. This paper seeks to establish how such auto technology could transform the U.S. transportation industry.
When building a self-driving car, certain features should be incorporated. The first one would be sensing the road, followed by mapping it and negotiating ones place on the lanes. The latter is one of the reasons drivers opt to undertake driving lessons. Excellent road safety and a reduced number of car crashes leading the list are significant benefits. 94% of incidents are caused by driver error or behavior, which can be addressed with this auto technology (Nielsen & Haustein, 2018). Autonomy in its high levels can lower the dangerous driver behaviors in the United States. Automated driving could also impact American wallets in several ways. With this technology come a number of benefits, including reducing work time, crashes, and medical bills.
Despite these great features, close to 3 out of 4 Americans still do not trust this technology. Various skeptics have emerged from many quarters regarding the viability of autonomous cars (Nielsen & Haustein, 2018). It is feared that these cars will not work until they get as smart as their drivers. One of the arguments against this technology is by Brooks (2017), who claims that the viability of these cars will be short-lived. He argues that there are some unusual circumstances that they would not handle, for example, the winter season. Since self-driving cars would be entirely based on machine learning, it will be difficult to screen them rigorously (Coeckelbergh, 2016). As such, to counter this argument, it is recommended that sensors, artificial intelligence, and safety and security cameras be considered to make these cars safer on the roads.
In conclusion, self-driving car is a breakthrough in the automobile industry. There are many arguments against this technology, for example, their viability will only last for a short time, and they may not handle certain situations. One example of the unusual situations these vehicles may not handle is cruising through the snow during winter. Nevertheless, autonomous cars have more pros than cons; thus, they can be considered a welcome technology.
References
Brooks, R. (2017). The big problem with self-driving cars is people. IEEE Spectrum. Web.
Nielsen, T. A. S., & Haustein, S. (2018). On sceptics and enthusiasts: What are the expectations towards self-driving cars? Transport policy, 66, 49-55. Web.
The challenges associated with human errors and vehicle safety are increasing rapidly due to populace escalation. Human transportation using vehicles is becoming challenging due to the high rate of accidents. As Road safety facts (2021) notes, distractions during the driving act as the main barrier to safe transportation. The only way to eliminate this problem is by implementing smart technology and self-driving cars, such as the Tesla Model S and Model X. This paper will focus on the business opportunities of smart technology and self-driving cars by discussing customer fears, wants, and needs.
Customer Fears
The common fear associated with Tesla Model cars is whether they are worthy of the money the consumer is spending. Smart technology and self-driving vehicles will be more costly than non-automated ones due to several advantages and the several devices inserted in them. However, since Model X offers more merits, such as detecting the surroundings to reduce accidents, which is the cars attached value, it reduces such worries. The embodiment of the technology helps minimize the clients anxiety about time wastage (Vochozka et al., 2019). Most automated cars, including Model S, have high speed, and they can self-drive and park themselves in case of emergencies.
Customer Wants
To a greater extent, the primary customer wants traffic efficiency, and since Tesla Model has digital sensors, they can track areas with obstructions in real time. In that case, they will determine the best routes to avoid road jams while keeping an appropriate distance from other vehicles to avoid accidents (Sadeghi, 2019). The clients demand eco-friendly vehicles that do not emit more greenhouse gases, which negatively affect peoples well-being (Nielsen & Haustein, 2018). However, most automated cars, such as Tesla Model X, are environmentally friendly as they do not utilize internal combustion and are equipped with consistent accelerating and braking to reduce emissions.
Customer Needs
Smart technology and self-driving cars, including Tesla Model S, help consumers save money on transportation. According to Millonig (2019), community members will save approximately $800 billion by utilizing automated vehicles. The reduction of accident-associated expenditures and healthcare strains will result in cost-saving. The low-fuel prices and efficient transportation play a significant role in minimizing fees. Smart technology and self-driving cars offer the best transportation quality by reducing car crash risks.
Takeaways
Significantly, the identified product, the automated vehicles, including Tesla Model X cars, can solve real-world problems in the business context. The notable client fears include the high purchase of digital cars and whether they can reduce time wastage. In addition, the clients want to include automobiles that reduce traffic obstructs and are extensively eco-friendly. Due to rapid accidents on the roads, the customers need cars, resulting in cost savings by reducing the burden of healthcare expenditure strains. Most manufacturers use a human-centered design approach to have vehicles that meet clients demands. For example, consider a person who has a meeting in two different locations, which are located in a town. Using digital cars, which have sensors, reduces time wastage as the vehicle can monitor areas with traffic jams (Sadeghi, 2019). The business meetings can be successful and ensure that the venture clients are all satisfied.
Figure 1: Value Proposition (Belleflamme & Neysen, 2021).
Conclusion
In conclusion, the clients fears, such as time wastage while transacting businesses, are reduced as the automated vehicles have high speeds and can monitor the surroundings to avoid accidents that cause delay. In addition, several customers wants, including a clean environment and traffic efficiency, are attained using smart technology and self-driving cars. Lastly, customer needs are met as the healthcare expenditure strains resulting from accidents are significantly reduced.
Vochozka, M., Horák, J., & Krulický, T. (2019). Advantages and disadvantages of automated control systems (ACS). In International Scientific Conference Digital Transformation of the Economy: Challenges, Trends, New Opportunities (pp. 416-421). Springer, Cham.
Alcohol is a drink that is made from natural products like fruits and vegetables that are fermented by the use of yeast. Alcohol comes in different forms and can be used as an antiseptic or a sedative. When people drink alcohol, it gets absorbed in the bloodstream thus affecting the central nervous system and since it is a depressant, it hinders someones movement vision, and also hearing. Alcohol can be taken in small amounts to relax ones mind but many people tend to abuse it by taking large amounts at one time and thus lose coordination.
Drunken driving is a major problem in many countries, both developed and developing. Researches have shown that when a driver drinks, he/she lacks coordination and they cannot make proper decisions while driving, and this leads us to the question, why do people drink and drive? Some researches have shown that people who often drink and drive have small amounts of cortisone, a hormone that causes stress, though this could also be inherited. Therefore, people of such kind when arrested for drunken driving seem less stressed or worried as compared to those arrested for the first time for such an offense. Other people drink due to influence from their friends and some think it is fun to drive while drunk, especially teenagers. Some people also seem to underrate the effect of alcohol, while others say that they are more alert when driving drunk.
Drunken driving has many effects not only on the driver but also on the passengers, pedestrians, and people close to them as well. For instance, in the event where an accident occurs due to drunken driving, the passengers may be physically injured or even cause death. This also applies to the people outside who may be pedestrians or passengers in a different vehicle. Other than the physical harm and death, an accident causes emotional trauma to the people involved, their friends and families.
In the cause of an accident, the owner of the vehicle is expected to compensate the injured people and this could drain someone financially especially if the vehicle was not properly insured. On the other hand, an accident must not necessarily occur but one might be arrested for driving under alcohol influence. When this happens, it is marked on the license and this can ruin ones reputation and it becomes laborious especially when you want to renew it. The license can be suspended for some time or even revoked completely. Driving while drunk also lowers self-confidence and many people will always hold off such drivers thus damaging ones social life.
Measures have been and should continue being put into place to reduce this menace. For instance, license provocation and jail sentences can be used on those found repeatedly driving while drunk. Vehicles from such drivers can also be impounded and restricted from operating for some time. Other drivers and the public, in general, can be engaged in reporting such drivers to the authorities by calling specified numbers. Some devices can be installed on the vehicle to prevent people who have had so much intake of alcohol from starting the vehicle. Laws should be put into place restricting the time when young people should not drive at night. Civic education should also be undertaken but the government and other authorities, to educate and warn people of the dangers of drunken driving.
Some of the above measures have been undertaken in many states and found to be effective and others with little effect. Driving while drunk is entirely a personal decision as one can decide not to or how much to drink. Drivers should therefore be encouraged to designate drivers when they find themselves in such a situation. Those who drive and drive should admit that they have a problem and seek counseling over the matter. To be on the safe side, it is good not to drink and drive!
Accidents happening on our roads have been a major cause of deaths and injuries in the country. Many unnecessary costs of medication; loss of livelihood and of lives are incurred. This paper seeks to identify some of these habits and some of the steps that can be taken to mitigate the situation.
Bad Driving Habits
Many habits that are considered non-conducive for the smooth and safe flow of traffic have been identified.
Driving under the influence of alcohol: Alcohol has been, on numerous occasions shown to dull the mental faculties of the human being. In fact, driving under the influence of alcohol is illegal in all the countries that I know. Drunk drivers do not have the capacity to react quickly enough to sudden occurrences on the road; this has been blamed for the many deaths and injuries on our roads.
Tailgating: This is the deliberate action when a driver follows too closely the car ahead in an attempt to show the intention to overtake or just to be a menace. This practice is very risky as a sudden deceleration can cause a rear-end collision. The situation can also intimidate the driver ahead into breaking the speed limits thus compounding the danger.
Poor lane discipline: The demarcations that are painted on the road are aimed at guiding the drivers on the limits of their lanes. However, especially at the round-about, some drivers cross from one lane to the other without minding the welfare of other road users on the lane. This is bound to cause accidents.
Dimming the headlights: When driving at night on a single carriage road, it is important to dim the main beam of the headlights to avoid blinding the driver of the oncoming vehicle with the headlights. However, some drivers refuse to dim their lights or dim them at the last possible moment. This habit can cause serious accidents as the offended driver cannot effectively navigate the vehicle due to the glare.
Poor use of indicator light: These lights were designed as a tool of communication between the drivers as they transverse the road. It thus makes no sense when a driver fails his or her intention on the road, and leaves the rest of the population on the same road to read his mind.
Speeding: When speed limits are placed on certain roads, an evaluation of the safety level of the road is first done for the correct limit to be placed. However, some drivers go ahead and exceed these limits thereby endangering not only themselves, but also other road users.
Solutions to the Bad Habits
The Law: A strict enforcement of the rules of the road is a good solution for drivers who deliberately endanger others on the road. The punishment of the offenders should be severe enough to deter anyone else from breaking those rules.
Retraining: Minor offenders, however should be required to retake a driving course before having their license reissued. Repeat offenders should be at risk of permanently losing their licenses.
Change of attitude: This is, in my view, the greatest impediment to achieving universal road safety. All the drivers have to learn to respect each other and the rule of law. They have to accept that everyone has the right to the road; and that because you are in a hurry, it doesnt give you the authority to endanger others.
Conclusion
If people learned to respect each other more; and accepted that the rules of the road are for the safety and benefit of everyone, then, we would have fewer accidents on the road caused by reckless driving habits.
The Trolley Problem is ethics thought experiment that deals with the choice of saving several people by killing one. It has found widespread use in various moral and ethical discussions, such as law, medicine, and, recently, artificial intelligence (AI) and automated vehicles. This essay will discuss my views of the Problem and ethical considerations in the situation it describes before describing its current practical applications in the field of self-driving cars AI.
My Reaction
Personally, in the initial Trolley Problem, assuming I can act rationally and have time to think, I would pull the lever. Following utilitarian logic and considering that all six people are strangers to me, the only consideration available here is how many to save. It is unless we start expanding the problem with options like derailing the trolley or sacrificing myself, impossible to save everyone. Therefore, I believe it is the ethical option to save as many as possible, even if it means I involve myself in the problem.
In the bridge scenario, however, the five will have to die. The difference from the basic Problem is not only involvement but also the fact that the one man in question is not already in danger or immobilized by the Problems premise. Therefore, he is capable of acting of his own volition and making ethical decisions. Thus, pushing him would mean forcing my ethics on someone else, depriving him of his freedom of choice. His judgment should be applied here, and mine is ultimately irrelevant.
Self-Driving Cars and the Trolley Problem
Currently, the Trolley Problem is often seen in discussions around automated vehicles, notably self-driving cars. In these discussions, the Problem is referenced directly, as a given cars AI might find itself in a very similar situation when a collision is unavoidable. Therefore, as Nyholm and Smids (2016) phrase it, these vehicles need to be programmed for how to crash (1278). This decision is not always easy because it must evaluate the lives of its passengers versus those of pedestrians should one passenger always be kept safe, even if it means killing or injuring two non-passengers? Is jaywalker more acceptable to kill than someone crossing on a green light? What about animals, children, and the elderly. Should any of those lives be prioritized? Those are all ethical considerations that must be programmed into a self-driving cars AI.
Its use in automated vehicles AI is perhaps the most literal interpretation of the Trolley Problem. When moving a pure thought experiment into reality, many more factors need to be considered, and the options are rarely so binary. For example, JafariNaimi (2018) presents a situation where there are four young adults on the one side and an elderly woman walking slowly with a walker on the other (9). In this situation, it is not merely a choice of four versus one that must be considered, but those peoples capacity for action. The four appear to be more likely to avoid the vehicle once they notice it or surviving injuries if it collides with them.
Conclusion
The Trolley Problem remains a relevant topic for discussing questions of morals and ethics. My views on it are mainly utilitarian and acknowledge other peoples autonomy and ability to make ethical decisions. Currently, the most recent and relevant field of application is AI, particularly that of self-driving cars. This field offers what may be the most literal interpretation of the Problem that calls for direct, multifaceted discussions that must be resolved before such vehicles become commonplace.
References
JafariNaimi, N. (2018). Our bodies in the trolleys path, or why self-driving cars must* not* be programmed to kill. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 43(2), 302-323.
Nyholm, S., & Smids, J. (2016). The ethics of accident-algorithms for self-driving cars: An applied trolley problem? Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 19(5), 1275-1289.
In the state of Colorado, I am a licensed driver and the granddaughter of an impaired past motorcyclist. I drive almost every day, going from my house to work, or to school, and for the most part, I see roughly about 10 motorcyclists a day during the fall and winter seasons. In the summer/spring months especially, I see on average about 25-50 motorcycle drivers in a single day. Although, the population of drivers isn’t my point in theory. Some percentage of those riders choose not to wear a helmet while riding on a motorbike. Driving in general has many risks, and when driving a regular vehicle, people take the safety precaution of wearing a seatbelt. Not just because it’s a Colorado state law, but because it has been proven to save people’s lives every day. As do helmets because it is also a safety measure that saves lives. As a granddaughter of a past motorcyclist who has personally been involved in an accident, I find it very important to consider the safety mechanisms to avoid traumatic injuries. My grandfather was in an accident over 20 years ago with no helmet on. Some of the injuries and deficits he experiences every day are ones we never hope to go through as individuals. In all, I argue that Colorado should enforce a state law to have all motorcyclists wear a helmet because it would be safer for riders and can decrease the number of fatalities, despite the fact that motorcyclists find it uncomfortable and distracting.
Implementation for safe driving is already in place, such as traffic laws, and enforcement rules. This holds restrictions for all drivers, including both motorcyclists and regular vehicular drivers. All licensed drivers must follow the laws of driving such as traffic lights and the speed limits to fully enact safe driving habits. This helps keep yourself and others from experiencing any accidents. New drivers also go through educational programs and testing to ensure they are ready to take on the road. This also includes older or recent drivers too because they’ve had to ensure the state that they were also prepared to legally drive. Some places, such as high schools, put together campaigns to encourage safe driving, which is another way that safety is in place. Narrowing it down to specifically motorcycle drivers, there are many programs that support and train motorcyclists. According to the Colorado State Patrol Department, they have a course called Motorcycle Safety Training, also known as MOST. The operator training program promotes motorcycle safety awareness and supports courses to develop the knowledge, attitudes, habits, and skills necessary for the safe operation of a motorcycle. Meaning they provide training and licensing educational processes to earn a license to drive a motorcycle. Although it has been scientifically proven, that state motorcycle helmet laws reduce the number of motorcycle crashes, which means it has been demonstrated to be effective in several scientific evaluations with consistent results, even though it’s not enforced in Colorado. A legal and safe helmet to wear is one that is DOT approved because it follows guidelines to try and improve safety levels. This specific helmet includes a thick inner liner and sturdy chin strap, weighs 1 pound or less, and follows the style/design of a helmet. This makes it out to be the most efficient and protective wear when riding a motorcycle. Helmets are a safety precaution that can be taken to enhance safe driving and reduce fatalities.
When motorcyclists don’t practice the safety mechanisms provided for them, they tend to undergo extensive injuries. Generally, when riding a motorbike you have less visibility, and less protection because it’s lacking the surrounding materials, they do not have seat belts and most lack airbags. Motorcycle drivers are already at more risk, which can lead to worse injury cases from an accident. Some of the regions that could be harmed involve the face, skin, bones, and most commonly the brain. Whilst all four regions have different effects and injury cases. Such as the leading cause of death, also known as traumatic brain injury. Among non-helmeted riders younger than 40, the most serious injury usually was a head injury (34%). Exactly, this injury case leads to either death or long-term disability. Facial injuries are more likely to occur by 19% when not wearing a helmet and are also similar to head trauma because of the severity of the injuries, due to serious accidents still often resulting in broken jaws and serious facial disfigurement. Other areas can also experience injury when involved in a car accident, like skin and bones. Some accidents may cause skin abrasions (road rash) and often occur when the cyclist is thrown off of the bike and skids on the pavement, and fractured bones can result in disfigurement or permanent nerve damage if severe enough. Emotional trauma may also occur because of physical injuries happening, and some may need to seek counseling and psychological help. A specific example is post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), which may also happen as a result of a very stressful situation such as a motorcycle collision. Comparing helmeted and non-helmeted riders related injuries will make motorcyclists more aware of the causes and the results of an injury from an accident and can help prevent the actions of unsafe driving and could possibly promote wearing a helmet.
After a serious motorcycle accident, some may happen to experience extreme deficits for the rest of their lives. For one, I have seen this very clearly myself. I am the granddaughter of a past motorcyclist who has been in an accident while riding a motorbike. One of the deficits he experiences daily is the loss of limbs. My grandfather, 20 years ago was taken by an ambulance from a serious accident. As he said: “I don’t remember a lot while I was there, because I was falling in and out of consciousness. What I do remember, was when the doctors and my ex-wife were deciding to save my life”. He had to go through the traumatic decision of losing both his right arm and left leg. “I wished for years I wouldn’t have lived because I was in so much pain after the accident. Now I have learned how to cope with my physical problems and have kicked life back in the butt. But I would rather live with all my limbs”, he added. Even though the deficiencies are extreme in this case, other extensive impairments could take place as well. Riders in an accident can have signs following physical and behavioral deficits due to traumatic brain injury, or TBI. Survivors of a brain injury may struggle with the loss of basic functions. The loss of basic movement functions can be your lower extremities (knee, ankle) and/or upper extremities (shoulder and arm). However, the most extreme loss of movement can include parallelism, which is an impairment to your sensory and motor skills and even death. Besides just the utmost symptoms experienced by a TBI, there are more impacts. For instance, impaired thinking, decision-making and reasoning, concentration, memory, vision, or hearing, and cause emotional problems (personality changes, impulsivity, anxiety, and depression) and epilepsy. Less severe symptoms consist of headaches and confusion but will fix eventually. Another claim was emotional problems. Symptoms for this incorporate frustration, irritability, and other changes, which may conclude in post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, and anxiety that need to be treated in the long term. Most commonly, PTSD is a recurring emotional deficiency with TBI that have signs of re-experiencing thoughts, nightmares, and flashbacks of the accident. Also, avoiding the situation, and feeling guilty or encountering depression. Some may undergo hyperarousal, which is having difficulty sleeping, being easily scared, and having anger issues. These extreme deficits are ones people hope to never have to experience. To avoid the terminal effects and deficits from an accident, professionals recommend following the safety measures of wearing a helmet when riding a motorbike.
The Colorado law for drivers has restrictions. You must follow traffic laws, road signs, and speed limits. This involves all drivers, ranging from any type of vehicle, such as motorcycles, buses, officers, and regular vehicles. However, while driving/riding in a motor vehicle, there are ranging rules. As a driver and passenger sitting in the front seat for Colorado, riding in a regular vehicle you must wear a seatbelt. Just like when riding on a bus, you don’t have to wear a seatbelt, but you have to sit down at all times when the bus is moving. When riding a motorcycle, you have the choice of wearing a helmet or not. Statistics from the emergency ward, which is a trauma hospital in Kerman, said that during one month, 93 people came in due to a motorcycle accident, and 53 people were not wearing a helmet, and here’s why. They took a sample size of 377 people, and according to their statistical studies, periodically the sample said they don’t wear a helmet because of the heavy weight of the helmet (77%), feeling of heat (71.4%), pain in the neck (69.4%), the feeling of suffocation (67.7%), and limitation of head and neck movements (59.6%). This states that people choose not to wear helmets because of physical discomfort and the choice to not wear one. Drivers’ concern for the discomfort is valid because it limits availability when riding on a motorbike. However, it has been proven by professionals that wearing a helmet does save lives more commonly than not. Despite the physical discomfort, it is safer for the riders to wear a helmet when riding on a motorbike due to the lack of protection when riding one.
As expressed, I believe that Colorado should pass a law to have all motorcyclists wear a helmet because it would increase safety measures and decrease worsened injuries, and emotional/physical deficits. It is significant to do so because it has been proven that state motorcycle helmet laws reduce the number of motorcycle crashes. It is efficient because it holds restrictions encouraging safety mechanisms for all motorcyclists. Also, most accidents result in some sort of injury. On a scale from minor to major. The injuries and impairments experienced can lead to abiding deficits due to TBIs. To decrease the number of head injuries, Colorado needs to pursue a new law following limitations to helmet wear when riding a motorcycle and make it effective. For this reason, in 2017, 101 people died when riding a motorcycle with no helmet on. The overall number of deaths has gone up 29% since 2014. Making a law in Colorado that motorcyclists must wear a helmet, will save lives, decrease injuries and deficits, and we will see the statistics drop.
