Cell Phones in the Hands of Drivers
A Hazard or a Benefit
Ariana Laguna
English 102
Professor Barnes/Walter
10 December 2012
Outline
Thesis: Unless the hazards of cell phones are shown to outweigh the benefits. we should non curtail their usage in traveling vehicles: alternatively. we should educate the populace about the dangers of driving while calling and prosecute irresponsible phone users under Torahs on negligent and foolhardy drive.
I. Scientific surveies haven’t proved a nexus between usage of cell phones and traffic accidents.
A. A survey by Redelmeier and Tibshirani was non conclusive. as the research workers themselves have admitted.
B. Most provinces do non maintain records on accidents caused by driver distractions.
C. In a study of research on cell phones and driving. Cain and Burris study that consequences so far have been inconclusive.
II. The Risks of utilizing cell phones while driving should be weighed against the benefits.
A. At the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis. research workers found that the hazards of driving while calling were little compared with other driving hazards.
B. There are safety. concern. and personal benefits to utilizing cell phones on the route.
III. We need to educate drivers on utilizing cell phone responsibly and implement Torahs on negligent and foolhardy drive.
A. Educating drivers can work
B. It is possible to implement Torahs against negligent and foolhardy drive ; in provinces that do non make an equal occupation of enforcement. the Pueblo can buttonhole for betterment.
Cell Phones in the Hands of Drivers:
A Hazard or Profit?
As of 2000. there were about 90 million cell phone users in the United States. with 85 % of them utilizing their phones while on the Road ( Sundeen! ) . Because of grounds that cell phones impair drivers by distraction them. some provinces have considered Torahs curtailing their usage in traveling vehicles. Advocates of statute law right indicate out those utilizing phones while driving can be unsafe. The extent of the danger. nevertheless. is a affair of argument. and the benefits may outweigh the hazards. Unless the hazards of cell phones are shown to outweigh the benefits. we should non curtail their usage in traveling vehicles. Alternatively. we should educate the populace about the dangers of driving while calling and prosecute irresponsible phone visionaries under the Torahs on negligent and foolhardy drive. Measuring the hazards
We have all heard horror narratives about distrait drivers chew the fating on their cell phone. For illustration. in a missive to the editor. Anthony Ambrose describes being passed by another driver “who was keeping a Styrofoam cup and a coffin nail in one manus. and a cellular telephone in the other. and who had what appeared to be a newspaper balanced on the maneuvering wheel- all at about 70 stat mis per hour” ( 128 ) . Another driver. Peter Cohen. says that after he was rear-ended. the guilty party emerged from his vehicle still speaking on the phone ( 127 ) . True. some drivers do utilize their cell phones irresponsibly.
The dangers are existent. but how extended are they? To day of the month at that place have been a few scientific studies on the relation between cell phone usage and traffic accidents. In 1997. Donald Redelmeier and Robert Tibshirani studied 699 drivers who owned nomadic phones and had been in accidents. The drivers. who volunteered for the survey. gave the research workers detailed charge records of their phone calls. With these informations. the research workers found that “the hazard of a hit when utilizing a cellular telephone was non being used” ( 433 ) . Although the decision sounds dramatic. Redlemeier and Tibshirani cautiousness against reading excessively much into it:
Our survey indicates an association but non needfully a causal relation
between the usage of cellular telephones while driving and a subsequent motor vehicle collision… . In add-on. our survey did non include serious injuries… . Finally. the informations do non bespeak that drivers were at mistake in the hits ; it may be that cellular telephones simply decrease a driver’s ability to avoid a hit caused by person else. ( 457 ) Indicating out that cell phones have benefits every bit good as hazards. the writers do non urge limitations on their usage while driving.
Unfortunately. most provinces do non maintain adequate records on the figure of times phones are a factor in accidents. As of December 2000. merely 10 provinces were seeking to maintain such records ( Sundeen 2 ) . In add-on. presently there is small scientific grounds comparing the usage of cell phones with other driver distractions: fiddling with the wireless. smoke. feeding. seting on make-up. shave. and so on.
Alasdair Cain and Mark Burries of the Center Urban Transportation Research surgery research on the cell phone issue as of 1999 and concluded that there is “no nationally-accredited papers to turn out the connexion between Mobile phone usage and traffic accidents. ” Because research consequences have been so inconclusive. it makes sense to wait before go throughing Torahs that might good be unneeded.
Burdening hazards and benefits
In 2000. research workers at the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis found that the hazard of driving while calling were little compared with other driving hazards. Whereas the cell phone user’s opportunity of deceasing are about 6 in a million per twelvemonth. person non have oning a place belt has a hazard of 49. 3 per million. and person driving a little auto has a hazard of 14. 5 per million ( 3 ) . Because of this relatively little hazard ordinance of phones may non be worth the seashore of the statute law every bit good as the extra load such statute law would set on jurisprudence enforcement officers.
In add-on to the hazards. there are benefits to utilizing phones on the route. Matt Sundeen studies that drivers with cell phones place an estimated 98. 000 exigency calls each twenty-four hours and that the phones “often cut down exigency
response times and really salvage lives. ” ( 1 ) . The phones have concern benefits excessively. Harmonizing to transit engineer Richard Retting. “Commuter clip is no longer merely for driving. As the amenitiess of place and the efficiency of the office weirdo into the car. it is going progressively attractive as a work space” ( in Kilgannon A23 ) . Car phones besides have personal benefits. A female parent coming place tardily from work can look into in with her kids. a partygoer lost in a unusual vicinity can name for waies. or a adolescent whose auto interruptions down can phone place.
Unless or until there is clear grounds of a direct nexus between cell phone usage and traffic accidents. the authorities should non modulate usage of cell phones while driving. A better attack is to educate the populace to the dangers of driving while distracted and to implement Torahs on negligent and foolhardy drive.
Educating drivers and implementing Torahs
Educational attempts can work. In the last 20 old ages. authorities and private groups have managed to alter the drive wonts of Americans. Seat belts are now on a regular basis worn. people normally appoint designated drivers when a group is imbibing. little kids are about ever put in safety seats. and most drivers turn on their headlamps in rainy conditions.
Enforcing Torahs against negligent and foolhardy drive can besides work. Even groups concerned with safety support this position. For case. the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration advises provinces to implement their reckless and negligent drive Torahs and. where necessary. to beef up those Torahs ; it does non name for limitations on usage of the phones ( United States. Dept. of Transportation ) . The California Highway Patrol opposed. curtailing usage of phones while driving. claiming that distracted drivers can already be prosecuted ( Jacobs ) . It is possible. of class. that some provinces do non implement their Torahs to the extent necessary. In such cases. citizens should coerce on main road patrols to step up enforcement. for without fright of prosecution many drivers will non alter their behaviour.
The usage of cell phones while driving is likely here to remain. despite the
hazards. unless future surveies prove that the hazards clearly outweigh the benefits. However. public safety concerns are existent. To darings those concerns. we should mount a major instructions run to educate drivers about that dangers of driving while distracted and insist that Torahs on negligent and foolhardy drive be enfaced every bit smartly as possible.
Plants Cited
Ambros. Anthony. Letter. New England Journal of Medicine 337. 2 ( 1997 ) : 128. Print. Cain. Alasdair. and Mark Burris. “Investigation of the Use of Mobile Phones while Driving. ” Center for Urban Transportation Research. Coll. of Engineering. U of South Florida. Apr. 1999. Cohen. Peter J. Letter. New England Journal of Medicine 337. 2 ( 1997 ) : 127. Print. Harvard Center for Risk Analysis. “Cellular Phones and Driving: Weighing the Risks and Benefits. “Risk Perspective. President and Fellows of Harvard Coll. . July 2000. Web. 15 Mar. 2001. Jacobs. Annette. “guest Opinion: No News Laws Needed for Driver Distractions. “Wireless Week. Advantage Business Media. 24 May 1999. Web. 12 Mar. 2001. Kilgannon. Corey. “Road Warriors with Laptops. ” New York Times 15 Aug. 2000: A23. Print. Redelmeier. Donald A. . and Robert J. Tibshirani. “Association between Cellular-Telephone Calls and Motor Vehicle Collisions. “New England Journal of Medicine 336. 7 ( 1997 ) : 453-58. Print. Sundeen. Matt. “Cell Phones and Highway Safety: 2000 State Legislative Update. “National Conference of State Legislatures. Natl. Conf. of State Legislatures. Dec. 2000. Web. 11 Mar. 2001. United States of Transportation. Natl. Highway Traffic Safety Administration. “An Probe of the Safety Implications of Wireless Communication in Vehicles. ” NHTSA. Natl. Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Nov. 1997. Web. 12 Mar. 2001.
