Banning texting while driving - Research Paper Example

Banning texting while driving Introduction: Impaired driving after taking substances that might intoxicate the driver is a social malady that attracts substantial hatred and notice from all spheres of the population. Ironically an activity like texting while driving that deserves equal if not more hatred and importance goes by almost unnoticed. Alcohol rides the blood and reaches our brain to make us think and act in an erratic way. Considering the fact that driving involves significant expertise and hand eye coordination; driving under alcohol invariably leads the driver below his optimum efficiency level and hence punishable. Ironically the same happens when the driver indulges in texting while driving. The similarity comes from the fact that here the brain gets divided between two works and that surely bring forth the same less than optimum outcome for driving. Ironically similar to impaired driving the problems related to texting while driving is also a well known fact among drivers and commons alike. Yet drivers pay little attention to this fact and people seem to be more normal living around a driver who is texting than one who is drunk. The peer organization dealing with traffic safety in USA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is quite troubled with this menace and the present paper makes an attempt to suggest some policies that will eradicate texting while driving and therefore would be beneficial to NHTSA. However, before that it is important to consider the present literature that concerns texting while driving to understand the present status of the problem and the danger that looms around it. Literature Review: According to researchers any type of mobile use while driving that includes talking over phone, texting and that even through hands free technology is dangerous and deadly. According to David Strayer who is a Professor of Psychology at University of Utah a mere 2% of the population is capable of multitasking with absolute safety. This finding clearly portrays the high risk exposure of the remaining 98% of the population if they resort to texting while driving. Strayer has also found that cell phones “make you blind to your own bad driving.” (Cruz & Oloffson, 2009) This happens as a driver using cell phone for texting or to attend a call is bereft of any peripheral vision and mostly looks straight. That way he goes into oblivion regarding his surroundings and that can be immensely harmful in terms of safe driving. Another interesting point is that hands free texting is of no use regarding safe driving. Hands free technology rather poses a problem for safe driving. This has been proven through a simulation test where half the driver failed to stop at the right position while using the hands free technology. This is bound to happen since driving requires special skills and concentration and even using hands free technology the brain gets divided between two simultaneous works both of them requiring precision. Support for this argument can be found in writings of the eminent scholars of these disciplines. According to Steven Yantis an eminent professor of psychological and brain sciences at Johns Hopkins University the division of brain between vision and hearing is responsible for the aforementioned result. The argument against banning texting while driving gains momentum considering the fact that drivers indulged in such activities have fared poor in a simulated driving environment than even those drivers who were with 0.08% of Blood Alcohol Content. (BAC) (Cruz & Oloffson, 2009) A driver is considered intoxicated if his blood alcohol content is of aforementioned percentage; this refers to the fact that a drunken driver is a better performer than one who is fidgeting with his mobile. Though many holds an equal type of abhorrence on hands free and hand indulging technology while using mobile phones by a driver and therefore speaks equally against them. However, learned scientists at Virginia Tech Transportation Institute hold even grimmer view for texting in respect to talking and listening over phone. According to them “while manual manipulation of a cell phone (dialling and texting) lead to greater risk of an accident, simple participation in a phone conversation (talking or listening) did not lead to a statistically significant increase in risk” (Cheng, 2009). The referred institute has found that texting increases the crash risk by 23 folds. This obviously speaks in favor of hands free technology as a better means of communication while still driving safe. The irony is as referred by the Nationwide mutual insurance survey (2008) that all these studies and quite strict laws against texting while driving in the states of USA has managed to make only 63% of drivers to drive abide by the respective laws. (Cruz & Oloffson, August 24 2009) The remaining 37% is still either ignorant or does not understand the worth of this issue in paving a more secured roadway. Here the status of the USA laws regarding texting while driving is worth of consideration. According to ghsa.org as many as 30 states, District of Columbia and Guam has banned texting while driving for all drivers. Among these, 26 states, District of Columbia and Guam considers texting while driving as a primary enforcement. The remaining four held it as a secondary enforcement. Apart from these 30 states another 9 has restricted texting by novice drivers. Another 3 states prohibited the same by school bus drivers. States like Maine, New Hampshire and Utah considers texting as a “larger distracted driving issue” as an example in Utah texting or any other form of cell phone use is an offence if accompanied by other form of violations of moving. However speeding is bereft of those violations. The agony aggravates if states like Oklahoma, Nevada, Mississippi, and Loss Angeles are considered where distracted driving bans can not be enacted owing to prohibition. This exposes the population living there to great risk and such exposure affects the drivers and non drivers alike (Governor’s Highway Safety Association April 2011). This analysis reveals the fact that law governing this issue in USA is not uniform among states which is if not an exception in federal system is not desirable as well. Uniformity of law will on one hand abolish many doubts regarding this issue and on the other makes it more uniformly enact able. The US federal government however is more sensible in dealing with texting while driving and understood the importance of the problem. In an executive order the present USA President Barack Obama has banned texting by any Federal employee while they are driving and on the job. (Distracted Driving, n.d.; Cheng, 2009) This order will keep around 4.5 million people at a distance from their cell phone while driving and therefore will greatly help their safety. Furthermore charity begins at home and if the government holds a strict position through its employee action against texting while driving; the rest of the country will follow suit and will find the law more reliable. This executive order becomes very relevant and timely considering the statistics provided by the US Department of Transportation that in the year 2008 distracted driving has claimed 5870 lives and caused 515,000 injuries; the later is even estimation at lower boundary. (Cheng, 2009) An opposite current regarding texting bans is also present and people supporting this, cites statistics as well. The Highway Loss Data Institute led a comparison of insurance claims of collisions in four major states of USA namely California, Lousiana, Minnesota and Washington. The time frame of the comparison spanned over two phases of time; a phase when texting ban was not enacted and another with texting ban enacted. They have shown that in three of the four states insurance claims has experienced a rise in ban enacted phase. This made Adrian Lund the President of Insurance Institute for Highway Safety to refer that “Texting bans haven’t reduced crashes at all” (Copeland, 2009) This claim however is well confronted by the transportation secretary Ray LaHood he said “Between 2005 and 2008, distracted driving related fatalities jumped from 10% to 16% of all traffic fatalities… In 2009, for the first time in four years, distracted driving fatalities stopped rising, remaining at 16%... Tough laws are the first step and enforcement must be next. We know that anti-distracted driving laws can be enforced effectively.” (Copeland, 2009) Through the words of LaHood the necessity of banning texting while driving gets reinforced. The life casualty and injury from distracted driving in 2009 (5474 and 448,000 respectively) though smaller than that in 2008 (referred earlier), but still represents a pretty high number and must be considered as another reason for banning texting while driving. However it is also true as said by Jonathan Adkins the spokes man for Governors Highway Safety Association (GHSA) that unless properly enforced any ban against texting while driving would become non viable and meaningless. (Copeland, 2009) He is dead right; perhaps this is the reason that though banning texting while driving has a few years of history backing it, yet the number of people dying out of distracted driving or incurring injuries out of the same is still pretty high. Enough statistical evidence has been furnished till now and some more will even cement the need for a quick action. Among all sorts of distracted driving crashes, cell phone use while driving constitutes of 18% of fatalities. The under-20 age group of drivers is most vulnerable to distracted driving considering the statistical prove that they are most prone to fatal accidents. Furthermore hand held mobile set use increases the crash exposure risk by four folds. This again reveals the fact that texting while driving most certainly exposes the youth population to unnecessary risks of life and therefore should be stopped by any means (Statistics and Facts about Distracted Driving, n.d.) An early loss of life is a burden on nation, society and government, therefore banning texting while driving seeks immediate measure. Clearly as explained above that among all the distractions while driving using mobile might be classified as the most hazardous one. Furthermore texting using a mobile is the most heinous act that can be thought of a driver who is expected to be responsible and composed while driving. USA is a free market economy where the companies are there to make profit and often by any means. CTIA is a group of cellular phone companies and it is obvious that their interest will go down if any legislation banning text messaging is passed. However, in reality long back in 2009 its members favored banning text messaging while driving “CTIA and our member companies continue to believe text messaging while driving is incompatible with safe driving,”. (Senators push nationwide ban on texting while driving, 2009) This portrays that what sort of evil text messaging is that it has compelled a group of companies belonging to the mobile industry to sacrifice their immediate corporate goal of success and profit and favor the banning of texting. Owing to practical loss, discussion by experts and much campaign against texting while driving the USA law has evolved with the situation and new and innovative laws have been in place in most of the states of the USA. In course of time the law has become progressive with punishment for repeated offenders “Using that BlackBerry or iPhone to check e-mail or surf the Internet while driving has become illegal. Those caught texting will face a $100 fine for a first offense, while 16-and 17- year old drivers will face more severe penalties, including a $100 fine, 60- day loss of license, and a mandatory retraining course. A second offense means a $250 fine and a 180 day suspension, while a third or subsequent offense brings a $500 fine and one-year suspension.” (Charette, 2010) Considering the fact that the under-20 population of USA is exposed to greater risk of succumbing to texting; the law has taken a strict stance against them. Both the monetary value of fine and time of license suspension increases with number of offences and these are expected to curtail the number of offenders over time. Especially the time of suspension might be of greater importance for the young offenders who considers driving as a part of fun and freedom. The federal government on the other hand is also pressing the states to follow the federal law regarding texting while driving with utter importance and promptness. In this regard the USA senate has passed the bill containing an absolute ban on texting while driving in all states for all the drivers and the states have given a two years ultimatum to follow suit. Otherwise they might have to loss up to 25% of their federal highway funds. In money terms it will be a staggering amount but more important is that the direct cost that it imposes on the risk scenario of the concerned non follower states is far greater (this is because if a state delays in following the changed law it is certainly exposing its population to the risk of facing a crash for the delayed period.). (Viser, 2010, Senators push nationwide ban on texting while driving, 2009, Richtel, 2009) Without even a grain of doubt these are bold steps to tame the onrush of texting while driving. Yet the enactment, monitoring and the final outcome is yet to be found. Especially when unlike drunk driving one can not use check post to monitor and prevent texting. This might be the cause that even after subsequent warning against texting while driving the same has increased auto fatalities by 16000 in just six years (2001-2007). This situation is rightly highlighted by Anne Flemming “There are various issues and enforcement is definitely one of them… It’s difficult to see if someone is using a phone. It’s definitely difficult to see if they’re texting. And If drivers don’t believe they are going to be caught, compliance isn’t high.” (Hanes, 2010) This explains that why even after all these laws and regulations against texting it is still thriving among a certain percentage of drivers. Courting this problematic situation that portrays the partial failure of law to completely eradicate texting while driving that is as bad as drunken driving; many are asking for more draconian measures. Among them one prompt name is of the executive director of CAS Clarence Ditlow “We do not see how [NHTSA] can turn down a problem that’s rapidly turning out to be as bad as drunk driving… We’re asking that technology be installed in cars to disable their cell phones whenever you shift out of park.” (Cruz & Oloffson, 2009) It is understandable that this problem needs to be tamed before it claims more lives. Technology along with legal bodies is searching for a safer alternative to texting while driving. Enactment of strict law with proper monitoring and vigilance together with strong audio visual campaigning regarding the ills of texting is an option. This has to be done among drivers and non drivers alike and that might gradually reduce the problem. Technological improvement that might help a driver with ease of texting is another option. A more strict technological way might be an altogether stop of texting while in motion using some mobile zammer or something similar to that. All these ways are beneficial for the insurance organizations that meet up the claims after crash, since they will definitely reduce the risk of crash and result into fewer claims. Furthermore they are also helpful for highway safety and therefore will encourage national benefit through saving life and property. Considering the last mentioned point these alternatives would be beneficial for the premier highway safety agency of the country the NHTSA. Identification of proposed solutions: Standing at this critical juncture the time calls for immediate solution before it is too late and some drivers might manage to hit more people while fidgeting with their phone. In broad head three types of solution to this dreadful problem is possible namely, legal solution, public campaign and technological solution. Evaluation Legal Solution in detail and evaluation: The legal status of the problem has already been discussed. The federal government holds a strict legal prohibition against texting while driving and the states are gradually following. The law is progressive and comprises of monetary fine together with a ban on license. However both need to increased to a higher level to generate fear amidst the mind of the offenders. A life ban on license for third time offenders for all groups of drivers can be applied. This will induce enough fear in the mind of the offender. Insurance companies can play their role as well; they can add some more clauses in their prospectus regarding texting while driving. These can be like if a person meets a crash while texting through cell and that gets legally proved then he will have to forfeit his insurance claim. However these actions have to be a collective one, not to be done by an individual company. Otherwise the concerned organization that is creating these rules will loose customers as they will shift to other insurance organization with relaxed guidelines on texting. This will act as a secondary measure against texting. These clauses and the expected result would be beneficial for the insurance companies since if texting while driving can be curbed it will result in less number of crashes and that eventually turns into less number of claims and higher profit for the concerned companies. Forming a law is only a small part of the process and implementation of that law together with strict monitoring assures the eventual success. The legal solution of the problem of texting while driving becomes dubious while it comes to enactment and monitoring. Law related with drunken driving managed to tame its onrush considering the fact that it can be monitored through means like breathing analyser or blood testing. A drunk person; often shows certain physical characteristics otherwise non visible in a normal human being. Unlike drunken driving a breath analyser or check post can not assure monitoring in this case. Blood test also would not reveal whether the person was texting or not. Texting also does not result in any specific smell or red eyes. Considering these facts texting is impossible to catch through means that are proven success for drunk driving. An officer has little chance to monitor a driver that if he is using a cell for texting or not, since from outside it is impossible to see in bare eyes what the driver is doing inside the car. Setting a camera for vigilance in each car is a non viable option considering the number of cars and other vehicles in USA. Monitoring also comprises of personal error of the guard and that makes it even harder. These hurdles in monitoring and enactment of the law associated with texting while driving highlights its short comings as a probable solution. It is true that strict law is absolutely necessary but again unless accompanied by some other means it will fail to deliver the desired level of success. The statistics that has been discussed before explores this short coming. This brings other alternative solutions into consideration. Public Campaign in detail and evaluation: Strong campaign among public regarding the ill effects of texting while driving might help to increase people’s awareness regarding this evil and help to reduce the number of incidents. It has been observed that there are sufficient gap in public awareness regarding texting. Drunken driving is considered as a social menace and hated by all. Ironically texting while driving; which perhaps equally if not more dangerous than drunken driving, attracts little public attention and hatred. The present era is an era of media and a suitable campaign through it (television, news papers and magazines) which will lead an audio visual and visual appeal to a group of audience can do wonders. Drinking and driving has even made its way to movies as an issue but something similar is yet to happen for texting. On road and road side campaign, road side posters addressing the concerned issue would be very important in spreading awareness among drivers. A collection of motor crash pictures with caption as a probable outcome of texting while driving beside highways placed quite frequently might act as a warning to the drivers in motion about to indulge in texting. Such awareness campaign will also raise concern among non drivers regarding texting while driving and that will act as another pair of vigilant eye on the road who might interfere and drop a word or two of advice into the very ears of the drivers still practising this evil. Historically it has been observed that in such campaigns eminent public figures such as sports men and women and actors or actresses can play very effective role. An appeal to them might be useful if in turn some of them make themselves avail in a campaign against texting while driving. No doubt public campaign against texting while driving sounds quite promising; but it is not free of its share of problems. Texting while driving is not a recent issue; it has a few years of history behind it. In these years quite an attempt has been made to make drivers aware of its evil. However, little has been achieved and often the drivers have shifted from one distracted form of driving to another. In a situation, where human life would be at a stake, in case of failure; public campaign alone can not be trusted as the sole source to ban texting while driving. Though, it is also true that a strong public campaign against texting while driving needs to be always operative to act as a booster to the existing legal body. Technological solution in detail and evaluation: Hands free technology has been sought to be a solution of texting and was expected to stop the evils of the same. In reality the outcome in a simulated environment did not match the expectation and drivers found vulnerable to this improved technology as well. However solution to this problem seems to be lying in technological solution. It seems after successive technological innovations that technology might help to ban texting while driving. Before moving into details it is worth mentioning that these technologies will come with a cost that a driver might not be willing to incur. In this circumstances the legal body, the insurance companies, the car companies and the public awareness campaigns needs to come together to assure that installation of these technologies into car must be done for safety purpose. There are three technological apparatus that can be used against texting while driving. The first one is named as “Key2SafeDriving”. Here parents can create profiles that are password protected. Key2SafeDriving would not allow any calls or texting if its blue tooth device detects that the vehicle is in motion. The cost for this device is $99 and there after $10 each month for web services. The problem with Key2SafeDriving is that it requires forfeit of freedom to the parents and that might detest the younger generation who are individualistic and want to feel self reliant. Another product is ZoomSafer which imposes least restriction on the drivers among available technologies. The software is cost effective as well as it is free and premium subscription of the same software requires only $5 per month. Zoomsafer is an advanced form of hands free technology as it enables the driver to dictate text and update to social sites while in motion. This way, it offers maximum benefits to the driver at almost free of cost. It is also cheapest among all the available technologies. The problem with ZoomSafer is that it is nothing but a modification of hands free technology and the role of hands free technology in distracted driving is not beyond questions. It has been previously mentioned that hands free technology while texting is equally harmful as texting using a cell in hand. The best possible technology that is around is Aegis Mobility DriveAssist where a downloaded software use’s the global positioning system of the mobile to determine that whether the vehicle is in motion and then receive calls and texts to respond with a custom message that the concerned person is driving. The cost for the installation of this is $6 to $12 per month. This way it is cheaper than Key2SafeDriving and costlier than ZoomSafer. However it is bereft of the drawbacks of ZoomSafer. Furthermore the concerned software does not come with any dependency to parents and leaves the whole in hands of the driver; this way it offers freedom of decision. Owing to these benefits even though it offers less flexibility than ZoomSafer; it is the primary solution of texting while driving. Already Nationwide has announced that they will give a discount on the insurance premium if a car comes with a distraction reducer like Aegis Mobility DriveAssist. The discount probably will cover the cost of the mentioned technology installation. If these efforts get reinforced with the car making companies selling distraction reducer technology installed cars and the government make it mandatory for every car owner to install these softwares then it can be a viable way to ban texting while driving. The insurance companies as well can announce that claims will only be met for such cars which come with distraction reducer technology like Aegis Mobility DriveAssist. (Cruz & Oloffson, 2009) The peer organization for highway safety NHTSA will be hugely benefited through the installation of this software (Aegis Mobility DriveAssist) in vehicles. First of all it will reduce accidents and there by will impose fewer burdens on the mentioned organization. Secondly fewer amounts of monitoring and vigilance will be needed. If NHTSA keeps less busy with maintaining and monitoring the highway and vehicles they will employee the resources freed from these activities in other constructive works that will eventually benefit the nation. References Charette, R. (2010), Text Messaging While Driving Laws. Spectrum IEEE, April 19, 2011 from: http://spectrum.ieee.org/riskfactor/telecom/wireless/text-messaging-while-driving-laws-do-they-decrease-safety Copeland, L. (2010), Texting bans may add risk to roads, USA Today, April 19, 2011 from: http://www.usatoday.com/tech/wireless/2010-09-28-1Atextingbans28_ST_N.htm Cruz, G. & K. Oloffson, (2009), Distracted Driving: Should Talking, Texting Be Banned?, Time, Retrieved on April 19, 2011 from: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1916291,00.html Cheng, J. (2009), Obama bans "texting while driving" for 4.5M govt workers, ars techniqa, Retrieved on April 19, 2011 from: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/10/texting-and-driving-bans-reach-new-heights-with-obama-order.ars Distracted Driving (n.d.), Distraction, US Department of Transportation, Retrieved on April 19, 2011 from: http://www.distraction.gov/ Governor’s Highway Safety Association (April 2011). Cell Phone and Texting Laws, Retrieved on April 19, 2011 from: http://www.ghsa.org/html/stateinfo/laws/cellphone_laws.html Hanes, S. (2010), Bans on texting while driving don't reduce crashes, study says, The Christian Science Monitor, Retrieved on April 19, 2011 from: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2010/0928/Bans-on-texting-while-driving-don-t-reduce-crashes-study-says Richtel, M. (2009), Senators Seek a Ban on Texting and Driving, The New York Times, Retrieved on April 19, 2011 from: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/30/technology/30distracted.html?_r=1 Statistics and Facts about Distracted Driving, (n.d.), Distraction, US Department of Transportation, Retrieved on April 19, 2011 from: http://www.distraction.gov/ Senators push nationwide ban on texting while driving, (2009), CNN Politics, Retrieved on April 19, 2011 from: http://articles.cnn.com/2009-07-29/politics/texting.ban_1_ban-texting-virginia-tech-transportation-institute-undistracted-drivers?_s=PM:POLITICS Viser, M. (2010), Senate Bill would ban text messaging while driving. The Boston Globe, Retrieved on April 19, 2011 from: http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2010/02/senate_bill_wou.html Read More