Using Cell Phone While Driving - Assignment Example

Using Cell Phone While Driving For the past few years, cell phone among motorists has grown at an alarming rate. It is estimated that accidents associated with cell phone use accounts for 450 to 1000 cases each year (Layton, 9). In 1999, use of cell phone while driving was found to be implicated in fatal road accidents. There have been problems of road accidents reported by police officers. Cell phone use is supposed to be beneficial to users in most situations. But when it is not used properly like in driving, it becomes a threat to properties and most of all, to the precious life of people as drivers cannot maintain a fixed speed and have difficulty keeping their car safe. Thus, when drivers are seen dialing or talking on the cell phone while driving, people especially their passengers cannot be comfortably just sitting on their seats but are more than irritated and react. When cell phone use is mixed with driving, people support the idea of giving penalties to motorists who are ignoring the law of its prohibition while their wheels are in motion. This is deemed necessary especially to younger age drivers as they are the group who most uses cell phones while driving either at night or during the day (Vivoda, et al. 1). In Virginia, when a teen is caught speeding with a cell phone on her hand, she could be fined an additional of $50. In New Jersey, She is fined $ 100 to 250 (Rusell, Michael 1). To the careful drivers and concerned citizens, additional fines are just and necessary to remind drivers to get rid of the cell phone while driving for them to concentrate on the road. Doing two things well at the same time is impossible as claimed by Douglas Alexander, a transport secretary (Tapsfield, James 3). Divided attention may distract the driver’s ability to recognize or react appropriately to any number situations which could happen on the road such as the crossing of pedestrians from elsewhere, speeding, or the change of traffic lights and the likes. In addition, fines may tell the driver that the consequence of his negligence use of the cell phone on the road is too great to ignore. Penalties are said to reduce this form of offense. Although this may be true, there are still many motorists who violate the law of cell phone use. Many believe that the fine is not enough to have teeth on violators. They could easily pay the amount and be freed of the offense. A study by Omeara and company entitled “The impact of legislation in Ireland on handheld mobile phone use by drivers” points out that despite the fine and penalty points against their driving license, there are still 2-3% motorists who are using handheld cell phones (221-222). Another solution to the problem of the misuse of cell phone while driving is for the law enforcers to execute the law. Many states find this effective. Although many states have no clear legislation directly pointing to cell phone use on the road, there are dozens of laws that exist relating to it. States also have different legislation and different approaches to cell phone use. Some may issue ticket while others give fine and a form of penalty. But what is important is the execution of the law to maintain its integrity, sustain road safety, and maintain the trust of the public with the existing laws. Most of the time, compliance of people will only be realized with the intervention of the law enforcers to fully execute the legislation. This is consistent with the findings of McCCartt & Geary where compliance to law is seen when there is exuberant law enforcement. Their study showed that there is a decline in the use of cell phone while driving among male and female drivers in New York because they are being apprehended by police officers. Further, they suggest that to achieve longer- term compliance, campaigning through publicity is needed (11-15). Findings of McEvoy, Susan and her company regarding the prevalent use of cell phones among drivers explained the importance of enforcing the law (p. 630). They suggested that enforcers should be consistent in their campaign. Observation also shows that people who are concerned with safety supported such action. They believe that laxity in enforcing the law will not change the habit of drivers towards the use of cell phone no matter how good the bill is. Surprisingly, the implementation of a zero- tolerance law where offenders are arrested is found to be effective as there is a decline in the numbers of offenders as seen in Santa Barbara where it is implemented (Salcedo, Cris, 1). This again points to the responsibility of law enforcers to come out of their offices to do the policing of offenders. While it is the responsibility of police officers to enforce the law, most states do not have enough manpower. As a result, crackdown on them is rarely done because there are more cell phone offenders than the number of police officers on the road to go after violators. A research conducted by Lib Dems provided data suggesting that around one in a hundred violators are caught. In addition, Kevin Clinton, Head of the Road and Safety said, “Far too many motorists have been ignoring the mobile phone law” (Tapsfield, 1).This proves that law enforcers are outnumbered by offenders. Some states claim they do not have enough resources to hire additional manpower and to purchase necessary equipment to be used in this kind of pursuit. Another problem with this solution is that if drivers spot police officers coming towards them, they will quickly throw their cell phones on their lap. Meaning, they just follow its prohibition when the policemen are around. It seems this offense is not seriously considered by drivers. They are not aware that cell phones use while driving is compared to driving under the influence of liquor. Since the problem of cell phone use by drivers seems to stay because it cannot be totally eliminated, the most effective method in solving such problem is to change their attitude towards cell phone while driving including the public through education. Driving behavior is believed to play a great role in road safety. Observation and public opinion suggests that efforts in educating drivers to change their attitude in driving can work. Although it could be difficult in the beginning, educating them could be successful in reducing such bad cell phone practice. This solution is compared with the use of seatbelt during its first introduction many years ago where drivers are pessimistic. However, it is worn regularly these days because drivers know that they are safer wearing it. In 2009, the study on “Changing the driver’s attitude towards mobile phone” provided a significant result in the change of driver’s attitude. The authors studied thirty drivers who were willing to engage in talking on a mobile phone while driving given some situations. The simulation resulted in degraded performances in driving. The control group showed no changes in attitude while the treatment group has significant changes (Wang et al, 1). This experiment showed that when drivers are aware of the risks of their negligent driving, they become responsible in following the law of two hands on the wheel while driving. Driver’s attitude becomes more mature to engage in defensive driving. Further, they are fully aware of their limits when to use their cell phone in a timely manner. The involvement of parents in changing the attitude of their children on safety driving is also helpful as a counter measure. As parents supervise their teens, not only their driving skills and experiences may influence their children but also with their right attitude on safety driving. The Royal Automobile Club in Australia adopted a method where parents were involved in supervision of their children combined with professional instructions. The approach is viewed as likely promising (Williams, 14). Another study on teenage driving group found out that the most effective method to modify their attitude is using the communication campaigns employing persuasive and emotional messages placing particular emphasis on speed and mobile use. The research also revealed that attitudes on safety are developed early in life thus it is important to focus forming a good driving attitude at an early age (Berg, vol. 12). Traffic crashes could be reduced if the public accepts to change their attitude towards cell phone use. Resistance to attitude change could be more fatal as more road accidents could happen. Perhaps this is the reason why victims of this problem soared to millions today. On the other hand, accepting change will successfully reduce such problem because everybody will cooperate in complying cell phone law regulation and will be vigilant in going after offenders. The idea of change is supported by Carl Jung, a well known psychologist who stated that “we cannot change anything until we accept it, condemnation does not liberate, it oppresses” (thinkexist.com). Nevertheless, arguments arise against the solution of changing drivers’ attitude. Some drivers say that they do not need behavior modification through education and trainings because they already know how to use cell phones properly. They claim that their cell phones will only be in use during emergencies. Situation where they use their cell phones are when drivers have to talk to their office to get instructions for their next pick up. Professional van and truck drivers are the ones included in this business. Although cell phone use among drivers is on the rise, there are possible ways to combat this. Penalizing the driver, enforcing the law, and most of all modifying the attitude of the drivers and the public regarding the effects of cell phone use are all actions to consider. Life should not be shortened because of negligence. A driver who cares about the life of his passengers and other people on the street is indeed the best driver. Works Cited Berg, H.Y., “Reducing Crashes and Injuries among Young Drivers: What Kind of Prevention Should We Be Focusing On?” Injury prevention. 12 (2006) 1136. Layton, L., “Legislators Aiming To Disconnect Motorists”. Washington post. 10 December 2000. McCCartt, AT. & Geary, LL.” Longer Term Effects Of New York State's Law on Drivers' Handheld Cell Phone Use”.Injury prevention. 10 (2004) 11-5. McEvoy, S., Stevenson, M., Woodward, M. “Phone Use and Crashes While Driving: A Representative Survey of Drivers in Two Australian States”. The Medical journal of Australia. 165 ( 2006) 630-634. O’meara, M., Bedford, D., Finnegan, P., Howell, f., Murray, C. “The Impact of Legislation in Ireland on Handheld Mobile Phone Use by Drivers”. Ireland Med. Journal. 101 (2008) 221- 222. Rusell, M., “Cell Phone Use While Driving”. Internet. 2005. Available www.articlesphere.com/Article/Cell-Phone-Use- while-Driving/28049. 2005-2010. December 2010. Salcedo, C., “Zero Tolerance for Hands-On Cell Phone Use”. Santa Barbara Independent. 18 October 2010: 1. Print. Tapsfiel, J., “Drivers to Face Penalty Points for Phoning at the Wheel”. News scotman.com, 1 (2010) thinkexist.com/quotes/carl_gustav_jung, “Change quotes”. 1 (2010). Viewed 3 December 2010. Vivoda, JM., Eby, DW.,St Louis, RM., Kostyniuk LP. “Cellular Phone Use While Driving at Night”. Traffic Injury Prevention. 9 (2008) 37-41. Wang, Y., Zhang, W., Lesch, M., Horrey, W., Wu, S. “Changing Drivers’ Attitudes Towards Mobile Phone Use Through Participative Simulation Testing and Feedback”. Injury Prevention. (2009) Abstract. Williams, A. “Young Driver Risk Factors: Successful and Unsuccessful Approaches for Dealing with Them and an Agenda for the Future”. Injury prevention. 12 ( 2006) 4–8. Read More