Ban Cell Phone Use While Driving

cell phone use ban during driving

The purpose of this proposal is to show that the use of cell phones while driving has been a major issue on our road ways.  Talking and texting on cell phones while driving has been one of the leading causes of car crashes in the United States, many fatal  (Ling, 2004).  Since the cognition of humans is self-limiting, driver’s attention will be divided whenever they are involved in texting or calling while at the same time they are driving

a vehicle.  I will present statistical data, research information and facts, taking a deeper look into the truth behind human mental function and the limits that come with distraction from cell phone use while driving. There is currently no law in place to stop unsafe behavior.  Data will prove that talking on a cell phone while driving is just as dangerous as drunk driving.  It’s time that we take notice of the severity of this epidemic and the need to keep California drivers and pedestrians safe and to stop innocent people from falling victim to cell phone related car accidents.  For this reason all cell phone use while driving should be banned.

According to Strayer (2004), researchers find that talking on the phone creates a form of inattention blindness.  This puts the lives of many at risk, passengers and road users as well. Hand held and hands free devices had no significant differences in dual task deficits.  According to Strayer (2004), a chain of experiments justified that human cognition will likely respond similarly under those conditions, this is a good reason to disapprove hands free devices as an ultimate solution to the drawbacks of cell phone use while driving (Strayer, 2004).  In a different experiment that was conducted by specialists Strayer notes that, 24% of a sample of 1,748 drivers in Salt Lake City were found to use cell phones while driving, furthermore, 24% failed to come to a complete halt at an intersection. Research proved that there was a strong relationship between failure to stop at the intersection and cell phone use, however; found no fundamental link between cell phone use and driving impairment. This was attributed by the high probability of constant phone users to be engaged in risky behavior (Strayer, 2004).

According to Nunes & Recarte (2002), researchers have studied the effects of phone use while driving and have proved harmful effects on concentration, action, thought, ability to process incoming visual stimuli and attentional blink.  According to Strayer et al. one experiment showed that drivers who were talking on their cell phones missed as many as twice the simulated traffic signals and took longer to react to the signals in both handheld and hands free cell phones (Strayer, 2002).  When dual tasking is involved, the human mind is programmed to give attention to the stimuli of interest at the given time, this happens at the expense of another. However; Nunes & Recarte (2002), note that other researchers found that listening to music while driving had no significant effect on response times, while analysis of covariance indicate that neither age nor gender has any significant effect on dual-tasking (Nunes & Recarte, 2002). 

In the pursuit tracking experiment where 48 undergraduate subjects consisting of 24 male and 24 females, the radio control group didn’t show any difference in dual task conditions. In dual task, the disruptive effects were greater when participants were talking than listening, it takes an age mean of 21.3 years in the subjects. The pursuit tracking experiment uses a lower population of 24 subjects consisting of 12males and 12 females all undergraduates from Utah University with age boundaries between 18-26years. In this shadowing and word generation experiment, the word generation produced tracking errors. In a similar pursuit braking experiment of a population of 64 with an age mean of 21.2 established similar results. Further a dot clearing task involved 30 undergraduate students from Utah University between the ages 18-25 years. With an average age of 19.6 being the lowest 330 words of 4-5 letter the dot clearing task was performed (Poysti, 2005).

This is an experiment that needs further analysis owing to a narrow range of subjects used to carry the experiment.  According to Tornros (2005), a sample of 64 Utah university undergraduates take part in an experiment involving hands free and handheld cell phone conversations while driving on a simulated driving course with traffic signals.  The results of the experiment found that there was significant dual task deficits when it came to following the correct traffic signals as well as a delay in reaction time.  This shows that talking on a cell phone while driving, even with a hands free device has some negative effect on cognition and attention.

Strayer, Drew’s and albert carry a dot clearing experiment, they find that when subjects are engaged in conversation their capabilities to respond to driving environment was impaired, however this experiment involves  undergraduates the result are in line with other peer reviewed results. A reliability measure would require the researcher to involve not only undergraduates but also a wide group of people of all calibers, the school dropouts too drive! A bigger population size would rather be involving but the results could be highly reliable, a sample size of 30 undergraduates was not the best option. Driving under conversation led to impairment of perceptual memory undermining visual attention and thus giving priority to conversation (Placeholder1). Legislative mechanisms that restrict handheld devices and allow hands free devices don’t work. The ultimate solution would be to ban all sorts of cell phone use while driving, in the contrary Jordan Wayner and ISA Today note that cell phone driving has no related negative impacts and may not pose danger (Ling, 2004).

Redeilmeier finds that cell phone use while driving increases the chance of an accident fourfold (Strayer, 2004). A researched thought that attentional blink and inattentional blindness is a major cause since the cell phone acts as a distractor is upheld by several researchers. The findings that Objects encountered during single-task conditions were correctly recognized more often than objects from dual task conditions is a justifications that our minds will act differently in those conditions, a driver with a distractor will unlikely notice what is happening at the windscreen (Kiesbye, 2011). Laura Hampson finds that truck drivers welcome the texting ban as a measure to curb accidents and associated demerits of cell phone use while driving, however this hasn’t tamed them to embrace the idea. Legislative mechanisms that restrict handheld devices and allow hands free devices don’t work either.

I would like future researches to address age especially in the dot clearing experiment to cater for old drivers, increase the population of their sample so that they have a more justifiable result. The road intersection experiment at Lake City needs camera monitoring inside the automobile, this would ensure that reliable data is taken since drivers ought not to be engaging in cell phone use only when they are holding it in the hand.

Researcher Mark Borgard notes that cell phone driving is a real threat since it distracts drivers from recognition of traffic signals and other driving performance signs and concludes that it is a major cause of road accidents. This is a fact that has been proven by consistent data and calls for immediate action, it’s unethical and a social problem. Ian Mulgrew argues that use of cell phones while driving should attract stiff penalties, this is a step that can ultimately prove better results of all the current situations given awareness campaigns would only serve as a remembrance to an existing fact to the drivers (Jan E B To'rnros, 2005). Research can definitely conclude that hands free devices won’t make drivers any safer, cell phone driving is a cause of death, traffic delays and thus cell phones can be more dangerous than drunk driving, motorists talking on cell phones are four times more likely to crash as other drivers (Strayer, 2004).

As the world advances in technology so does change is inevitable. All eras emerge with new challenges and as the cell phone driving comes to a limelight so does evolution in the sector become inevitable. The future could strive to come with technologies like drivers seats without phone accessories, apps to prevent receiving calls and campaigns to create awareness. Stricter laws would work well too. To sum it all it’s my humble request to recommend banning of driving under cell phone use from a researched point of view.

References

Nunes, L. & Recare, M. A. (2002). Cognitive demands of hands-free-phone conversation while driving. Transportation Research. Traffic Psychology and Behavior, 5(2), 133-144

Poysti, L. (2005). Factors influencing the use of cellular phones while driving and hazards while using it. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 37, 47-51.

Schattler, K. L. & Lee. (2006). accessing driver distraction from cell phone use: A simulator-based study. Transportation Research, 1980, 87-94.

Strayer, D. L. (2004). Profiles in driver distraction: effects of cell phone conversation on younger and older drivers. Human Factors. 46(4), 640-649.

Tornros, J., (2005). Mobile phone use: effects of handheld and hands free phone use on driving performance. Swedish National Road and Transport Institution, 37, 902-909.