I enjoy looking through my footprints and occasionally seeing someone has looked at my infamous Dumbledore post from almost two years ago. I might repost it to see if it garners any more attention. Maybe I will make the Xanga featured article page again!
Last month, I was driving to school and, as usual, running late. Of course I was stuck behind some guy who determined that it was perfectly acceptable to be driving ten miles per hour beneath the speed limit. We pulled up to a red light and when the light changed to green, he did not move. After honking to get his attention, he went back to his lazy, slow driving method. As I was getting on the on-ramp to the highway, this same gentleman cut over an entire lane and jumped right in front of me. Naturally, when I finally passed him, I had every intention of giving him the evil eye and, if I felt led to, maybe even showing him some middle finger. Of course, I got right alongside him and he didn’t even notice me because he was completely engrossed in his cell phone and texting someone.
American citizens have a problem that can best be summed up as an addiction to technology. According to Professor Jake Rose, author of “Driving and Cell Phones: Perhaps We Should Be Licensed To Do Both,” studies have shown that roughly 85% of motorists use their cell phones while on the road, which results in a quadruple chance of ending up in an automobile accident. If you have the misfortune of being involved in a collision, a fatality is nine times more likely to happen than if you had not been on the phone (Cramer 181). As if that is not enough, texting while driving is also becoming a popular trend among motorists. Bret Schulte, author of “Outlawing Text Messaging While Driving,” puts that statistic at somewhere around one out of five people, but when drivers between the ages of 18 and 24 are singled out, that number jumps to a whopping 66%. What happens when those 18 to 24 year old drivers become the 24 to 30 year old demographic? Then what happens when they become the 30 to 40 demographic? While they continue their dangerous practice of talking and texting while driving, new drivers will be appearing on the roads making the same exact mistakes. As a result, the statistics mentioned previously are not going to taper off. In fact, all likelihood is that they will steadily increase. And if you are four times more likely to be involved in a traffic accident while just talking on the phone, exactly what are the odds of being in a similar accident while you are texting which, for most people, involves taking your eyes off the road?
Cell phones first hit the scene back in the 1980s and had a single function: making a phone call. As the technology increased for additional features, the size of the phones gradually decreased. Soon, phones were available that could be held in the palm of your hand. As these mobile devices were taking the place of many standard land lines, it became common practice to make any phone calls, important or social, en route to a different location. We have become a nation on the move. Not long afterwards, people even started working while moving from location to location. Even though cell phone use while driving is illegal in the state of New York, many people, such as home inspector Tom Sherman, find themselves working from their vehicles and making calls as they travel between destinations on their routes. These people find that if they do not break the law to do their job, they will be out of business and they justify their “crime” by bringing up that most people ignore that particular law (Miller). Thus, our dangerous practice became a part of everyday life.
One possible solution to this situation is also the most obvious: the total and outright banning of all cell phones, hand-held and hands-free, in vehicles across the country. This crackdown on cell phone use should significantly reduce the number of automobile accidents that are a result of driver distraction. However, many peoples’ jobs will suffer when they are suddenly unable to work from their vehicle and it seems very likely that, as in New York, most people will simply ignore the law and continue to use their cell phones while they drive (Miller). Communication as a whole will undergo a big hit and cell phone companies will lose significant business as people will switch their services back to the more affordable land lines. Getting the support for such a bold change in legislation will prove difficult for the state representatives. The auto industry, which is already in a world of hurt, would lose millions as most new models are already equipped with the necessary technology, such as Sync and OnStar, for hands-free cell phone use (O’Donnell). While many will be satisfied with the change, including the supposed 15% that currently do not use their mobile devices in their vehicles, this solution is not practical and will be largely ignored.
Another solution that can be looked into is the release of new software that is being developed which immobilizes a cell phone while it is traveling at driving speeds (Foy). According to Foy, “[t]he DriveAssistT system will disable a phone at driving speeds and send a message to callers or texters saying the person they are trying to reach is driving.” This is superior to actually banning cell phone use in cars because now people will not be able to ignore the law, but will be unable to use their phone even if they tried. However, most of the original problems of complete banning still apply along with some new issues. The software will be unable to differentiate between whether the cell phone is a driver’s or a passenger’s. It will also affect cell phones that are riding in the pockets of passengers on buses, trains and airplanes. Will cars stopped at red lights be suddenly able to use their phones for the brief period before the light flashes back to green? This solution, along with the DriveAssistT system, should probably be sent back to the drawing board.
One more possible answer to the situation is the training of all drivers to be able to operate a vehicle while using a cell phone for necessary calls. This would be similar to the instruction that pilots experience as they learn to maneuver their craft and maintain contact with an air traffic controller at the same time (Rose). This would mean that drivers would be learning to multi-task, something that is not only beneficial, but also something that more and more people seem to be incapable of these days. Unfortunately, this also means every American driver being required to take driver’s education again, in a sense. This could be a problem in itself, especially for the people who claim to never pick up a cell phone in their vehicle.
In my honest opinion, the best possible solution for the subject of driving and cell phones is the re-training of all drivers to be able to use their mobile devices while maneuvering their vehicles. It is just impractical to think that any permanent progress would come from banning cell phones in cars, especially when Miller gives evidence that many people do not pay attention to the law. The technical issues with the DriveAssistT system make it an unlikely solution to ever be accepted. However, if we can learn to change the way we think while we drive, it is very likely that we can see drastic improvements in the number of accidents on the roads of America.
There are several reasons why re-training is the best solution. First, every reason for banning cell phone use on America’s roads would be thrown out the window. We could continue to go about our lives the way that we currently do, only now we would be equipped to handle our vehicles safely. The process of spending less mental energy trying to “see” the person we are conversing with will allow for that same mental energy to be redirected to important tasks while behind the wheel. Additionally, those “training [programs] could even become revenue generators for [the government]” (Rose). The extra money coming in is only going to help the current financial crisis that the United States is currently facing. This solution is not perfect but it would still save lives. If it saves even one life, is re-training our drivers not worth the effort?
One objection that some would have to re-training American driver’s is that every single motorist would need to take a driver’s education class again, whether they are a teenager just getting their license for the first time or someone who has been traveling behind the wheel of a car for decades. In all actuality, they would not need to complete a driver’s education course, but more than likely a short seminar on training your mind to focus on an important task while carrying on a conversation. Even if you were completely positive that you would never in any way pick up a cell phone while you are driving, the training to be able to multi-task would be beneficial. It would be ludicrous to pass up the opportunity to exercise your mind. Another objection would be that re-training would not completely solve the issue as accidents from driver distraction would still occur. While this is true, it would still decrease the accident rate significantly and any progress is still progress. As mentioned previously, this solution is not a perfect solution. The true problem is that a perfect solution does not exist.
Every day, we can sit at an intersection waiting for the light to change from red to green and count on more than one hand how many people we can see driving past while either talking or texting. We might not be able to do much about texting but we can teach our minds to be able to converse with an unseen individual while we drive. Living in the 21st century, communication has simply become far too important to take a step back in that aspect of our lives. Professor Jake Rose sums up the situation very clearly in his essay. I think it is worth investigating deeper and maybe writing my Congressman about. Perhaps, with any luck, we can turn this situation around and make the roads of America safe to drive on, once again.
Works Cited
Cramer, Sheryl, Joni Mayer, and Sherry Ryan. “College Students Use Cell Phones While Driving More Frequently Than Found in Government Study.” Journal of American College Health 56.2 (2007): 181-184. Academic Search. Web. 31 Mar. 2009.
Miller, Craig. “Laws Limiting Car-Phone Use Tough To Enforce.” NPR. NPR, 21 Aug. 2007. Web. 31 Mar. 2009.
O’Donnell, Jayne. “States Target Distracted Drivers.” USA Today. USA Today, 30 Mar. 2009. Web. 31 Mar. 2009.
Rose, Jake. “Driving and Cell Phones: Perhaps We Should Be Licensed To Do Both.” Lincoln University,Christchurch, New Zealand. 27 Oct. 2005. Web. 31 Mar. 2009.
Schulte, Bret. “Outlawing Text Messaging While Driving.” U.S. News & World Report. U.S. News & World Report, 11 Feb. 2008. Web. 23 Apr. 2009.
Recently in English class, we have been focusing on the question “Should talking on cell phones while driving be banned?” This topic has been a major issue for discussion ever since the late 1990s when cell phones became prominent in the hands of not only working adults, but also teenagers. As part of my investigation of this question, I read two texts: an essay published by Lincoln University of Christchurch, New Zealand, entitled “Driving and Cell Phones: Perhaps We Should Be Licensed To Do Both,” by Professor Jake Rose and an article from the NPR website entitled “Laws Limiting Car-Phone Use Tough To Enforce,” by staff writer Craig Miller. According to Rose, the use of both hand-held and hands-free cellular phones while driving is hazardous enough to warrant the licensing of people to be permitted to use those devices while manning a vehicle. There is evidence that training new drivers to be able to simultaneously operate a vehicle and converse with an unseen person mirrors the training of pilots to fly a plane and maintain radio contact with a flight tower. Part of that training is being able to recognize priorities within the situation and ultimately leads to the danger of an accident being drastically cut. Also, pilots have been trained to keep their minds clear while in command of a vehicle; this is contrary to typical human beings who, for the most part, thrive on visual contact with the party they are speaking to. Therein lies the dilemma: not the holding of the mobile device, but the conversation. This fact supports Rose’s theory that due to the importance of communication in our current society, outright banning of cell phones in a driver’s hand is not the answer. He concludes that training Americans to simultaneously talk and drive will help control the current problem. In his article, Miller states that no matter what kind of laws exist for limiting cell phone use on the road, they are largely ineffective. In New York, one of the few states where driving while conversing on a cell phone is illegal, the law is highly disregarded and viewed as breakable by a significant amount of the population. People seem to find the law inconvenient because it conflicts with either their personal agendas or their career. Additionally, Miller clarifies that lack of funding and the necessary police officers attribute to most violators getting away with breaking this law. Still, many officials, such as Brooklyn Assemblyman Felix Ortiz, are fighting for a complete ban on cell phone use for drivers. Ortiz’s fear lies in the development of additional cellular technology, such as texting and GPS, creating more problems for New York drivers. Although both Rose and Miller agree that the banning of cell phones in cars is not necessarily the right answer, Rose goes further along that path and attempts to give a feasible solution to the problem, whereas Miller is merely reporting on the issue. Reading both of these articles has made me question whether I myself am a safe driver or merely a part of the problem and persuaded me to think that as a country, we have to address this issue before it gets any more out of control.
Although Rose and Miller both agree that there are answers to our problem besides a complete prohibition of cellular devices on our roads, Rose has delved deep into the problem. He mentions that pilots have to be able to prioritize what needs to be done while in the air and that some of their responsibilities have less mind-power being used than other “task[s], such as radio communication, monitoring gauges and maneuvering the aircraft.” Rose goes on to say that when drivers that have been taught to converse while in control of a vehicle are behind the wheel, there is a considerable decrease (almost half) in the danger of an accident, although there is still a danger. Trained pilots also have a smaller need to actually see the person they are talking with, as opposed to the average driver. Because of this, the pilot can put more focus into the other tasks they are responsible for and use up less mental energy trying to “see” the person on the other side of the radio.
Even though Miller’s article is a news report, it is still full of very interesting insights. He does most of his research in the state of New York, one of the five U.S. states, and also the first, that has outlawed hand-held devices in vehicles. While in the company of Officer Joe Claybaugh of Camillus, New York, Miller was told to expect seeing someone driving while on a cell phone in every other vehicle that he saw. The excuses for disregarding the law ranged from convenience to career. Miller cites Tom Sherman, a local home inspector, as one who practically works from his car. And if Sherman does not do business while he is traveling from house to house, then he infers that he will be out of business. Miller goes on to say, “[W]hile phone use dipped by about half right after New York’s law went into effect in 2001, within a year, it had bounced back to pre-restriction levels….Most departments just don’t have the manpower and budget to go after cell-phone violators.” Felix Ortiz, an assemblyman from New York, has been endorsing the need for a statewide ban for both hand-held and hands-free devices, the exception being for emergencies.
However, Rose and Miller do have some similarities between their respective written pieces. Firstly, both make mention of the obvious fact that several geographical areas across the planet have already banned cellular devices in moving vehicles. Also, their statistics seem to line up pretty well. According to Miller, “[S]tudies show that three out of four of us are using [cell phones] in our cars.” Rose puts that same statistic at around 85%. From what I have deduced from each author’s angle of vision, I am rather positive that each would agree with the other author’s thesis.
Rose’s argument, which is well-structured and very practical, has plenty of appeals to logos. He gives good reasons for his viewpoints and the concept of training people to be able to behave similarly to pilots when in control of a vehicle is actually kind of brilliant. As it was written in 2005, the text is semi-current. There is plenty of evidence and statistics given to add credence to his claim that we can be taught to drive and converse at the same time. His status as a prominent college professor makes his argument reputable; this also makes appeals to ethos, surmising that he is knowledgeable, reliable, credible and trustworthy. There is also an addendum stating his credentials. He clearly has deeply researched the idea of how pilots train. There are, however, no noticeable appeals to pathos in his argument. The same cannot be said for Miller’s article, which is loaded with pathos. These appeals are most evident through his interviews with common people who, despite agreeing with the law, break it for their own personal reasons. As a writer for a major national newspaper, Miller is also assumed to be reliable and trustworthy as a source of information, fulfilling his obligation of ethos. Surprisingly, there are also sufficient inferences of logos in Miller’s article, primarily shown in his abundance of statistics that he brings up to support his claim. The argument also shows currency, as it was written in 2007. Nevertheless, it lacks in one aspect: as a national newspaper, it should have been more representative of the whole country instead of just the state of New York.
Not one week ago, I was driving to school and, as usual, running late. Of course I was stuck behind some guy who determined that it was perfectly acceptable to be driving ten miles per hour beneath the speed limit. We pulled up to a red light and when the light changed to green, he did not move. After honking to get his attention, he went back to his lazy, slow driving method. As I was getting on the on-ramp to the highway, this same gentleman cut over an entire lane and jumped right in front of me. Naturally, when I finally passed him, I had every intention of giving him the evil eye and, if I felt led to, maybe even showing him some middle finger. Of course, I got right alongside him and he didn’t even notice me because he was completely engrossed in his cell phone and texting someone. I had to take a moment to laugh to myself and just get over this fool and his inability to keep an eye on the road. Miller’s statistic about young drivers and texting had just flashed before my eyes. It dawned on me that I was the same way. I almost never drive anywhere without having my phone out and either talking to someone or texting them. The difference between myself and that other guy is that I have adapted my driving methods to allow myself to complete a text message or make a phone call without endangering other drivers on the road. I have been able to do this in a similar way to how a pilot can operate a radio while keeping his flight in the air, exactly as Rose describes. Due to my ability to effectively control my vehicle, I have never been involved in an automobile accident as a result of talking or texting on my cell phone.
I can completely sympathize with the people interviewed in Miller’s article. Joanne Spoto-Decker told Miller that she cannot follow the law about the ban on hand-held phones as her phone does not have the ability to become a hands-free set. There are times when I need to accomplish so many tasks that I do not even try to organize my plan for lack of time. I just do things as they come to me. More often than not, this means making important phone calls while I am driving. If Ohio law were to ban hand-held cell phones in vehicles, I would find myself forgetting to make many of my calls as the new law would conflict with my routine. My phone is Bluetooth-compatible but that doesn’t mean I want to spend the extra money on earpieces and whatever else is involved with that service, especially considering that I already know I am very capable of driving with a phone in my hand. Miller also mentions how Tom Sherman returns many work-related calls while between houses on his job as a home inspector. When I was employed with a local cash advance company, part of my responsibilities were to collect on past due accounts. Sometimes, this meant I was required to be out of the office and meeting up with delinquent customers at their homes or places of business. I would regularly check up with my superiors while I was out on these field calls to update them on the status of the customers’ accounts and also just to let them know that I was safe; some of these visits found me in some of the most rundown parts of Toledo. Taking away that luxury of keeping in touch with my office would have made things that much more difficult for that position that I had held. Even though Rose does not touch on the subject of texting while driving, Miller does briefly mention it by citing a study completed by Zogby International, in which it was “revealed that two-thirds of drivers age 18 to 24 are reading and typing text messages while they’re at the wheel.” Once again, this is something I am guilty of. However, I am capable of texting a message without looking once at the phone to see if I am pushing the correct keys. Both Rose and Miller brought up these points and I had started to question if I really was a part of the problem. After going back and forth on that issue, I finally came to realize that a statistic is just a number. I know who I am. As a person, I am an excellent driver, with or without the cell phone. I know that if I am speaking on my phone and, for some reason, my mind is not focusing completely on the road, I will tell the person that I am conversing with that I will need to call them back later. Unfortunately, and not to sound too pompous, not every driver out there is me. People get in traffic accidents every day as a result of talking and texting on their phones. People die every day as a result of talking and texting on their phones. It is time for action. This country, and furthermore the entire world, needs to start training its drivers for a new age. Communication is more important now than ever and whether there are laws preventing our use of cell phones in our vehicles or not, people will break those laws. We have to start immediately. Every day, more and more people, both young and old, are getting their licenses without being trained to drive in the 21st century.
Should talking on cell phones while driving be banned? I used to think that banning cell phones in vehicles would never work and that no matter how much any state legislature tries to pass that law, the majority of people will ignore it. This is precisely what is happening right now in New York, according to Miller’s article. I still completely agree with this prior way of thinking but after reading what Rose has to say and recognizing it happening in my own driving experiences, I now have come to the idea that there is hope. However, this dilemma cannot be addressed on a state to state level. If we are not unified as a country in trying to solve this problem, then it will remain as such for all of us for a very long time.
Works Cited
Miller, Craig. “Laws Limiting Car-Phone Use Tough To Enforce.” NPR. NPR, 21 Aug. 2007. Web. 31 Mar. 2009.
Rose, Jake. “Driving and Cell Phones: Perhaps We Should Be Licensed To Do Both.” Lincoln University,Christchurch, New Zealand. 27 Oct. 2005. Web. 31 Mar. 2009.
Premium