Should Handheld Cell Phone Use While Driving Be Banned? By Jak Kimball

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Should Handheld Cell Phone Use While Driving Be Banned? By Jak Kimball"

Hannah Franklin
6 years ago
Views:

1 1 Should Handheld Cell Phone Use While Driving Be Banned? By Jak Kimball From centuries worth of small pox outbreaks through the bubonic plague of the 14th century to the many deaths caused by influenza in 1918, epidemics have taken countless human lives. An epidemic is a sudden, widespread occurrence of an undesirable phenomenon ( Epidemic ). Even though sudden might be a stretch since the problem has been growing for quite a while, the term epidemic is a good description of texting while driving on American streets due to the number of injuries and deaths caused by distracted driving. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), in 2013, 18% of all injuries and 10% of fatalities resulting from traffic-related crashes were caused by distracted driving; that means over 3,100 people were killed and 425,000 people were injured in just one year as a result of distracted driving ( Distracted Driving ). NHTSA has also found that this number is going up each year ( Distracted Driving ). In addition, the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety recently reported that nearly 60% of teen accidents are related to distracted driving activities ( Distraction ). Unfortunately, many obstacles are present that prevent police from enforcing distracted driving laws. In order to reduce a large portion of distracted driving, a complete ban of handheld device use while driving coupled with stiffer penalties for violating the ban should be implemented. Need for a Ban Handheld device use while driving is a common occurrence on roads today. A 2009 North Carolina survey revealed that 31% of teen drivers surveyed used their cell phones while driving despite a law restricting cell phone use (Foss et al. 422). In 2014, James Bernstein and Joseph Bernstein conducted a study on a Pennsylvania street intersection that revealed an 8.5% device use by drivers while vehicles were in motion and a 20.8% device use by drivers while vehicles were stopped at a stoplight (2). Most drivers can personally testify to witnessing handheld device use while driving. This widespread use of handheld device while driving is unsettling, since such usage has a negative effect on driving performance. Many studies have been performed over the past 40 years relating to distracted driving. In 2014, Alva Ferdinand and Nir Menachemi performed a systematic review of these studies, placing the results in one of three categories: detrimental, protective, and no relationship to driving performance. The analysis revealed

2 that the majority of research shows a detrimental relationship between performance of drivers and engaging in secondary tasks (Ferdinand and Menachemi 41). Among the studies that found a protective effect (meaning a better driving performance), the distraction was primarily passengers and not handheld devices, and the review also shows studies investigating mobile phone use have a higher detrimental rate than other types of secondary tasks (Ferdinand and Menachemi 42-43). One of the main findings of this review was that cell phone use was highly predictive of driving performance [reduction], leading the researchers to assert, the substantial attention to this particular source of distracted driving by public health practitioners and policymakers appears to be warranted (Ferdinand and Menachemi 45). Even though some might mitigate the negative effects of handheld devices on driving performance, few people will argue that there is not a detrimental relationship between handheld device use and driving performance. Even though distracted driving includes a variety of activities, texting while driving is one of the worst forms. NHTSA defines distracted driving as any activity that could divert a person's attention away from the primary task of driving ( Facts ). There are three different types of distraction: manual, visual, and cognitive ( Learn ). Manual distractions occur when the driver takes their hands from the task of controlling the vehicle, such as changing the radio station or reaching for a drink; visual distractions occur when a driver takes their eyes off the road, such as watching kids play in the back seat; and a cognitive distraction occurs when the driver's mind wanders from the task of driving, such as thinking about what is on TV later ( Learn ). Texting while driving includes all three types of distraction, which is why it is so dangerous. The negative effects of distracted driving combined with the common occurrence and the seriousness of texting while driving have led legislators in almost every area of the United States to enact some form of texting while driving or other distracted driving ban. As of November 2015, forty-six states and the District of Columbia ban all drivers from texting while driving, and inexperienced drivers cannot text while driving in two states; in addition, thirty-seven states and the District of Columbia restrict all cell phone use for inexperienced drivers ( Distracted Driving ). The most restrictive laws are found in fourteen states and the District of Columbia where there is a complete handheld ban ( Distracted Driving ). Even in Arizona and Montana, the two states that do not have statewide texting while driving laws, local municipalities have enacted their own texting while driving bans ( Arizona ; Montana ). Although almost every state has some form of texting while driving ban, the laws vary from state to state as far as enforcement of the laws and penalties for violations. In most states, texting while driving is considered a primary offense, which means an officer can stop a violator for performing 2

3 3 the act, but in some states it is a secondary offense, where an officer can only stop a person if a primary offense has also occurred ( Distracted Driving ). In her analysis Learning from the Past to Improve the Future: Taking a Lesson from America's Drunk Driving Dilemma to Cure the Current Texting While Driving Epidemic, Marykate Williams points out that the penalty for texting while driving and other distracted behavior varies across jurisdictions (256). Penalties range from a $20 fine per violation to spending three months in jail and fine of $750; additionally, some states do not record texting while driving offenses on a driver's record (Williams ). This lack of record keeping equates to only short-term punishment because insurance rates will not rise for drivers who text while driving. As Willams says, in most states, the current texting while driving penalties fail to serve their legislative purpose of deterring motorists from texting while behind the wheel of their car (264). In addition, state laws also vary when texting is not allowed. Some state laws prohibit texting anytime while operating a motor vehicle, and others prohibit texting only while the vehicle is in motion ( A.C.A. ; Title ). The variation in laws among the states is large and can easily confuse drivers traveling to different states. While details vary by jurisdiction, texting while driving laws have proven to have positive outcomes. A 2015 study discovered that primary texting while driving laws were effective in reducing hospitalizations caused by motor vehicle crashes (Ferdinand et al. 863). Alva Ferdinand and his team also found that there was a significant difference in the effectiveness of texting bans for individuals in different age groups (863). Texting bans had only a marginal effect on reducing MVC [motor vehicle crash]-related hospitalizations among younger individuals, whereas the same laws had significant effects in reducing MVC-related hospitalizations among the adultaged cohorts (Ferdinand et al. 863). The difference in effect between age groups may be a symptom of the reluctance of younger people to adhere to texting bans, or may be a result of an it can't happen to me attitude held by teens. The study also indicated, although texting bans do not prevent all motor vehicle crashes, the reduction was significant enough to justify the bans. Ferdinand et al. recommend, States that have not passed primarily enforced texting bans should consider doing so (863). Why Change Is Necessary Despite the presence of distracted driving laws in most states, studies have shown that drivers still participate in distracted driving activities. The North Carolina study showed that 31% of teen drivers surveyed use cell phones while driving even though 74% of the same drivers expressed approval for the restriction of cell phone use while driving (Foss et al ). In the visual observation portion of this study, the researchers recorded that 11.8% of teen drivers used their cell phones while leaving

4 school after a statewide cell phone ban was implemented (Foss et al. 422). A Pennsylvania study performed after a statewide texting ban was instituted for vehicles in motion similarly showed 3% of drivers were texting while vehicles were in motion (Bernstein and Bernstein 2). These results show that laws do not prevent all unsafe use of cell phones and that, even though drivers know it is wrong or illegal, many will do it anyway. Drivers violate distracted driving laws for many reasons. Bernstein and Bernstein assert that the rate of device use while stopped at a stoplight shows that devices are readily available to the drivers while driving (3). The availability of mobile devices suggests drivers predisposition to the use of mobile devices while driving. The study also found a lower rate of device use when there was a passenger, suggesting that boredom might lead to higher use (Bernstein and Bernstein 3). Additionally, the article posits that the higher use among drivers who were not wearing a seatbelt shows a manifestation of generalized recklessness (Bernstein and Bernstein 4). The Foss et al. study revealed that 71% of teens surveyed and 60% of parents surveyed believed the law would be enforced rarely or not at all (422). This mindset reinforces the activity with the belief that the violator will not be caught. Phillip Quisenberry believes that texting while driving can be explained by Gottfredson and Hirschi s general theory of crime which argues, Individuals low in self-control are likely to engage in both criminal behavior as well as analogous behaviors (304). An analogous behavior is defined as behavior that is not necessarily illegal but includes risky activity (Quisenberry 304). An individual person's reason for violating the law may not fall into just one category but may be a combination of many factors. With laws against cell phone use already on the books, police still have a hard time enforcing distracted driving laws. The reasons, like the laws, vary by jurisdiction. One reason may be that some states have secondary texting while driving laws. This makes it difficult to enforce because police must witness a different primary violation before making a stop. Also, the public has the perception that the law is not important since they cannot be stopped for violating it alone. Additionally, some state laws allow for dialing or using the handset to put someone on speaker. The officer who sees a possible violation cannot be sure the offender is texting or just doing a legal activity. Unlike speeding, there is no device like radar that can identify texting or other phone related violations. Most laws rely on an admission of guilt because otherwise there are too many loopholes for violators to use to get out of a citation. Most states have privacy laws that prevent officers from looking at a potential violator's phone to prove texting or other violations. These laws usually require a warrant to be issued before law enforcement can get information from a phone or phone carrier. Most judges are reluctant to issue warrants unless there was accident involving serious injury or death. The biggest reason texting while driving laws are hard to enforce is that texting is a fleeting activity. Most texts take only two to three seconds to 4

5 5 read, and time spent sending texts varies. Unlike speeding or driving while intoxicated, violations are not prolonged. Drivers can easily glance at their phone to read a text or quickly hide their phone in the middle of sending a text to keep from getting caught. Most enforcement activities require two or more officers, one to act as a spotter from a hidden or semi-hidden location and the other to make the stop and write a citation. This can be cost prohibitive for most departments due to the increased manpower required, and it limits the officers from enforcement during routine patrols. Because of the difficult nature of distracted driving enforcement, most laws go unenforced or are enforced rarely. Call to Arms Reducing texting while driving is a difficult task. It will require several actions to be effective. First, the laws need to be enforceable by police. In order to be enforceable, states will need to implement a complete primary handheld device ban. This will enable police to identify visually a violation. Without a complete primary handheld device ban, police do not have the ability to seek out violators and enforce texting while driving laws. There also needs to be stricter penalties for violating the texting bans. The current fines, as low as $20 in some states, are not enough to convince people to stop texting while driving (Williams 267). In Williams plan, she recommends that penalties for texting while driving be not less than the fine imposed for reckless driving (267). Punishment could also include non-monetary penalties such as license suspension or revocation for subsequent violations as added incentive for repeat offenders (Williams 268). If individual states will not make the necessary changes on their own, getting nationwide results might require a federal mandate. The Avoiding Life-Endangering and Reckless Texting by Drivers Act (ALERT Drivers Act) that failed to pass the US Congress in 2009 was an early attempt at such a mandate. A federal mandate could act as a guideline for minimum penalties, standardized definition of texting while driving, and enforcement practices. It would also serve to show the public the important need for the texting while driving ban. While eliminating distracted driving seems an almost impossible task, implementing a complete ban of handheld devices while driving would give law enforcement the tools to enforce the laws meant to reduce distracted driving. This would be a giant step forward and will in turn reduce a large portion of distracted driving on the streets today. Making penalties for texting while driving stricter will give drivers incentive to obey the laws, reducing distracted driving. As with all epidemics throughout history, the longer society goes without a cure, the more widespread and deadly a disease becomes. Until

6 6 legislators, law enforcement, and the citizens on the streets treat texting while driving as an epidemic it will continue to grow. Works Cited A.C.A. ss Use of a handheld wireless telephone when driving. LexisNexis. LexisNexis, n.d. Web. 15 Nov Arizona Cell Phone & Texting and Driving Laws. DrivingLaws. NOLO, Web. 15 Nov Bernstein, James J., and Joseph Bernstein. Texting At The Light And Other Forms Of Device Distraction Behind The Wheel. BMC Public Health 15.1 (2015): 1-5. InfoTrac Health Reference Center Academic. Web. 8 Nov Distracted Driving CrashStats. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Apr Web. 15 Nov Distracted Driving. IIHS HLDI. Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, Web. 06 Dec Distraction and Teen Crashes: Even Worse than We Thought. AAA NewsRoom. AAA, 24 Mar Web. 06 Dec Epidemic. GoogleSearch. Google, n.d. Web. 22 Nov Facts and Statistics. Distraction.gov. United States Government, n.d. Web. 15 Nov Ferdinand, Alva O., et al. The Impact of Texting Bans On Motor Vehicle Crash-Related Hospitalizations. American Journal of Public Health (2015): Academic Search Premier. Web. 8 Nov Ferdinand, Alva O., and Nir Menachemi. Associations Between Driving Performance And Engaging In Secondary Tasks: A Systematic Review. American Journal of Public Health (2014): e p. CINAHL Complete. Web. 8 Nov Foss, Robert D, et al. Short-Term Effects of A Teenage Driver Cell Phone Restriction. Accident Analysis and Prevention 41.3 (2009): MEDLINE. Web. 15 Nov Learn the Facts about Distracted Driving. EndDD. EndDD, Web. 15 Nov Montana Text Messaging and Cell Phone Laws. DrivingLaws. NOLO, Web. 06 Dec Quisenberry, Phillip. Texting and Driving: Can it be Explained by the General Theory of Crime? American Journal of Criminal Justice 40.2 (2015): SocINDEX with Full Text. Web. 8 Nov

7 7 Title 75 ss 3316 Preventing Text Based Communications. Pennsylvania General Assembly. Pennsylvania General Assembly, n.d. Web. 10 Nov Williams, Marykate E. Learning from the Past to Improve The Future: Taking a Lesson from America's Drunk Driving Dilemma to Cure the Current Texting While Driving Epidemic. New England Journal on Criminal & Civil Confinement 41.1 (2015): SocINDEX with Full Text. Web. 8 Nov About the Author I took English Composition in an attempt to continue the post-high school education I started in the early 90s. I am a sixteen-year veteran Law Enforcement Officer and the father of two. My oldest is a 14-year-old boy just starting his driving career. My career and my son give me different insights and a passion for the problem I wrote about in this essay. My writing style is an outline method. I list out points and topics related to the subject. I then research each point and restructure the outline based on the information I find. I do more research derived from the points in the restructured outline. The cycle repeats until I have a comprehensive and complete paper. Sometimes, like with this paper, I end up with a completely different outlook on the subject than when I started.

PRESS RELEASE. Manteca Police Department to Step Up Enforcement for Distracted Drivers

PRESS RELEASE. Manteca Police Department to Step Up Enforcement for Distracted Drivers PRESS RELEASE For Immediate Release December 2, 2014 Contact: Sgt. Paul Carmona, Manteca Police Dept. (209) 456-8130 Manteca Police Department to Step Up Enforcement for Distracted Drivers In an effort