Call for Action: Cell Phones on the Road

Call for Action: Cell Phones on the Road

 When a cell phone rings in a meeting or a class, it attracts significant attention and irritation yet it does not endanger the lives of people. However, on the road, irresponsible use of cell phone puts people life at grave danger. Most often, we have seen drivers being distracted while the chat and converse on the phone while driving in a manner resembling drunk drivers, they weave between lanes or running down near pedestrian crosswalks. Drivers are impaired by cell phones hence the need to enact laws that can deter the use of cell phones by drivers. Phone use while driving is a proven form of distraction responsible for many preventable accidents on our roads.

The available set of laws for reckless driving are lenient and insufficient to punish offenders. Only a few states prohibit the use of a handheld phone while driving by allowing drivers to use a hands-free system like Bluetooth to talk on the phone. Several other states and D.C have laws prohibiting the use of the cellular phone by novice drivers. Surprisingly, no single state in the U.S has completely banned the use of the cellular phone by drivers. As a result, phone-related accidents have continued to increase in American roads year after year. Several bills have been proposed to regulate the use of cell phones on the road but are yet to be enacted into law for enforcement by relevant agencies. Public education and warnings on the dangers of phone use and driving are essential in creating awareness among drivers

Purpose of Research

This is secondary research aimed at providing facts about the dangers of phone use and driving. The research examines the effects of cell phone use on the ability of drivers to meet cognitive and perceptual demand of the traffic environment and risks associated with this behavior in divers. It is strongly believed that phone while driving pose considerable risks to the driver, passengers, and other road users. Furthermore, existing traffic legislations are limited in deterring current and potential offenders from committing this menace. This review paper is set to confirm these arguments and suggest a solution to address the problem to make our roads safer.

It is important to exert significant pressures on lawmakers to ensure the passage of bills into law to deter the menace and safeguard the life of passengers, drivers, and road users. The study thus provides background and facts to support the call for action through legislation and education to the public, against the use of phone while driving.

Review of Supportive Literature

It is an undeniable fact that the use of smartphones while driving has caused several traffic injuries and deaths. The statistics from national traffic websites indicate that cell phone use is responsible for at least three fatal accidents every month. The several phone use related incidences is a clear suggestion of the risks of using the phone on traffic. These were further confirmed by the public opinion, expert testimonies, and even researches indicating the risks of driving while phoning. According to a recent survey by farmers Insurance group, close to 1000 car crashes every year are linked to the use of cell phone (422-425). The survey further indicates that general use of phone affects the ability of driver as was supported by over 87% of those polled, while 40% acknowledged that close phone conversation with drivers on the can have a significant distraction. The National Safety Council 2010 report indicates that 28% of crashes in the U.S are connected to the use of the cellular phone by drivers (National Safety Council 45).  The cartoons have equally demonstrated the grave dangers of driving while distracted by phone use (Lowe 2000).

The dangers of phoning and texting while driving has also been explored in scientific researches. Key among them is the 1997 study by Donald Redelmeier and Robert Tibshirani which was published in the New England journal of medicine. The study sampled 700 volunteers with a habit of using a cell phone while driving to assess the risks of driving while chatting and phoning. A comparison was made between phone calls and chat records reported a non-fatal collision with participants as the driver at the time of accidents. The study results were shocking as summarized below:

The use of cell phone while driving was significantly associated with the risk of car collisions at four times higher than when the same drivers were not using the cell phone while driving. The risk of driving and phoning/chatting is similar to the risk of driving under the influence of alcohol (456).

Several other studies have found that the use of cell phone while driving is comparable to driving under the influence of alcohol. For instance, a study by Gregg (39) showed an increased car crashes up to twenty-three times from driving and texting, which is no different to the dangers of car crash among drivers with 0.19 blood level of alcohol contents. A similar 1998 study by Violanti John of the Rochester technology Institute examined the connection between traffic fatalities and cell phone use in the State of Oklahoma. The risk of fatality was nine times higher when the cell phone was being used at the time. The fatality doubled with the presence of a cellular phone in the car (523). Interestingly, the latter finding implies that persons carrying phones in the vehicles are highly negligent and prone to distraction than people who never carry phones in their cars. Despite media exaggeration of the later over the former, comparing cell phone use and drunk driving suggests that cell phone use to impair judgment driver’s judgment while on steering wheel

Some scholars have argued that state traffic laws make it unnecessary to regulate cellular use while driving. Sadly, this is wrong due to variations in state traffic laws, with most of the laws being inadequate to address the use of phone while driving. Most drivers either go scot-free or get light punishment even after causing fatal accidents. In most cases, the guilty verdict is issued for negligence rather than manslaughter for deaths caused by drivers. For example, even though shipman was charged with manslaughter for cause deaths, the judge could only enter a negligent guilty verdict and fined him $500 in line with Maryland traffic laws (Layton C1). In Georgia, a driver distracted by phone calls run over a two-year boy killing him instantly. The offender was placed on boot camp for ninety days and community service for 500 hours (Ippolito JI). The usually light punishment across the states is not a sufficient deterrent to the continued use of the phone by drivers during operation

History has shown that as drivers develop risky behaviours, it has been prudent to formulate special laws to make their dangerous behaviours unlawful and impose harsh punishments to offenders as a deterrent. The obvious examples are drunk driving, failure to stop for the school bus, and running red lights hence phoning and driving should not be an exception. However, except the general traffic laws of negligence driving, the special laws would leave very minimal ambiguity to the law enforcers and juries imposing the sentence. The special laws would further benefit drivers by eliminating ambiguity associated with negligent driving. The vagueness in the definition of negligent prompts drivers to use cell phones while in operation

Several countries have enacted laws restricting the use of cell phone while driving (Sundeen 8). However, since traffic is considered a local and state issue in the U.S, such laws are highly unlikely to be passed at the national level. As of today, only a few cities/towns and counties have enacted traffic legislation restricting the use of the cellular phone. An example is Suffolk city in the NY with traffic laws preventing the use of handheld cell phone for any other activities other hand emergency calls while driving (Haughney A8).  Known for its concern for traffic safety following safety belt legislation, the city of Brooklyn has also passed restrictive traffic laws to curb the use of handheld phone while driving

While some effects are felt at the county and town level, legislation at the state level makes considerable sense. In fact, most traffic law experts have said that statewide restrictions on phone use are preferable to the broad and confusing local ordinances past at county and town level (Haughney A8). Unfortunately, several traffic bills to state legislations have not seen the light of the day, and no state has ever enacted tough laws to regulate the use cell phone while driving due to serious lobbying from wireless companies.

Contrary to claims by lobbyists, the passage of tough laws to curb the use of cell phone while driving will improve road safety by reducing accidents and fatalities. Evidence from countries that have passed tough safety laws supports this assertion. For example, in Japan, the number of accidents related to the use of cell phone declined by 75% within a month after the passage of laws banning the use of hand help phone while driving (Haughney A8). Common sense, as well as studies, tell us that it is very risky to drive at high speed while texting and/or talking on phones. Therefore, regulating this behavior would ultimately reduce accidents and make the roads safer

With mounting public awareness on the dangers of phone use and driving, it is high time to exert the pressure of state legislators to begin taking this issue seriously and pass the necessary legislation. The problem is gaining momentum across the country and sooner than later, there would be tough laws to deter this behavior (Layton C9). The next section presents the risks of cell phone use while driving.

Results and Discussions

Literature has documented several incidences and fatalities linked to the use of phone use and driving. This section presents key statistics and cases of incidences connected to the use of a cellular phone while driving from different countries. A study by Virginia institute of transportation was based on mounted video cameras for monitoring the behavior of drivers and the level of distraction moments to the car crash. According to the findings, distraction was a factor in 68.3% of the 905 car crashes. However, even though active interaction with a teenager or adult passengers was most prevalent, this interaction was associated with low risk of accidents. Further to that, handheld phone interaction has a higher risk of a crash at 3.6 times than model driving. The study also noted increased phone activities in recent years from phoning to browsing and texting online and attributed these changes to the heightened car crashed in the U.S in the recent past (1). In conclusion, heightened need to remain connected and productive through online chatting and browsing has escalated  phone-related distraction and associated car crashes and fatalities

While the use of a cell phone has been found to cause distraction of a driver, the smartphone has even more distractive apps and messaging services. A study by the Harvard business school found a significant relationship between the number of calls and car crash. It was further revealed that close to 8-10% of drivers use cell phones daily while driving and 15-30% of car crashes are caused by phone distraction (2). A similar study by the EU-ERSO (2015) in the European countries reported the use of the smartphone by 1-11% of drivers with occasional use of the phone by the majority. Furthermore, the authors also noted the reaction of distracted drivers was 50% slower than driving under normal conditions. The difference in the negative impact of phone use while driving is negligible for most studies. There is a difference concerning the reaction time of the driver and the difference in hands-free and handheld use of a smartphone while driving. Caird et al (2008) observed that lack of driver’s concentration and attention at the wheel and failure to control over the car are the source of distraction. Conclusively, use of cellular phone while driving is a significant factor contributing to car crashes and fatalities

Conclusion and Recommendations

The result section has described the massive risks and dangers of using a cell phone while driving. Besides, limitations of existing traffic legislations at the state level have been identified as one of the contributing factors to the use of use phone while driving. As a consequence, reducing the use of the cellular phone in the moving vehicle is one a top priority to the policymakers in road safety. The policy framework for addressing this risk should thus focus on several areas; newt technologies, enacting tough laws at the state level, enforcement of the stern traffic laws, publicity and education, and social responsibility

The first recommendation is to institute tough legislations with stern penalties to deter the use of cell phone while driving. As noted earlier, even though some progress has been made at county and city/town level, no state has laws that ban the use of cell phone for all drivers. Only thirty-six states and D.C bans the use of cell phone by novice drivers. The proposed laws at the state level should prohibit complete use of phones except for emergency calls and use of handheld cell phones. As noted in the case of Japan, these legislations will considerably improve road safety and reduce accidents and fatalities connected to the use of phone while driving

Tough legislation to ban phone use while driving

The second recommendations relate to enhancing enforcement of the traffic laws.  Research has shown that in many countries, the effectiveness of most legislations to sustain reduced use of cell phone by drivers is hampered by poor or lack of enforcement. As noted earlier in reviews, enforcing laws on handheld use of cell phones is complex and subject to considerable ambiguity. Further to that, hand-free calling is equally risky and difficult to enforce and prove that the driver was actually on phone calling or texting. This is labour intensive and hence a significant number of traffic officers are required to see the enforcement of the laws. Besides, the laws are required to allow legal access to calls and data calls on the driver’s smartphone. Unlike drug and alcohol tests which are covered by the laws in many countries, laws providing enforcers access to the driver’s call and data clogs are conspicuously missing and only happens in courts cases after causalities

Adoption of Technology

The use of technology is needed to detect violation of the laws related to phone use while driving with a fair degree of certainty. However, this should as well be supported by back-office operations to recheck photo and video footage to precisely trace hands to phone use. The current road cameras are not designed and installed to capture such images, hence investment in technology is required for this purpose. High staffing levels in the back office is also required to facilitate the process of tracing driver’s hands to phone use while driving. With the advent of smartphone with apps and GPRS technologies, phone manufacturing and software developing companies can incorporate technologies that can detect the use of phone while in the vehicle to help law enforcer to improve road safety

Corporate social responsibilities

            Corporate social responsibilities by key stakeholders is another initiative for reducing irresponsible use of smartphones by drivers on the road to improve road safety. The relevant players in this area include firm and car manufacturing companies, mobile phone network providers, insurance, and transport companies. To promote road safety, CSR, and liabilities, leading multinational such as Tome Warner, Shell, UPS, and Tata Steel prohibit their employees from using cell phones while driving, both in hand help and hands-free system. Insurance firms can either increase premiums or forfeit compensation for car owners found guilty or crashed their vehicles while using cell phones while driving. Like beer and cigarette manufacturers, the increased risks of the irresponsible use of smartphones while driving is a wake-up call to the mobile phone manufacturers to initiate programs and issues warnings on their websites about these risks to promote road safety

Publicity and education

            Effective enforcement of traffic laws on the use of cell phone is accompanied by proper publicity. Similarly, effective publicity cannot be achieved without proper enforcement of the laws to reduce the PUDs incidences. The call for action should aim at conducting regular and targeted publicity campaigns on the risks of cell phone distraction as well as legal and related penalties for violating traffic laws and endangering the lives of road users. In particular, special campaigns should be targeted at young people who find it hard to detach themselves from smartphone screens. Driving and traffic education needs to incorporate messes on the risks of smartphone use and legal consequences in their lessons

Works Cited

Caird, J.K. et al. A meta-analysis of the effects of cell phones on driver performance: Accident Analysis & Prevention. (2008): Elsevier, New York, NY, United States: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000145751400178X

Dingus, T.A. et al. Driver crash risk factors and prevalence evaluation using naturalistic driving data (2016). Proceedings of the National Academy of Science. March 8, 2016. 113 (10): 2636-264, Washington DC, United States: http://www.pnas.org/content/113/10/2636

EU – ERSO. Cell phone use while driving. Brussels, Belgium: (2015). 10 November. 2019. https://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety/sites/roadsafety/files/erso-synthesis-2015-cellphone-detail_en.pdf

Farmers Insurance Group. New Survey Shows Drivers Have Had ‘Close Calls’ with Cell Phone Users. Farmers Insurance Group. 8 May 2000. 10 November. 2019 <http:// www.farmersinsurance.com/news_cellphones.html>.

Haughney, Christine. Taking Phones out of Drivers’ Hands. Washington Post 5 Nov. 2000: A8.

Ippolito, Milo. Driver’s Sentence Not Justice, Mom Says. Atlanta Journal-Constitution 25 Sept. 1999: J1.

Layton, Lyndsey. Legislators Aiming to Disconnect Motorists. Washington Post 10 Dec. 2000: C1+.

Lowe, Chan. Cartoon. Washington Post 22 July 2000: A21.

Redelmeier, Donald A., and Robert J. Tibshirani. Association between Cellular-Telephone Calls and Motor Vehicle Collisions. New England Journal of Medicine 336 (1997): 453-58.

Sundeen, Matt. Cell Phones and Highway Safety: 2000 State Legislative Update. National Conference of State Legislatures. Dec. 2000. 9 pp. 27 Feb. 2001 <http://ncsl.org/programs/ esnr/cellphone.pdf>.

Violanti, John M. “Cellular Phones and Fatal Traffic Collisions.” Accident Analysis and Prevention 30 (1998): 519-24