Chatting To A Distraction
Essay Preview: Chatting To A Distraction
Report this essay
Chatting to a Distraction
(Argumentative Essay)
Outline
I. Cell Phone Distractions
A. visual, mechanical, and cognitive
B. conversational distraction drives
C. driving performance studies
II. Hands-free versus handheld cell phones
David Strayers study
Auto Test Facility study
Redelmeier and Tibshiranis study
Governors Highway Safety Association
III. Drunk driving vs. Cell Phones
University of Utah study
Transport Research Laboratory study
IV. Critics viewpoints
personal freedom
different levels of multi-tasking
Its no more dangerous than talking to a passenger
Not enforceable
E. emergency phone calls
V. Rebuttal to the critics of cell phone ban
On July 25, 2002, Kimberly and Kathy Seager hopped into a vehicle with their brother, Matthew, and headed to Buckeye Lake for a late night walk. Kimberly and Kathys father followed them to allow his son to experience some independence and join in on the usual walk. While waiting for a train to pass at a railroad crossing, Matthews car was plowed from behind by a twenty-three year old man. He never attempted to hit the brakes because he was preoccupied with his cell phone. Kimberlys head injury was worse than Kathys, and the doctors predicted Kim would not survive this accident. After several days in the hospital struggling to stay alive, Kimberly and Kathy Seager were pronounced brain dead at 11:00 am on Monday, July 29, 2002. The girls had their whole lives ahead of them, but this tragic accident changed everything because of one conversation at the wrong time (Seager, Amy).
Cell phones are now a hot topic. Debates on whether they should be banned from the highway for safety issues are swarming the media. Much controversy has occurred over what degree a cell phone distracts the driver and whether or not cell phones are a greater disturbance than any other everyday car distraction such as: eating, talking with a passenger, or attending to children in the back seat. Cell phones should be banned from the highways, except in an emergency, as a safety issue because of the unnecessary, preventable injuries and fatalities that occur.
Many studies have been conducted to determine to what degree a driver is distracted when using a cell phone. Experts from the study group Human Factors state there are basically three types of distractions while driving. The first is visual, and an example of this would be looking away from the road. The second is mechanical which includes dialing a number into a cell phone or adjusting the radio. The third is cognitive. This is the actual mindset of the driver during a conversation or internal thinking. Hands-free sets solve the visual and mechanical distractions; however, the cognitive distraction still poses a substantial threat. The mind of the driver is not on driving; it is caught up in a telephone conversation. (Lee) A study conducted by Strayer and Johnston in 2001 focused on the actual phone conversation rather than the visual and mechanical distractions of a cell phone. They hypothesized that attention diverted towards the conversation itself may be causing driving impairment. They reported that subjects conversing missed twice as many traffic signals and took longer to react to the signals that they did see compared to non-cell phone users. In another study conducted by Aston University in Birmingham for the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, drivers were observed driving on a simulated road while being interrupted by mobile phone calls for several minutes. The driving performance was measured compared to “average” traffic conditions, and the results indicated that it is not so much the device itself that causes the problem but the degree to which a driver becomes involved with it. A driving distraction that occupies the driver involved mentally and physically is more dangerous than other every day distractions.
Another list of studies has incorporated the question of whether a hands-free cell phone kit is safer than a handheld cell phone. David Strayer, Ph.D., of the University of Utah tested drivers in a state-of-the-art driving simulator with wrap-around viewing screens to study the effect of handheld versus hands-free phones. After analyzing the results of the test, Strayer concluded, “Weve noted no safety advantage for using a hands-free versus handheld phone. Its the conversation that drives this effect. When youre talking, youre impaired.” He adds that merely listening isnt an issue. “We havent noted any attention interference at all for someone listening to the radio or a book on tape.” Mobile phone conversations create distraction levels much higher than activities such as listening to the radio. Hands-free phones were compared to handheld phones once again in a study at the Auto Test facility in Connecticut. The evaluations demonstrate that talking, dialing, or using a cell phone while driving does affect driving behavior to varying degrees. Some drivers wandered in the lane or slowed down while using a phone while others had more trouble recalling details of the signs or were slower answering questions while using a phone. One consistency from driver to driver was that there was no discernible difference between talking while holding a cell phone and using a hands-free phone. The simple act of carrying on a conversation was equally distracting regardless of the phone being used. Redelmeier and Tibshirani were able to record 699 participants who were involved in an accident using handheld or hands-free phones. They found that hands-free phones held no advantage over handheld phones, and drivers using hands-free phones were still four times more likely to be involved in a collision compared to non-cell phone users (Roberts). A study published in the March 2003 issue of The Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, found