On Wednesday, legislation was introduced into the Senate that could block substantial federal highway funding to states that do not ban texting by drivers. Lately over at the New York Times Online, Matt Richtel has been regularly updating on cell phone related issues.
It turns out, according to studies from Virginia Tech and the University of Utah, that texting while driving is twice as dangerous as both talking on the phone while driving and being legally intoxicated, a risk quoted as being eight times greater than for a driver that is not distracted.
Surely, no one should be surprised at the fact that multi-tasking while driving is dangerous. Fourteen states currently have a ban on texting while driving, which, according to the Governors Highway Safety Association, is more widespread than any ban on regular adult drivers talking on cell phones. Clearly, distraction by texting is an issue.
I'd say it's about time cell phone use while driving was regulated. A 2003 Harvard study (also cited by Mr. Richtel) estimates that cell phone distractions cause 2,600 traffic deaths every year, as well as 330,000 injuries via traffic accident.
Texting was pioneered around the mid-nineties, but it took until the turn of the decade for cell phones to become a truly common and widespread phenomenon. Now, not a day goes by that I don't see a person talking or texting on a cell phone as I make my transit to and from work. Often, I'm guilty of talking on a cell phone myself.
Personally, I believe that different people have different abilities when it comes to multitasking while driving. Some are able to talk and maintain sufficient attention to the road, others are not. The problem is that there is no way gauge this to keep the public safe. Making cell phone use illegal while driving is probably the best way to go.
To be clear, it is the state's job to regulate roadways. The federal government is using the bill that just entered the Senate to pressure states into passing cell phone traffic regulations. They did the same thing in 1984, pressuring the states to raise the drinking age to twenty-one. It is likely that states will regulate cell phone use rather than lose federal highway funding.
A problem I see is the enforcement of a no-text law. Texting, like wearing a seatbelt, may be almost invisible to a person outside the guilty party's car. A driver that's texting may appear to just be looking periodically into his or her lap. The Governor's Highway Association, a group that represents state highway safety agencies in every state, opposes these laws because they are "unenforceable," but just because it would be a hard law to enforce does not make it unnecessary. Safety advocates argue that although these laws would be hard to enforce, they "create awareness about the issue and set social guidelines for the behavior."
I believe the US government is pressuring state government with good reason. The more we can reduce traffic deaths, which total at around 40,000 per year in the United States, the better.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
From the blog, The Earhorn, an article titled, Texting While Driving is on the Chopping Block, written by Curtis Chapman, addressing the issue about the main problem of texting while driving. The writer addresses an important issue about texting and the enforcement that states need to issue in order to receive federal funding for highways. The writer mentions the role of the federal government in funding for highways, given in forms of grants known as categorical grants that require the states to oblige to the federal government before receiving any grant.
ReplyDeleteIn the article about texting written by Chapman, the writer shows support for passing a law that bans texting while driving. Using statistic as the leading evidence, he states how texting while driving is eight times the sources of distraction, and twice as dangerous. This clearly shows that texting while driving is severe and brings many negative consequences. Yet almost every Americans here in the United States have their own cell phones, and a vast majority of those that use cell phones are the younger ones. People as young as middle schoolers own cell phones, and though presently there seems to be no danger with the possession of cell phones, but the danger is actually growing as they age. Texting is not a problem if that person is situated in a stable place, not driving on the hectic road, whirling the wheel left and right is no where being stable. Teenagers as young as 16 can already drive behind the wheel, but as mentioned, young middle schoolers already owned cell phones. With inexperience driving skills, this would leave many teenagers in accidents and collisions. For this reason, I understand why Chapman would support in favor of banning texting while driving.
Yet passing a law does not mean that the people will oblige and do as follow. Law states that there can't be anyone driving while under the influence, but people still do. That's why driving while intoxicated remains the number one reason for car wrecks. Law states that there can't be anyone drinking under the age of 21, but I am pretty sure that the vast majority of teenagers have already taken a sip of their first or maybe many cups of alcohol. Even if the law does get pass, that simply can't reduce people from not doing, especially since cell phones have become so vital to many Americans' lives. Instead, I think that passing the law is one thing, but the enforcement must be strict and effective. What does this mean? This means that the punishment must be suitable and police officers do not just randomly pull someone's car over just so they can reach a certain number of tickets for each month. The police officers can start by becoming role models and they should also be ban from using cell phones while driving. If police officials were given special privilege, how must one expect the Americans to respect them if they do not oblige with the law as well? If there is something call justice, then firm regulation must be monitored, and this is regardless of their backgrounds, jobs, ethnicity, or status in America. Therefore, I agree with Curtis Chapman in his blog entry about texting while driving, and the danger that will happen. For this reason, it is important that we all understand what's at stake in this game: everyone's lives. Why everyone's lives? Because you may not be texting, but the person in front of you or behind you were, and could have hit your car. Protect yourself, and the lives of others by supporting the ban of texting while driving. Surely you wouldn't want the person in the wreck to have been you, or a special someone of yours because of someone's foolishness to text while driving, right?