My target audiences are students - Essay Example

13 July Audience Analysis Audience profile My target audiences are who already drive because I want to inform them that texting while driving is lethal to them and to others around them. These people are educated and are even fully aware to some extent that texting can distract them from driving, but they need to be more conscious of the drawbacks of this harmful prevalent practice. Moreover, I want to also influence parents, schools, communities, and governments to be aware of the pitfalls of texting while driving so that they can raise awareness on this matter. The topic is useful to the target audience because one of the most common victims of texting while driving belong to their age profile. Audience-subject relationship I think my audiences probably know that texting is distracting, but they think they can handle it anyway. They do not know how distracting texting might be and how it can impair their ability to think and act while driving. I expect my audience to be open to learning more about the effects of texting, but they must be persuaded through logic and emotions to improve their awareness about the harms of this practice so that they can change their texting-while-driving mindset and behaviors. Audience-writer relationship I want to build a strong relationship with my audience because I am part of them and I want them to trust me. They can trust me if they see that I approach the subject with balanced rationality and emotionality. I want to be seen as a credible source of information that they can trust because I truly care for their welfare. I want to come across as a communicator of expert and real-life opinions and insights on this matter. Text and Drive at Your Own Risk: The Perils of Texting while Driving Vehicular accidents are the leading cause of death among young drivers. Drivers with ages of 15 to 20 years old compose only 6% of all drivers in the United States, but they are involved in 19% of all crashes (West et al., 2011, p.37). The youth nowadays are highly proficient in multitasking, including texting while doing other activities, and many think that they can easily text and drive (Hosansky, 2012, p.405). Those who already text and drive and have not yet experienced any accidents increase their belief that they can text and drive without serious difficulty. This paper synthesizes the opinions and findings of different stakeholders, specifically victims and their families, citizens, government agencies, telecommunication service providers, researchers, and the media. Stakeholders agreed on the negative effects of texting while driving because of the prevalence of primary and secondary sources that provide evidence that support the latter, but they disagreed on the effectiveness and usefulness of bans on this practice because of differences in arguments about cause and effect and differences in the importance placed on values and interests. Stakeholders agreed that texting while driving directly affects the welfare of drivers, especially the youth, because they all value human life and confirm that driving impacts driving abilities. They have similarities in their values, where human life is more important than individual freedoms. Agency Group 06 (2012) focused on the view of the government on how vehicular accidents can be reduced. It interviewed government officials, all of which value life and have responsibilities in ensuring public safety and quality life. Agency Group 06 (2012) reported the active participation of U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray Lahood in promoting bans against texting while driving. Because of his responsibility for the safety of drivers and commuters, Lahood lobbies for safe driving practices and supports texting-while-driving bans, one of which was applied in Ohio (Agency Group 06, 2012). He emphasizes the importance of human life over the freedom to do anything inside one’s car and calls the attention of young drivers who are mostly affected by the harmful texting-while-driving practice (Agency Group 06, 2012). The media, researchers, and civil society agreed that texting while driving is dangerous for drivers and commuters. U.S. News and World Report (2013) emphasized the role of research in proving the negative effects of texting on driving. As a source of news information, it reports the views of both supporters and critics of bans on texting while driving, but for the article used in this paper. U.S. News and World Report (2013) reported that, according to the recent study of Man and others, texting while driving is as hazardous as drinking alcohol and driving. Texting while driving is compared to having a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) that was above legal levels for Australia and Spain (U.S. News and World Report, 2013). David Hosansky (2012) is a staff writer for CQ Researcher and his report included interviews with ordinary citizens. Yvonne Mondragon almost died while texting and driving. She attested to the distracting effect of texting on her driving skills (Hosansky, 2012, p.403). Since then, she realized that her life is more important than the compulsion of multitasking while driving (Hosansky, 2012, p.403). These stakeholders similarly agree that texting while driving is wrong because of shared values on human life and beliefs that the practice can result to accidents. Stakeholders further agreed on how texting impaired driving because of studies that showed the effects of the practice on the cognitive and physiological abilities of drivers. In an empirical study, Park and colleagues (2013) examined the effects of texting while driving on drivers’ physiological and cognitive conditions. They are instructors of the Department of Biological and/or affiliated with the Allied Health Sciences of Ohio Northern University, so they have a responsibility in providing a healthcare perspective on the matter of texting while driving. Park and colleagues (2013) wanted to know the physiological effects of texting on driving. They replicated the effects of texting to driving through computer simulation. They recruited forty participants who finished computerized reaction time tests in two conditions: single task, where they did not text while driving and dual-task, where they texted and drove. Park and colleagues (2013) measured heart and respiratory rates before and after these tasks. The findings of the study showed that text messaging was distracting enough to raise reaction time, heart rate, and respiratory rate. Park and colleagues (2013) concluded that texting produced additional cognitive workload and cognitive stress that impaired driving (Park et al., 2013, p.44). Hosansky (2012) mentioned several news reports and accounts from government officials where they connected texting while driving to numerous accidents and deaths. Eighteen-year-old Taylor Sauer was aware that texting while driving was dangerous, and yet her last text said: “I can’t discuss this now. Driving and Facebooking is not safe. Haha!” (Hosansky, 2012, p.407). A few seconds later, while driving more than 80 miles per hour, her car slammed on a truck that was climbing uphill at 15 miles per hour (Hosansky, 2012, p.407). Sauer died right away. Her Facebook message and what happened to her indicates that people are aware of the harms of texting while driving because it distracts their driving attention. The government specifically used news reports and studies to exemplify the effect of texting on vehicular accidents. Hosansky (2012) interviewed Clarence Ditlow, executive director of Center for Auto Safety. Ditlow underlined that texting seriously impairs driving psychically and mentally. She stated: “Your eyes and hands are off the road, and it’s a very intense mind distraction as well” (Hosansky, 2012, p.407). If calling is distracting, texting while driving is even more distracting because drivers have to take their hand and eyes off the road, while mentally picture whoever they are texting. Agency Group 06 (2012) indicated that government agencies are working together in promoting awareness on the harms of texting while driving. These agencies underscored that texting and driving have lead to countless deaths and disabilities to drivers and other victims, most especially the youth (Agency Group 06, 2012). The government is greatly concerned that texting while driving is killing many drivers, and so it has become proactive in banning it. The media further supported the relationship between texting while driving and vehicular accidents and mortality using empirical studies. Delthia Ricks, a correspondent for Newsday, presented studies and statistics to support her claim. She claimed that texting while driving, not drunk driving, is now the leading cause of death among teen drivers. Ricks (2013) underscored the research of Cohen Children's Medical Center in New Hyde Park which exhibited that more teenagers are texting while driving than drinking and driving. This means that more teenagers are dying and getting wounded from the former than latter practice. The Cohen research estimated that more than 3,000 teenagers die from texting while driving, while 300,000 were injured, while around 2,700 teens died from drinking alcohol and driving (Ricks, 2013). The media show the negative effects of texting to drivers’ lives. Despite these agreements, stakeholders disagreed on the point that banning texting while driving is effective because of differences in arguments about cause and effect. Jim Sollisch (2012), creative director at Marcus Thomas Advertising, provided his opinion on those against texting while driving. He criticized the slippery slope arguments of “liberals” although he acknowledges that banning texting while driving has its unintended negative consequences. Liberals think that banning texting will lead to later loss of freedoms (Sollisch, 2012). Supporters of texting-while-driving bans stress that these bans can reduce the practice and its negative effects. David D. Teater, senior director of the National Safety Council, appreciates the support of telecom providers (Richtel, 2012). He has a son who was killed by a driver who was talking over the phone. These stakeholders disagree on the effects of bans, where consequences vary because of differences in how they see cause and effects. Another cause of disagreement is differences in the importance placed on values and interests. Stakeholders agreed that human life is more important than profit, which is why even telecom service providers agree on these bans. However, stakeholder groups are different in how they see the proper range of responses to vehicular accidents because of their divergences in their priorities when it comes to values. Randall Stephenson is the chairman and chief executive of AT&T. He enthusiastically supports the ban on texting while driving, though he prefers market-driven solutions over legislative options (Richtel, 2012). Stephenson values human life, but as a member of an organization that profits from cell phone usage, he has a stake on avoiding the complete maligning of the image of cell phone to drivers. Moreover, stakeholders disagreed on the effectiveness of banning texting while driving. The Cohen research showed that teenagers admitted that they still text and drive even when it is banned, suggesting that laws are ineffective in reducing its prevalence (Ricks, 2013). West and colleagues (2011) wanted to use the theory of planned behavior (TPB) in understanding the behavioral intentions of their study’s participants. Their findings showed that attitudes, norms, and perceived control of behavior affect the intention to evade texting while driving. Their study indicated that banning is not effective if teenagers continue to think that they can safely text and drive. These studies underscore differences that come from personal values and interests. According to these stakeholders, texting while driving is harmful enough to be banned. It can impair drivers’ thinking and physical abilities, which can lead to death. Stakeholders disagreed on some points because of differences in priorities and interests. They propose different effects of texting while driving and its bans because they have diverse interests on the matter. These sources highlight the dangers of texting and driving. Teenagers must heed these clear warning signs: “Text at your own risk and the risk of others. Text and drive, and you might not die, but chances are you might and kill others along the way.” References Agency Group 06. (2012, June 1). U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray Lahood applauds Ohio for enacting ban on texting while driving by. FDCH Regulatory Intelligence Database. Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com.terrehaute.libproxy.ivytech.edu.allstate.libproxy.ivytech.edu/ehost/detail?sid=b5787eb8-fbf3-43f6-8076-c13444f3497b%40sessionmgr11&vid=1&hid=21&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=mth&AN=32W2353416746 Hosansky, D. (2012, May 4). Distracted driving: Should driver texting and cellphone use be banned? CQ Researcher, 22(17), 401-424. Retrieved from http://library.cqpress.com.terrehaute.libproxy.ivytech.edu.allstate.libproxy.ivytech.edu/cqresearcher/getpdf.php?file=cqr20120504C.pdf Park, A., Salsbury, J., Corbett, K., & Aiello, J. (2013). The effects of text messaging during dual-task driving simulation on cardiovascular and respiratory responses and reaction time. The Ohio Journal of Science, 111 (2-5), 42-44. Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com.terrehaute.libproxy.ivytech.edu.allstate.libproxy.ivytech.edu/ehost/detail?sid=2597001e-613d-4bcf-9ada-001d932c1ae1%40sessionmgr13&vid=1&hid=21&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=krh&AN=2W63467275631 Richtel, M. (2012, September 19). AT&T chief speaks out on texting at the wheel. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/20/technology/att-chief-speaks-out-on-texting-while-driving.html?_r=0 Ricks, D. (2013, May 8). Study: Texting while driving now leading cause of death for teen drivers. Newsday (Melville, NY). Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com.terrehaute.libproxy.ivytech.edu.allstate.libproxy.ivytech.edu/ehost/detail?sid=2597001e-613d-4bcf-9ada-001d932c1ae1%40sessionmgr13&vid=1&hid=21&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=krh&AN=2W63467275631 Sollisch, J. (2012, May 17). Inconvenient truths to a ban on texting while driving. Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com.terrehaute.libproxy.ivytech.edu.allstate.libproxy.ivytech.edu/ehost/detail?sid=6132fb1e-27db-4f8d-b540-a002dc68e382%40sessionmgr11&vid=1&hid=24&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=f5h&AN=75263859 U.S. News and World Report. (2013, May). Phones, texting may be as dangerous as alcohol for drivers. U.S. News and World Report. Retrieved from http://health.usnews.com/health-news/news/articles/2013/03/15/phones-texting-may-be-as-dangerous-as-alcohol-for-drivers West, J.H., Hall, P.C., Thygerson, S.M., Edwards, E.S., Bennion, S.R., & Bennet, C. (2011). Hispanic adolescents' behavioral intentions to avoid texting while driving. American Journal of Health Studies, 26(1), 37-44. Read More