Banning the Use of Mobile Phones in Motor Vehicles in Australia - Research Paper Example

?A on Banning the use of mobile phones in motor vehicles To the Australian Government By The Transport Workers Union This assignment is approximately 1635 words in length Contents Contents 2 Introduction to the Transport Workers Union (TWU) 3 Banning the Use of Mobile Phones in Motor Vehicles 3 Key Arguments 4 Prevalence of Use of Mobile Phones in Motor Vehicles 5 Existing Bans on the Use of Phones in Motor Vehicles 6 Summary and Recommendations 7 References 9 Introduction to the Transport Workers Union (TWU) With the increased grievances in the transport sector, Transport Workers Union was formed to collectively address the issues of concern in the transport industry. The Transport Workers Union was registered in 1928 to challenge and forward grievance in the sector. The union however campaigns for consideration of concerns in thirteen sectors in the industry, with issues of safety on road transport being the major campaign that the union runs. The campaign seeks to improve safety in the transport sector by pushing for the ban on the use of mobile phones in motor vehicles. Since the development and incorporation of mobile phone technology, there has been increased occurrence of accidents as a result of drivers using mobile phones when driving (TWU, 2011). Banning the Use of Mobile Phones in Motor Vehicles The submission seeks to address the need to ban the use of mobile phones in motor vehicles, a phenomenon that has led to the rise of accident rates from driver distraction and divided attention. (Zamgba, 2001) Reports indicate that there has been a rise in the number of drivers brought to courts with regards to the use of phones when driving motor vehicles on public roads Recently, the use of phones in motor vehicle has increased significantly with increased driving offences resulting in significant rise in casualty risks irrespective of whether the phones being used are hand-held or hands-free. Drivers who make calls, text or even touch mobile phones are proved to have slow reactions and low concentration, thus increasing the risk of accident. US Research has indicates distraction from the use of hands free mobile phones in motor vehicles are more or less the same as distraction caused by handheld mobile phones when driving (Zamgba, 2001, P6). Key Arguments Recently, a number of countries such as Australia and New Zealand have introduced laws that ban the use of handheld mobile phones in motor vehicles. However, passengers and public transport users are still facing the risk of drivers failing to have proper control in driving motor vehicles when using hands-free mobile phones (Maslen, 2008, pg 13). The distraction and divided attention resulting from drivers who use mobile phones when driving causes as much risks as those that result from speeding and drunken drivers (Maslen, 2008, pg 46). However, according to Zamgba (2001, P6), there is need for existence of exceptions in the ban on the use of mobile phones in motor vehicles with respect to critical issues such as medical emergencies or need to report disabled vehicles. In addition, these are issues of concern in the ban particularly with the introduction of new generation phones where drivers are reported to use applications such as e-mails and even accessing the internet, which is extremely distractive to concentration (Zamgba, 2001). According to International Debate Education Association and Trapp (2009, p. 45), Arguments against a ban on the use of mobile phones as being inapplicable became baseless after the technological improvement in photography where drivers using mobile phones while driving can be automatically detected and apprehended by law enforcers. The photography detection will be effective in enforcing the ban on the use of mobile phones in motor vehicle through evidence. However, other irrelevant criticism against the ban, include the use of phones is vital for economic purposes, appointments and general communications needs given the fact that everyone could cope without phones some few years ago before introduction of mobile phones (International Debate Education Association and Trapp, 2009, p. 45). More so, there was good performance of the economy even the introduction of the technology that brought about the incorporation of the mobile phones. Among the technological improvements that were introduced to increase road safety, include the crash recorder, which downloads the speed of the car up to ten times every second. The records are saved continuously for five minutes when the motor vehicle is on the move. The technology is essential for enabling access of information after a crash with regards to speed before and at the crash moment and breaking distance (Holst, et al, 2000, p 253). Technology has provided economics to reduce accident occurrences, although legislation is yet to be put in place to enable effective use of technology to reduce road carnage. Prevalence of Use of Mobile Phones in Motor Vehicles Statistics reveal that there is high prevalence of mobile phone use by drivers while driving motor vehicles, with a corresponding increase in car crashes and accidents (McDonald, 2006). The profile phone user during driving is generally a representative of all age groups, with a slightly higher representation of male drivers within the bracket of 18 to 40 years old. Prevalence of drivers using mobile phones can also be attributed to high rates particularly in urban areas and workday periods during at rush hours (McDonald, 2006). There is need for enactment of legislation that seeks to reduce prevalence rates of the use of mobile phones in motor vehicle. This is because the use of mobile phones distracts drivers from their responsibility of driving motor vehicles in a manner that is safe to them and other public road users. The government should therefore take the initiative to put in place legislation to ensure the transport sector achieves a high degree of safety for the public (McDonald, 2006, p. 33). The government needs to better take into account on the controllable risk factors such as the use of cell phones by drivers for safer environments. According to Gallup (2002, p.164) research shows that drivers talking over the phone while driving are easily distracted as they respond to various topics of discussion and situations irrespective of whether the driver is using handheld or hands free mobile phones. Distractions are inevitable as drivers can receive emotionally distractive news when talking over the phone and in response may have divided attention that can impair reaction to split second decisions require of while driving. The attention required by drivers for safe operation can be easily distracted by an individual talking over the phone using phone applications of text messaging an even worse of accessing the e-mail, which has many capturing site and images. Individuals may also be tempted to access the social sites such as face book that captures attention. Such issues may lead to divided attention and loss of concentration when driving thus the need for a total ban of mobile phone use in motor vehicles (McDonald, 2006, p. 38). Existing Bans on the Use of Phones in Motor Vehicles A number of countries have legislation that enforced the ban of handheld mobile phone use in motor vehicles. However, the legislations do not ban the use of hands free mobile phones in motor vehicles as they were viewed not to distract driver’s hands in engaging gears and steering the motor vehicle. The legislation has failed to take into consideration the psychological aspect given the fact the fact that both hand held and hands free mobile phones distract the mental ability to control a moving vehicle safely (Ropeik, 2010, p 244). Companies and organizations have also enforced measures to restrict the use of mobile phones by employees in motor vehicles although in most cases, organizations belief that too much restrictions on the use of cell phones by employees may impact negatively on the performance of the company in the competitive market. This belief is an indication that companies fail to realize that in case of accident occurrence due to use of cell phones by their employees, it may result in more loses and liabilities to the company (Business & Legal Reports Inc, 2008, p164). According to Business & Legal Reports Inc (2008), current laws ban the use of hand held mobile phones but research indicates almost similar impairment of concentration speed to reaction caused by the use of handheld and hands-free mobile phones. It claims that mental reactions drivers conversing on mobile phones are different from when they are conversing to passenger in the same motor vehicle with himself mainly because telephone callers demand more in terms of concentration as he or she is aware of the safety hazards being experienced by the driver. The distraction and divided attention implicated by hands free mobile phone communications is just as lethal as distractions caused by hand held mobile use (McDonald, 2006, p. 33). Summary and Recommendations This submission has submitted research and evidence that supports a total ban of the use of mobile phones in motor vehicles with respect to high rates of accidents remaining constant even after enactment of laws banning the use of hand held Mobile phones. The recommendations of the submission emphasizes on enactment of laws banning the use of mobile phones totally when driving opposed to the laws that ban the use of handheld mobile phones. Donya (2006) argues that laws to totally ban the use of mobile phones in motor vehicles are essential if objectives to reduce distractions posing safety hazards in our roads are to be achieved. An environment free from distraction is what is essential for motorists given the fact that they have to keep their eyes fully open to situations on the road with full concentration to closing speeds, braking distances, traffic signals, road surface, pedestrians and animals, and proximity to other motorists (Schwarzenegger, 2008). All these aspects in road transport require that drivers must at all time concentrate and become attentive to them. Road carnage occurs as result of distractions in a matter of split second decisions. Actions must be taken by legislators to ensure they bring an end to these distractions that contribute to fatal accidents on public roads. References Business & Legal Reports Inc. (2008). Essential safety policies. CT: Business & Legal Reports, Inc. Donya, C.A. (2006). Rate of cell phone use while driving on rise. Nation's Health, Vol. 36 Issue 1, p22-22. Retrieved April 13, 2011, from http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=4&hid=107&sid=70a63972-0e92-42d5-84f9-c008aed01d15%40sessionmgr113. Schwarzenegger, A. (2008). Driving under the influence: Tech view. Global Agenda, p90. Retrieved April 13, 2011, from http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?sid=70a63972-0e92-42d5-84f9-c008aed01d15%40sessionmgr113&vid=5&hid=107&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=a9h&AN=33314383. Gallup, G. H. and Gallup, G. (2002). The Gallup Poll. NY: Rowman & Littlefield. Holst, H. V. et al. (2000). Transportation, traffic safety and health: Human behavior, Fourth international conference Tokyo, Japan 1998. NY: Springer,. International Debate Education Association and Trapp, R. (2009). The data base book, a must have guide for successful debate. NY: IDEA. Maslen, J. (2008). Driving at work 2008: Special report. NY: Workplace Law Group McDonald, K. M. (2006). Shifting out of park: Moving auto safety from recalls of reason. Tucson: Lawyers & Judges Publishing Company. Ropeik, D., (2010). How Risky is it, Really? : Why our fears don’t always match the facts. NY: McGraw-Hill Professional. Transport Workers Union website. (2011). Retrieved April 29, 2011, from http://www.twunsw.org.au/. Zamgba, B. J. (2001). Pataki's cell phone ban may spread to all public highways. New York Amsterdam News, Vol. 92 Issue 20, p6. Retrieved April 13, 2011, from http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=4&hid=107&sid=70a63972-0e92-42d5-84f9-c008aed01d15%40sessionmgr113. Read More