Usage of Cellular Phones While Driving Increases the Risk of Road Accidents - Essay Example

Usage of cellular phones while driving increases the risk of road accidents Sue Tribbett-Dix CM220-15 Unit 6 Project January 10, 2007 Kaplan University Over a 100 million drivers in the US engage in the concurrent use of cellular phones while driving. The daily press carries personal account of tragedies or near-tragedies (Curry, 2002). According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), driver distraction is the cause of approximately 25-30 percent of the injuries in car crash (Utter, 2001 cited by Tseng, Nguyen, Liebowitz, & Agresti, 2005). The distracted drivers pose safety risks to themselves and the occupants, as well as the motoring and walking public (Moore & Moore, 2001). The Harvard Center for Risk Analysis found that use of celular phones while driving caused 330,000 moderate to severe injuries and approximately 2,600 deaths each year (Sundeen, 2003 cited by Tseng et al., 2005). Horrey and Wickens (2004) however cite that while talking on the cellular phone drivers demonstrated decreased lane deviations. Despite these inconsistencies, it has been established that talking, texting messages, and sending emails are cellular phone distractions, which impair drivers, increasing the risk of traffic accidents and deaths. This is true both in the case of hand-held or hands-free cellular phones. The three main reasons for increases in road accidents due to usage of cellular phones are driver inattention, cognitive impairment and reduced response time. Cellular phone conversation induces driver inattention in which the drivers fail to see objects in their driving environment (Strayer & Drews, 2007). When the driver becomes involved in the cell phone conversation, attention is withdrawn from processing the information in the driving environment, which is necessary for safe operation of the motor vehicle. When the driver converses over the cellular phone, there is a demand placed upon him/her that differs qualitatively from other auditory/vocal/verbal tasks, which are commonly performed while operating a vehicle. In fact, even when the driver may be physically looking at an object, the mind does not register it, because the mind is preoccupied with the cellular phone conversation and thus decreasing detection of visible stimuli. The same distraction does not occur when the driver is talking to another person in the vehicle (Ropeik & Gray, 2002). This happens because the other person in the vehicle stops talking when the driver has to maneuver the vehicle through a difficult situation but the person on the other end during the cellular phone conversation is not aware of this. In driving simulator research, participants using а cellular phone failed to recognize cues from the environment, such as roadside billboards, even when an eye-tracking paradigm verified that they had fixated on them. Inattention arises when any task that significantly occupies the driver’s mental resources like talking on the cellular phone has a negative impact on safety (Curry, 2002). This is because there is less attention given to unexpected events. Cellular phones users attention may be so tied up that they do not notice the near misses when they occur, even though one might expect that cellular phone users would have more near misses than would nonusers. Drivers fail to look at traffic lights while being engaged over the phone, contends Ivankovic, Ouellet, Oyetunji and Roberge (2005) who also found that drivers missed twice as many simulated traffic signals when talking on a cellular phone than when not talking. Even though driving becomes a routine activity and an individual can perform secondary tasks like tuning the car audio or changing the CD, or even switching on the headlights, being engaged on the cellular phone while drivin, is definitely more risky than listening to the radio or talking to other passengers while driving. To read a display or dial a number, the presence of a cellular phone increases the eyes “off the road” time. This impacts the allocation of attention to the vehicle and roadway in semantic ways. There are two dangers associated with driving and either talking, texting messages or sending emails. First, drivers must take their eyes off the road while performing any of these functions. Second, people can become so involved in their conversations that their ability to concentrate on the act of driving is harshly damaged, putting at risk the safety of car passengers and pedestrians. Conversations using а cellular phone demand greater continuous concentration, which diverts the driver’s eyes from the road and his mind from driving. Driver inattention occurs due to cognitive impairment when cellular phones are used while driving. Cellular phone use creates not just a momentary distraction but also a period of “cognitive inattention” that acts as a perpetual disability and even hands-free phones offer no safety advantage (Curry, 2002). The character of the cell phone conversation impacts the distraction that the driver experiences rather than whether the cellular phone is hands-free or hand-held. This is different from conversing with another person in the vehicle as the distraction is much less and can be controlled, as explained above. The more complex and emotionally charged the conversation, the greater the impairment of performance. Curry (2002) argues that an average cellular phone conversation lasts only slightly more than two minutes. Most calls are completed before the accident occurs. This in fact confirms that the cellular phone use is not a momentary distraction and the accident occurs not due to the function of the use of the phone but to the conversation on the phone, that has caused distraction. This distraction continues even after the conversation has ended. The more complex and emotionally charged the conversation, the greater the impairment of performance. Thus, even though as writers argue that it is not the function of the use but the effect of the conversation, the fact remains that the conversation could take place because the driver used a cellular phone while driving. The cognitive impairment leads to reduced response time, which can be fatal while driving. Brookhuis et аl. (1994) found that cellular phone use while driving increased the phase shift of the two speed signals, reflecting an increase in the lag or car-following response time, which they referred to as delay. Like response-time measures, increased delay reflects slower response, which could directly increase the likelihood of crash involvement in the event of а sudden stop by the lead vehicle. Modulus (gain) reflects the following drivers responses at the extreme values of the lead vehicle speed. It is possible to understand how close the following driver is anddthe research suggests that the driver has to adap to increased demands of the combination of driving and secondary tasks like talking on the cellular phone (Smiley, 2000).  Operating a mobile while driving affects the reaction time, the judgment of safe gaps in traffic and general awareness of the traffic. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, Britain further confirm that it thus impairs a driver’s maintenance of lane position and maintenance of an appropriate and predictable speed and following distance (Jessop, 2005). Studies suggest that cellular phone conversation and information processing tasks used to simulate the distraction of conversation interfere with performance. Drivers also tend to drive more slowly when using a cellular phone. Drivers have also been found to control the lane position to stay within the lane but do not try to position their vehicles right in the centre (Caird, Scialfa & Smiley, 2004). Brake responses are slower when cell phone users are conversing. Older adults are slower to respond to critical events and hence are at a greater risk when using cellular phones while driving (Caird, Scialfa & Smiley, 2004). To read a display or dial a number, the presence of a cellular phone increases the eyes “off the road” time. Because the cellular phone is available in the car, whenever the phone rings, there is a tendency to see who the caller is or run through messages received. This takes eyes off the road and leads to distraction. Even though driving becomes a routine activity and an individual can perform secondary tasks like tuning the car audio or changing the CD, or even switching on the headlights, being engaged on a cellular phone while driving, is definitely more risky than listening to the radio or talking to other passengers while driving. The other passenger may pause the conversation thereby helping the driver to navigate and identify the hazards on the road (Strayer & Drews, 2007). Pausing of conversation is not possible when talking on the cellular phone – hand held or hands free. While the driver may be able to pause, but the person at the other end of the conversation is not aware of the problems faced by the driver and would continue to converse. This keeps the driver distracted. Talking on the cellular phone while driving results in varied response time depending upon the character of the cellular phone conversation. Depending upon the response time, different hazards can occur due to talking on the cellular phone, contend Horrey and Wickens (2005). For instance lane keeping and hazard response depends on ambient and focal vision. They also found that the driving performance in hand-held phones and hands-free devices do not differ. This confirms that the manual activity of holding the phone is not important. Mobile phone use while driving can adversely affect the reaction times (Ropeik & Gray). Studies have found that the drivers take longer to react to traffic signals and even miss the signals. The use of cellular phones reduces the driver’s hand control – one hand on the steering and one on the phone – which restricts response capability during emergencies. Erratic acceleration/deceleration and constant braking are some of the symptoms that indicate that responses are adversely affected when drivers use cellular phones. It distracts the drivers for two minutes even after the conversation has ended. The visual field too is narrowed. The hands-free phones with speakers are usually mounted on the windscreen and it has been found that there is a tendency to look towards the source of sound during the conversation. This results in even more “eyes of the road” time than hand-held units (Curry, 2002). It is the dual-task that is performed that stems from the central processing bottleneck which blocks or impedes the processing of information in the driving environment. The manual activity of handling the phone is not important. Thus, there is enough evidence to suggest that talking, texting messages, and sending emails are cellular phone distractions, which impair drivers, increasing the risk of traffic accidents and deaths. Inattention is caused due to attention being divided between two tasks while cognitive impairment takes place in using cell phones while driving, and it also leads to inattention blindness as attention is divided between tasks. It is not just the mind that is diverted; even the eyes have to be taken off the road specially when messaging. Drivers have to take their eyes off the road to perform tasks like read a display or send a message. This performance of dual-task is what leads to accidents, mishaps, fatal injuries, or even death. The cognitive impairment lasts for two minutes even after the conversation ends. Their responses are erratic and the driver may either accelerate or apply brakes more than necessary. The response time of the driver is affected which is evident from missing traffic signals or turning in lanes. Evidence also suggests that there is no difference even when hands-free devices are used for talking on the cellular phones while driving as it does not eliminate all of the distractive aspects of cellular phones because the cognitive aspects of the driving tasks remain. Conversation affects the driving more than handling the phone and what matters is the cognitive effect. Hence, there is no doubt that using cellular phones while driving impairs the driver and increases the risk of accidents and deaths. Drivers must be aware of the hazards associated with the usage of cell phones while driving and they must make all attempts to keep away from distractions while driving. While cellular phones provide the society a convenience and a means to keep in touch even while driving, the convenience must be judged against the hazards they pose. Driving interference does arise from inattention caused due to dual-task, cognitive impairment and slow responses when the driver is engaged in any activity connected with the cellular phone. References: Brookhuis, K, de Vries. G. & de Wааrd, D. (1991). The effect of mobile telephoning on driving performаnce. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 23, 309-316. Caird, J. K. Scialfa, C. T. & Smiley, A. (2004). Effects of Cellular Telephone on driving behavior and crash risk: results of meta-analysis, CAA Foundation for Traffic Safety Retrieved December 27, 2007 from the World Wide Web: http://www.ontla.on.ca/library/repository/monoth/6000/259517.pdf Curry, D. J. (2002). In-Vehicle cell phones – Fatal Distraction? Professional safety. Retrieved December 27, 2007 from Academic Search Elite database. Horrey, W. J. & Wickens, C.D. (2004). The Impact of Cell Phone Conversations on Driving: A Meta-Analytic Approach. Retrieved December 27, 2007 from the World Wide Web: http://www.humanfactors.uiuc.edu/Reports&PapersPDFs/TechReport/04-02.pdf Ivankovic, M. Ouellet, R. Oyetunji, R. & Roberge, J. (2005). A Look into Cell Phone Networks in the State of Maine. Retrieved December 27, 2007 from the World Wide Web: http://www.epatric.com/classes/sbc/cellphone/CellPhoneNetwork.pdf Jessop, G. (2005). Mobile phones, driving and work: Current debates and historical Reflections. Retrieved December 27, 2007 from the World Wide Web: http://www.mang.canterbury.ac.nz/ANZCA/FullPapers/04CommTechsJessopFINAL.pdf Moore, L. R. & Moore, S. J. (2001), The impact of cell phones on driver’s safety, Professional Safety, American Society of Safety Engineers, June 2001, pp. 30-32. Ropeik, D. & Gray, G. (2003). Cell phones and driving: How risky? Consumers’ Research, January 2003. Retrieved December 27, 2007 from Academic Search Elite database. Smiley, А. (2000). Behаvior аdаptаtion, sаfety, аnd intelligent trаnsportаtion systems. Trаnsportаtion Reseаrch Record, 1724, 47-51. Strayer, D. L. & Drews, F. D. (2007). Cell-Phone–Induced Driver Distraction, Association for Psychological Science, 16(3). Retrieved December 27,2007 from Academic Search Elite database. Tseng, W. Nguyen, H. Liebowitz, J. & Agresti, W (2005). Distractions and motor vehicle accidents, Industrial Management & Data Systems, Volume 105 (9), pp. 1188-12. Please be sure to review the WC feedback form provided with your paper. It contains links to tutorials that will offer further direction as you revise your paper. These tutorials can be saved to your computer and even printed for quick reference. We look forward to working with you in the future! Warmly, ~The Writing Center Staff Read More