The Types of Aspects in Driving Attitude - Coursework Example

Running Head: Driving and Psychology Driving and Psychology [Institute’s Driving and Psychology The types of aspects in drivingattitude that have to become the centre of attention are aspects of the driving situation as well as the approaches, ideas, theories and probabilities that “inform responses to these” (Wanberg et al, 2004, p. 82). Several researchers have noted the necessity to think about as well as manage the approaches and ideas, which cause or are behind “less safe driving practices”. Altering the actions of the regular driver requires a change in overall communal attitudes. There is a need to expand a road decorum that clearly describes the types of actions that are appropriate in managing a vehicle on public roads and that are linked directly to individuals requirements and hopes. This will entail dealing with communal thinking, approaches as well as hopes - the sorts of thinking and so on. Whereas there is expected to be a series of individual approaches as well as hopes, these will function within somewhat restricted terms determined by the communal / cultural atmosphere (Verster et al, 2008, p. 22). A number of social as well as individual values function with respect to the thinking while driving, to create the entire driving experience. The communal principles are mostly new and consequently little focus is given to them. People notice new roads being constructed continually and they seem to have created the thought that because of all the improvements driving should be a stress-free, simple experience. Instead, it is usually a complex, perplexing, busy and annoying experience (Kiesby, 2011, p. 34). Recent issues around making it faster as well as convenient to pay tolls no doubt raise the belief that traffic jamming will be significantly lessened with a new structure. Logically, there will be a number of advantages but general traffic jamming will carry on to be a trouble, mainly on peak hours. The truth is traffic stream is incredibly intense and there are inadequate techniques to handle it. Drivers will carry on to be strained as they cope with the morning as well as evening rush and one gives very little focus on the way to make that more humanly convenient. Driver inattention is considered to cause a number of car crashes and the notion of selective attention is elemental to significant theoretical constructs within the ‘cognitive ergonomics literature’, together with situational understanding as well as mental workload. The grouping of “automatic and controlled processing with exogenous and endogenous selection” (Knauff, 2011, p. 78) creates the framework. In this framework, two types of selection involve automatic procedures. They are called reflex and habit. Reflexes of selection are automatic procedures that are naturally specific as well as caused by the existence of particular incentives within the environment. These procedures start natural, unconscious, mandatory reactions that take place even when unsuitable. Reflexes are not learned and therefore they cannot be untaught. Habits are procedures that come into existence as the functions essential to carry out a specific goal are executed so often within a particular stimulus perspective that the procedures become automatic and are executed as soon as the individual is within that circumstance. The other two types - exploration and deliberation - are controlled. Exploration is the default type for controlled processing, a form of selection that is executed in nonattendance of particular objectives. Instead, exploration includes a common objective - one common to every human within any situation. Exploration needs controlled processing since complete object recognition usually needs attention. One argues that in the absence of some particular objectives, natural inclinations set the default for what is focused when humans look at situations that they have no particular anticipations, situations missing the stimulus triggers essential to induce reflex or habit. These common defaults can be overruled without excessive effort once a person accepts a particular objective. Figure 1: Attention processes involved in driving (Knauff, 2011, p. 90) The way individuals feel when driving a motor vehicle has not been taken into consideration in most cases (Beede and Kass, 2007, p. 59). The level to which cognitive practicing or reflective thinking, is needed in awareness as well as other phases of making decisions supported by perceptual data, mainly within difficult circumstances, is not clearly appreciated. The ways in which approaches, hypotheses, values and potential act together with perceptual data is itself intricate as well as possibly unattainable to separate. There are a number of features, for instance, drivers views / insights that dominant cars make it complicated to “keep to the speed limit, especially in suburban areas where the speed limit is low” (Ling, 2004, p. 21). The driver is capable of forgiving their actions by retaining the thought within their own intellects that the car is in control. When this sort of “thinking is brought out and considered, it is difficult for the driver to deny that in fact they are in control of the vehicle” (Sturnquist, 2006, p. 22). Apparently, additional legislation is not the solution, nor it is raising fines - a number of individuals think there is small possibility of being trapped and experience has proven this the case. What is required is a system of getting individuals to take additional liability for what is taking place on the roads, how particular types of attitudes chip in to that and what types of activities will make it a much easier as well as securer experience for everybody (Soard and Maker, 2008, p. 12). Driving, cars, roads and traffic streams have all expanded on an inconceivable pace during the previous century and people have taken slight chance to check the approach and acting with respect to the way it has kept up. Other types of opinions have to do with the prospect that one can get in the car and drive along the roads unhindered until he arrives at the destinations. Naturally, this hardly ever takes place in fact. Driving involves coping with a mass of irrelevant controls that one should keep in mind, discuss and so on. The thought that ‘it must not be like that’- such as “there shouldnt be kids running across roads or people not knowing where they are going or trying to find somewhere to park and so on” (Zielinski, 2006, p. 93) - can cause a lot of disturbance when the truth is that it is like that a lot of the time. Data recommends that in young drivers there is an ‘over-reliance’ on official imperatives or regulations making these drivers less capable of understanding as well as permitting for the fact that others do not constantly comply with regulations and act in usual ways. Therefore, in a number of instances, crashes involve some other driver paying no attention to rules or making a blunder. Younger drivers are unable to make adequate allowance for mistakes or violations. This is accredited mainly to a deficiency of perceptual schemata on which to base opinions of danger or threat, but it is as well considered that this aspect interrelates with other motivational aspects that result in better risk taking attitude with younger drivers (Lesch and Hancock, 2004, p. 19). Driver disruption as well as inattention in its different types is thought to have a key part in 30 percent to 35 percent of the entire road accidents. Disruption is caused by an opposite activity, happening or object from within or outside of the motor vehicle. Safety issues linked with driver disruption are likely to go up in the near future as additional technologies become accessible for use within motor vehicles. Whereas it is obvious that mobile phones improve business communication as well as boost personal ease, use of mobile phones at the time of driving has turn out to be a serious road safety issue. The mainstream of drivers - 70 percent to 80 percent (McHale, 2011, p, 103) - report using their cell phone at least occasionally at the time of driving, and it is estimated that on any given instant in the day, 4 percent to 6 percent of the drivers are using a cell phone. The cell phone disrupts drivers in two ways: (1) it creates physical disruption as well as (2) cognitive disruption (Treffner and Barrett, 2007, p. 59). Physical disruption takes place when drivers have to concurrently control their cell phone - that is, reach, call hold - and drive their motor vehicle. Cognitive disruption takes place when a driver has to redirect part of his / her concentration from driving to the cell phone talk. Nonetheless, the capability to split one’s concentration between two instantaneous tasks is restricted. Cell phone at the time of driving could thus harmfully influence driving performance. The outcomes of epidemiological research attempts strongly recommend that use of a cell phone while driving can raise the possibility of being involved in a road accident up to five times. The distractive results of cell phone use rely on the temporary situation of driving. Phone use at the time of undemanding driving times may not appear to be a setback. Nonetheless, both the demands of the driving situation as well as the content and demands of the cell phone talk have a part during this process (Young et al, 2008, p. 299). The point of difficulty of the phone chat - its cognitive stress - is the significant issue that as well decides the level of the effect of the cell phone conversation on driving performance. Even though theories differ with reference to the level of behavioural alterations found, the majority of them authenticated the fact that use of a cell phone while driving harmfully influences different aspects of driver performance. Different nations have launched various types of legislation targeted at limiting the use of cell phones. The most common governmental step is the prohibition on handheld cell phones in vehicles. “Other measures include prohibiting the use of the mobile phone for drivers in some special driver categories, such as drivers with special responsibilities (e.g. school bus drivers) or young drivers who only have a learners licence” (Hayes, 2011, p. 192). There is still extremely small amount of information on the efficiency of these parliamentary measures. There are signs that even though the interim effects could be a 60 percent drop in cell phone usage, the continuing effects - after a year or so - are far less encouraging. It has been identified that the efficiency of legislation could be improved if supported by promotional drives in addition to a large learning drive to support sensible usage of cell phones at the time of driving. With the aim of determining a better way to manage as well as decrease the effects of cell phone use on road safety, following are the few recommendations: (1) recognize the level of drivers’ use of cell phones more accurately so as to produce precise information on the threat of cell phone use at the time of driving. Secondly, trace cell phone use in mishap reports with the aim of producing a more factual estimate of the amount of cell phone crashes in the total number of crashes; (3) make drivers more conscious of the threats of cell phone use in addition to other different disturbing activities. Fourthly, (4) plan the “Human-Machine Interface as ergonomically as possible” (Knauff, 2011, p 78); (5) develop accurate standards as well as methodologies for considering the security inferences of in-vehicle information systems, together with cell phones; (6) support the legislation of cell phone use on methodical confirmation. In addition, (7) develop business strategies like those commanding an absolute ban on the usage of cell phones at the time of driving as well as other types of policies chipping in to the commercial security culture. Lastly, (8) application the ‘technology against technology principle’ - technology could as well give the answer, at least to a certain extent, to solving the issue of driver disruption. The compilation of data regarding cell phone involvement during road accidents is neither extensive nor very methodical. This makes it complicated to assess the threat of cell phone use in vehicles. In the majority of nations, the existence or use of a cell phone within a vehicle is not traced. The shortage of methodical information collection gives rise to necessary apprehensions regarding the apparent underreporting of cell phone use as a reason of car crashes. Accident information mentioning their use just relate to instances whereby the law enforcement can definitively attribute the crash to a drivers use of a cell phone. There is clearly a requirement for a precise information-gathering plan that can deal with the comparative threat of cell phone use at the time driving. Particularly, because of a general lack of “data about mobile phone involvement in crashes, only some data regarding the situation in a few countries have been encountered” (Vanderbilt, 2006, p. 212). “These epidemiological studies attempt to find a statistical relationship between mobile phone use and road crashes. The advantage of epidemiological studies is that, unlike experimental studies, they are about real situations. The disadvantage of epidemiological studies is that it is difficult to measure or control various, potentially significant factors” (Vanderbilt, 2006, p. 251). References Beede, K. E., and Kass, S. J. 2007. Engrossed in conversation: The impact of cell phones on simulated driving performance. Elsevier. Hayes, A. M. 2011. Three Keys to Keeping Your Teen Alive: Lessons for Surviving the First Year of Driving. Morgan James Publishing. Kiesby, S. 2011. Cell Phones and Driving. Greenhaven Press. Knauff, T. 2011. Driver Training Accident Prevention Manual. CreateSpace. Lesch, M. F. and Hancock, P. A. 2004. Driving performance during concurrent cell-phone use: are drivers aware of their performance decrements. Elsevier. Ling, S. 2004. The Mobile Connection: The Cell Phones Impact on Society. Morgan Kaufmann. McHale, K. 2011. Why Cell Phones and Driving Dont Mix and the Laws on Using Cell Phones While Driving Including Texting. Websters Digital Services. Soard, T. and Maker, S. 2008. Fleet Driver Safety. Jones and Bartlett Publishers. Sturnquist, D. M. 2006. Mobile Phones and Driving. Gazelle Distribution. Treffner, P. J. and Barrett, R. 2007. Hands-free mobile phone speech while driving degrades coordination and control. Elsevier. Vanderbilt, T. 2006. Traffic: Why We Drive the Way We Do. Vintage. Verster, J. C. Pandi-Perumal, S. R. Ramaekers, J. G., and Gier, J. J. 2008. Drugs, Driving and Traffic Safety. Birkhäuser Basel. Wanberg, K. W. Milkman, H. B. and Timkin, D. S. 2004. Driving with Care. Sage Publications, Inc. Young, K. Lee, J. D. and Regan, M. A. 2008. Driver Distraction: Theory, Effects, and Mitigation. CRC Press. Zielinski, K. 2006 Cell Phones and Driving: A Dangerous Mix? Axon Group. Read More