The Need for National Legislation Against Distracted Driving - Essay Example

?The Need for National Legislation Against Distracted Driving The mobile phones of the world have taken over the lives of the people who were supposed to use it only for the ease and convenience in communication that it offered. However, increased advances in mobile phone technology has seen it practically take over the lives of everyone around us. For some inexplicable reason there is always a phone call we have to take, a text message we have to read, or a message we have to send. There is always a use to be on the mobile phone these days. The problem, is that constantly being in touch with the people around us is posing a threat to the lives of those around us as well since mobile phone use is the number one reason for distracted driving these days. The problem of mobile use while driving has gone from the local government level to the national government level. This report hopes to prove that there is a need for national legislation on this increasingly growing traffic problem and that there is a swelling public support for such types of laws. 11 states in the U.S. have already acknowledged that mobile phone use has caused a rise in accidents and casualties. Most of these states have already passed state laws to protect the citizens against distracted drivers. But that is not enough. According to recent data gathered by Dr. Ship (“The Most Primary of Care -- Talking About Driving and Distraction) driver distraction is a real concern for most transportation experts. However, it is hard to determine exactly what percentage of vehicular accidents are caused by distracted drivers who are using their mobile phone for either calling or texting at the time of the accident. Dr. Ann Ship (“The Most Primary of Care -- Talking About Driving and Distraction”) further explains that: ... one study showed that talking on a cell phone while driving posed a risk four times that faced by undistracted drivers and on a par with that of driving while intoxicated. Another study showed that texting while driving might confer a risk of collision 23 times that of driving while undistracted. With over 81 percent of our population admitting to talking or texting on their mobile phones while driving, it is quite understandable when we see statistics such as 1.6 million traffic accidents (21% of crashes) being flashed before our eyes on the local and national news. What is evident from this particular data is that not even the existence of hands-free medical devices have made using a mobile phone while driving a safer activity. ( Dr. Ann Ship, “The Most Primary of Care -- Talking About Driving and Distraction”). With ever increasing mobile phone gadgets that will most likely take the driver's attention away from the road as he drives, something must be done to protect these drivers from themselves in order to protect the people around them as well. Research done in 2003 by the Gallup Organization (Sundeen, “Cellphones and Highway Safety: 2005 State Legislative Update”) showed the following information: ... 48 percent of drivers perceive that making outgoing calls can make driving dangerous. Forty-four percent of drivers perceive that receiving calls can be dangerous. Twice as many people—88 percent of drivers surveyed— indicated they support increased public awareness of the risk of wireless phone use while driving. It is that kind of statistical data that has given rise to 71 percent of drivers in support of a ban on mobile phone use and texting while driving. Although instead of asking for legislation in order to ban or curb the activity, they instead prefer that insurance penalties be applied to the offending drivers. However, 61 percent of the respondents also claimed that they would rather see a doubling or tripling of fines for such traffic violations. More importantly, 57 percent made it known that they would openly support a ban involving cellphone use of any sort while a car is in motion, unless it is for emergency purposes (Sundeen, “Cellphones and Highway Safety: 2005 State Legislative Update”). While other countries across the globe have already began enacting national laws in order to prevent any further deaths or accidents involving motor vehicles with a distracted driver at the wheel, the United States has, as it seems to be a trend for the country lately, been slow to react to the problem. Our national government has chosen to sit back and allow the local state governments to deal with the situation by passing individual state laws that they hope will deal with the distracted driving situation in their states. Some of the states that already have anti mobile phone use while driving laws include Washington D.C. and California. Just like any other laws that try to instill law and order in our society, there will always be those who will challenge the validity of the law. People like Carl Nelson who tried to challenge the California Vehicle Code Section 23123, more commonly known as the Hand-Held Wireless Telephone: Prohibited Use law. Mr. Nelson tried to challenge the law on the basis of the red-light exemption which would allow a person to operate a mobile phone provided the car is not set in motion. After a number of appeals on his part, the Court of Appeal of the State of California voted to uphold his conviction based upon the following grounds the red light exemption does not apply to to a car stopped in traffic. The car is still considered to be in motion in such cases. (New York Times Editorial, “The Case Of The Distracted Driver”). The there are the stubborn local state legislators who also refuse to enact laws on distracted driving in their state because, as in the words of Ohio state Senate President Tom Niehaus, “You cannot legislate common sense” (The Intelligencer, “Approve 'Texting' Prohibition in Ohio”). Now this argument makes sense if you believe that cellphone use and its resulting vehicular accidents cannot be considered to have a comparable percentage per state. (Hahn & Preiger, “The Impact of Driver Cellphone Use on Accidents”). But then again, there was no solid nor comparable information for accidents and deaths caused by the non-use of seat belts in cars on a per state basis but our state and federal government still found a way to enact hundreds of laws that would train people to change the way they drive in order to save their lives (The Intelligencer, “Approve 'Texting' Prohibition in Ohio”). It is easy to understand why politicians both local and national, feel uneasy about passing laws that could limit the freedom of their constituents to communicate with each other. However, if they insist on endangering the lives of those around, and they fail to recognize that they are also posing a threat to their own life, then we need the anti-distracted driving laws in place. Those who oppose the passing of state and national laws against mobile phone use and texting while driving do so because they claim that these kinds of offenses fall under the collective rule of reckless driving. Maybe that law does cover the situation to a certain degree. But shouldn't the punishment fit the crime? Lives are at stake with each text message sent or mobile call answered, this isn't a simple violation such as littering in the street. It should be taken seriously by all concerned because the effects of distracted driving accidents are life altering if not life ending. If our state politicians fail to protect their constituents, then it falls upon our national law makers to protect the over all well being of our society. They should be the first to recognize that these distracted driving accidents cause damage not only to the parties concerned and in some cases, also destroys public property. Most importantly, these texting while driving and mobile use accidents come at a high economic cost to all those concerned (Lissy, Cohen, et.al, “Cellular Phone Use While Driving: Risks and Benefits). With the resulting property damage and certainty of litigation costs, increased insurance premiums, and other possible drawbacks to being involved in such accidents looming each time a driver texts or places a call with his car in motion, this turns a state problem into a national problem. Far reaching economic consequences stemming from these accidents dictate that it requires a firmer and more far reaching hand in order to deal with it. It is time for our national policymakers to take notice and take action. One of the newest states that hopes to pass their own distracted driving law is Ohio. Known as House Bill 99, the bill is now in second reading at the state senate. The law would ban texting while behind the wheel of a moving vehicle and it was passed unanimously by the Ohio house this past June. The problem, is that the state Senate has decided to do everything that they can to kill the bill for various reasons. Even though significant research by the local AAA in Philadelphia has shown that a texting ban will further help improve public safety on the road, the state Senate is still hesitant to implement the law (Baker, “Texting While Driving Ban Is Before Senate”). Rick Brinkman perhaps explained the need for a national law against texting and mobile phone use while driving when he said: People honestly will not abide by common sense at all times unless laws are on the books,” .. It’s common sense not to speed, but we have laws against speeding. It’s common sense not to run red lights, but we have laws against running red lights. We need a national law banning distracted driving in order to insure a uniform implementation of the law. This is a problem that affects all 50 states of the United States, I believe that qualifies it as a national problem that requires the attention of the highest political policymakers in Washington. Works Cited Baker, Jon. “Texting While Driving Ban is Before Senate”. 19 Nov. 2011. Web. 21 Nov. 2011. Cohen, Joshua, Graham, John, Lissy, Karen, and Park, Mary. “Cellular Phone Use While Driving: Risks and Benefits”. July 2000. Web. 22 Nov. 2011/ Hahn, Robert and Preiger, James. “The Impact of Driver Cellphone Use on Accidents”. The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy. Vol. 6 (2006): n. pag. Web. 22 Nov. 2011. Sundeen, Matt. “Cellphones and Highway Safety 2005 Legislative Update”. August 2005. Web. 23 Nov. 2011. Ship, Amy N. , M.D. “The Most Primary Care -- Talking About Driving and Distraction”. New England Journal of Medicine (2010); 362:2145-2147. Web. 24 Nov. 2011. New York Times Editorial. “The Case of the Distracted Driver”. 19 Nov. 2011. Web. 21 Nov. 2011. The Intelligencer. “Approve 'Texting' Prohibition in Ohio”. 18 Nov. 2011. Web. 22 Nov. 2011. Read More