Cell Phones While Driving: Distracted Driving Takes Lives

Dr. Martin Cooper invented the first cell phone in 1973.  It has been 36 years since then, and cell phones have become part of everyday life for many American citizens.  The advantage of cell phones is that they are portable, which means that many people feel the need to talk or text message on their cell phones while they drive.  Some states have already banned people from using cell phones while they are driving, and many more are attempting to pass legislation that would ban motorists from using their hand held phones behind the wheel. Should the United States government pass nationwide legislation that would ban all cell phone use by operators of motor vehicles in order to decrease the number of accidents and fatalities caused by distracted drivers?  Yes, the United States government does need to pass legislation in order to cut down on the dangers of distracted driving by motorists.  When a driver is conversing on a cell phone, they not only put themselves at risk, but they put the other drivers around them in danger as well.

In 2001, New York became the first state to ban motorists from using hand-held cell phones while driving.  It took six more years for Washington to be the first state to outlaw drivers from text messaging while behind the wheel.  In July 2009, the United States Senate proposed a bill that would outlaw drivers from text messaging nationwide.  Within the past year, many states have become more aware of the dangers of using a cell phone while driving and have begun to implement laws that restrict cell phone use.  I suggest that hand-held cell phone operation, hands-free use, and text messaging while driving should all be banned nationwide because of the dangers posed by motorists who are distracted by tasks other than driving.

In an article titled, Ban Hand-Held Texting and Calling While Driving, but Don’t Sever the Wireless Link to Cars, the CEO of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, Dave McCurdy, claims that recent advances in technology have made in-car cell phone systems more safe to operate while driving a car or truck. This is because the driver now has the capability to keep both hands on the wheel and focus on the road while conversing on the phone.  He cites a Virginia Tech Transportation Institute study, which found that 80 percent of all car crashes occur right after the driver has taken their eyes off the road.  McCurdy feels that with the new hands-free devices in cars, this problem will be eliminated.  A group of researchers at the University of Utah disagree with this notion, claiming that conversing on a cell phone is dangerous regardless of the type of device used because the driver is still at risk of distraction.  The researchers created an experiment where they tested the differences between conversing on a cell phone and interacting with a passenger in the same car.  Their results showed that it is dangerous to talk on the phone while driving even if it is hands-free.  When the driver is talking with a passenger in a car, they still run a risk of being distracted, but they have a second set of eyes in the car.  The researchers found that in-vehicle conversations generally revolve around what is happening around the car, helping the driver stay alert and potentially avoid a crash.

Yoko Ishigami and Raymond M. Klein, researchers at Dalhousie University in Canada, designed their own experiment in order to determine if driving while talking on a hands-free cell phone is safer than a hand held phone.  Their research showed that no matter what type of cell phone the driver is using, there are negative effects on the driver’s awareness.  Ishigami and Klein’s results showed that drivers have a difficult time detecting and identifying events when talking on the phone.  Their inability to react quickly enough causes crashes and puts other motorists at risk. Likewise,  Dusty Horwitt from Georgetown University wrote a document in 2001 that highlights and explains the reasoning behind banning cell phones.  His main point at the time was based off of evidence that showed that talking on a cell phone while driving is dangerous even when using a hands-free device.  Horwitt claims that banning hand held devices sends the wrong message to drivers because they will feel that a hands-free phone is much safer, even though it is statistically as dangerous.

In an article titled Consumers Favor Texting-While-Driving Ban, Andrew LaVallee reports that 80 percent of U.S. adults surveyed by Nationwide Insurance support a ban on text messaging behind the wheel.  Only 57 percent of the same group surveyed supports a complete ban on all cell phone use while operating a car, including hands-free operation.  This survey shows that people understand the dangers of driving while text messaging, but still do not understand how dangerous it is to talk on the phone while driving a car.

Tom Vanderbilt wrote a book titled Why We Drive the Way We Do (and What It Says About Us), which analyses the way humans think behind the wheel of a car.  Through his research, Vanderbilt found that drivers generally blame the “other guy” while driving, thinking that they are a better driver than they actually are.  When I interviewed Joshua Weller, he said that a human brain is not capable of safely talking on the phone while operating a car because cell phone conversation poses significant cognitive distraction.  He also said that humans are quick to blame other drivers for crashes they may have caused, misattributing the sources of distraction-related accidents.  Both of these sources provide a strong link to the way the brain functions and the processes that go into driving a car.

Two months ago, the United States Secretary of Transportation, Ray LaHood, convened a Distracted Driving Summit.  The intent of the convention was to inform citizens of the dangers of cell phones and discuss proposed action plans.  A few days after the summit, LaHood pledged that he would crack down on distracted driving.  This claim went immediately into action when President Barack Obama signed an Executive Order banning all federal employees from text messaging while driving federal vehicles or personally owned vehicles while on government business.  Other groups and organizations such as Mom Sends the MSG, Drive to Life PSA Challenge, and On the Road, Off the Phone have also started to move forward, publicizing the notion that distracting tasks, like cell phone operation, can negatively affect a person’s ability to drive safely.  These organizations support a complete ban on all cell phone use while driving, including hands-free operation.

I feel that the United States should pass legislation that would ban drivers from all forms of cell phone use behind the wheel, because statistics show that all cell phones distract drivers from the task at hand. I believe that if one type of phone is banned, all types should be included under regulations.  If the public shared a common understanding of the dangers posed by all cellular devices, I think there would be more widespread support for a complete ban. Until that happens, however, people will continue to use cell phones behind the wheel and largely jeopardize traffic safety.  The government is sending the wrong message to its citizens by letting them use hands-free phones and neglecting to restrict all cell phone use in any state.  The U.S. Government should bypass restrictions instituted by state governments and impose a nationwide ban on all cell phone use by operators of motor vehicles.

Ten Final Source Write-ups

Is a hands-free phone safer than a handheld phone?

In the article titled, Is a hands-free phone safer than a handheld phone?, from Science Direct, Yoko Ishigami and Raymond M. Klein perform research focused on the differences between hand-held cell phone use and hands free use.  Their article highlights the differences between the two and tests if there is a statistical difference between the different forms of cell phone use. Many different situations are covered in the article, such as the comparison between cell phone conversation versus passenger conversation and cell phone use and alcohol intoxication. This Institutional source focuses on statistics pulled from other organizations and sources such as The Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association, Horrey and Wikkins (2006), and Stutts and Reinfurt (2001).  The authors use these sources as examples for distracted driving, and as an outlet to present information to the reader to help support their claims.

The article was posted through the Journal of Safety Research, and both authors were funded by Dalhousie University in Canada.  The researchers were funded through Dalhousie University and the intended audience is cell phone users, but the article is only accessible through subscription, therefore a smaller audience actually reads the article.

Passenger and Cell-Phone Conversations in Simulated Driving

A group of Researchers at the University of Utah, posted a document on Google Docs titled, Passenger and Cell-Phone Conversations in Simulated Driving, which compares the differences between conversing on a cell phone versus conversing with a passenger.  This Academic Research source was posted in 2004 following the Human-Factors and Ergonomics Society 48th Annual Meeting.  The authors and main researchers listed in the article are Frank A. Drews, Monisha Pasupathi, and David L. Strayer.

The researchers created a driving simulator in order to find a safe way to test the effects of cell phone use while driving mainly with younger adults.  The research found that when conversing with a passenger, more references are made to traffic because both people are in the same setting and experiencing the same surroundings.  Many times, the conversation between driver and passenger revolves around potential dangers or traffic. When a driver is conversing with someone on the phone, they are more likely to get distracted because they are focusing on the conversation and not their surroundings.

Throughout the document, the researchers make links to other research that has been performed to help explain their own findings.  The intended audience is anyone that operates a motor vehicle.  Even if someone is operating a car safely, they can still be injured or even killed by someone using a cell phone.

Ban Hand-Held Texting and Calling While Driving, but Don’t Sever the Wireless Link to Cars

This article posted to the Politics section of The Huffington Post, in September 2009, focuses on distracted driving and its dangers.  The article claims that cell phone calls and text messaging should be banned except for when operated in hands-free mode.  He also claims that there is a larger problem to distracted driving with the advances in technology today.  Dave McCourty, the CEO of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, wrote the institutional article titled, Ban Hand-Held Texting and Calling While Driving, but Don’t Sever the Wireless Link to Cars, from a business standpoint since his company represents many different car manufacturers such as Ford, General Motors, and Toyota.

McCourty cited the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute and referred to a study they conducted in his article.  The study found that 80 percent of all crashes involve the driver looking away from the road before a crash.  McCourty’s target audience is the consumer.  With the advances in technology, he is attempting to convince the consumer that newer built-in telephone systems in cars are still safe to operate, which is the reason why he opposes a ban on hands-free cell phone use.  McCourty argument lacks credibility because he never claims if hands-free cell phone use is safer than hand held.

Driving While Distracted: How Should Legislators Regulate Cell Phone Use Behind the Wheel?

On page 185 in the 2002 Journal of Legislation, Dusty Horwitt of Georgetown University, wrote an article, which focuses on legislation and bills that have been passed or in the process of being passed in regards to cell phones use in cars.  He explains that in 2001, 43 states considered legislation to ban hand-held cell phone use while driving.  Since 2001, technology has changed, and cell phones have become more prevalent which has led to an increased number of cell phone related car crashes.  This Institutional sources focuses on the Government and what is the most efficient way regulate cell phone use by drivers.

The document is titled, Driving While Distracted: How Should Legislators Regulate Cell Phone Use Behind the Wheel?.  The document was posted in the Journal of Legislation for 2001, which discusses a wide array of topics that were debated during the year.  Horwitt’s main source is the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and a test they conducted called the Fatal Accident Reporting System.  In 2001, cell phone use while driving was a starting problem, and today it is a giant problem that needs to be solved.

Consumers Favor Texting-While-Driving Ban

In a Wall Street Journal blog titled, Consumers Favor Texting-While-Driving Ban, Andrew LaVallee uses statistics focusing on consumers and their preference for a ban on text messaging is discussed. I accessed this article in the beginning of the beginning of the term, and I immediately knew this would be a valuable source. Throughout the article, LaVallee uses multiple secondary sources to provide statistics.  The main secondary source that he uses is a survey taken by Nationwide Insurance. In the opening sentence, a stat from Nationwide Insurance claims that roughly 80 percent of U.S. adults support a law banning text messaging while driving.  LaVallee’s main focus is that many citizens approve of a law; therefore it should be put into effect.  It is well known that text messaging while driving is dangerous and many people feel it should be banned.

This article provides precise information, which I will use to support the ban of cell phones while driving.  LaVallee’s article aims to inform the consumer about the findings of the Nationwide Insurance study.  The statistics that LaVallee uses are also aimed at lawmakers.  He uses a statistic that shows that 57 percent of all adults support a ban of hands-free devices, which is a highly debated topic. Through the article, he hopes that more steps will be taken in order to ban the use of cell phones while driving.

Traffic: Why We Drive the Way We Do (and What It Says about US)

In his educational book published by Random House Inc., Tom Vanderbilt looks into humans as drivers and what contributes to humans driving worse than they think.  The book is titled, Traffic: Why We Drive the Way We Do (and What It Says about US), which is available through a public library, Vanderbilt explores why people feel that they are better drivers than they actually are, and tend to blame other drivers for their faults.  Vanderbilt focuses on the cognitive abilities that humans have and how they affect humans as drivers.  He mainly uses professional sources throughout his book such as psychologists and professionals whom examine the human brain in order to understand how it words.  He doesn’t focus specifically on cell phone use, but this book helps understand how traffic works better and how it might lead to the problems with cell phone use while driving.

Through other research, I have learned that people understand the risks of driving while operating a cell phone, but they refuse to turn their phone off.  This book helped me understand better why people think they are better than other drivers which is why they continue to talk on their cell phone and drive.

Department of Transportation Distracted Driving Summit

This past month, a distracted driving summit was held in Washington, D.C.  Roy LaHood, United States Transportation Secretary, held the two-day summit in order to discuss the dangers of text messaging and other distractions while driving.  Many people including senior transportation officials, elected officials, safety advocates, and academics all were involved in the summit.  Their main goal was to figure out the most effective ways to fight distracted driving.  The home webpage for the Department of Transportation Distracted Driving Summit, has a webcast archive from the summit where visitors can watch speakers give presentations about distracted driving, and how to combat the problem.

This website is a Governmental source that includes many different secondary sources. The secondary sources for the webcast include Ann Shoket of Seventeen Magazine, Peter Appel, Administrator Research and Innovative Technology Administration, and multiple Senators from across the United States.  Each person moderated a discussion that related to distracted driving.  The main focus of the summit was to include as many age groups and audiences as possible to inform them about the dangers of distracted driving.  This is a good first step towards educating citizens about the distractions that occur while driving, mostly caused by cell phone use.  After the summit, the Government should go one step further and implement a nationwide ban of cell phone use in motor vehicles.

Distracted Driving Summit leads to wave of action; let’s keep it going.

On October 8, 2009, the U.S. Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood published a post on his blog that discusses the Distracted Driving Summit.  Only one week after the summit ended, he was extremely pleased with the actions towards educating citizens about distracted driving.  His blog claims that everybody was on board with the ideas discussed at the summit, and that everybody was making a move forward.  LaHood cites sources that have taken the ideas from the summit and have gone their own direction in an attempt to curb distracted driving.  “Mom Sends the MSG” is a campaign that aims to help mothers become more aware and educated about distracted driving by the younger generations.  The National Safety Council and CTIA: The Wireless Association operate a new website called, On the Road, Off the Phone.  The website offers tips and information about distracted driving and also houses a new Public Service Announcement.

LaHood’s Governmental blog is targeted at people all citizens.  His main goal as the Secretary of Transportation is to make sure drivers are safe on the road and informed as to what they can do to be safer drivers. I will use the secondary sources to help me show what has already been done to combat distracted driving, and hopefully in the near future, more groups or organizations will be formed to inform drivers.

LaHood Pledges to Crack Down on Distracted Driving, Warns of Fatal Consequences

In an article posted titled, LaHood Pledges to Crack Down on Distracted Driving, Warns of Fatal Consequences, published on October 1, 2009, Nina Donaghy quoted Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood as saying, “Every time you take your eyes off the road or talk on the phone while you’re driving — even just for a few seconds — you put your life in danger”.  Not only do you put your life in danger, but you put other lives in danger as well.  This journalistic source focuses on the Distracted Driving Summit, and what Secretary LaHood plans on doing to prevent distracted driving after the convention.  Donaghy uses secondary sources such as President Barack Obama, politicians, and companies such as Ford and Verizon.  The most noted secondary source that Donaghy uses in her article is Senator Charles Schumer(D) of New York.  In July, Schumer introduced a bill titled ALERT, which aims to ban text messaging and other personal electronic devices while driving.

This article was created to inform the reader of the legislation that is being put forward in an attempt to ban text messaging while driving.  There are statistics given that prove text messaging behind the wheel should be banned. With the amount of sources given, there is substantial information that makes the case for legislation to be passed.

Interview: Joshua Weller, Research Scientist, Decision Science Research Institute

Joshua Weller is a researcher at the Decision Science Research Institute, who focuses mainly on how cognitive processes affect a human’s ability to make decisions.  Weller said that humans instinctively blame the other drivers for poor driving, and don’t actually understand what distraction is all about.  Weller claimed that people’s psychological attachment to cell phones and their desire to belong is similar to the shallow understanding of dangers that might occur from smoking.  He gave the example that people overestimate their ability to quit smoking without knowing the actual power of addiction.  Throughout the interview, Weller made references to his own research and that of his colleagues but gave no information to specific studies or research.

The fine for text messaging in the state of Oregon is $95, and Weller stated that the penalty should to be harsher if people are going to abide by the current law.  Weller’s research and information will be helpful in making the argument against cell phones behind the wheel.  He made it very clear that humans do not have the cognitive ability to perform the tasks required in driving while conversing on a cell phone or text messaging.  His arguments are strong against cell phones while driving, and he provided strong claims and research to back his stance on the matter.

10 Primary Sources

Should the United States government enforce legislation that would ban cell phone use by operators of motor vehicles in order to decrease the accidents and fatalities caused by distracted drivers?  Recently, with the advances in technology, cell phone use while operating motor vehicles has become more prevalent.  As a result of the increases in use of cell phones, more accidents and fatalities have occurred which has led some states to ban the use of handheld phones and text messaging while driving.  Many states have implemented bans of handheld cell phone use, but research has shown that hands-free devices may still be as dangerous and distracting to the driver.

 

Ban Hand-Held Texting and Calling While Driving, but Don’t Sever the Wireless Link to Cars

Dave McCourty, the president and CEO of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, wrote this article focusing on distracted driving.  He states that there should be a ban on cell phone use and text messaging while driving, but he also claims that there is a larger problem to distracted driving.  One source used is that Virginia Tech Transportation Institute and a study they conducted.  The study found that 80 percent of all crashes involve the driver looking away from the road before a crash.  This study doesn’t only factor in cell phones and driving, but also considers the driver’s eating, drinking, or anything that keeps the drivers eyes from the road.

This journalistic article was posted on the Internet at The Huffington Post it is free for anybody to access the text.  Since the article is free, it will hopefully reach a larger audience and help educate the reader about distracted driving.

 

Is PSA about texting while driving too graphic?

This article by Michael Inbar, who is a contributor for the todayshow.com, discusses the use of public service announcements in order to educate the public about text messaging while driving.  The main service announcement that Inbar highlights is from Whales and shows extremely graphic footage simulating car crashes caused by cell phones.

MSNBC.com is a mainstream journalistic source that is available to anybody with access to the Internet.  The Gwent Police Department is Whales produced the video, which is the main source for the article.  Their main focus was to create a powerful film that would be, “The Film That Will Stop You Texting and Driving.”  The films initial target audience was local teens in Whales, but it has caused a stir surrounding the images used.  The article questions if there is a better way to present the information on hand rather than scaring the audience into stop using their cell phone while driving.

 

Passenger and Cell-Phone Conversations in Simulated Driving

This source is a document from a group of Researchers at the University of Utah.  The researchers created a driving simulator in order to find a safe way to test the effects of cell phone use while driving mainly with younger adults.  This institutional document compares conversational driving with a passenger and talking on the cell phone while driving alone.  The research found that when conversing with a passenger, more references are made to traffic because both people are in the same setting.  This isn’t the case with a cell phone because both parties are in different locations.

Other sources used include different tests conducted by researchers.  These experiments were used in order to help the research group from University of Utah further explain and support their findings.  This document pulls from many different sources to gather their evidence, and the reader can tell that the study is reliable based on all of the information given.

 

Driving While Distracted: How Should Legislators Regulate Cell Phone Use Behind the Wheel?

On page 185 in this Journal of Legislation, Dusty Horwitt of Georgetown University, focuses on legislation and bills that have been passed or in the process of being passed.  He explains that in 2001, 43 states considered legislation to ban hand-held cell phone use while driving.  In part II of the journal, Horwitt discusses statistics, scientific studies, and anecdotal evidence regarding the issue of cell phone use while driving.  Later in the journal, Horwitt also has sections that highlight potential ways to solve the problem.

This document has some governmental sources, but would still be considered institutional based on the author and the information given.  Horwitt uses information from other research performed and other conferences that have been held to discuss the issue.  This document was accessed through the University of Oregon library.  Since it is only accessible through a subscription or paying, it will reach a smaller audience than the free articles or documents.

 

Is a hands-free phone safer than a handheld phone?

In this article from Science Direct, Yoko Ishigami and Raymond M. Klein perform research focused on the differences between hand-held cell phone use and hands free use.  Their article highlights the differences between the two and tests if there is a statistical difference between the different forms of cell phone use.  The main sources that the article includes are generally supporting their data found.   There are links that lead back to different research that has been performed or an association.

Both authors are affiliated with Dalhousie University in Canada, which makes me believe it is an institutional source.  This article was found through the University of Oregon libraries; therefore it reaches a smaller audience and won’t be as powerful as a free article.

 

Department of Transportation Distracted Driving Summit

This past month, a distracted driving summit was held in Washington, D.C.  Roy LaHood, United States Transportation Secretary, held the two-day summit in order to discuss the dangers of text messaging and other distractions while driving.  Many people including senior transportation officials, elected officials, safety advocates, and academics all were involved in the summit.  Their main goal was to figure out the most effective ways to fight distracted driving.

This is an interesting article because it incorporates a webcast archive with footage from the summit of professionals speaking and educating each other about the danger of distracted driving.  The audience for the article is the general public.  Not everybody is allowed to attend the summit, but it is important for civilians to hear the information given.

 

Traffic: Why We Drive the Way We Do (and What It Says about US)

In his book, Tom Vanderbilt looks into humans as drivers and what contributes to humans driving worse than they think.  Many people feel that they are better drivers than they actually are, and tend to blame other drivers for their faults.  Vanderbilt focuses on the cognitive abilities that humans have and how they affect humans as drivers.  He doesn’t focus specifically on cell phone use, but this book helps understand how traffic works better and how it might lead to the problems with cell phone use while driving.

This book’s intended audience is anybody who is interested in traffic or how humans interact in their surroundings especially while driving.  There are little to no other sources because Vanderbilt uses his own investigation in determining his findings.

 

Distracted Driving Summit leads to wave of action; let’s keep it going.

In the Official Blog of the U.S. Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood, there is a post that discusses the Distracted Driving Summit that occurred a month ago.  His blog claims that everybody was on board with the ideas discussed at the summit, and that everybody was making a move forward.  Attendees of the summit have created public service campaigns intended to focus on safer driving.  “Mom Sends the MSG” is a campaign that aims to help mothers become more aware and educated about distracted driving by the younger generations.

The governmental blog by LaHood uses other sources such as links to the other campaigns.  By writing his blog, he hopes to reach every American citizen.

 

Consumers Favor Texting-While-Driving Ban

In a Wall Street Journal blog written by Andrew LaVallee, statistics focusing on consumers and their preference for a ban on text messaging is discussed.  In the opening sentence, a stat from Nationwide Insurance claims that roughly 80 percent of U.S. adults support a law banning text messaging while driving.  He goes on to state another statistic from Nationwide Insurance, which says that 73 percent of the youngest generation surveyed would approve of a law banning text messaging.  LaVallee’s main focus is that many citizens approve of a law; therefore it should be put into effect.  It is well known that text messaging while driving is dangerous and many people feel it should be banned.

The alternative journalistic source helps connect to the consumer because it presents facts and statistics that include the general public.  Throughout the blog, LaVallee uses studies performed by other groups such as Nationwide Insurance to prove his point.  Since the blog is offered for free, he is getting paid by The New York Times, so he doesn’t have to charge to view the article.

 

LaHood Pledges to Crack Down on Distracted Driving, Warns of Fatal Consequences

FOXNews.com correspondent Nina Donaghy featured Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood the day the distracted driving summit ended.  Donaghy claimed that LaHood would press the issue on distracted driving.  He also planned on alerting citizens of the fatal consequences of driving while distracted because many drivers take a car for granted and don’t understand the damage that can be done.  This journalistic article focuses on making the consumer more aware of what is going on within the government and the changes that are going to take place in order to make driving safer for everybody.

Donaghy used many prominent figures in her article for sources such as LaHood and Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., who created an auto bill titled, “Alert.”  The article was posted on-line for the general public to see by FOXNews.com in hopes to attract people that don’t read the newspaper.

Visual Analysis

Image from The Oregonian

The first image that I chose to use was published on July 25, 2009 in The Oregonian. Lisa Lednicer, who is a reporter and book author, wrote the article, “Car crash kills teenage girl from Milwaukie.” Lednicer reported on a car crash that happened this summer in the suburban Portland area.

The picture in the article shows a black Mercedes sedan that missed a turn on a windy road and went through a telephone pole.  Since the image came from The Oregonian, I know that it came from a reliable journalistic source.  I actually have a contact that knows the driver of the car, so I would like an interview the driver himself.

In the picture, the reader sees the main part of the story, which is the car itself.  Outside of the frame is the surrounding neighborhood.  The reader can also assume that there is some sort of emergency crew, news crew, and lighting.  The mood that the picture evokes is a sad and depressing mood.  The result of the crash and the picture taken is intended to prevent the use of cellular devices while operating motor vehicles.

Video from MSNBC

For the second example, I chose to use a video that is a Public Service Announcement that was created by the government of Whales.  The short video is an extremely graphic depiction of what might happen to people that text message while operating a motor vehicle.

I chose this video because there has been controversy claiming that it is too graphic because it shows bloody cars and multiple dead people.  At one point, the video shows a girl asking why her father isn’t waking up; she doesn’t know that he is already deceased.

The Gwent Police Department in Whales produced the film and can be classified as a Government source.  The goal of the video is targeted towards younger drivers and shows the dangers of text messaging while driving, which is becoming a growing problem among younger drivers.

The film crew and others involved with the film aren’t in the frame because it is a set scene.  The mood that is evoked is sorrow, which was intended by the makers in order to provide the main point of the Public Service Announcement.

Image- http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index.ssf/2009/07/car_crash_kills_teenage_girl.htm

Video- http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/32549978#32549978

“Goo Goo for Johnny”

The second story, “Goo Goo for Johnny”, is about a girl who plays lead guitar in a band called “Daisyflower”.  The story opens with the girl, who calls herself Iris, and she is explaining what she looks like, where she lives, and professes her love for the band the Goo Goo Dolls.   She especially likes the lead singer of the Goo Goo Dolls, Johnny.  She tells a story about how Johnny was at one of her band’s shows and Johnny asked her if he could write a song about her.  He continued to ask her out on a date, but Iris brought up the fact that Johnny was married.  Johnny then said that we would rather date Iris and they went out to Italian food, which eventually resulted in a kiss by the end of the night.  After their kiss, Johnny left, and Iris wondered if she would ever see him again.

When I started reading this story, I first thought it was a joke because of the awful grammar.  That was the first thing that stood out to me, and it reflects negatively on the author.  Poor grammar is used throughout the story as well as inconsistencies.  One thing that stood out to me was the different ways that she spelled the name “Johnny”.  During the story, she spells his name, Johnny, Jonnie, Johny, and Johhny.  The author also used words of phrases that would generally be used for text messaging or instant messenger such as WOW, BTW, and LMAO.  I don’t mind reading an informal piece of writing, but when the writing becomes sloppy, it takes away from the story itself because the reader is focused on the poor grammar and word usage rather than the point the author intended.

Timeline

1973-             Dr. Martin Cooper invented the first cellular phone called the Motorola DynaTAC 8000X.  He used his cell phone to call his rival, Joel Engel, the head researcher of Bell Labs.

1983-             10 years after the invention of the cell phone, the first Motorola DynaTAC phone was available to consumers for $3,500, which weighed sixteen ounces.

1992-            The first text message was sent.  An engineer named Neil Papworth sent the message, and it said “Merry Christmas”.

2001-             New York became the first state to outlaw the use of hand-held phones while driving.

2002-            The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration released report titles, “National Survey of Distracted and Drowsy Driving,” which claimed that one in three drivers uses a cell phone for outgoing or incoming calls.

2007-             Washington becomes the first state to ban text messaging while driving a car.  The ban went into effect on January 1, 2008 and the fine is $101.

Jan. 2009-            Zoomsafer Inc. was founded by Matt Howard and Michael Riemer.  The company provides a cell phone application that detects when the consumer is driving and deactivates certain functions that distract drivers.

July 2009-    The Senate proposed a bill that would ban text messaging while driving Nationally.  States would have two years to outlaw text messaging or else they will forfeit 25% of their highway budget.

Sept. 2009-   Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood announced the first Distracted Driving Summit.  The summit addressed the dangers of text messaging and cell phone use while driving and will discuss ways in which distracted driving can be stopped.

Oct. 2009-    President Obama signed an executive order banning federal employees from using cell phones to call or send text messages while operating federally owned vehicles.  The ban also includes using federally owned cell phones while driving personal vehicles.

http://www.nsc.org/resources/issues/factsheet.aspx

This is a fact sheet that highlights cell phone use while driving.  The fact sheet explains the statistics behind cell phone use and the amount of crashes that cell phone use causes.  Cell phone use contributes to six percent of all crashes which translates to roughly 2,600 deaths per year.

http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2009/09/01/consumers-favor-texting-while-driving-ban/

This news article surveyed 1,008 people asking them if they would support a nationwide ban of cell phone use while driving.  The article states that 67% of people surveyed would support a ban and 57% of people would support a ban of hands-free devices as well.  The article does explore generation Y and that age group of people still feels that text messaging while driving should be legal, which is an ongoing debate.

http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/news/technology/series/driven_to_distraction/index.html

“Driven to Distraction” is a series of articles that examines the dangers of using cellular telephones and other electronic devices, and efforts to change the ongoing problem of distracted drivers.  The first article in the series explores the dangers of distracted driving and explains why state legislators need to do something to change the problem.  The most recent article explains the dangers of operating a car at 60 M.P.H. while doing office work, and how the efficiency outweighs the risk of a crash.

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811216.PDF

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration documents the dangers of distracted drivers in general.  The article stated that in 2008, 5,870 people died and 515,000 people were injured in car crashes where driver distraction was reported on the crash report.  The article also states that even though there is a definite problem with distracted drivers, it is still going to be difficult for law enforcement to take control of the problem.

http://www.tvworldwide.com/events/rita/090830/default.cfm

This is a clip of a film that was taken at the Distracted Driving Summit.  The panel in the clip reviewed initiatives which will help increase public awareness surrounding the dangers of driving distracted.  The panel also reviewed research regarding the effectiveness of the efforts to increase awareness.

Cell Phone Use by Operators of Motor Vehicles

I chose this topic because of the increasing concern with cell phone use while driving motor vehicles.  Currently six states have prohibited all drivers from hand-held cell phone use while driving and eighteen states have completely banned text messaging while driving.  With the growing concern over distracted drivers, this has been a highly debated topic which will continue to be discussed.