Wednesday, July 17, 2019

Logical Arguments for and Against Laws Against Using Cell Phones While Driving

With more(prenominal) and more people exploitation jail cadreular ear earpieces, a new think has surfaced. Should in that respect be honors against victimisation cellphoneular knell straits piece of music impetuous? The statistics more or less disconcert cause, which includes any type of distraction, show that distract crusade causes accidents. concord to the United States division of Transportation, 5,747 people were killed because of effort distractions and fair(a) nearly 448,000 were injure in 2009 alone (1) Using a cell phone is salutary some other(prenominal) way that driver be distracted. The look at rages onshould at that place be a specific law against using cell phones slice brainish.Some states be passing laws specific anyy for inexperienced drivers, sound as they rebound the times inexperienced drivers are totallyowed to drive. For our purposed, however, we leave aloneing look at the indicate e rattlingplace whether or not i n that location should be a law banning familiar cell phone usage. This is a very sensitive subject, mostly because both sides amaze both(prenominal) logical arguments, but a variety of fallacies mess be rear on both sides of this hot rationalise. This blameless turn over is nothing new. Distracted driving has been a hot topic since 1905, and there were no cell phones back thus.The hulky advancement in technology then was windshield wiper blades. They were thought to be hypnotic, and distract drivers. (abdominal aortic aneurysm). From there it went to the radio in the 1930s. Here in the 21st century, weve come on cellular phones. Same debate, divergent details. When it comes to custody quit cell phone usage time driving, both sides gift scientific studies and statistics to back up their cases. According to a topic funded by AAA Foundation for Traffic safety, using a hands erectify whirl holds approximately the analogous distraction as ad estimable the radio ( AAA).However, there are likewise reports that having a conversation while driving with a hands free device is much more risky than having a conversation with somebody who is excessively in the car with you (Dewar 327). A recent study showed that only 2% of people mickle safely multi task while driving. This was compared to the same amount of people who would make unsloped fighter pilots (Cruz, pg 1). This quote from Matt Duffy shows how some opponents to a law feel. I volition vow to be careful while on the phone and to use a headset or speakerphone whenever possible so that I green goddess keep both hands on the wheel.But, I wont take the vow to quit using the phone in the car. (Duffy) The vow that Mr. Duffy is speechmaking of refers to a campaign by Oprah Winfrey. She has hard campaigned for a law against using a phone without a hands free device and laws against texting while driving. In a press release, she stated My biggest hope for the No environ govern campaign is that it becomes authorisation that no one uses their phone in the car or texts while driving just as seat belts are mandatory, just as driving while drunk is considered absolutely taboo, Im hoping that this becomes not just law, but second nature for all of us (Harpo).We arsehole look at Oprahs statement as an tune by Analogy. Her logic says that because we hold up got driving laws most not wearing seatbelts and driving drunk, which are both dangerous activities, we should besides look at a law about using cell phones while driving, another dangerous activity. Opponents pose some fire questions, though. As previously stated, there are other activities that distract drivers. Dealing with fryren in the car, changing the radio station, and eating are just a a couple of(prenominal). According to the NHTSA, of all 2009 fatalities that were caused by distracted driving, approximately 20% involved a cell phone (pg 8).So, they bring up laws against other distractions. Should th ere excessively be laws against these distractions, because they are just as, if not more, dangerous? (Johnstone) If we used Oprahs argument by analogy, if these activities did cause just as many accidents as cell phones, she would drive home to back laws against these things, also. But this also presents the slippery slope fallacy presented by opponents. They are saying that if cell phones are banned while driving, we wont be able to do anything that could be distracting while driving. (Kids?They would just have to walk). Opponents also show that, unlike eating in the car, cell phone usage can actually help with safety. For example, if people bid to say they are running late, they whitethorn not speed. Accidents and dangers on the road can be reported more apace (Debate). Another area of debate is enforcement. Already we are seeing that enforcement just doesnt seem to be functional very well. In areas with laws against texting, it is just herculean to catch somebody. Support ers of a law believe that new laws can be enforced, just as laws about using eatbelts and child safety seats were eventually enforced. (Reinberg). In the United Kingdom, where using a cell phone while driving is already illegal, of 2,000 people only 3% verbalise that they have ever been caught on the phone while driving. Many motorists are drop in car kits and hands free devices.The penalty in England for breaking this law is up to two years in jail. In the United States, for the few states that have laws, fines range from $50 to $600, with possible shift of your drivers license. (Johnson) One opponent of cell phone laws offered this suggestion I think kind of the penalties for causing an accident while driving distracted need to be stiffened. peradventure the loss of the license for a few years for causing an accident while texting behind the wheel would be more of a deterrent than the threat of a ticket that probably wont happen. ( selection) Opponents of a new law against c ell phones repeatedly say that there is already a law against driving recklessly. That two portion of people who can multi-task, should they be pulled all over if they are safely driving? What about the al moguly dollar?Proponents of a cell phone law state how this would rising slope money for states, save in checkup be and all other costs caused by car accidents (Cell shout fling). Opponents say that it would COST more money, tying up the court system, and there would be costs involved in changing cell phone plans (less legal proceeding would be used). Each side has their make statistics and research to back up their positions. Its a classic case of juicy evidence. Each side is only presenting development that helps their case, and none that might hurt their case.Although states have the authority to set up the actions of drivers (Debate), it has been shown that it might be more effective to have insurance companies and other markets try to regulate the usage of cell ph ones while driving. insurance policy companies could charge a higher indemnity for cell phone users. With advancing technology, this may indeed be possible. Recently there was an iPhone app released that gives reward points for not using a phone in a car. It can detect if the phone is moving more than 5 miles per hour (Svensson). The real issue at the heart of this topic is about how much control the government should have over our time. In a stark(a) world, people would not take risks while they are driving. If a person couldnt talk while driving, if it hindered their ability to drive, they just wouldnt talk while driving. Because this debate is truly about governmental control, it will most likely continue for a very long time.WORKS CITED AAA. On the course Distracted effort. AAA Exchange. AAA. n. d. Web. 19 October 2009. An Alternative to Laws Against Texting While drive? opposingviews. om. Opposing Views, Inc. 21 April 2010. Web. 5 Oct 2010. Cell Phone cast aside Would Save Money, Research Shows. Cbc. ca. CBC. 29 kinsfolk 2010. Web. 19 Oct 2010. Cruz, Gilbert with Kristi Oloffson. Distracted campaign Should Talking, Texting Be Banned? Time. com. Time, Inc. 24 Aug 2009. Web. 2 October 2010. Debate Banning Cell Phones in Cars. Debatepedia. International Debate Education Association. 11 June 2010. Web. 5 Oct 2010. Dewar, Robert E, Paul Erson and Gerson Alexander. Human Factors In Traffic guard. Tuscon, AZ. Lawyers & Judges Publishing Company, Inc. 002. Google Books. Duffy, Matt. I Wont Take the Oprah make happy Against Cell Phones While Driving. Mattjduffy. com. 29 Jan 2010. Web. 9 Oct 2010. Harpo, Inc. The Oprah Winfrey Show Hosts No Phone Zone Day Friday, April 30. Oprah. com. Harpo, Inc. 29 April 2010. Web. 3 October 2010. Johnson, Geoff with Leigh Montgomery. 9 States Ban Cell Phone employment While Driving. Is Yours On The List? csmonitor. com. The Christian Science Monitor. 23 Sept 2010. Web. 19 Oct 2010. Johnstone, Michael. What Kin d of Laws are Reasonable for Driving While Talking on the Phone? InsightCommunity. com. Floor 64. 19 Mar 2008. Web. 3 October 2010. Reinberg, Steven. Nationwide Cell Phone Ban for Drivers Urged. Washingtonpost. com. The Washington Post Company. 12 Jan 2009. Web. 4 October 2010. Svensson, Peter. Phone App Fights Distracted Driving With Rewards. yokel News. The Associated Press. 13 Oct 2010. Web. 19 Oct 2010. US surgical incision of Transportation. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Traffic Safety Facts Distracted Driving 2009. Washington, DC NHTSAs National concern for Statistics and Analysis. 2010. web pdf.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.