2015-11-30 Discouraging Distracted Driving Mike Hodgson Final

Running head: DISCOURAGING DISTRACTED DRIVING
Discouraging Distracted Driving: Solving a Difficult Problem

Mike Hodgson
FDENG 101-C2
Sister Miyasiki
BYU-Idaho
November 23, 2015
DISCOURAGING DISTRACTED DRIVING
Discouraging Distracted Driving: Solving a Difficult Problem

Distracted driving kills and injures thousands of drivers, passengers, and pedestrians each
year. The yearly cost of property damage resulting from distracted driving accidents is in the
billions of dollars. Attempts have been made to reduce distracted driving with varying results.
Various studies have determined some of the causes of distracted driving and have proposed
solutions, many with a specific focus on cell phone use and texting while driving. Distracted
driving, particularly cell phone use, is a very serious problem due to the loss of life and property
damage, and it can be reduced through legislation, enforcement, and technology.
In an Australian College of Road Safety presentation, Regan (2007 p.32) defines
distracted driving: Distraction occurs when a driver engages, willingly or unwillingly, in a
secondary activity which interferes with performance of the primary driving task. Regan further
explains that although discussions about distracted driving usually focus on cell phone use
including texting, distracted driving includes many other activities. There are four types of driver
distractions or the competing activities: visual, cognitive, physical, and auditory. Visual includes
looking away from the road to do something unrelated to driving, like reading a text message on
a cell phone or preparing food to be eaten. Cognitive includes diverting attention from driving to
another activity, like talking on the phone or conversing with a passenger. Examples of physical
are changing the radio station or manipulating a cell phone with one hand that should remain on
the steering wheel. Auditory includes distractions like the ringing of a cell phone or music loud
enough to prevent hearing a siren (Regan, 2007, p.33).
Distracted driving has become one of the leading causes of death, injury, and property
damage by motor vehicles. In 2013 there were 3,154 deaths and 424,000 injuries due to
distracted driving in the U.S. Ten percent of fatal crashes for the age group of drivers 15 to 19
years old was due to distracted driving, making this group the largest proportion of distracted
drivers involved in crashes. A surprising 480 non-occupants were also killed. One might assume
that cell phone related activity would be the major cause of these statistics due to the publicity
given to reducing the use of cell phones while driving. Surprisingly, only 445 fatalities were
attributed to cell phone related activities (NHTSAs, 2015). Cell phone use is not exclusively to
blame. Other distractions include adjusting radio or climate controls and distractions by objects
outside the vehicle like signs and animals. Distracted driving causes financial harm as well. In
2010, $39.7 billion dollars in property losses were attributed to distracted driving accidents
(Blincoe, 2015). With cell phone use becoming more integrated and common in our daily
activities and other potential distractions constantly increasing, actions must be taken to reduce
these terrible losses.
Different approaches have been tried to reduce distracted driving with varying results.
Most approaches focus on reducing cell phone use while driving, especially texting, through
legislation and enforcement. New technology has also played a role in reducing distracted
driving. While there are efforts to lessen distracted driving, there is also resistance to the
attempts. Changing behavior and the socially accepted normal can be difficult. Another approach
focuses on using technology to overcome human weakness and a lack of interest in changing
behavior. Resistance to the increased cost of infrastructure can make this difficult. The lack of
consistency from state to state and country to country is a clear indication that generally accepted
best practices do not exist.
Many states have banned the use of cell phones in any fashion while driving to help
reduce crashes from distracted driving. Some require hands free devices when talking and
driving. Some states only ban texting while driving. In 2010 and 2011, Hartford, Connecticut and
Syracuse, New York participated in a High Visibility Enforcement (HVE) program to reduce
hand held cell phone use while driving where this practice was banned. Media coverage and
advertising was used to educate the public about the upcoming Phone in One Hand, Ticket in the
Other campaign. Increased police patrols and enforcement of existing laws were successful in
decreasing hand held cell phone use. The final technical report states:
Observed hand-held driver cell phone use dropped from 6.6% to 2.9% in Hartford, and
from 3.7% to 2.5% in Syracuse. Connecticuts control area also showed a decrease in use
(from 6.6% to 5.6%) but not to the same extent as Hartford. New Yorks control area had
similar decreases (5% to 3%)The results show that high-visibility enforcement
campaigns can reduce the number of people who use hand-held cell phones while
driving. (Chaudhary 2012)
Clearly, legislation and enforcement are effective in reducing the distracted driving caused by
cell phone use.
Outside the United States, other countries have also attempted to lessen distracted
driving. Sweden has no ban on cell phone use while driving, but has chosen to emphasize
education of the risks of distracted driving. Portugal has banned all cell phone use while driving,
including hands-free devices. One example of extreme legislation is the state of New Delhi in
India has banned the use of mobile phones when driving, including hands-free and text
messaging with a possible fine of 6 months imprisonment (Dash, 2009). Lacking is clear data
showing how successful one approach may be over another. While my son was serving as a
missionary in Germany, he learned from the members there how strict the DUI laws are. Even
minor infractions are severely punished with possible thousands of dollars in fines and months or
years of license suspension. Consequently, DUI cases are rare. This approach could work with
distracted driving laws. If the penalties are stiff enough, the rate of occurrence will drop. Social
acceptance may be slow in coming but will be worth the price.
In areas where education and legislation fail, using technology to reduce the impact of
distracted driving or prevent certain aspects of it shows promise. The use of technology can be
very helpful in preventing distracted driving accidents and saving lives and property. This
approach is mostly automatic and does not require manual intervention beyond the additional
cost for vehicles and infrastructure. One product warns when a vehicle leaves its safe driving
path or gets too close to the vehicle or other obstacle in front of it. Such warnings help with all
kinds of driving distractions, including cell phone distractions, by alerting drivers of danger
(Insurance, 2010). Another product prevents cell phones from functioning when a vehicle is
moving. Calls automatically go to voicemail and a message about later retrieval, while text
messages and Internet access are blocked except GPS functionality (McEvoy, 2006). As this
technology becomes more widespread and the cost is reduced due to mass production, social
acceptance will be less and less an obstacle.
The consequences of distracted driving related accidents are tragic with much loss of life
and property destruction. All possible avenues of prevention should be used where reasonably
and economically possible, even if social acceptance and drastic changes in behavior are
necessary. Education, legislation, enforcement, and technology should all be used. With the
changes proposed, lives will be saved and property damage reduced. As drivers become more
aware, additional understanding and prevention will become the norm. More sophisticated and
capable technology will continue to be developed. Distracted driving will fade into history like
the flip phone.
References
Blincoe, L. J., T.R. Miller, E. Zaloshnja, & B.A. Lawrence. (2015, May). The economic and
societal impact of motor vehicle crashes, 2010. (Revised) (Report No. DOT HS 812 013).
Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Retrieved November
28, 2015, from http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pubs/812013.pdf
Chaudhary, N. K., T.D. Casanova-Powell, L. Cosgrove, I. Reagan, & A. Williams. (2012,
August). Evaluation of NHTSA distracted driving demonstration projects in Connecticut
and New York. (Report No. DOT HS 811 635). Washington, DC: National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration.
Dash, D. K., V. Mohan. (2009, November 11) Six months jail for cell use while driving. The
Times of India. Retrieved November 28, 2015, from http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/
india/6-months-jailfor-cell-use-while-driving/articleshow/5216807.cms
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, Highway Loss Data Institute. Status Report, (2010): Vol.
45, No. 2. Retrieved November 27, 2015, from http://www.iihs.org/iihs/sr/statusreport/
article/45/2/4
McEvoy, S.P., M.R. Stevenson, M. Woodward. The impact of driver distraction on road safety:
results from a representative survey in two Australian states. Injury Prevention, 2006,
12:242247. Retrieved November 28, 2015, from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/
articles/PMC2586781/
NHTSAs National Center for Statistics and Analysis. (2015, April) Traffic Safety Facts Research
Note: Distracted Driving 2013. (Report No. DOT HS 812 132). Washington, DC:
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. U.S. Department of Transportation.
Retrieved November 28, 2015, from http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/

Pubs/812132.pdf
Regan, M. Distracted driving. In: I.J. Faulks et al, eds. Driver distraction: Reflections on the
past, present and future. Sydney, Australasian College of Road Safety, 2007, pp.32-33.
Retrieved November 28, 2015, from http://www.researchgate.net/publication/
254149413_Driver_distraction_Reflections_on_the_past_present_and_future

2015-11-30 Discouraging Distracted Driving Mike Hodgson Final

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2015-11-30 Discouraging Distracted Driving Mike Hodgson Final

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2015-11-30 Discouraging Distracted Driving Mike Hodgson Final

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Running head: DISCOURAGING DISTRACTED DRIVING

Discouraging Distracted Driving: Solving a Difficult Problem

DISCOURAGING DISTRACTED DRIVING

Discouraging Distracted Driving: Solving a Difficult Problem

DISCOURAGING DISTRACTED DRIVING

DISCOURAGING DISTRACTED DRIVING

DISCOURAGING DISTRACTED DRIVING

DISCOURAGING DISTRACTED DRIVING

DISCOURAGING DISTRACTED DRIVING

You might also like