The irresponsible cell phone users

The overbearing carrel speech sound usagersWhen a carrel ring goes off in a classroom or at a concert, we are irritated, only at least our lives are not endangered. When we are on the road, however, imperative cell phone riding habitrs are more than irritating They are displace our lives at risk. Many of us expect witnessed device stabrs so distracted by dialing and chatting that they resemble drunk drivers, weaving amongst lanes, for example, or n ahead of time ladder down pedestrians in crosswalks. A number of bills to regulate use of cell phones on the road take a leak been introduced in state legislatures, and the time has stick to to push for their passage. Regulation is needed because drivers using phones are seriously impaired and because laws on negligent and reckless thrust are not fitting to punish offenders.No one buttocks deny that cell phones have caused avocation deaths and injuries. Cell phones were implicated in three contraband accidents in Novemb er 1999 alone. Early in November, two-year-old Morgan Pena was killed by a driver distracted by his cell phone. Morgans mother, Patti Pena, reports that the driver ran a stop sign at 45 mph, broadsided my vehicle and killed Morgan as she sat in her car seat. A hebdomad later, corrections officer Shannon Smith, who was guarding prisoners by the side of the road, was killed by a womanhood distracted by a phone vociferate(a) (Besthoff). On benediction weekend that same month, John and Carole Hall were killed when a Naval honorary society midshipman crashed into their parked car. The driver said in court that when he looked up from the cell phone he was dialing, he was three feet from the car and had no time to stop (Stockwell B8).Expert testimony, public opinion, and even cartoons suggest that impetuous time phoning is dangerous. Frances Bents, an expert on the relation between cell phones and accidents, estimates that between 450 and 1,000 crashes a year have some connection to cell phone use (Layton C9). In a survey published by Farmers redress Group, 87% of those polled said that cell phones affect a drivers ability, and 40% report having close calls with drivers distracted by phones. Scientific research confirms the dangers of using phones while on the road. In 1997 an important study appeared in the New England daybook of Medicine. The authors, Donald Redelmeier and Robert Tibshirani, studied 699 volunteers who made their cell phone bills available in collection to confirm the times when they had placed calls. The participants agreed to report any nonfatal conflict in which they were involved. By comparing the time of a collision with the phone records, the researchers assessed the dangers of impulsive while phoning. The results are unsettling We found that using a cellular telephone was associated with a risk of having a motor vehicle collision that was about four times as high as that among the same drivers when they were not using their cellula r telephones. This relative risk is interchangeable to the hazard associated with driving with a blood alcohol level at the legal limit. (456)The news media often exaggerated the latter claim ( like to is not equal to) nonetheless, the comparison with drunk driving suggests the extent to which cell phone use while driving can impair judgment.A 1998 study focused on Oklahoma, one of the few states to keep records on fatal accidents involving cell phones. Using police records, John M. Violanti of the Rochester Institute of engine room investigated the relation between traffic fatalities in Oklahoma and the use or presence of a cell phone. He found a nine-fold increase in the risk of fatality if a phone was existence used and a doubled risk simply when a phone was present in a vehicle (522-23). The latter statistic is interesting, for it suggests that those who carry phones in their cars may tend to be more negligent (or prone to distractions of all kinds) than those who do not.Som e groups have argued that state traffic laws make polity regulating cell phone use unnecessary. Sadly, this is not true. Laws on traffic sanctuary vary from state to state, and drivers distracted by cell phones can get off with calorie-free punishment even when they cause fatal accidents. For example, although the midshipman mentioned earlier was charged with vehicular manslaughter for the deaths of John and Carole Hall, the judge was unable to write out a verdict of guilty. Under Maryland law, he could only catch the defendant guilty of negligent driving and impose a $ euchre fine (Layton C1). such a light sentence is not unusual. The driver who killed Morgan Pena in Pennsylvania received two tickets and a $50 fineand retain his driving privileges (Pena). In Georgia, a young woman distracted by her phone ran down and killed a two year-old her sentence was ninety age in boot camp and five hundred hours of community service (Ippolito J1). The families of the victims are unde rstandably distressed by laws that lead to such light sentences.When certain kinds of driver behavior are shown to be especially dangerous, we wisely draft special laws making them bootleg and imposing specialised punishments. cart track red lights, failing to stop for a school bus, and drunk driving are obvious examples phoning in a go vehicle should be no exception. Unlike more general laws covering negligent driving, specific laws leave little equivocalness for law officers and for judges and juries imposing punishments. Such laws have another important benefit They leave no ambiguity for drivers. Currently, drivers can tease themselves into thinking they are using their car phones responsibly because the definition of negligent driving is vague. As of December 2000, twenty countries were limit use of cell phones in moving vehicles (Sundeen 8). In the United States, it is passing unlikely that legislation could be passed on the national level, since traffic safety is consid ered a state and local issue. To date, only a few counties and towns have passed traffic laws restricting cell phone use. For example, in Suffolk County, New York, it is illegal for drivers to use a handheld phone for anything but an emergency call while on the road (Haughney A8). The first town to restrict use of handheld phones was Brooklyn, Ohio (Layton C9). Brooklyn, the first community in the domain to pass a seat belt law, has once again shown its concern for traffic safety.Laws passed by counties and towns have had some effect, but it makes more sense to legislate at the state level. Local laws are not likely to have the allude of state laws, and keeping track of a wide variety of local ordinances is confusing for drivers. Even a spokesperson for Verizon Wireless has said that comprehensive bans are preferable to a crazy patchwork quilt of ordinances (qtd. in Haughney A8). Unfortunately, although a number of bills have been introduced in state legislatures, as of early 20 01 no state law seriously restricting use of the phones had passedlargely because of in effect(p) lobbying from the wireless industry.Despite the claims of some lobbyists, tough laws regulating phone use can make our roads safer. In Japan, for example, accidents linked to cell phones down by 75% just a month after the country prohibited using a handheld phone while driving (Haughney A8). Research suggests and common sense tells us that it is not possible to drive an automobile at high speeds, dial numbers, and carry on conversations without evidential risks. When such behavior is regulated, obviously our roads will be safer.Because of rise public awareness of the dangers of drivers distracted by phones, state legislators must generate to take the problem seriously. Its definitely an issue that is gaining steam around the country, says gym mat Sundeen of the National Conference of State Legislatures (qtd. in Layton C9). Lon Anderson of the American Automobile connector agrees There is momentum building, he says, to pass laws (qtd. in Layton C9). The time has keep an eye on for states to adopt legislation restricting the use of cell phones in moving vehicles.