van Ommeren-Egberts k 1

Saskia van Ommeren-Egberts

Ms. Gardner
Honors English 10 1
st

1 May 2014
Knowledgethe Power to Prevent Distracted Driving
A vibration to the beat of a catchy songthat is all it takes for a car crash to
occur. One sound emitted from a cell phone and one person yearning to know the purpose
behind that sound, can create one car accident that changes lives forever. A moment of
distraction, a simple outreach to answer the phone, ruined the Bratton familys lives.
Monica Garske, a reporter from Southern California, explains how Angela Bratton lost
control of her vehicle and crashed into a car killing her nephew, Jaime Bratton, at a mere
age of five (Garske). Jaime Brattons life was lost through a cell phone distraction, and
his family keeps his legacy alive through awareness about distracted driving. Distracted
driving takes the lives of thousands of people, and specifically, cell phone distractions
take away hundreds of those lives. Society accepts distracted driving as a social
normality: as though it truly is not dangerous. Our society is driven by social acceptance,
and cell phone usage, while in the car, impacts our society to the extent that lives are lost
because of meaningless distractions. Statistics from the official U.S. Distracted Driving
website found that 39 out of 50 states have a law referring to the use of texting while
driving, and throughout those 39 states, more restrictions are being created revolving
around any use of cell phones while in the car (Distracted Driving). Due to the inability
to enforce laws, due to the common miscommunications between the officer and the
driver, due to the ignorance on this issue, distracted driving should not be reinforced
van Ommeren-Egberts k 2
through laws and bans on distractions, but instead our resources should be directed at the
social acceptance of the issue and public awareness and education of distracted driving.
With prevention programs and laws being announced to the public, those laws are
suspected to influence others to stay focused behind the wheel. In an article by the
company Macleans, it is mentioned that a Canadian program in 2013 had major success
when they implemented laws reducing cell phone usage (Macleans). Although Canada
received successful results from their new laws, the population of the United States is
larger than that of Canada. With more people, our laws become more difficult to enforce,
versus Canadas successful laws. In Macleans article, How the War on Drunk Driving
Distracts from the Real Danger, he points out that, If drivers have a greater sense
theyre being watched, perhaps theyll think twice about engaging in such risky
behavior (Macleans). Most drivers follow laws and respect enforcement, however many
drivers do not believe that they themselves will receive a ticket. Besides the factor that
drivers know how these laws are unattainable, people also have little knowledge and
guidance to prevent them from texting or calling while driving. Statistics from USA
Today reports that 3,092 people died last year from distracted driving. If drivers knew
those statistics, the law would not have to be enforceddrivers would take it upon
themselves to avoid distractions while driving (USA Today). Laws will focus drivers to
be safe on the road, but the lack of enforcement and the abundance of drivers make the
laws unattainable to enforce.
Although police officers protect the public from danger, there are still issues that
the police cannot resolve through tickets and jail time such as distracted driving.
Distracted driving would be controllable if there was enough police force; however, the
van Ommeren-Egberts k 3
lack of officers prevent the task from being properly enforced. Statistics from USA
Today, a website specializing in American and World news, reports that 77% of people
answer a phone call and 41% of those surveyed make the phone call while driving (USA
Today). Evidently, peoples fear of danger will not prevent cell phone usage and other
distractions while driving. Law enforcement wont change those decisions, as 77% of
people engage in phone calls while driving. The danger doesnt faze drivers and neither
will the law. Larry Copeland, a transportation reporter for USA Today, describes the
growth of driving while online, as 13% of drivers in 2009 went online while driving,
while in 2014, 24% of drivers admitted to going online while driving (USA Today). Even
with laws combatting cell phone usage, distracted driving is occurring more than ever. If
the laws were enforceable, there would be less cases of distracted driving. From this data,
law enforcers are incapable of dealing with the vast majority of distracted drivers and will
not have any affect over the public. The percentage of drivers going online, rather than
texting, nearly doubled, and through this growth, law enforcers did not have authority
over drivers. If this is further continued, officers will ultimately become a vexation, rather
then a respectable public figure. Altogether, distracted driving laws does not only
override police authority, it takes away a police officers figure in society, and drivers
will find themselves ignorant to the law.
The restrictions of cell phone driving tactics do not have a clear definition, so they
are incapable of restricting. Adapted from the U.S. Official distracted driving website,
distracted driving is any activity that can distract a persons attention away from their
number one task of driving. This can include eating, texting, calling, and other actions
(Distracted Driving). With many diverse interpretations of distracted driving, it will be
van Ommeren-Egberts k 4
difficult to regulate just one type of distraction. Cell phones are not the only type of
distraction that occur while driving, so where do we draw the line? USA Today explains
that, Only a small portion13% to be exactinvolved calling or texting on cellphones.
The vast majority involved other distractions, including things such as rowdy toddlers or
pets, eating in the car, or rubbernecking at roadside accidents (USA Today). There are
unavoidable distractionslike roadside accidentsthat can not be outlawed, yet they
remain as distractions nonetheless. If children in cars, food in cars, and driving around
areas that can cause distractions are not outlawed, then how can cell phones be outlawed?
No other distraction is outlawed other then cell phone usage, and that has been proven to
be ineffective. The bans on one specific distraction causes drivers to think that other
distractions are acceptable. Larry Copeland reported the ages that drivers texted while
they drove: Half of drivers 30-39, 31% of those 40-49, and 19% of those 50-64 said they
text while driving (Copeland). With some states targeting novice drivers with bans on
cell phones being used in a vehicle, the research provided represents data that novice
drivers should not be the only target. This generation is associated with the use of social
networking and texting, but one can see that all ages have succumb to texting while
driving. The laws inaccurately target teens, while they should target the whole
population. Whether it is one generation or one distraction that is being restricted, with so
many different interpretations about distracted driving, the laws dont combat distracted
driving clearly and effectively.
The lack of education and awareness about distracted driving causes society to be
ignorant towards its dangers which establishes an acceptance in people towards distracted
driving. A reporter from the Gannett News Service, Julius Genachowski, argues that
van Ommeren-Egberts k 5
texting and driving needs to become as unacceptable as drunk driving, and that this will
only be accomplished through public education (Genachowski). If the education was
offered to the public, people would become aware of the serious dangers, which currently
are rather unknown. This social norm is compared to the process that drunk driving laws
underwent. When drunk driving was first banned, the law was ignored; however, through
education and awareness, this issue became socially denied and unaccepted. With
evidence from Larry Copeland and statistics from Julius Genachowski, a 2009 study by
Road and Driver magazine concluded that a drunk drivers reaction time was faster then a
driver that was texting while driving (Copeland), and people who drive while text are 23
more times likely to have an accident than a non-distracted driver (Genachowski). Since,
in this case, cell phone usage has reaction times and accident rates that are more
problematic than drunk driving, then shouldnt it be socially unaccepted as drunk driving
is? Society needs to change their acceptance to this topic, just as drunk driving social
acceptance changed. In the article by Targeted News Service, Jeffrey Coben and Motao
Zhu believe that it will take long-term and concerted efforts, as have been employed
with encouraging seat belt use and discouraging drunk driving (Targeted News Service).
The changes of societys thinking occurred through education, and with long-term
efforts. In these traffic safety scenarios, social acceptance drove a revolution of change,
not laws. Being that the laws are ineffective in controlling drivers, our resources should
be directed at education and awareness. The social aspect of distracted driving captivates
our society to continue breaking laws. Once more public awareness is implemented, then
people will change their habits, mirroring the changes the occurred in the past with drunk
driving and seat belt laws.
van Ommeren-Egberts k 6
Although there should be some restrictions, the overall conflict of distracted
driving should be addressed through public awareness and education. Rather then create
laws that are incapable to reinforce, people should be educated on the dangers of
distracted driving. Our resources should be directed at the social norms of society, not
the laws and bans of cell phone usage. Through awareness, people would be influenced to
make the moral decision to focus behind the wheel; furthermore, becoming a better
person in society. Public awareness can consist of many different medias; there should be
clear representations of the dangers of distracted driving and the importance it plays in
traffic safety. The knowledge to ignore the distraction and to keep focus can be a
deciding factor between life and death. The life of Jaime Bratton ended shortly, as his
aunt picked up the phone. If the car didnt swerve, if Angela Bratton didnt pick up the
phone, Jaime Bratton would be 17 years old today. The Bratton tragedy is a reminder of
how easy it is to lose a life over a meaningless phone call or text. Angela Bratton should
not go to jail for the accident, but if Bratton was knowledgeable of the effects picking up
the phone could have, the whole accident could have been avoided. Laws will not stop
distracted driving, but knowledge has the power to do just that.







van Ommeren-Egberts k 7
Works Citied
Copeland, Larry. "Drivers Still Surfing Web While Driving, Survey Finds." Gannett
aaaaaaaNews Service. 11 Nov. 2013: n.p. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 17 Apr. 2014.
"Distracted Driving." Distracted Driving | Facts and Stats | Texting and Driving.
aaaaaaaaaaAnthony Foxx, n.d. Web. 03 May 2014.
Garske, Monica. "Grieving Mom: "I Lost My Son to Distracted Driving""NBC Southern
aaaaaaaaCalifornia. N.p., 19 Sept. 2013. Web. 05 May 2014.
Genachowski, Julius. "Time to Put the Brakes on Texting and Driving." Gannett News
aaaaaaaService. 23 Sep. 2012: n.p. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 17 Apr. 2014.
"How the War on Drunk Driving Distracts from the Real Danger." Maclean's. 11 Oct.
aaaaaaaa2013: 4. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 17 Apr. 2014.
"Laws, Education Not Enough to Curb Distracted Driving." Targeted News Service. 06
aaaaaaaaaMar. 2013: n.p. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 17 Apr. 2014.
"Yes, Cellphones Can Be Dangerous. No, a Nationwide Ban Won't Work." USA TODAY.
aaaaaaaa16 Dec. 2011: A.10. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 17 Apr. 2014.