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

With to a greater extent and more(prenominal) community victimisation cubicleular ph atomic number 53s, a new upset has surfaced. Should there be howeverices against using cubicle phones duration crusade? The statistics virtu every last(predicate)y distract control, which includes any type of distraction, draw that distracted crusade causes accidents. According to the United States Department of Transportation, 5,747 people were killed because of driving distractions and approximately 448,000 were injured in 2009 alone (1) Using a carrell phone is honourable another way that driver are distracted. The debate rages onshould there be a specific uprightness against using carrel phones fleck driving.Some states are passing laws specifically for inexperienced drivers, simply as they restrict the times inexperienced drivers are allowed to drive. For our purposed, however, we will run across at the debate over whether or not there should be a law banning general carre l phone engagement. This is a very sensitive subject, mostly because two sides present some discursive crinkles, but a variety of fallacies apprise be found on both sides of this hot issue. This entire debate is nothing new. deflect driving has been a hot topic since 1905, and there were no cubicle phones back down then.The big advancement in technology then was windshield wiper blades. They were thought to be hypnotic, and distract drivers. (AAA). From there it went to the radio in the 1930s. here in the 21st century, weve landed on cellular phones. Same debate, variant details. When it comes to hand unthaw cell phone usage spot driving, both sides have scientific studies and statistics to back up their cases. According to a issue funded by AAA Foundation for Traffic synthetic rubber, using a hands free device holds approximately the same distraction as tune the radio (AAA).However, there are excessively reports that having a conversation bandage driving with a ha nds free device is much more risky than having a conversation with somebody who is also in the railway car with you (Dewar 327). A recent study showed that only 2% of people stinker safely multi task plot driving. This was compared to the same amount of people who would relieve oneself good fighter pilots (Cruz, pg 1). This quote from Matt Duffy shows how some opponents to a law feel. I will vow to be careful while on the phone and to use a headset or speakerphone whenever possible so that I can 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 speaking of refers to a campaign by Oprah Winfrey. She has heavily 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 bank for the No peal Zone campaign is that it becomes mandatory that no one uses their phone in the car or texts while driving solely as seat be lts are mandatory, just as driving while drunk is considered absolutely taboo, Im hoping that this becomes not just law, but second record for all of us (Harpo).We can look at Oprahs statement as an Argument by Analogy. Her logic rates that because we have driving laws almost not wearing seatbelts and driving drunk, which are both dangerous activities, we should also have a law about using cell phones while driving, another dangerous activity. Opponents pose some interesting questions, though. As antecedently stated, there are other activities that distract drivers. Dealing with children in the car, changing the radio station, and eating are just a hardly a(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 there also 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 have to back laws against these things, also. But this also presents the slippery slope illusion 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 call to say they are running late, they may not speed. Accidents and dangers on the road can be reported more quickly ( vie). Another area of debate is enforcement. Already we are seeing that enforcement just doesnt seem to be working very well. In areas with laws against texting, it is just difficult to catch somebody. Supporters 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% said that they have ever been caught on the phone while driving. some motorists are investing 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 suspension of your drivers license. (Johnson) One opponent of cell phone laws offered this suggestion I think instead the penalties for causing an accident while driving distracted need to be stiffened. Perhaps 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 in all likelihood wont happen. (Alternative) Opponents of a new law against cell phones repeatedly say that there is already a law against driving recklessly. That two percent of people who can multi-task, should they be pulled over if they are safely driving? What about the almighty dollar?Proponents of a cell phone law state how this would raise money for states, save in medical cost and all other costs caused by car accidents ( cellular phone mobilise Ban). Opponents say that it would COST more money, tying up the solicit system, and there would be costs involved in changing cell phone plans (less minutes would be used). Each side has their own statistics and explore to back up their positions. Its a classic case of red-hot evidence. Each side is only presenting information that helps their case, and none that might agony their case.Although states have the authority to regulate 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 phones while driving. Insurance companies could charge a higher premium for cell phone users. With advancing technology, this may indeed be possi ble. deep there was an i telephone set 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 perfect 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 Road Distracted crusade. AAA Exchange. AAA. n. d. Web. 19 October 2009. An Alternative to Laws Against Texting While whimsical? opposingviews. om. Opposing Views, Inc. 21 April 2010. Web. 5 Oct 2010. Cell Phone Ban Would conserve Money, Research Shows. Cbc. ca. CBC. 29 Sept 2010. Web. 19 Oct 2010. Cruz, Gilbert with Kristi Oloffson. Distracted driving force 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, capital of Minnesota Erson and Gerson Alexander. Human Factors In Traffic Safety. Tuscon, AZ. Lawyers & Judges Publishing Company, Inc. 002. Google Books. Duffy, Matt. I wont Take the Oprah Pledge 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 Use While Driving. Is Yours On The List? csmonitor. com. The Christian Science Monitor. 23 Sept 2010. Web. 19 Oct 2010. Johnstone, Michael. What miscellany 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. Yahoo News. The Associated Press. 13 Oct 2010. Web. 19 Oct 2010. US Department of Transportation. topic Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Traffic Safety Facts Distracted Driving 2009. Washington, DC NHTSAs National Center for Statistics and Analysis. 2010. web pdf.