Driving

Traffic accidents are as ordinary as anyone’s bacon and egg in their breakfast meals. They are as common as snow in Alaska and as desert in the Middle East. Highway accidents no more shock nor scare anyone for driving. No, not even the ones who have been victims themselves. In a study made by Froedtert & the Medical College of Wisconsin conducted in 2004 to 2005, the researchers found that there were about 90 percent of the respondents have relatives who have experienced car crash. What seems intriguing here is that fact that 56 percent of the respondents never changed their bad driving habits.

Staying behind the wheel is not what is risky about driving: the risk lies on the driver. The risk of traffic accidents is not measured by the driver’s age, expertise and knowledge; neither does it depends on the model of the car being driven but rather on the driver’s driving habits. Anyone who wants to know how common bad drivers are? Let anyone list the habits of a good driver and the bad driver as well and you will see that it is easier to list bad driving habits than the good ones.

The Wisconsin Department of Transportation reported an about 800 fatalities due to motor vehicle traffic crashes (C. Sadler). Of this figure, 42 percent were alcohol-related, 33 percent is speed-related and 19 percent was attributed to the influence of both. IN a separate study made by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in 2005, motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death for 15-20 year olds. The list of the causes of these accidents is quite long and all of the items are bad driving habits.

It ranges from not wearing seatbelts, eating and drinking while driving, answering calls and even texting. The list goes on with tailgating and over speeding to the weird habit of applying make up while driving. So what directly causes the accidents is the driver’s inattention. “Driver inattention is the most prevalent cause of collisions”, reported the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. The same study also revealed the top five bad driving habits that they have done in the last thirty days.

Seventy nine percent had the habit of changing the radio station or CD and 61 % did exceed the speed limit as well as driving without both hands in the steering wheel. Fifty one percent honestly admitted answering calls and 45% were eating while driving. Bad driving habits make a bad driver. If traffic accidents statistics are to be the basis, I can say that we really have too many bad drivers on the road. “People can often assume they are better drivers than they actually are” (M. German). The main point here is that drivers often place a high regard on their driving abilities and skills.

They often put too much confidence on their driving that they tend to forget that they are on the road and not simply sitting on their couches at home. So what am I driving at? I mean what am I trying to point out here? Driving is not all about skills, abilities and experience; it is about discipline. If every driver just conforms to traffic rules and regulations, there will be lesser road accidents. If every driver just brings a dose of patience on their way, then there should have been lesser vehicle collisions caused by drivers who wanted to own the highways.

If parents and elders just teach and show their children the right driving attitude, there should have been much less of the teens that represent 14% of the driving fatalities (AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety). There should not have been about 31,000 of them, aging from 15 to 17 years old who were killed in crashes (AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, 1995 to 2004). Elders should do less of the driving habits like talking on the phone, listening to music, eating and speeding in order to shape the younger generation into disciplined drivers. The law must make sure that the road is close for bad drivers.

Over the past few years, new technologies and tools have emerged and transformed just about every aspect of business, including marketing, management, web design and HR. It’s easy to feel like accounting and bookkeeping have been forgotten. Until recently, the industry was stuck in the dark ages. But with the emergence of powerful new technologies over the years, it’s finally beginning to look like an industry that’s ripe for disruption.

Before delving into the specifics of the accounting industry and the impending disruption, let’s take a moment to review some of the common drivers behind general disruption.

Complacency: This is the biggest sign that . When businesses get complacent and decide to coast on past accomplishments, outsiders take notice and see an opportunity to come in, and stake a claim.

Frustration: Couple complacency from vendors with frustrations from customers, and some friction starts to develop. Customers want better offerings, but the vendors realize they have nowhere else to turn. Again, outsiders take notice, and see an opportunity.

Lack of automation: Everything is about automation in business. If there’s a task that’s still being performed manually, it’s costing companies time. Someone else will try to come in, and disrupt the industry by offering an automated solution to satisfy the frustrations of existing customers.

Emphasis on innovation: Finally, disruption starts to boil over when you see startups enter the marketplace, and prioritize innovation. This leads to larger companies taking notice and either purchasing these startups or revamping their own approach to innovation.

When two or more of these drivers are present in an industry, then you can accurately predict disruption is right around the corner. Looking at the accounting industry, it’s easy to see how all four of these drivers are in play. In other words, disruption is imminent.

While it’s easy to see how those four factors are present in the accounting industry, let’s dig a little deeper and actually analyze some of the trends that are driving disruption at this very moment.

1. Clients want better connectivity.

Take a look at any service-based industry, and you can identify ways in which processes have become more customer-centric. Well, with the Internet, cloud technology and remote tools, accountants have the ability to connect with clients in meaningful ways. And it looks like they may be finally taking advantage of these capabilities.

“Online technology is giving us real connectivity with our clients and their team,” . “It means we’re having completely different levels of discussions regarding their farms. We can collectively discuss scenarios and business plans, and our clients recognize that value.”

Related: 

2. Automated data entry.

Automation is the key driving factor in accounting and bookkeeping disruption.

Specifically, we’re seeing this lead to the disappearance of manual data entry. Thanks to things like automatic imports, electronic documents and robust software solutions, some businesses are even able to eliminate data entry completely.

This leads to more efficiency and allows businesses to better utilize human capital.

“The greatest disruption will result from automation of data entry and workflows. This alone leads to three major changes. One, faster processing which translates into real-time reporting and more timely financials. Two, increased accuracy with less human error. And three, significant reductions in cost on an order of magnitude of 50 to 75 percent”, .

Related: 

3. Growth of the DIY approach.

One trend that we’ve been keeping any eye on for years is the growth of accounting software. And now that cloud solutions – such as QuickBooks — have entered the marketplace, we’re seeing a lot of small businesses trying the DIY approach.

On a related noted, things like web tutorials, YouTube videos, webinars and search engines, now allow businesses to access just about anything necessary to handle their own accounting and bookkeeping needs.

“This act of moving accounting online doesn’t precipitate the end of accountants,” accounting expert . “However, what does push accountants to the margins is how inexpensive and user-friendly the new online accounting software is.”

4. Machine learning and powerful insights.

Accountants are generally able to sort through data, and deliver predictive insights based on past information. However, as technology advances, things like machine learning and artificial intelligence (AI) are making it possible for accountants to access real-time insights that can be used in the moment to add value to businesses and clients.

“An accountant will be able to look at [the insights], and hopefully the big data systems will be intelligent enough to be able to say: Here are the key things happening in this business which are different to other businesses in that category,”. “This business is not performing in these areas, so go out and have a discussion with your client about those things.”

Related: 

5. Demand for specialization.

We’re seeing it everywhere. People and businesses are getting a taste of specialization, and they’ve now come to expect it in every product or service they use.

If you think about it, specialization is one of the driving factors of disruption in every industry. Cable customers are cutting the cord and choosing à la carte alternatives. Social media users can tweak filters to see only the content they want to consume. Smartphone users can pick which apps they want. The list goes on and on.

In terms of accounting, this is boiling over and creating a demand for specialization over bundled packages. Businesses only want to pay for the accounting and bookkeeping services they need. This is ultimately putting added pressure on the marketplace. As a result, accounting software providers are adjusting their product offerings and pricing structures accordingly. In the future, look for accounting solutions to become à la carte.

There’s no doubt that disruption is right around the corner. The accounting industry is still in the dark ages, when compared to other industries, but there’s currently a major emphasis on modernizing through automation.

It will take a few months, but don’t be surprised to see an entirely new accounting industry in 2017 and beyond.

For at least the last ten years, the issue of whether or not to raise the driving age to 18 years old has been a touchy subject on every level of the spectrum; from State Highway Safety Association to teenagers and everybody in between. Although everyone has some degree of approval that raising the driving age would be a good idea no one has really put forth the effort to actually have it come to pass. This has lead to the ongoing debate of whether it should even be a consideration anymore.

There are several reasons that establishing the driving age at 18 is a legitimate idea. First, by having the driving age moved to the minimum of 18 this can be both environmentally and economically commendable. Also, teenagers under the age of 18 are more mentally underdeveloped when it comes to making sound decisions on the road, which then leads teenagers to having one of the highest fatality rates involving automobiles. Global warming has become key issue all over the world, especially in more over-crowded counties and cities, due to higher volume of emissions being released into the air.In the year 2000, the Carbon Emissions that are released into the air by cars in the United States is 302 Million Metric tons (MMTc) (Environmental). In that same year, there were 190 million licensed drivers in the United States, and 9,743,000 were drivers under the age of 19 (U. S), that’s five percent of the population.

I know it doesn’t seem like that much but when you take in consideration the total emissions being released into the air and multiply it by the number of teenage drivers, that will reduce the amount of emissions by 15. MMTc. People are desperate to help stop global warming; one way we can do this is to reduce the amount of drivers on the roads and create a more accessible public transportation in rural areas. Increasing the age for driving would also be beneficial to parents of teen drivers due to the fact that insuring a teen driver is very expensive. A recent study, in 2009-2010 for a one-car family to insure their teen-driver would raise their premium 42 percent, 58 percent for a two-car family and 62 percent for a three-car family (Schultz).An average of $620 dollars a year is what parents pay to add their child to their insurance (Bradford). That is one child, I come from a family of five and eleven years ago, when I turned sixteen my parents already had two teen drivers on their auto insurance and we were living off two teacher salaries.

By the year 2000 the average teacher in Texas was making 37,576 (IES); that would leave them with a combined income of just over 75 thousand a year.Paying an average of $620 dollars per teen driver wouldn’t have gone over well with living expenses, so needless to say, I got my divers license but I wasn’t able to drive until I was 18. There are always two sides to an argument, Parents grow weary of driving their kids for one place to the next; interrupting their own busy schedules to drive their teen to their next social event. Bill Van Tassel, AAA’s National manager for driving training programs says “We have parents who are pretty much tired of chauffeuring their kids around, and just want them to be able to drive” (Davis).This is completely understandable, with today’s busy world no one has time for anything but does it really merit putting a population of underdeveloped minds behind the wheel for our own convenience? Which brings me to my next point; are teens mentally mature enough to be granted with the responsibility of driving a car? In 2005, new findings in brain research at the National Institutes of Health explain why efforts to protect teen drivers usually fail. The scientists at the NIH in Bethesda, Md. have found that a part of the brain that weighs risks, makes judgments and controls impulse behavior which is referred to as “the executive branch” is still developing in teenage years and isn’t fully matured until the age of 25 (Davis).

These findings should be proof alone that teens are too immature to handle the responsibilities that come with driving a car. Teens are already emotional and compulsive more so then most adults, giving them keys to a vehicle could be potentially one of the worse ideas in history.Teens don’t process consequences the same way adults do, they rely more on the emotional part of their brains to make their decisions. Which is why when a teen is driving 15 to 20 miles over the speed limit the part of their brain that processes thrill is working brilliantly; But the part that cautions of negative consequences, is all but useless, explains Jay Giedd, chief of brain imaging in the child psychiatric unit at the National Institute of Mental Health (Davis). Parents see their newly licensed teen river as additional help for running errands and taking younger siblings to events and practices, but when it comes to handling issues that may arise on the road to and from their destination; teenagers just don’t have the mental maturity to consider the consequences of risky behavior. When I was still in high school two friends of mine were bragging one morning of their reckless and very dangerous excursion across town in the pouring rain without their windshield wipers on, just because they wanted to see how far they could go.I would advocate this as a true example, that teenagers are indeed too immature and reckless to be given the responsibilities of driving.

Of course one would argue that not all teenagers are as immature and irresponsible as most, in fact there are some parents that would make their teen a poster-child for safe driving; but there are always exceptions to the rules. Adolescent drivers no matter how responsible they prove themselves to be don’t have the mental development to properly react to hazardous situations that arise on the road.The research above leads to my next topic, Due to their inability to asses dangers that come up while driving, a teen driver is more likely to be involved in or the cause of an automobile accident. In 2009, about 3,000 teens in the United States aged 15–19 were killed and more than 350,000 were treated in emergency departments for injuries suffered in motor-vehicle crashes (CDC). With this information, one would wonder why the driving age has yet to be raised.Yet, despite the increasing number of teens dying in automotive accidents, there has yet to be a successful bill passed to raise the driving age. In September of 2008, lawmakers in Delaware, Florida, Georgia and Massachusetts introduced a bill to raise their driving age to 17; they all failed (Rubin).

Some people are lead to believe that raising the driving age will not prevent teen deaths, rather just delay them, because maturity has no weight on teen driving, it’s all down to experience; It is this rational that is keeping teen drivers behind the wheel.Most states have a probationary period where teen must follow guidelines such as: * Night driving is prohibited for the first six months unless he/ she are accompanied by a licensed driver. * A passenger limitation of only one passenger under the age of 20 for the first six months unless a parent or guardian is present. * During the second six months only three passengers under 20 (Pabst) These restrictions have had only modest success, but with the judgment center of the teen brain not fully developed there remains a struggle to instill decision making skills in immature drivers (Davis).Most of these restrictions are left to the parents to enforce and these poorly enforced restrictions don’t seem to be helping stop the high volume of deaths due to irresponsible teenager’s being given the right to drive. In 2006, my father was killed in accident involving a teenage driver, who neglected to follow the speed limit, and disregarded the stopped school bus with its lights on, and plowed right into the back of the vehicle behind my father causing it to hit my father on his motorcycle. I don’t know what she was doing to completely miss the big yellow stopped school bus, and the car right next to it, but it cost my father his life.

The only argument against the high rate of death and injury cause by the sober mind of a teenager, are the high number of deaths caused by intoxicated driver. In 2003, 10 percent of the 16-year-old deaths in automobile accidents had a blood alcohol level of 0. 10 or higher compared to the 43 percent of 20- 49 year-olds drivers, according to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (Davis). The government has made it illegal to drive intoxicated to protect the lives of their people, so why can’t they raise the driving age to save even more lives?Raising the driving age is something that should be taken with the highest regard, but there are people who don’t quite understand the severity of this particular situation and would simply argue that driving there teen around is an inconvenience to them and a frustration for their teen. In actuality by having the driving age moved to the minimum for 18 can be both environmentally and economically commendable. Also, teenagers under the age of 18 are more mentally immature when it comes to making sound decisions on the road, which then leads teenagers to having one of the highest fatality rates involving automobiles.Having an understanding of the matter is very important; people shouldn’t ignore this topic just because it doesn’t fit into today’s busy and ever growing world.

1.1 Introduction

For a long time several lobby groups have fought for change of traffic law and increase the sentence term from 2 years to 5 year term jail. The pressure has resulted from the increased cases of dangerous driving. There is need to empower courts with sentencing powers to effectively deal with worst driving offences (Shapland 2012: 200). It is difficult to offer a valid sentence to cases involving serious injury and death due to small culpability involved. More so, cases usually involve momentary concentration loss as well as large degree of harm. Accident victims are also faced with life changing harm and injuries. Knife crime offenses will also feature any form of harassment, threat or possession of dangerous objects. The present has argued for and against the new offense proposal and highlighted some of the benefits. Thus, knife crime and dangerous driving cases should be handled with caution due to the newly introduced offenses.

1.2 Summary

The government believes that dangerous driving should be dealt with appropriately and criminal law should be fully implemented. The proposal will greatly influence the statutory obligations as outlined in Equality Act 2010 (UK Government 2010). The proposal will apply to everyone in UK for dangerous driving. This implies that there is no direct discrimination in the 2010 Act. The new proposal will also apply both to those with a shared protected characteristic as well as those who do not share a certain protected characteristic (UK Government 2012). In analysis, individuals who share a set of characteristics are more likely to be convicted than those who do not share certain characteristics. The proposal has also considered differences in sex, race and age. The new proposal ensures that there is a proportionate response to address cases of dangerous driving in an effective manner.

The proposal also includes the disabled with no serious adjustments. The main aim of the proposal is to include all the parties indiscriminately. The type of sentence for the disabled will solely depend on the seriousness of the injury as it may elicit positive effect on the disabled due to their actions (Shapland and Bottoms 2009: 90). More so, the new proposal is not an avenue to victimization and harassment. The government is satisfied with the changes to the offenses as it will reflect equality and foster good relations.

1.3 Benefits of the proposal

Increasing the sentence term to 5 years will empower the judges to reflect on serious impacts of dangerous driving. The families and victims of serious accidents may be relieved by the changing trends in dangerous driving cases. More so, the society may feel relieved by the level of punishment fostered by the CJS (Shapland et al 2013: 190). It implies that the number of offenses will reduce due to deterrent effect. The scale of deterrent effect is mixed as well as the existing evidence. This has therefore hindered the quantification of the offense. The new proposal will not victimize drivers who have not committed any dangerous driving offense.

The offenders in the new proposal will be entitled to three main verdicts. The verdicts are categorized into options. The first option prescribes no action on the offenders (UK Government 2010). This implies that there will be change under this option. The costs incurred and the benefits accrued from the option will be zero. In addition, option 1 is mandated to create a novel offense by inflicting injury due to dangerous driving. The creation of a new offense will automatically lead to extra cost with creation of a new offense of serious dangerous driving. It is difficult to identify number of cases that have resulted to serious injuries. The proposal has alluded to charges s.20 Grievous Bodily Harm (GBH) which estimates the number of serious dangerous driving cases (UK Government 2010). For instance, there were 20 cases involving GBH and dangerous driving where the defendants were charged accordingly. Serious injuries were caused as exemplified by introduction of GBH charges. The success of conviction in this case is limited by the level and intent of carelessness. The level and intent of carelessness does not affect the new offense thus it is estimated that 20 cases will be convicted every year. The cases will lead to increase in the number of prisons from a sentence period of 1 year to 3 years (Shapland 2010: 343). This implies that the marginal cost on MOJ will be ? Im.

The creation of the novel offense will imply that the sentence term increase from 2 years for dangerous driving and 14 years for causing death. This will imply that the courts will effectively deal with dangerous driving cases. The new offense will allow courts to exercise justice and end spectrum of careless and dangerous driving (UK Government 2010). The courts will instill a feeling of relieve on the victims of dangerous driving and their families.

The new proposal will increase the term jail from a maximum of 2 years to 5 years for dangerous driving. It is evident that increasing maximum term sentence will generally drag sentences in the scope of dangerous driving as the courts will perceive that seriousness of the offences have increased. This will also imply that a significant increase in sentence term will increase demand for more prison places. However, the new offense will allow the courts to account for serious injuries caused by dangerous driving.

1.4 Knife crime

The novel proposal has amended the offenses against threatening and possession of a pointed or sharp article. The law does not grant an excuse to anyone found in possession of a bladed or sharp article. The new proposal also seeks to clearly express that offense lobbied against possession will act as an alternative if the defendant is acquitted of the offense (Shapland 2012: 78). The new proposal ensures that any person in possession of a knife is acquitted despite threatening or endangering others.

1.5 Mitigation and justification

The purpose of these amendments is to ensure that the resultant impacts are justified in a proportionate manner to achieve the legitimate aim of the law. The law aims at effectively addressing consequences related to dangerous driving. However, increase in term sentence would not be appropriate as it will bear more physical injury on the offenders (UK Government 2010). The new offense will also apply to those already convicted of the charges.

In any case offenders may be punished in form of consortium, fines or imprisonment. Punishment can also occur in three stereotypical forms of fines, prison and probation. The Federal sentencing Act justifies utilitarianism where punishment is a form of social goal or serves a certain purpose (UK Government 2010). Retributive theory justifies punishment for the committed immorality. The new proposal acts in accordance with retributive and utilitarian theories as the offense provide three options of charges based on the seriousness of the crime. Punishment in knife crime and dangerous driving is justified as the prosecution will weigh the intensity of the crime and the carelessness of the driver. The prosecution also considers the fate of the victims and their families.

1.6 Conclusion

There are several changes in knife crime and dangerous driving crimes. The changes have adhered to the retributive and utilitarian theories. The new provision has offered three options of charges on the offenders in these cases. The changes will greatly impact the prisons. The novel provisions will also instill discipline among drivers as the charges are non-discriminatory. The changes will also provide a sigh of relieve to the victims and their families. Execution of the new offenses will also empower judges due to increase in term sentence. Generally, knife and dangerous driving crimes will effectively bring normality on the roads.

Bibliography

Shapland, J. (2010) ‘Reflections on Social Values, Offending and Desistance Among Young Adult Recidivists’, Punishment and Society, 15(2).

Shapland, J. (2012). The Quality of Probation Supervision-A Literature Review. Sheffield: Centre for Criminology Research.

Shapland, J. and Bottoms, A. (2009).Steps towards Desistance: the Potential Role of Criminal Justice Support.Paper to the European Society of Criminology conference, Liege.

Shapland, J., Robinson, G. and Sorsby, A. (2013) Restorative Justice in Practice.London: Routledge.

UK Government. (2012). Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. Norwich: The stationery Office.

“A Global company is an organization that attempts to standardize and integrate operations worldwide in all functional areas. ” In general, there are multiple Globalization forces; some of them are:

• Industrial: get access to a bigger market to sell the product.
• Financial: by emerging worldwide, it is easier to borrow money
• Political forces: the raising globalization goes along with the decrease of the importance of the state. Companies can set up their headquarter in different countries, in function of the legislation in those countries.
• Technological forces: the new discoveries and the fast evolving technology eases the communication and makes it easier to collect information about foreign/other goods.
• Market: when companies globalize, they also become global customers.
• Cost: By becoming global, companies can benefit from economies of scale. The company can also locate production in countries where production costs are lower. In early times, the wine industry was very little.

There were little village labels and the grapes grew on tiny vineyards. Those factors made the wine industry very agricultural i. e. the harvest was very vulnerable to weather and diseases. On the other side, the wine business had very few multinational companies and therefore very few true global brands. This made BRL Hardy think about expanding its business to multiple locations over the world and become one of the world’s first global wine companies. The first company on the market has a big chance to become one of the biggest companies in his sector.

By breaking the habit of growing and selling only its own wine, Hardy was able to build the scale necessary for creating strong brands and negotiating with retail stores. In 1882, BRLH won his first international gold medal at Bordeaux. Winning a price creates a certain reputation, which makes it more likely that the wine will sell if the company becomes a global company. Also, the company was Australia’s largest winemaker, and one of the most respected. Next to this, Australian wine was becoming a trend, and the demand from new customers in nontraditional markets grew rapidly.

All this were driving forces to become a global company.

References

1. http://www. slideshare. net/gugaslide/global-business-presentation
2. http://www. slideshare. net/RealRedOne/harvard-business-school-brl-hardy-globalizing-an-australian-wine-company
3. http://www. businessschoolnetherlands. com/files/bsn-article_marius-leibold_business-model-innovation_1. pdf
4. http://www. andidas. com/academic/lse_coursework/MN498%20-%20Tesco%20Internationalisation_by_andidas. pdf
5. http://scholar. sun. ac. za/bitstream/handle/10019. 1/3328/Ewouba-Biteghe,%20BS. pdf? sequence=1 http://en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Globalization

Driving Under the Influence of a Cell Phone Dameatrius McCreary, age 5 was killed when he was hit by a driver that had reached down to pick up a ringing cell-phone that had fallen to the floor of the car. Dameatrius had just gotten off a school bus that was dropping him off. The school bus was parked, had its warning lights flashing and a stop sign out when he was hit by the vehicle (11 Reasons to ban). Each year in the United States, talking on a cell phone while driving causes an estimated 2600 motor vehicle-related deaths and 330,000 moderate to critical injuries (Lissy).

Driving is a complex task at the best of times. A driver speeds up and slows down, steers, changes lanes, scans the road for hazards, checks mirrors, merges, and brakes. When in traffic, drivers must process a great deal of information in a very short time. Talking on a cell phone while driving greatly impacts ones’ ability to drive safely. Despite the known risk, many people still use a cell phone while driving. Cell phones are not only cognitively distracting, but they affect peripheral vision and cause reaction time to become much slower.

By banning cell-phone usage while driving, the number of deaths and injuries could be decreased significantly. Lawmakers need to push this issue into law before more innocent lives are taken. Some people feel they are experienced enough drives and have the ability to drive and talk on a cell phone. My brother thinks he is the best driver in the world. We have had many discussions on how dangerous it is to focus more on your phone than on the road. He feels that no amount of talking on the phone or texting is going to be detrimental to his driving.

I have found this common attitude with many of my family and friends who drive with the phone stuck to their ear. This behavior is not due to a lack of awareness of the dangers. They truly believe they are in control of their environment and overestimate their own ability to drive safely while talking on the phone. This superman mind-set clouds their way of thinking. In fact many people know that using a cell phone while driving is dangerous, and some even consider it more risky than eating or putting on make-up in the car. In a focus group, held in 2000, benefits of driving while talking on a cell phone were discussed.

Some of the argued benefits were to, “expand productivity for commuters, improve mental alertness, and diminish the tendency to speed (Lissy 44). In another study conducted in 2002 by Hammond and Horswill showed “drivers with a high desire for control were more likely to engage in risky driving behaviors than were those with a low desire for control” (Schlehofer 1108). It is this high desire for control that causes drivers to overlook the danger that is involved in talking on the phone and focus on what they are able to accomplish while doing it.

It is true if you talk on the phone while driving you will probably get more accomplished, but is it worth the risk? Talking on a cell phone is a cognitive distraction plain and simple. Several studies show that a driver paying attention to a conversation on a cell phone is distracted simply because he is paying attention to the conversation, reducing the attention he is paying to driving and what is going on around him (Ropeik and Gray 71). Not only is talking a distraction, but today our phones are loaded with applications, which usually require two hands to operate.

We have all witnessed drivers that have one hand on the wheel and the other hand typing, or driving with their knee while texting. When your hands are holding your phone, or dialing or receiving a call, they’re not holding the steering wheel or helping to control the vehicle. Think of the last time you came upon someone driving in the left hand lane while traveling under the speed limit. A lot of the time they are talking on their phone. Many times they merge into your lane and never realize that you are even there.

Cell phone usage may decrease speed, but it also creates more of a hazard for drivers and everyone else around them. Research at the University of Utah suggests that cognitive distraction may be the most important distraction since their test subjects did equally poorly when using hands-free or hand-held devices (Ropeik and Gray 71). Talking on a cell phone while driving, dramatically affects your peripheral vision. It has been claimed that driving while talking on a cell phone can be as or more dangerous than driving drunk.

I know that when I have been talking on the phone while driving and change lanes or turn, it is not as easy to see other cars. It has only taken a couple of close calls for me to realize that my life and that of my family is not worth the 5 minute conversation I could be having with someone. A study done by the Southern College of Optometry to measure visual fields with and without a cell phone conversation taking place suggests that cell phone conversations tend to artificially constrict the peripheral awareness as measured by a visual field. This suggests that cell phone use while riving can decrease the perceptual visual field, making the driver less aware of the surroundings and more susceptible to accident (Maples et al 36). Think of those times you have picked up your phone to see who is calling or to read a text you have just received. As you look at the phone, glancing up every so often to see what is ahead of you, are you paying attention to what is around you? Are you able to look over your shoulder to make sure no one is in your blind spot before changing lanes? Generally you have no idea what is behind or on the side of you.

Suddenly you are so involved in reading that text or taking that phone call that everything around you disappears. Driving requires the use of all of your faculties. If you are looking for your phone, or at your phone to make a call, you are not looking at the road. Furthermore, the reaction time decreases dramatically when using a phone while driving. University of Utah psychology professor David Strayer stated, “Drivers talking on cell phones were 18% slower to react to brake lights and once the driver hits the brakes, it takes them longer to get back into the normal flow of traffic.

The net result is they are impeding the overall flow of traffic” (Britt). Stop and go traffic is already frustrating, but drivers who are paying more attention to what is going on with their phone than with traffic just amplifies the problem. Studies of driver performance, observing drivers both on simulators and in the field, have shown that mobile phone use while driving can adversely affect reaction time, swerving ability, and the ability to execute difficult driving tasks (Ropeik and Gray 71).

Driving with both hands on the wheel and having your eyes focused on the road the whole time is hard enough. Now add the distraction of a cell phone and one is bound to have problems. As much as we would like to think that we can do multiple things at the same time, the reality is no one is perfect. Case in point: On Thanksgiving weekend, 1999, John and Carole Hall were killed when a Naval Academy 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 3 feet from the car and had no time to stop (Stockwell B8).

University of Utah research found that test subjects took longer to react to traffic signals and completely missed twice as many of those signals when they were on the phone (Ropeik and Gray 71). Matt Wilhelm was cycling near Urbana, Illinois when he was struck and killed by a driver that was downloading ring tones to her cell phone. Matt’s death has prompted cell phone legislation that has been signed by Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich. The new law teaches teen drivers the importance of avoiding distraction while they are driving (11 Reasons to ban).

Recently Oprah has been promoting a No Phone Zone pledge challenging her viewers to stop using their cell phones while driving. They pledge to not text or talk on their cell phone. We can all take this pledge and help get the word out how dangerous it is to let our cell phones distract us from safe driving. Driving is a complex task that requires the driver’s full attention. Smart drivers keep their hands on the wheel, their eyes on the road and focus more attention on driving than talking on the phone. Because of increased injuries and deaths surrounding accidents involving cell phones, we must begin to take this problem seriously.

How many more lives need to be claimed before we take a stand? The time is now to call your local representative and voice your opinion before someone you love is affected by this dangerous habit. It is time we put the brake on our cell phone usage while driving. Banning cell phone use while driving may not totally eliminate the number of deaths or accidents that happen, but it will dramatically decrease them for sure. How many lives can we save by simply putting our cell phones down and concentrating on actually driving?

Works Cited “11 Reasons to ban Cell-Phone Use While Driving. DrivingLaws. org 951online. LLC, 2009. Web. 6 July 2010. Britt, Robert Roy. “Drivers on Cell Phones Kill Thousands; Snare Traffic Technology. ” Live Science. com. TechMedia Network. 01/02/2005. Web. 5 July 2010. Lissy M. P. H. , Karen S. , et al. “Cellular Phone Use While Driving: Risks and benefits. ” Cell Phone Free Driving. Harvard Center for Risk Analysis: Harvard School of Public Health. July 2000. Web. 1 July 2010. Maples, W. C. , et al. “The Effects of Cell Phone Use on Peripheral Vision. ” Optometry 79 (2008): 36-42. Academic Search Premier. Web. 5 July 2010. Ropeik, David, and George Gray. “Cellular Telephones and Driving. ” Risk: A Practical Guide for Deciding What’s Really Safe and What’s Really Dangerous in the World Around You. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin Company, 2002. 70-75. NetLibrary. Web. 1 July 2010. Schlehofer, Michele M. , et al. “Psychological Predictor of College Students’ Cell Phone Use While Driving. ” Accident Analysis and Prevention 42. 4 (2010):1107-1112. Academic Search Premier. Web. 1 July 2010. Stockwell, Jamie. “Phone Use Faulted in Collision. ” Washington Post 6 Dec. 2000: B1+. Web. 13 July 2010.