Jennifer LoGiudice

312A Leete Hall

State College, PA 16802

267/ 337- 1498

December 12, 2005

The Honorable Rick Santorum

United States Senate

511 Dirksen Senate Office Building

Washington, D.C. 20510-3804

Honorable Senator Santorum,

I am writing to urge you to consider legislation for prohibiting the use of cellular telephones while operating a motor vehicle. Passage of this bill would ensure America's future safety and transportation.

Causing 2,600 deaths every year, a number which is rapidly growing, cell phones are becoming one of the biggest threats to our roads. It is important to address this issue before it is too late.

Attached to the present letter is a complete essay establishing the current problem of cell phones usage in automobiles and a solution to this problem. You will find many reasons as to why legislation is necessary as well a rebuttal of the negative aspects of such a law. Finally, I propose a law based on what is necessary to eliminate this dilemma.

While it may be ideal to believe the United States would consider such a law and pass it in a timely fashion, I have faith in the state of Pennsylvania to set a precedent for the rest of the country.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Jennifer LoGiudice

Legislation Concerning the Limitations of Cell Phone Usage

With 1.7 million accidents and 2,600 deaths annually, people are at risk when using their cell phones on the road (Britt). Cell phones are quickly becoming one of the most common causes of traffic crashes. With 140 million cell phone users in the United States alone and 85% using cell phones while driving, the chance of an accident due to the use of a cellular device is abundant (James).

Recently, society has found a reliance on the convenience and flexibility of communication through cell phones. This phenomenon has become a normality to most of society. Too often one hears, “I could never live without my cell phone.” But when these people are educated that the use of a cell phone in a car could jeopardize the life of the driver, most are still not willing to hang up. Most people, including the government, believe the distraction of cell phones is an “undecided safety measure” (James). There is overwhelming evidence to disprove this. Thirty three states have considered legislation since 1995 to ban or limit the use of cell phones in cars. Most, however, have not acted on these considerations (James). Whatever the problem is, whether it is the pressure from cell phone companies, the “undecided safety measures,” or the lack of pressure on the state, there is nothing being done. The problem may lie in the fact that the government does not know if legislation will work. There is tremendous support that it will; by looking at other countries’ precedents, there is a lot of research to back up the legislation. Such legislation is imperative because driving affects everyone. Even if someone does not drive, they are most likely on the road at some point, whether it is in someone else’s car or on a bus. Driving is an essential part of United States transportation. This denotes driving and talking on the cell phone a universal problem which government must face. While driving and using wireless communications may be a controversial topic, there are concrete arguments against this act which must be assessed before an informed decision can be made. After establishing the problem, disputing counter arguments, and looking at other countries precedents, a proper proposal for legislation can be made to finally put an end to this crisis.

On a cool November day, a family was on their way home from a play date when a driver failed to stop for a stop sign while using his cellular phone and broadsided the family’s car. Their two year old daughter, Morgan Lee, died a few hours later as a result of the injuries she sustained in the car crash. In another case Abigail Marquis was talking on her phone, when she hit and killed a motorcyclist in the other lane. She had a 200 dollar careless driving fine and no criminal charges for killing a man. There are many stories like this where millions of people have lost a loved one to this cause.

If that is not enough, maybe statistics will help establish the problem. The following statistics are from the National Public Services Research Institute for Triple A: All forms of cell phone usage leads to longer response times or failure to respond to highway traffic situations; this includes phone calls, text messaging, and even using the internet on your phone. When driving, the most important aspect is to keep alert and focused on the road because there are many unpredictable situations, especially at high speeds. Using a cell phone greatly impairs a driver’s ability to do such tasks. Even if a driver feels they are experienced with using their phone, they cannot believe they are an exception; the effect on response time is still increased by 33-38%. Young, old, experienced or not, there is no excuse to drive and talk on the phone. Drivers are four times more likely to be in an accident, whether it is overturning the vehicle, striking a pedestrian or roadside object, swerving into the other lane, rear-ending someone, or even being killed. This is an unnecessary risk drivers are taking to have a simple conversational phone call.

Drivers realize they have the freedom to do anything while driving. They could have a four course meal, do a math problem, practice singing, or even watch a movie. Just because drivers can do these things does not mean they should. Most people have the common sense to avoid the things listed above, yet they do not realize the risk a phone call potentially has.

Another aspect to take into consideration is the practice of defensive driving. While a driver using his or her phone may not be the problem, they are less apt to recognize when another driver on the road makes an error. An example may be when a car in front of another slams on his breaks. Because the latter car is on his cell phone, he is unable to prevent the accident by swerving out of the way, or by other means. Consequently, there is an accident that could have been prevented.

While there are many other aspects and distractions that can lead to accidents, it is no excuse to accept cellular devices as one of these and ignore it. “We killed 120 kids and small stature women with airbags and there was a huge government, industry and societal response. We killed 150 people with Firestone tires, and the response was the same. Both airbags and tires are essential parts of the driving environment. Cell phones are not, so why do we tolerate this problem?”(Partnership for Safe Driving) Although tires and airbags only affected a few people, it was easy to find a cause to fight for. Everyone is affected by cellular devices in cars so it is harder to draw the line between who is right and who is wrong.

The main problem is the lack of data the government has on this topic, but are there alternative motives? As one State Representative puts it “People like their cell phones- including legislators. I think too many legislators enjoy their toys” (James). That is exactly it; no one is willing to give up the convenience to save a life. Not only are legislators not willing to give up their “toys,” but many of them believe using cell phones while driving is an “undecided safety measure.” With 40,000 new cell phone subscribers a day, a rate higher than the birthrate in 1995, this problem will increasingly grow (Partnership for Safe Driving). Even if society realizes cell phones are not a good option and could be dangerous, especially in a car setting, many people do not stop and hang up the phone. There has to be a want for change; there is most definitely a need.

Using a cell phone while driving is just as distracting than other things in the car such as changing the radio station, putting on make-up, eating food, or even reading a map is a common misconception. This is not the only objection to legislation on motorists using cell phones. There are many counter arguments ranging from infringing on personal freedom to the issue of enforcement. The first major opposition is the idea of distractions. Changing the radio station, eating, and all the other common distractions are also a problem while driving, talking on a cell phone is worse. There are four types of distractions: visual, mechanical, auditory, and cognitive. Using a cell phone is the only one of the common distractions that addresses all disruptions. Visual, or taking your eyes off the road, encompasses, in this case, finding your phone, and trying to answer it. Next is mechanical, meaning dialing, texting, or just using the phone. Auditory distractions consist of listening to the conversation or ringing. A cognitive distraction is something that causes someone to withdrawal from awareness, such as talking on the phone and having a conversation. Because all of these are important and equally dangerous, cell phones are the compilation of all distractions.

“I am allowed to talk on my cell phone when I am driving. It is my personal freedom to do so guaranteed by the United States,” is commonly thought so by Americans, yet, although the United States does provide much freedom, talking on a cell phone is not one of those liberties. The state of Pennsylvania does not even guarantee driving rights. People are fighting for legislation to justify the loss of a loved one while others are complaining of a loss of convenience. The small discomfort or inconvenience one may experience by having to postpone a phone call is far worth the benefit legislation would provide to public safety.

Any legislation against cellular phones on the road is frowned on because the population commonly feels it will not make a difference. People will still have phone conversations regardless of any law. While it may be impossible to completely prevent the public from talking on their cellular devices, a law would be passed in hope that it would reduce the amount of occurrences rather than catch everyone that does it. Many companies including Exxon Mobile and even cell phone companies prohibit their workers to talk on the cell phone while driving a company car. They understand the importance of safety because it is a bigger loss when a worker gets hurt, or the company gets sued. If big corporations are able to make policies for their employees, why are politicians unable to do the same for their dependents? When research proved seatbelts were a necessity and laws were enacted, society quickly adapted and adopted the new law. It may be personal responsibility, but there are some people who need the initiative taken for them for their own safety and the safety of others around them. So, legislation would make a difference in this country, now is the time to take action.

Enforcement is another issue. How are policemen going to find everyone who is having a phone conversation in their cars? There may not be a simple solution to this dilemma, but that does not mean legislation should not be passed. How do officers spot an invalid inspection sticker, or someone not wearing a seatbelt? By the nature of these crimes, it is almost impossible to charge someone with a primary offense. There is always the secondary offense. If someone is pulled over for another violation, policemen can ticket their crime of talking on the cell phone then. Even still, if a policeman sees someone on their phone while on the road, which may be easily seen with a hand held phone, they can pull the offender over. Enforcement is not as important as the principle of passing the law. Society will adapt to the new laws just like they adapted to the drinking and driving laws. After the law for drinking and driving was passed due to the high risk of an accident, society was able to change their habits and only have one drink before driving, if drinking at all. By passing a law resembling the drinking and driving law, citizens will adjust their lifestyles in favor of one with greater safety. Without a law, the message is never delivered.

Of the three states that have legislation on cell phones in cars, they ban the use of a hand held phone, yet do not condemn the use of hands free cell phones. While this legislation may help, it is not the right solution to the problem. Studies show hands-free cell phones offer no help in making cell phones any less of a distraction. Even a significant amount of visual distraction occurs despite the use of hands-free technology. "Even though your eyes are looking right at something, when you are on the cell phone, you are not as likely to see it," Utah researcher David Strayer observed (Carney). So what exactly does current legislation do if it does not even provide a solution of the visual distraction? The problem can’t just be physical or visual; it has to be something else. This something else is the conversation itself. A study by Johnson and Strayer found that subjects conversing on cell phones missed twice as many traffic signals and people using hands free cell phones made no difference. Any legislation with the use of hands free cell phones is obviously not sufficient in solving the problem. Wheatly, in 2000, provided evidence that the more complex or emotionally charged conversations, the more impaired drivers become. This relates back to the cognitive aspect of conversations. When someone is “lost in thought” due to a conversation or after a conversation, this is what creates the hazard on the road, not just holding the phone.

If a law were to be passed nationally in the United States, it would not be a revolutionary concept. Countries including Australia, Spain, Israel, Portugal, Italy, Brazil, Chile, Switzerland, Great Britain, Singapore, Taiwan, Sweden, Japan, and Austria are already a step ahead of the United States. After cellular telephones were banned in Japan, the accidents caused by the use of mobile phones dropped by 75% in the next month alone (James). That is not a statistic to ignore. Passing a law worked with these countries, so it is time for the United States to take action. It is not appropriate to make the excuse of a lack of results. New York, New Jersey, and Washing D.C. have set the precedent for the rest of the country by passing any sort of law. They allow the use of hands-free technology, which is not enough, but they have the right idea. The United States as a whole needs to address this universal crisis, but legislation needs to start from the state level.

There needs to be a law banning cell phones altogether in the car, handheld and hands-free. If someone is caught using a cell phone there should be a 500 dollar fine. This is not a small issue, and much of the public cannot afford a large fine, and therefore will obey the law. Points on the offender’s license will also be a penalty. In order to gain acceptance, law enforcement needs to be strict. Police should be able to pull over and ticket anyone in violation to this rule. A cell phone can be used in an emergency; this can include reporting accidents, necessary calls to 911, or things of that nature. These are all options which can be preformed from a stopped and safe car or by a passenger.

How many more people have to die? How many more accidents have to occur? How many more people have to lose someone before something is done? Driving and using a cell phone jeopardizes the safety of our society built on roads and highways. The plan proposed may not eliminate the injustice, but it will make a difference, even if the government is unsure of this. The accidents caused by cellular phones are easily preventable, but there needs to be a message to the public, one like wearing a seatbelt. This message will never be given without proper legislation. The legislation passed cannot just be for handheld phones, it has to eliminate the entire problem. In order to establish creditability, there has to be a harsh punishment or fine. The cognitive, mechanical, visual, and auditory distractions a cell phone entails add up to one major problem; one that is not currently being dealt with. People are dying in this state right now because a driver is too ignorant to hang up the phone. What phone call is more important than a fellow American’s life? What is so important that cannot be made from a stopped vehicle, or postponed to a more appropriate time? Society has to realize that convenience and freedom have to be sacrificed at certain times, and this time is one of them. This problem can be fixed, and it starts on a state level. With every state’s concern, the United States can together stop the turmoil caused by talking and driving. The United States was founded to provide protection and safety to its citizens; it is time to ensure those rights to those who deserve it.

Works Cited

"An Education on Common Objections to Cell Phone Legislation." MorganLee.org. Partnership for Safe Driving. 01 Dec. 2005 <http://www.morganlee.org/rebuttal.htm

Britt, Robert. "Drivers on Cell Phones Kill Thousands, Snarl Traffic." LiveScience. 1 Feb. 2005. 7 Dec. 2005 <http://www.livescience.com/technology/050201_cell_danger.html>.

Carney, Dan. "When is a call worth a life?" The Center for Auto Safety. 9 Feb. 2005. 7 Dec. 2005 <http://www.autosafety.org/article.php?scid=37&did=1157>.

James, George. "Some States Consider Limits on the Use of Cell Phones in Cars, But Legislators Are Wary and Admit They 'Enjoy Their Toys'" New York Times 26 Mar. 200. 01 Dec. 2006 <http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F20F10F83F590C758EDDAA0894D8404482>.