ILNews

Opinion: Stay focused on the road, not the phone

Ryan Klitzsch
April 28, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Commentary


We've all been there. Driving the same route day-in and day-out, a hundred times before, with little to differentiate one trip from another. Then there's that one moment when something unforeseen occurs requiring you to instantly maneuver your vehicle and test how good your reflexes and anti-lock brakes really are - making this all-too-routine trip very different from the rest. Maybe it was an unexpected bottleneck slowing traffic, a darting deer, or a blown-out tire. Whatever the reason, the difference between continuing on your mundane drive and having to call your insurance agent (or worse, an ambulance) probably had to do with whether you were distracted from driving at the moment the event occurred. There are many distractions that prevent a driver from focusing on the task of driving: changing the radio or a CD, talking to passengers, eating, using a cell phone or text messaging, to name a few.

Distraction results from any non-driving activity that lessens the attention of the driver on the primary task of driving and increases the risk of crashing or causing others to crash. There are three main types of distractions: (1) visual (taking your eyes off of the road), (2) manual (taking your hands off of the wheel), and (3) cognitive (taking your mind off of what you're doing). While all distractions can endanger a driver's safety, texting is the most alarming because it involves all three types of distraction. To combat this obvious threat, states have been passing texting bans for all drivers at a feverish pace. Washington was the first state to enact a texting-while-driving ban in May 2007. Since then, 22 states have banned texting for all drivers.

Research on distracted driving reveals some surprising and disturbing facts. According to a study conducted by Carnegie Mellon University, driving while using a cell phone reduces the amount of brain activity associated with driving by 37 percent. Recent numbers for 2008 from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) noted that nearly 6,000 people died in crashes involving a distracted driver and more than half a million were injured. Unfortunately younger, inexperienced drivers less than 20 years of age are the most vulnerable and have the highest percentage of distraction-related fatal crashes. Fortunately, in 2009, the Indiana General Assembly passed a ban on the use of cell phones (texting and talking) while driving for drivers under the age of 18. However, all drivers are shown to have issues with driving when distracted by cell phone use. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety noted that drivers who use hand-held devices are four times more likely to get into crashes serious enough to injure themselves. Even more alarming, a study from the University of Utah found that using a cell phone while driving, whether it's hand-held or handsfree, delays a driver's reactions as much as having a blood alcohol concentration at the legal limit of .08 percent!

So whether traveling home from work or driving from one meeting to the next, that call or e-mail can wait. Keep your driving safe, uneventful, and stay focused on the road ahead!

Ryan Klitzsch is dvision director, Traffic Safety, at the Indiana Criminal Justice Institute. The opinions expressed in this column are those of the author's.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT