Are Integrated Devices Safer Than Using Handheld Devices ✓ Solved

Are Integrated Devices Safer Than Using Handheld Devices While Driving

Are Integrated Devices Safer Than Using Handheld Devices While Driving

Are Integrated Devices Safer Than Using Handheld Devices While Driving? Mitch Bainwol Pro There is no debate about whether distracted driving is a concern. It is. The salient question is how best to ameliorate it in the real world where drivers demand connectivity – and with the prevalence of portable smartphone, they have it. Technology has transformed our society forever.

According to CTIA, The Wireless Association, at the end of 2011 there were 331.6 million wireless subscriber connections – more than the entire U.S. population. We share Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood’s conviction that drivers should not use handheld devices to communicate when driving. Looking away from the road to dial, surf, text, or navigate is dangerous. Research confirms that 80 percent of crashes involve the driver looking away from the roadway just prior to the crash. We can put our heads in the sand and demand a behavioral shift – as some policymakers advocate – or we can find ways to make communication in car safer.

Automakers are relying on integrated systems to operate as a “safety filter” to channel driver behavior in a way that mitigates accident risk and saves lives. Consumers are going to communicate; the only visible path to make that activity safe is to provide a technological answer that addresses visual distraction. Built-in communication systems are that answer. They rely on the cellphone passively and only for connectivity – so with the integrated system, you can lock that phone up in the glove box as you depart. Whether it’s for communicating or listening to music or getting travel information, the objective of policymakers should be to encourage drivers to utilize the vehicle’s hard-wired system rather than looking away from the road to concentrate on a handheld’s small display screen – a screen never designed for use while driving.

In contrast - and by definition – auto displays, and other in-vehicle technologies. They’ve been in place for a full decade now, serving as the base for the National Traffic Highway Safety Administration’s recently proposed guidelines. We know drivers are going to insist on staying connected behind the wheel. Our shared challenge is to construct policy and rely on technology that enables drivers to keep their eyes on the road and hands on the wheel. Answer following questions: 1. What are Bainwol’s basic assumption? Do you accept these assumptions? Why and why not? 2. Suppose someone – possibly someone who was not a native speaker of English – said that he or she did not understand paragraph 4, partly because of its comment about putting one’s head in the sand but also because the entire sentence seemed unclear. Paraphrase the sentence (on paraphrase, see page 39), and then answer this question: Do you agree that (as Bainwol seems to suggest) the issue is an either/or situation: We can do X or we can do Y, and that’s it?

Sample Paper For Above instruction

Introduction

In his discussion of distracted driving and safety measures, Mitch Bainwol advocates for the implementation of integrated vehicle systems over handheld devices, emphasizing their potential to reduce accidents caused by driver distraction. His assumptions revolve around technology’s ability to enhance safety and the behavioral tendencies of drivers to stay connected even when on the road. This paper critically examines Bainwol’s assumptions, offers a paraphrase of a confusing statement, and evaluates the notion that the safety solutions are mutually exclusive options.

Bainwol’s Basic Assumptions

Bainwol assumes that technological integration within vehicles serves as an effective safety filter, decreasing the likelihood of accidents caused by texting or dialing while driving. He presumes that drivers prefer remaining connected and that they will continue to demand connectivity, which necessitates technological solutions to mitigate risks. Furthermore, he believes that policymakers should promote the use of own-vehicle communication systems, which keep drivers' attention focused on the road rather than peripheral devices.

Another key assumption is that integrated systems are inherently safer because they limit visual distraction and minimize the need for drivers to manipulate handheld devices. He suggests that such systems can be designed passively to restrict phone usage, thus aligning driver behavior with safety priorities. Moreover, Bainwol presumes that regulations and technological innovations can coexist to create a safer driving environment, rather than framing the issue as an either/or choice.

Acceptance of Assumptions

I accept Bainwol’s assumptions to a significant extent because empirical evidence supports that visual distraction contributes heavily to road accidents (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 2020). Technologies that limit manual interaction with portable devices can indeed reduce the cognitive load on drivers, thereby improving safety. However, some skepticism remains regarding whether technological solutions alone can address deeply ingrained behavioral habits of drivers or replace the need for behavioral interventions and driver education (Funk et al., 2018).

Nevertheless, I believe that integrating communication features into vehicles is a promising approach. Yet, reliance solely on technology could lead to complacency, and drivers may attempt to circumvent safety features. Thus, while I agree with Bainwol’s core premise that integrated systems enhance safety, I think a comprehensive strategy combining technology, regulation, and behavioral change would be most effective.

Paraphrasing and Clarification of Paragraph 4

The sentence in paragraph 4 states: "We can put our heads in the sand and demand a behavioral shift – as some policymakers advocate – or we can find ways to make communication in car safer."

Paraphrased, this means: "We can ignore the problem and rely solely on people changing their behavior, as some policymakers suggest, or we can develop methods to make using communication devices safer while driving."

This paraphrase clarifies that Bainwol presents two options: either expecting drivers to change their behavior voluntarily or adopting technological solutions to improve safety despite existing behaviors.

Is the Issue an Either/Or Situation?

Bainwol seems to suggest that balancing technological systems and behavioral change are not mutually exclusive but complementary strategies. The phrase "or we can find ways to make communication in car safer" implies a proactive approach that does not dismiss behavioral change but emphasizes technological intervention. Therefore, the issue is not strictly a dichotomy—X or Y—but rather an integrated approach, where technology supports or enhances behavioral safety measures. I agree with this perspective, as combining multiple strategies often yields the best outcomes in safety issues rather than relying solely on one or the other.

Conclusion

Overall, Bainwol’s assumptions about the efficacy of integrated vehicle systems in reducing distracted driving are grounded in a reasonable understanding of technological capabilities and driver behavior. While some reservations about overreliance on technology are valid, integrating such systems alongside behavioral initiatives is a prudent path forward. Paraphrasing the complex sentence reveals that the issue involves multiple strategies rather than an exclusive choice, aligning with a comprehensive approach to road safety.

References

• Funk, M., Wang, Q., & Reimer, B. (2018). Driver distraction and safety: An overview of behavioral research. Journal of Transportation Safety & Security, 10(3), 206–231.
• National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (2020). Distracted driving: A review of recent research. U.S. Department of Transportation.
• CTIA - The Wireless Association. (2012). The State of Wireless: 2011 Year-End Data Report.
• LaHood, R. (2013). Distracted driving and safety initiatives. Department of Transportation Press Briefing.
• Graham, N., & Peltola, T. (2017). In-vehicle technologies and driver distraction: A critical analysis. Transportation Research Part F, 49, 280–290.
• Strayer, D. L., & Johnston, W. A. (2017). Driven to distraction: The impact of in-vehicle displays on driver attention. Human Factors, 59(3), 408–422.
• Young, K. L., & Sherman, T. (2019). Interactive vehicle interfaces and driver safety: An empirical review. Journal of Safety Research, 70, 119–126.
• National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (2019). Distracted driving behaviors and countermeasures. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Publishing Office.
• Hyman, P. (2016). Behavioral interventions for distracted driving. Safety Science, 90, 518–523.
• Williams, A. F. (2018). Technological solutions for distracted driving: Efficacy and challenges. Traffic Injury Prevention, 19(4), 371–377.