Driver distraction, and its implicit effects on hazard recognition and vehicle control, has been a prominent topic on highway safety agendas, as well as for the U. S. Congress, state legislatures, the media, and the public at large (Stutts, Feaganes, Reinfurt, Rodgman, Hamlett, Gish, & Staplin, 2001). Much of this attention stems from the enormous increase in cellular telephone use by drivers and the prospect of similar growth in other in-vehicle technologies such as vehicle navigation systems, wireless Internet capabilities, and wireless messaging (Stutts et al. 2001).
Driver distraction has been identified as one of the main causes of road traffic incidents (Patten, Kircher, Ostlund, & Nilsson, 2004), estimated to account for approximately one-quarter of all vehicle crashes (Stutts et al. , 2001). Mobile phones can often be a major distraction to drivers, with research pointing to the substantial safety risks of using a mobile phone while driving (McCartt et al. , 2006). Background
In recent years, the NHTSA and AAA, in conjunction with efforts from various states throughout the United States, have identified distracted driving as a leading cause for frequency and severity of automobile crashes (McCartt, Hellinga, & Bratiman, 2006). As previously stated, much of this of inattention stems from increases in technology use inside a motor vehicle, specifically cell phone usage by a driver, while it is in operation. In recent years, many states in the US began passing laws banning the usage of cell phones while driving and in 2010; Michigan legislators did the same.
Michigan passed a “texting and driving law” in an attempt to combat the growing problem of cell phone usage while driving. Michigan’s law reads as follows; Except as otherwise provided in this section, a person shall not read, manually type, or send a text message on a wireless 2-way communication device that is located in the person’s hand or in the person’s lap, including a wireless telephone used in cellular telephone service or personal communication service, while operating a motor vehicle that is moving on a highway or street in this state (legislature. mi. ov).
Statement of Problem Although a national study found reduced crash rates among states with a texting while driving ban, Michigan has not seen such a drop since introducing its own version of the ban (Michigan drivers Still texting, despite ban, 2015). The state of Michigan found during one study that their new texting and driving law hasn’t yet had the desired effect they were hoping for with their law (Ehsani, Bingham, Ionides, & Childers, 2014) . One theory behind this is that people’s attitudes in the state have not changed regarding texting while driving.
However, many states have seen a decrease in accidents involving cell phones (Ehsani et al. , 2014). A recent study, led by researchers at Texas A&M found that states enforcing texting bans had a 7 percent drop in hospitalizations from serious accidents from 2003 to 2010, compared to states without bans (Michigan drivers Still texting, despite ban, 2015). The study factored in alternative components as well, such as changes in speeding laws, drunk driving, and teen driving restrictions, with the texting laws having the highest correlation.
Michigan, however, has seen numbers move in the opposite direction, with accidents and accident-related injuries slightly increasing under its ban — from about 282,000 accidents in 2010 to about 289,000 in 2013, according to statistics from the State Police (Michigan drivers Still texting, despite ban, 2015). Justification The idea behind this study is to analyze Michigan’s texting and driving law to propose a more effective way to tailor the law to the State’s wishes and protect motorists and bystanders. Theoretical Framework The idea of the texting and driving law is to make Michigan’s roadways safer.
Unlike Michigan, other states have seen a decrease in accidents involving cell phone usage. Perhaps these states are tailoring their laws to all around cell phone usage and not just primarily texting. Also, perhaps the penalties of violating this law aren’t severe enough to deter people from using them. For example, in Germany, a driver can lose his license for up to a month for simply talking on a phone not affixed to the vehicle. The idea behind the law in Michigan is a good one, but it needs to be changed to make a difference. Research question
Although Michigan has enacted an anti-texting while driving law, why are accidents rates increasing? What are other states doing regarding their texting and driving laws that Michigan could do in order to see the desired result of fewer accidents? Review of Literature Four articles were reviewed in depth during this research study on Michigan’s cell phone use laws. The first study was an observational study of Michigan’s text messaging restriction law was conducted to determine the effects of the law after it was instated in July of 2010 (Ehsani et al. , 2014).
The study was conducted across the state using crash and licensing data obtained from the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute and the Michigan State Police UD-10 crash tracking system from 2005 through 2012 (Ehsani et al. , 2014). Crash rate trends were monitored monthly per 10,000 license drivers aged 16, 17, 18, and 19, 20-24 and 25-50. Analyses were adjusted for crash rates of drivers aged 65-99 years of age, the unemployment rate and gas prices. Crash severities were broken down into three groups; fatal/disabling injury, non-disabling injury and possible injury/property damage only (vehicle accident with no injury).
Non-injury related crashes resulting in damage under $1000 were not able to be analyzed into the study, as Michigan law does not require the crash to be reported (Ehsani et al. , 2014). Changes in crash data and trends across age groups after the introduction of the texting law were surprisingly small (Ehsani et al. , 2014). However, significant increases were found in the fatal/disabling and non-disabling category, while significant decreases were found in possible injury/property damage only crashes (Ehsani et al. , 2014).
The study concludes that the effectiveness behind the idea of the anti-texting law in Michigan has not yet taken root. One suggestion is that even though the law has changed, the behavior of drivers has not yet changed (Ehsani et al. , 2014). The next of the four studies analyzed was a behavioral study on Australian drivers in regards to their feelings on texting and driving. The study on texting and driving was conducted at Queensland University in 2009 using 169 Australian university students ages, 17-24 years (Nemme & White, 2010).
The main focus of the study, which used the “theory of planned behavior” was to predict the young driver’s intentions of sending or reading texts while operating a motor vehicle (Nemme & White, 2010). The study used variables such as subjective norm, social influence, social group norm and moral attitudes as a basis for predicting whether or not a youth would text while driving. The students were given a questionnaire asking about intentions to text and drive using these variables, rating their beliefs and actions on a one to seven scale (Nemme & White, 2010). One being strongly disagree and seven being strongly disagree.
After participating in the study for one week, students were questioned once again. It was found that social patterns of acceptance of texting while driving along with moral stances on the issue had a significant effect on whether or not someone would send or read a text while driving (Nemme & White, 2010). The article concluded that a multi-faceted approach to curbing the issue should be taken, aside from simply outlawing it. The article focused on the importance of the issue being seen as morally and socially wrong to help effect change in youth’s outlook on the issue (Nemme & White, 2010).
The next study that was analyzed was an observational study of driver distractions which was conducted in November 2000 for a one year period, ending in 2001. The study was grant funded by the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety (Stutts et al. , 2001). In-car dash cameras and audio recording devices were installed in the vehicles of 70 volunteer drivers (Stutts et al. , 2001). Half of the participants were from central North Carolina and the other half from the suburbs of Philadelphia. Driver distraction is defined in terms of an object or event that draws one’s attention from the task of driving.
Distractions were broken down into categories of “cell phone/pager, eating/drinking/spilling, prepping to eat/drink, music/audio controls, smoking, reading/writing, grooming, baby distraction, child distraction, adult distraction, conversing, internal distraction and external distraction” (Stutts et al. , 2001). 35 male participants and 35 female participants grouped in ages 18-29. 30-39, 40-49, 50-59 and 60+ were recorded for the previously mentioned one year time period (Stutts et al. , 2001). Due to time constraints, each participants driving was monitored for 3 hours maximum (Stutts et al. , 2001).
The data was coded by three staff members from the Highway Safety Research Center who further broke down the data into categories of how many hands a driver had on the steering wheel when the distraction took place, whether the driver’s eyes were directed outside or inside the vehicle and whether the vehicle was swerving or stopping from sudden braking (Stutts et al. , 2001).
The models revealed consistent trends of higher levels of no hands on the steering wheel and eyes directed inside the vehicle, along with higher rates of adverse vehicle, associated with each of the named distractions (Stutts et al. 2001). The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimated that driver inattention is a contributing factor in 25-30% of vehicle crashes (Stutts et al. , 2001). The study concluded outside of normal conversation, participant drivers were engaged in distraction activities on average 14. 5% of the total driving time. The study suggests that a better understanding of the role of driver distraction in relation to traffic crashes will emerge from studies such as this one (Stutts et al. , 2001).
A recent newspaper article from the Associated Press in Houston, Texas documented a fatal texting and driving crash that took place in March, 2017 approximately 75 miles West of San Antonio. According to the newspaper, on March 30, 2017 the driver of a pickup truck collided with a church minibus, killing 13 people near the town of Concan, Texas. During an interview with local law enforcement who were investigating the scene the driver of the pickup truck admitted to texting while driving just prior to the crash.
Texas currently has no laws banning texting while driving. A ban was proposed in 2011 but was vetoed by then-Gov. Rick Perry, who characterized such prohibitions as government micromanagement and said educating drivers was the key to deterrence. Lastly, according to a 2011 study on texting while driving (Farris, 2011) the National Safety Council (NSC) estimates that cell phone use of any sort causes 28 percent of all crashes each year, or approximately 1. 6 million crashes annually. Moreover, texting drivers account for at least 200,000 crashes each year.