Argumentative Analysis: Distracted Driving

For every year that passes, more than 5,000 Americans’ lives come to an abrupt end due to distracted driving. These numbers are almost identical to the number of road fatalities that are caused by intoxicated drivers, showing a correlation that someone who is on their cell phone while driving is just as likely to be in an accident as they would be if they decided to drive under the influence. With these numbers rapidly growing each year, more states are deciding to take legal action by banning the use of cell phones while driving. Simultaneously, the majority of automotive companies are including built-in technology such as Bluetooth and GPS systems to allow people to have access to technology while minimizing their risk of becoming distracted
in the car. Two advocates for the removal of cell phones during driving are Mitch Bainwol, CEO at Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, and Rob Reynolds, executive director of FocusDriven. In a CQ Researcher article, they discuss their different opinions of the research that determines how frequent accidents occur with a hand-held device as natural or “rigged” and in response, offer different solutions to how these accidents will stop occurring. Traffic safety administrators are constantly in the process of researching the effects of driving with a hand-held device. Both Bainwol and Renolds analyze the credibility of the research that safety administrations conduct and come to their own conclusions on how reliable these companies are. Based on the research results tested by Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, Bainwol states that “80 percent of crashes involve the driver looking away from the roadway just prior to the crash”. Bainwol forms his naturalistic argument by taking statistics found from researchers and trusts their results as facts. He is able to conclude that built-in technological devices allow drivers to keep their attention in front of them, similar to tuning a radio. An opposite viewpoint is taken by Reynolds, who argues against the data that is obtained by traffic accident studies. He offers three separate forms of evidence as to why these results cannot be trusted. First, the people that are used for these studies are aware of being the subject of observation; therefore, it cannot be determined whether these people are driving “naturally”. He also observes that car crashes are events that do not frequently occur with most drivers and that the infrequency of these events cause the sample size in the research to be too small to be valid. Lastly, Reynolds suggests that research cannot measure “cognitive distractions of the brain caused by the cellphone and other applications”. Rather, the research only measures physical distraction of the participants. Once Bainwol and Reynolds analyze the validity of the research that is used to support the use of built-in technology devices rather than hand-held devices, they offer their reasoning as to why or why not automotive companies should continue to manufacture built-in technological systems in vehicles.
Bainwol argues that because these built-in systems allow the phone to connect to the system, there is no need for a driver to even have their phone anywhere in sight. He boldly states that even if it is illegal for Americans to use their phone while they drive, they are going to continue to do so. From these arguments he concludes that the best way companies will be able to reduce the traffic fatality rate is to allow Americans to continue to have technology available to them while in the car. At the same time the companies need to effectively persuade them to only use technology that is provided in the car’s system. Reynolds takes an opposite stance by saying that the risk of crashing is still going to be four times more likely if automakers allow consumers to continue to use technology like they are already doing. He parallels this issue with another issue on smoking in which adding filters to cigarettes does not make cigarette smoking safe. This example aids in solidifying his argument that “impairment is impairment”, whether a driver has access to technology through a hand-held device or a built-in
device. Bainwol and Reynolds both provide supporting evidence for their views on how accurate the research is that determines the frequency of accidents occurring with the use of cell phones. They then offer solutions to this problem by stating what they believe to be the most effective way to reduce the number of road fatalities that occur per year. However, Reynolds builds up a much stronger argument by the use of two things: He provides multiple examples that are easy to understand and believable and he also compares distracted driving to cigarette smoking. The only way to increase our risk of surviving is by stopping altogether. Bainwol’s argument is weaker, because he does not provide as much evidence to support the claims that he makes. Also, the research he uses as evidence does not include any research showing that integrated devices decrease the risk of crashing compared to crashing from the use of a hand-held device. Even though Reynolds’ argument is more credible based on the construction of his argument, the viewpoint that Bainwol takes is more practical, since Americans are going to insist that technology should be available to them at all times. My viewpoint on the issue is similar to Bainwol’s perspective: As the technology of our current world continues to make breakthroughs, we must realize that our priorities need to focus on the plane of view in site with the road, which integrated technology systems will allow us to do.

Works Cited
Hosansky, David. "Distracted Driving." CQ Researcher. 4 May 2012: 401-24. Web. 27 Sept. 2013.