Prome 1
Najiyah Prome
Cales
UNIV 112
November 24, 2014
Unit III Essay
Improvements in technology portray texting as a norm committed by many and persuade
phone users to make texting their dominant source of communication over time. Even though
technology has helped make texting more efficient, texting while driving is still an inefficient act
that can result in horrifying accidents. For example, the “National Phone Survey on Distracted
Driving Attitudes and Behavior” by Julie Tison, Neil Chaudhary, and Linda Cosgrove reports
that 49% of drivers text while driving, alluding that texting while driving is becoming a norm
that almost dominates texting. This form of distraction is be quite serious as texting while driving
endangers and affects many lives. Texting while driving motivates drivers to value
communication over safety, as drivers are willing to gamble people’s lives for the sake of
replying or reading someone’s texts.
Even though many can agree, that texting while driving is dangerous, they can
mischaracterize drivers as careless. Drivers do not text and drive because they are ignorant or
uneducated of the dangers of texting while driving. However, drivers text and drive because
communication with friends and family is so important to them, they are willing to put their
passenger, the public, and their own life in danger for the sake of replying to someone’s text.
Drivers rank communication over safety because of the false notion that technology
makes it easier to text and drive. Technology helps our lives become more efficient, likewise, the
improvement of technologies also benefit communication. However, this improvement in
Prome 2
communication does not justify texting while driving nor does it protect or prevent drivers from
accidents when they are texting and driving. For example, the text, “The Choice to Text and
Drive in Younger Drivers: Behavior May Shape Attitude” by Paul Atchley, Stephanie Atwood,
and Aaron Boulton reports that young drivers are in danger of accidents due to texting while
driving. This is because according to their study, “younger adults are using texting as a primary
means of communication” (Atchley et al.) illustrating that as technology evolves, more humans
are switching their communication method to texting. Although this revolution has its benefits in
efficient communication, it can have potential risks especially when texting and driving.
Improvement in technology usually forces humans to become heavily dependent on it because as
it makes daily-life efficient. Thus, people began to rely on it to solve daily life problems. This
can lead drivers to believe that texting while driving might not result accidents as technology can
help make texting easy. However, technology has not gotten to the point that makes texting
while driving safe, illustrating that drivers prioritize communication. This is because when
claiming that technology makes driving safe, people usually debates the improvements in texting
makes texting while driving safe rather than the driving component such as improvements in
cars. Even though there has been great progresses in cars such as autonomous car or auto-drive
functions in cars that can counter such notions, however, these improvements in cars has yet to
illustrate their ability to prevent accidents from texting while driving.
In addition, the article, “Texting while driving on automatic: Considering the frequencyindependent side of habit” by Joseph Bayer and Scott Campbell mentions “that mobile
communication is turning people into zombies” (Bayer, and Cambell) further depicting that as
technology evolves people become dependent on it that could possibly turn them into
“technology-loving zombies”. This is dangerous because being too dependent on technology can
Prome 3
encourage drivers to text while driving. Furthermore, advanced technologies can make drivers
consider that improvements in technology can prevent accidents while texting and driving. Even
though being a “technology-loving zombies” have its benefits in communication and
entertainment, technology’s efficiency has yet to improve drivers’ abilities to text and drive at
the same time. Similarly, as texting while driving becomes a familiar concept, drivers are
becoming more aware and knowledgeable of the dangers of texting while driving. However,
improvements in technology can blind that knowledge and awareness, eventually making drivers
reliant on technology while texting and driving.
Focusing on texting instead of driving not only creates a behavior of distracted driving
but it also illustrates driver’s treasuring one life over another. When drivers are texting while
driving, they are attempting to strengthen or maintain their personal bonds but at the cost of
others. This is because when drivers are adding texting to their driving, they are setting up a
scenario that illustrates that drivers are willing to risk lives. In such scenarios, drivers are
attempting to extend their communication and strengthen it, however, at the cost of their and
others lives. In addition, due to the lack personal bonds between the drivers, pedestrians, and
others that share the road can encourage drivers to pay more attention to texting than driving or
even encourage drivers to text and drive. Although no one intends to do such a thing
purposefully, texting while driving reflects the notion of favoritism towards one or more lives
and irresponsibility towards others. Therefore, depicting that drivers are willing to risk lives to
maintain or strengthen their relationship to whom they were texting. Philosopher Stephen
Asma’s, “The Myth of Universal Love” also agrees with this concept that people care more for
their tribe than the outside world and raises issues such as whether people or drivers should care
about strangers or pedestrians in the first place. In his article, Asma states “All people are not
Prome 4
equally entitled to my time” (Asma 12) portraying that it is impossible for one person to solely
dedicated their time to everyone. This is because humans treat other humans depending on their
perspective of them and their interaction with them. Asma’s statement also parallels the notion
that drivers might feel more obligated prioritize their friends and family’s texts more than their
surrounding public causing them to text and drive, and feeling that the people they were texting
are more deserving of their time. Thus, following Asma’s approach to the situation, drivers pay
more attention towards texting then driving, because they feel more loyalty towards the people
they were texting. In addition, the “National Phone Survey on Distracted Driving Attitudes and
Behavior” also agrees with such notion. It reports that “Respondents’ decisions to
accept…messages while driving cluster around how important they felt the other person or
communication was” (Tison et al.), illustrating the concept that drivers do consider the role of
communication when texting while driving and prioritize communication over safety.
However, philosophers such as Peter Singer would argue against such notion. In his
article, “The Drowning Child and the Expanding Circle” Singer states that “there is harmony
between ethics and enlightened self-interest” (Singer 380) depicting drivers should not
necessarily place communication over driving, but rather keep a balance between the two and
avoid texting while driving at the same time. In addition, Singer’s view point suggest that
texting while driving can be easily avoidable as self-interest and ethical considerations can be in
harmony. However, in reality, self-interest can overshadow ethical considerations, as favoritism
can dominates over ethical considerations towards strangers. Therefore, when drivers are texting
while driving under the notion of favoritism, they can easily violate ethical matters because they
are working in favor of self-interest to strengthen or maintain communication with friends and
Prome 5
family. Texting while driving has serious consequences, yet drivers commit to such acts to
maintain communication by valuing one life over another.
A driver’s overconfidence on their ability to efficiently text and drive blinds them into
focusing more on communication in the form of texting instead of driving. For example, the
“National Phone Survey on Distracted Driving Attitudes and Behaviors” mentions that 25% of
drivers have “said that texting or sending messages makes no difference on their driving
performance” (Tison et al.) exemplifying an attitude of over overconfidence that a great amount
of drivers that text and drives feels. Thus, drivers use that confidence as a method to justify their
ability to text and drive. However, this feeling is problematic because it is impossible to know
whether drivers’ behavior will result in dangerous events or not. This feeling of confidence also
comes from drivers’ belief that they are efficient multitasker, thus, they should be able to text
and drive efficiently boosting their confidence into overconfidence. As multitasking is becoming
a way of life, multitasking involving texting is also common. However, multitasking when
texting can encourage texting while driving because multitasking can cause overconfidence in
their ability to text that causes drivers to believe they can text and drive safely.
Furthermore, the study “Behavioral Performance and Visual Attention in Communication
Multitasking: A Comparison between Instant Messaging and Online Voice Chat” by Wanga
Zheng Prabu Davidb, Jatin Srivastavac, Stacie Powersa, Christine Bradya, Jonathan D'Angeloa,
and Jennifer Morelanda also addresses implications of drivers’ overconfidence in their driving
and multitasking abilities. The study mentions “tasks, such as texting…are conducted while
driving…is expected to have a worse impact on the driving task” (Zheng et al.) portraying that
texting does in fact have a great impact on drivers’ performances. This is contrasting, to the
concept of multitasking that encourages texting while driving. As well as depicting multitasking
Prome 6
within driving as harmful especially in terms of texting as it escalates over-confidence causing
drivers to text and drive. Even though drivers can claim that they are efficient multitaskers,
studies such as “Behavioral Performance and Visual Attention in Communication Multitasking:
A Comparison between Instant Messaging and Online Voice Chat” reports “significant drop in
performance when multitasking and communicating at the same time” (Zheng et al.). Thus,
illustrating sufficient evidence that counters the idea that being good at multitasking can avoid
accidents due to texting and driving. In addition, evidences from Zheng et al. study also elucidate
drivers’ confidence in their skills to drive while multitasking such as texting and driving is
invalid. When arguing that they are excellent drivers, drivers’ overconfidence make them pay
more attention to communication instead of safety because overconfidence makes them devalue
their ability in driving and focus more on their texting skills. Even though confidence is healthy,
overconfidence is risky especially in terms of texting and driving because this behavior causes
drivers to focus more on communicating with their friends and family than driving.
Texting while driving depicts drivers willing to put one’s life over the other for the sake
of maintaining communication with another person. Even though drivers commit this act
unconsciously, it can have severe implications. It is not because the driver does not care or value
about his or her surroundings but rather fails to acknowledge it under the influence of texting.
Therefore, these influences encourages drivers into believing it is possible to text and drive at the
same time and avoid accidents even though it is not true.
Word Count: 1774
Prome 7
Works Cited
Asma, Stephen T. "The Myth of Universal Love." Evolving Ideas: Focused Inquiry. 2014-2015
ed. N.p.: VCU, n.d. 12-16. Print.
Atchley, Paul, Stephanie Atwood, and Aaron Boulton. “The Choice to Text and Drive in
Younger Drivers: Behavior May Shape Attitude.” Science Direct. Elsevier B.V., Jan.
2011. Web. 13 Nov. 2014.
Bayer, Joseph B., and Campbell, Scott W. “Texting While Driving on Automatic: Considering
the Frequency-independent Side of Habit.” Computers in Human Behavior 28.6 (2012):
2083-090. Print Singer, Peter. "The Drowning Child and the Expanding Circle." Evolving
Ideas: Focused Inquiry. 2014-2015 ed. N.p.: VCU, n.d. 380-83. Print.
Tison, Julie, Neil Chaudhary, and Linda Cosgrove. National Phone Survey on Distracted Driving
Attitudes and Behaviors. National Technical Information Service. N.p., Dec. 2011. Web.
28 Oct. 2014.
Wanga, Zheng, Prabu Davidb, Jatin Srivastavac, Stacie Powersa, Christine Bradya, Jonathan
D'Angeloa, and Jennifer Morelanda. "Behavioral Performance and Visual Attention in
Communication Multitasking: A Comparison between Instant Messaging and Online
Voice Chat." ScienceDirect. N.p., May 2012. Web. 23 Nov. 2014.