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
…show more content…
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
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