Distracted Teenagers

Distracted Teenagers and Driving

Like most of my peers, I cannot remember a time before smartphones. These extensions of ourselves have been the foundation of our education, communication, and entertainment. I remember every new feature that was expected to make the phones faster, bigger and more appealing to adolescents and young adults. In general, the use of these devices has become as natural as breathing or blinking. I do, however, remember a time before I was able to drive. I recall being buckled in the backseat until the age of twelve when I was magically allowed to sit closer to the volume controls as I would link my phone to the speakers through Bluetooth. I do not know how cars have been modified each year and I certainly do not know the complexities of road design and driving policies. While understanding smartphones but not having the same comprehension of vehicles may seem disconnected, there is an important reason to discuss them together. While using technology may seem like second nature, this raises the question as to how natural this activity is when operating a vehicle.

Even though many believe that the combination of smartphones and driving is acceptable, the reality is that teens and young adults become easily distracted when they are driving. In fact, according to Adeola, Omorogbe, and Johnson, drivers are 23 times more likely to be in a car crash when they are texting and driving. This alarming percentage of accidents could easily be reduced if the proper education were implemented and awareness of this problem was raised. However, current statistics show that no such program has been identified. In other words, even though distracted driving is known to cause accidents, teenagers and young adults continue to dismiss their smartphones as distractions.

While the statistics that the drivers are 23 more times likely to be in a car crash provides a strong argument, this may not be enough to change the opinions of teen drivers. However, O’Brien, Goodwin, and Foss explained this statistic as being 4-fold. This means that one in four drivers who text, and drive are likely to find themselves in a car accident that results in property damage, injury, or both. When students are asked to look around at themselves and three of their peers who also text and drive, this statistic becomes far more realistic and applicable to their lives. Yet, despite this approach to explaining the risks associated with texting and driving, O’Brien, Goodwin, and Foss found that this behavior continues to be an accepted norm for these novice drivers. This disassociation between the data and the response must be better understood to change the approach and the acceptance of this behavior.

The problem is that most teenagers do not believe that cellphones are a distraction because they use them so often. In fact, according to the research, 45% of teenagers report using their cellphones while driving (O’Brien, Goodwin, and Foss 552). This is important because many others may not admit to this behavior. Interestingly, “even though teens describe it as dangerous, some teens and their friends still engaged in texting and driving, offering explanations about their driving skill, need for constant communication stimulation, and the importance of the text as rationalizations for why teen still text and drive even if they know it is dangerous” (McDonald and Sommers 54). In other words, they have heard the dangers through the general lessons and messages on the media, but they believe that they are able to mitigate these concerns because of their skills.

Furthermore, according to McDonald and Sommers, teens believe that some uses of cell phones while driving are more dangerous than other uses. However, regardless of what the drivers are doing on their cell phones, they become distracted and unable to react to changes in the conditions on the road, including stopped or oncoming traffic. Even though teenagers may not believe that cell phones are a distraction, they cannot dismiss the reality that 11% of all crashes involving teenagers involve a distracted driver (McDonald and Sommers). If teenagers are aware that using their phones while driving can be dangerous and crashes are often caused by distractions, then they should be able to recognize the connection between the phones and distracted driving. However, as it has been noted, teenagers often believe that their phones are an extension of themselves rather than a source of distraction to be put aside when they are performing a task such as driving.

As such, most teen drivers do not think about the consequences of using their phones while driving. Notably, they consider the potential for being pulled over and getting in trouble with the police, but they do not think about the dangers when they are driving. This illustrates that criminalizing this activity is not working as “those who thought that it would be a problem if they were to get pulled over by the police for texting while driving engaged in more types of cell phone use while driving and while stopped” (Tontodonato and Drinkard 838). The legal consequences are not considered significant enough to stop their behaviors and the potential for an accident does not seem possible because of their skills.

According to Tontodonato and Drinkard, the difficulties in processing these consequences can be explained through the social learning theory. The researchers explained that the theory holds four main concepts associated with deviant behaviors to include “definitions, differential association, differential reinforcement, and imitation” (Tontodonato and Drinkard 824). Definitions refer to the individual’s beliefs and justifications. It has been illustrated that the teen drivers justify the use of the phones as they feel that they are a part of them. Differential association refers to associations with others who also exhibit the same behaviors. For teen drivers, this is often their peers. Differential reinforcement is the balance of benefits to costs. As it was explained, the teenage drivers do not recognize the significance of the consequences preventing them from a true analysis of the costs. Finally, imitation is a form of modeling which may mean that the teenager drivers have observed others, including adults, who have successfully driven a vehicle without an accident even though they were using their cell phones while driving. Through these four dimensions of social learning, Tontodonato and Drinkard explained that deviant behaviors can quickly become the norm. Unfortunately, this has been observed among teenage drivers who continue to use their phones despite having been presented with evidence as to the significance of the consequences associated with this behavior.

Of course, not everyone who texts, and drives gets into an accident, which may be the support that naysayers use to argue that smartphones are not a distraction when driving. In fact, White, Hepworth, and Zidar reported that less than 1% of all accidents are caused by cellphone use. Of course, this conflicts with the evidence that shows that a person is 23 more times likely to be in a crash as reported by Adeola, Omorogbe, and Johnson. Such discrepancies in the evidence may prevent any true behavior modification. Yet, whether 1% or 23%, promoting safety on the roads is an important public health concern. In other words, it is not enough to emphasize the statistical data because there is always the potential for a biased sample to indicate that the rest of the data is inconsistent. This means that one study could contradict all others and leave just enough room for the teenagers to assume that the statistics are not reliable. Unless they have experienced the consequences first hand, they will continue to believe that these are just numbers that are presented by a group of researchers that do not know just how skillful teenagers are on their phones.

I know that the statistics do not matter because I was once a naysayer. I had gone through the courses and read the signs about texting and driving, but I did not think that it was as serious as everyone was making it out to be. I had been shown the statistics and even been quizzed on the importance of paying attention to the task of driving. Yet, I still was not concerned about cell phone use while driving, even when I was the passenger. That was, of course, until I was riding with my cousin who was texting and driving. It has been around three years, but I can still hear the sound of laughter about the text quickly being overpowered by the sound of crashing metal. I can still see he look of guilt on my cousin’s face as it was obvious that the crash occurred because of a text that could have easily waited until later. Fortunately, no one was injured, but realizing that it could have been far worse made us both think about how insignificant that text was. Not only did the text put our lives at risk, it also disregarded the lives of those in the other vehicles that could have easily been lost that day due to distracted driving. Texting and driving can and will cause accidents.

In sum, although many people do not believe that smartphones are a serious distraction when driving, young drivers are still learning to control the vehicle. Looking away, even if for a moment, can mean the difference between life and death. Current programs involve criminalizing the behavior and communicating statistics, but teenagers simply are not getting how serious this is. Personally, I did not understand it until I experienced an accident as a result of texting and driving. Personal accounts and simulations may help to improve the ability of the teen to put themselves into the context of this danger. It is not the statistics or the fear of getting into trouble that these young drivers will respond to. It is not the claims that their phones are a distraction rather than an extension of themselves. Instead, the realities of these accidents must be presented to illustrate that using smartphones is not natural when driving.

Works Cited

Adeol, Ruth, Ashleigh Omorogbe, and Abree Johnson. “Get the message: a teen distracted driving program.” Journal of trauma nursing 23.6 (2016): 312-320.

McDonald, Catherine C, and Marilyn S Sommers. “Teen Drivers’ Perceptions of Inattention and Cell Phone Use While Driving.” Traffic injury prevention vol. 16 Suppl 2,0 (2015): S52-8. doi:10.1080/15389588.2015.1062886

O’Brien, Natalie P., Arthur H. Goodwin, and Robert D. Foss. “Talking and texting among teenage drivers: a glass half empty or half full?” Traffic injury prevention 11.6 (2010): 549-554.

Tontodonato, Pamela, and Allyson Drinkard. “Social Learning and Distracted Driving among Young Adults.” American Journal of Criminal Justice (2020): 1-23.

White David R., Daniel P. Hepworth, and Michael S. Zidar. “Texting and Driving: Is It Just Moral Panic?” Deviant Behavior 39.11 (2018): 1387-1397.