Research is a very critical factor while writing any academic paper, journal or educational literature because the minds of the readers are always in an analytical mode. This is to mean that readers will want to ascertain the credibility of the claims made by the writer. As a result, it is essential for a writer to assemble a piece of writing that entails empirical researches which additionally give credibility to their writing. The two papers relating to the use of cell phones represent perfect case scenarios where research has been implicit in proving that there is need to enforce laws that will reform negligent and careless drives. Comparing the instances of research extracted from both primary and secondary sources of data, the research have proved to be a pertinent source of information that is required to give authenticity to the two journal papers. By using empirical evidences exhibited through connection of the literature to objective data extracted from several law enforcement units, government agencies and private observers, the writers manage to pull a convincing stand with regard to the theme presented in the introductory chapters of the two papers.
Looking at the combination of literal works compiled and edited by Paul Levi on the possible benefits and risks that have been associated with the use of cell phones by drivers, the author cites a passage from another journal. Page 457 of the medical journal “Association between cellular telephone calls and motor vehicle collisions’ by Redelmeier Donald and Robert Tibshirani presents a persuasive situation where the authors make an attempt to use their objective research findings to delineate the readers against making wrong conclusions. Additionally, the research gets more convincing as the two authors become rational in their stating of points and allegations on the causal relationship between road carnages and the use of cell phones. Redelmeier and Tibshirani are less subjective when they associate collisions to other road users rather than a driver using a cellular telephone.
“There were about ninety million cell phone users in the United States, with 85% of them phoning on the road…because of evidence that cell phones impair drivers”. This statement is a direct quotation from the National Conference of State Legislation website. Sundeen incorporates this statistics on the first page of his book ‘Cell Phones and Highway Safety’ the extract presents a seamless and coherent flow which makes use of research findings to strengthen the ground upon which an author’s assertions are made. Consequently the author is made to enjoy the spontaneity of the work triggered by a thoughtful interconnection of ideas and choice of words making the journal more interesting.
Having been a great proponent of the writing skills and interconnection between empirical research and real life situations demonstrated by Daly and Levi, I would have no objection towards their conclusion that the government should allow regulated use of cell phones among drivers. Apparently there are more reasons in support of the possible benefits that could be accrued from the use of phones than there are statistical figures connecting car collisions and use of phones. The idea of educating the public on road safety would be essential as well as encouraging other road users to be vigilant while driving because major road accidents are caused by carelessness and reckless driving rather than use of mobile phones. In fact, instead of outlawing the use of technological gadgets by drivers, the government could be thinking of assimilating and using technologies such as GPS, phones, car radios and devices to give real time communications to drivers on the safety of the roads. Such activities will complement tracking services conducted through satellites and GPS.