Write on this topical research question. What might be the socio-economic effects on the U.S. and its citizens if the U.S. were to move from a capitalist economic system to a socialist economic system? Which system seems preferable to you...and why?

MLA Research Paper (Levi)

Title is centered about one-third down the page.

Writer’s name is centered around the middle of the page.

Course name, professor’s name, and date are centered near the bottom of the page.

Cell Phones in the Hands of Drivers:

A Risk or a Benefit?

Paul Levi

English 101

Professor Baldwin

2 April XXXX Lopez begins to identify and question Goodall’s assumptions.

Marginal annotations indicate MLA-style formatting and effective writing.

Source: Diana Hacker (Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2006). This paper has been updated to follow the style guidelines in the MLA Handbook for Writers of Research Papers, 7th ed. (2009).

Source: Diana Hacker (Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2006).

Outline pages are numbered with small roman numerals.

Outline begins with thesis and uses standard format.

Outline is written in complete sentences.

Levi i

.

Source: Diana Hacker (Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2006).

Writer’s name and page number are typed 1⁄2'' from top of each page.

Levi ii

Source: Diana Hacker (Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2006).

Text of the paper begins on page 1.

Title is repeated and centered.

Statistic is cited with author’s name and page number in parentheses.

Thesis asserts Paul Levi’s main point.

Headings help readers follow the organization.

For a quotation, the author is named in a signal phrase; the page number is in parentheses.

A summary is introduced with a signal phrase naming the author; a page number is given in parentheses.

Levi 1

A Risk or a Benefit?

As of 2000, there were about ninety million cell phone users

in the United States, with 85% of them using their phones while

on the road (Sundeen 1). Because of evidence that cell phones

impair drivers by distracting them, some states have considered

laws restricting their use in moving vehicles. Proponents of

legislation correctly point out that using phones while driving can

be dangerous. The extent of the danger, however, is a matter of

debate, and the benefits may outweigh the risks. Unless the risks

of cell phones are shown to outweigh the benefits, we should not

restrict their use in moving vehicles; instead, we should educate

the public about the dangers of driving while phoning and

prosecute irresponsible phone users under laws on negligent and

reckless driving.

Assessing the risks

We have all heard horror stories about distracted drivers

chatting on their cell phones. For example, in a letter to the

editor, Anthony Ambrose describes being passed by another driver

“who was holding a Styrofoam cup and a cigarette in one hand,

and a cellular telephone in the other, and who had what appeared

to be a newspaper balanced on the steering wheel—all at

approximately 70 miles per hour” (128). Another driver, Peter

Cohen, says that after he was rear-ended, the guilty party emerged

from his vehicle still talking on the phone (127). Admittedly, some

drivers do use their cell phones irresponsibly.

Cell Phones in the Hands of Drivers:

Source: Diana Hacker (Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2006).

Long quotation is introduced by a sentence naming the authors.

Long quotation is indented; no quotation marks are needed.

Ellipsis dots show that words have been omitted.

Levi 2

The dangers are real, but how extensive are they? To date

there have been few scientific reports on the relation between cell

phone use and traffic accidents. In 1997, Donald Redelmeier and

Robert Tibshirani studied 699 drivers who owned mobile phones

and had been in accidents. The drivers, who volunteered for the

study, gave the researchers detailed billing records of their phone

calls. With these data, the researchers found that “the risk of a

collision when using a cellular telephone was four times higher

than the risk when a cellular telephone was not being used” (433).

Although this conclusion sounds dramatic, Redelmeier and

Tibshirani caution against reading too much into it:

Our study indicates an association but not necessarily

a causal relation between the use of cellular telephones

while driving and a subsequent motor vehicle

collision. . . . In addition, our study did not include

serious injuries. . . . Finally, the data do not indicate

that the drivers were at fault in the collisions; it may

be that cellular telephones merely decrease a driver’s

ability to avoid a collision caused by someone else.

(457)

Pointing out that cell phones have benefits as well as risks, the

authors do not recommend restrictions on their use while driving.

Unfortunately, most states do not keep adequate records

on the number of times phones are a factor in accidents. As of

December 2000, only ten states were trying to keep such records

(Sundeen 2). In addition, currently there is little scientific

evidence comparing the use of cell phones with other driver

Source: Diana Hacker (Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2006).

A corporate author is named in a signal phrase; page number for statistics is given in parentheses.

Clear topic sentences are used throughout.

Levi 3

distractions: fiddling with the radio, smoking, eating, putting on

makeup, shaving, and so on.

Alasdair Cain and Mark Burris of the Center for Urban

Transportation Research surveyed research on the cell phone issue

as of 1999 and concluded that there is “no nationally-accredited

document to prove the connection between mobile phone use and

traffic accidents.” Because research results have been so

inconclusive, it makes sense to wait before passing laws that might

well be unnecessary.

Weighing risks and benefits

In 2000, researchers at the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis

found that the risks of driving while phoning were small compared

with other driving risks. Whereas the cell phone user’s chances of

dying are about 6 in a million per year, someone not wearing a

seat belt has a risk of 49.3 per million, and someone driving a

small car has a risk of 14.5 per million (3). Because of this

comparatively small risk, regulation of phones may not be worth

the cost of the legislation as well as the additional burden such

legislation would put on law enforcement officers.

In addition to the risks, there are benefits to using phones

on the road. Matt Sundeen reports that drivers with cell phones

place an estimated 98,000 emergency calls each day and that the

phones “often reduce emergency response times and actually save

lives” (1). The phones have business benefits too. According to

transportation engineer Richard Retting, “Commuter time is no

longer just for driving. As the comforts of home and the efficiency

Source: Diana Hacker (Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2006).

An indirect source —words quoted in another source —is cited with the term “qtd. in.”

Transitional para- graph serves as a bridge to the next section.

No citation is needed for com- mon knowledge.

Government source is listed under “United States” in the works cited list and in the parentheses.

Levi 4

of the office creep into the automobile, it is becoming increasingly

attractive as a work space” (qtd. in Kilgannon A23). Car phones

also have personal benefits. A mother coming home late from work

can check in with her children, a partygoer lost in a strange

neighborhood can call for directions, or a teenager whose car

breaks down can phone home.

Unless or until there is clear evidence of a direct link between

cell phone use and traffic accidents, the government should not

regulate use of cell phones while driving. A better approach is to

educate the public to the dangers of driving while distracted and

to enforce laws on negligent and reckless driving.

Educating drivers and enforcing laws

Educational efforts can work. In the last twenty years,

government and private groups have managed to change the

driving habits of Americans. Seat belts are now regularly worn,

people commonly appoint designated drivers when a group is

drinking, small children are almost always put in safety seats, and

most drivers turn on their headlights in rainy weather.

Enforcing laws against negligent and reckless driving can

also work. Even groups concerned with safety support this view.

For instance, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

advises states to enforce their reckless and negligent driving laws

and, where necessary, to strengthen those laws; it does not call for

restrictions on use of the phones (United States, Dept. of

Transportation). The California Highway Patrol opposes restricting

use of phones while driving, claiming that distracted drivers can

Source: Diana Hacker (Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2006).

For a summary, the author’s name is in parentheses; no page number is available.

The paper ends with Levi’s stand on the controversy.

Levi 5

already be prosecuted (Jacobs). It is possible, of course, that some

states do not enforce their laws to the extent necessary. In such

instances, citizens should put pressure on highway patrols to step

up enforcement, for without fear of prosecution many drivers will

not change their behavior.

The use of cell phones while driving is probably here to stay—

despite the risks—unless future studies prove that the risks clearly

outweigh the benefits. However, public safety concerns are real.

To address those concerns, we should mount a major educational

campaign to educate drivers about the dangers of driving while

distracted and insist that laws on negligent and reckless driving be

enforced as vigorously as possible.

Source: Diana Hacker (Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2006).

Levi 6

Works Cited

Ambrose, Anthony. Letter. New England Journal of Medicine 337.2

(1997): 128. Print.

Cain, Alasdair, and Mark Burris. “Investigation of the Use of Mobile

Phones while Driving.” Center for Urban Transportation

Research. Coll. of Engineering, U of South Florida, Apr. 1999.

Web. 12 Mar. 2001.

Cohen, Peter J. Letter. New England Journal of Medicine 337.2

(1997): 127. Print.

Harvard Center for Risk Analysis. “Cellular Phones and Driving:

Weighing the Risks and Benefits.” Risk in Perspective.

President and Fellows of Harvard Coll., July 2000. Web.

15 Mar. 2001.

Jacobs, Annette. “Guest Opinion: No New Laws Needed for Driver

Distractions.” Wireless Week. Advantage Business Media,

24 May 1999. Web. 12 Mar. 2001.

Kilgannon, Corey. “Road Warriors with Laptops.” New York Times

15 Aug. 2000: A23. Print.

Redelmeier, Donald A., and Robert J. Tibshirani. “Association

between Cellular-Telephone Calls and Motor Vehicle

Collisions.” New England Journal of Medicine 336.7 (1997):

453-58. Print.

Sundeen, Matt. “Cell Phones and Highway Safety: 2000 State

Legislative Update.” National Conference of State

Legislatures. Natl. Conf. of State Legislatures, Dec. 2000.

Web. 11 Mar. 2001.

Heading is centered.

List is alphabetized by authors’ last names (or by title, if a work has no author).

First line of each entry is at left margin; next lines are indented 1⁄2''.

Double-spacing is used throughout.

Levi 6

Source: Diana Hacker (Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2006).

Levi 7

United States of Transportation. Natl. Highway Traffic Safety

Administration. “An Investigation of the Safety Implications

of Wireless Communications in Vehicles.” NHTSA. Natl. Highway

Traffic Safety Administration, Nov. 1997. Web. 12 Mar. 2001.