Modern Culture in Western Europe and the US - Essay Example

TEEN DRIVERS Modern culture in most parts of the world, especially in Western Europe and the U.S., ranks motor vehicles as the most important manner of transportation. Modern culture also gives great importance to the rights and liberties of individuals. The right to drive is therefore seen as one of the basic rights of each person. Teens {aged between 16 and 19} form a large portion of drivers that drive motor vehicles on roads all over the U.S. There has recently been a lot of controversy about whether teens should be allowed to drive in the U.S. Those who are in favor of teens driving freely on American roads have put forward 5 arguments. The first argument is that like Germany, the U.S. insists on issuing driving licenses to teens more than 18 years of age. The U.S. has gone one step further by also requiring written consent from the teen’s parents before issuing not only a driver’s license, but also a learner’s permit to teens (Smith: 10). This represents the strongest pro-teen driver argument that states, unlike other countries of the world, West European countries and the U.S. have strict driver licensing systems that contain severe training tests that must be fully and properly passed by teens before they get a driving license. The second argument concerns driver’s education programs in U.S. high schools (Haverstock) and the role of driving instructors (Smith: 9). This argument states that such school driver’s education programs give proper and sufficient training to teens in all matters related to driving, mainly traffic rules and the methods of operating, maintaining and even briefly repairing motor vehicles. The knowledge got from the school driver’s education program is greatly strengthened when teens use the service of driving instructors. The instructors apply the ‘finishing touches’ to what has already been learnt in school. The third argument is that, as compared to adults, teens rarely drive when drunk (Harrop). This argument praises the usual trend of teens not to drink and drive because drunk driving is easily the most common reason for road accidents. The argument further states that this good habit of teens is a clear indication that they are responsible members of society and our country who deserve to be allowed to drive. The fourth argument concerns the education level of teens. Teens are not illiterate morons but study in high schools and colleges where they are gaining a high level of knowledge as they are trained to be our country’s future. They are perfectly aware of the risks involved in rash driving and are responsible enough to decide for themselves if they are competent enough to drive. The last argument is that teen drivers have no proper alternatives to driving their own motor vehicles. By denying them the right to drive, their parents are being put into inconvenience in the form of taking time off busy working schedules to drive teens between school/college and home, or between home and recreation centers. By being denied the right to drive, teenagers who live far away from their educational institutions or recreation centers have to undergo the inconvenience of long walks to reach public transports, long waits for such transports to arrive, and many times having to face rowdy persons traveling on these public transport vehicles. Those who are against teen drivers put forward 9 arguments, of which the first 3 are major. In what is easily the strongest argument, attention is drawn to the horrific statistics of death and injury from accidents caused by teens in the U.S. Per mile driven, teen drivers are 4 times more likely than older people to cause vehicle crashes. In 2004, road accidents caused by teens resulted in 4,767 teen deaths; the motor vehicle death rate for male teens was 19.4 per 100,000 as compared to 11.1 per 100,000 for females. In 2005, 12% of all motor vehicle crash deaths were caused by teens; 36% of teen deaths resulted from motor vehicle crashes; 400,000 injuries requiring emergency treatment were caused to teens as a result of accidents caused by them; teens accounted for 30% or $ 19 billion of total costs on account of physical damages caused by motor vehicles among males, and 28% or $ 7 billion of total costs on account of physical damages caused by motor vehicles among females (Cdc.gov). This argument suggests that ‘figures cannot lie,’ and the huge amount of accidents caused by teens is a clear indicator that they should not be allowed to drive. The second argument involves the National Safety Council (NSC), which claims that teens’ brain structure is not yet fully developed and it produces active hormones that cause thrill-seeking behavior (Jackson). This argument puts forward two discoveries of medical researchers about the teen brain. The first is that it contains a region that controls the teen’s capability to judge the results of his or her actions. This region or brain part attains full growth only at the age of 25. Therefore, during the lifetime of the teen {16 to 19 years}, this brain part is still in the process of growing. The second discovery is that the teen brain produces active hormones that makes the teen unable to properly control mood and excitement, which leads to a craving for excitement and thrills – a trend very common in teen behavior. The presence of the two behavioral factors make teens not fit to drive. The third argument is that teens are inexperienced. A major cause of it is lenient licensing requirements. For example, in 1995 the rules in only 30 States required a learner’s permit as a must to obtaining a license; of these, 19 States did not insist that the drivers have the permit for the minimum period {14 to 90 days} (Haverstock). The highest number of teen accidents that resulted in death took place during the first month of getting a driving license (Harrop). This argument puts the spotlight on the improper and inefficient ways government employees run the vehicle licensing department. The government has done the best possible job, putting up a long list of strong rules and regulations to be followed before a driving license is issued. Yet, if the government employees do not follow these rules, it is the new license holder who will suffer – in this case, the teen driver. They are granted licenses without too many or too strict trials, when in fact they should have been subjected to the full course of strictest regulations before being issued a driving license. Their inexperience is therefore not their own fault but the fault of the inefficient government employees that run the licensing department. The other 6 arguments are as follows. The fourth argument is the fact that there has never been a study that proved this school-based program has reduced the number of crashes caused by teens (Haverstock). This argument states that the absence of any statistics or studies about the school driver’s education programs is a clear indication that the programs have not been effective. These programs have lost their effectiveness due to lack of funding. They do nothing but follow brief formalities such as providing basic information courses on traffic rules and vehicle handling. The programs do not teach anything about the most important parts of driving - driver attitudes and decision-making skills. Teens must be taught about how to react when faced with certain adverse situations and what sort of quick decisions should be taken to avert any harm that could come to them. The fifth argument states teens do not have the patience to undergo long and strenuous training schedules and well as long practice schedules such as those undertaken by professional drivers {like truckers, race drivers and ambulance drivers} (Jackson). This argument highlights the habit of teens to always be impatient, expecting the best results to be reached in the shortest possible time. Training schedules take a long time and involve many courses about the car, traffic rules and other factors governing the road environment. After the long training schedule come practice sessions. Practice schedules are not only long, but to the impatient teens, they are very boring. Not only do teens not have the patience to undergo all training and practice, but they also have a bad tendency to be over confident as well. They think that they are super smart and can become expert drivers with the minimum amount of training and practice. The sixth argument is that teens are pushed into driving by their parents. The NSC considers parental involvement so vital that it publishes a brochure called “Teen Driver: A Family Guide to Teen Driver Safety” as a guide to parents (Jackson). Teen parents have been charged on three counts. First, they do not consider their teen’s needs when choosing places to live (Harrop); second, they want to have trouble-free working and social life (Haverstock); and third, they do bother to know about their teens’ driving habits or problems (Jackson). The first part of this argument refers to the habit of parents to purchase or rent houses for their family in central localities of cities. Such locations are nearly always far away from the schools and recreation facilities that their children will attend. So, instead of having to drive easy, short distances (if their house was close to the school or recreation facilities), teens of such families are forced to drive long distances daily on busy highways. The second part of the argument states that the parents of teens are selfish. They do not like to go on driving their children to and fro between home and school, and home and recreation centers. They want their children to have their own driving licenses and cars as fast as possible so that their own work, recreation and socializing schedules are not interfered with. The last part of this argument refers to the habit of parents to take little or no interest in what their teens are up to. They do not bother to ask them about their driving habits, driving experiences, if they faced any problems and if the need advice or additional training by driving instructors. The seventh argument is that teen drivers take a lot of risks when their teen buddies are with them (Haverstock). Studies have shown that 50% of deaths caused by teen drivers involve passengers riding with them (Jackson). This argument refers to the ‘Jekyll and Hyde’ tendency of display alternately good and evil personalities. They tend to change roles completely when they find themselves behind the steering wheel. They drive calmly with admirable adult-like confidence when their parents are in the car, but change abruptly to dangerous driving when they carry friends as passengers. The presence of teen passengers brings out the highest risk taking behavior in the teen driver due to challenging actions carried out by the passengers such as daring the driver to attempt dangerous feats, or trying to engage the driver in a forceful conversation that requires eye contact. The eighth argument is that teens hate to wear seat belts in motor vehicles. A 2005 survey found that male teens {12.5%} did not wear seat belts as compared to female teens {7.8%}, 10% of high school teens stated that they rarely or never wore seat belts; 13.4% of African-American teens and 10.6% of Hispanic teens used seat belts as compared to only 9.4% in case of white teens (Cdc.gov). This argument refers to the tendency of teens to think they are super heroes and that nothing bad can ever happen to them. This attitude makes them look upon seat belts with disdain, scorning them in the belief that they are only meant for older people who are to scared to believe that they can drive safely without needing the seat belt to be their protecting savior. This behavior, unfortunately, is seen not only in teen drivers as well as teen passengers. It is a well-known fact that the act of not wearing seat belts has resulted in countless accidents of both drivers and passengers. The last argument contains 6 peculiar habits displayed by teen drivers which contribute to making them bad drivers. First, they do not make proper use of rear and side view mirrors (Jackson). Second, they like to drive during odd hours. In 2005, 50% of teen deaths took place as a result of crashes between 3 pm and midnight, and 54% took place over the weekend {Friday, Saturday, Sunday} (Cdc.gov). Third, they use mobile phones when driving (Jackson). Fourthly, teens like to speed. In 2005, 38% of teen drivers were speeding when they caused crashes that resulted in death (Cdc.gov). Fifthly, teens like to allow shorter headways (Cdc.gov). Lastly, they sometimes cause freakish accidents such as was found by a ‘USA Weekend’ study. The study stated that teens speed and run off the road, they crash into poles and trees more regularly than drivers of any other age group, and, except drivers more than 82 years old, teens receive most traffic violations (Haverstock). The first part of this argument states that teens are so confident that they can drive well, they think they have the ‘sixth sense’ to know if anything will go wrong, and therefore they do not need to constantly glance at the rear and side view mirrors to check if everything is well. The second part of this argument refers to the habit of teens to attend a lot of parties, games or functions that wind up late at night; when they eventually drive to their homes, they face the danger of meeting up with a drunk driver which could result in a fatal accident. Another cause could be that certain stretches of roads do not have proper lighting at night and so driving along them could be dangerous and could lead to accidents. The third part of the argument speaks about the close connection between teens and mobile phones. Teens communicate with each other for the least possible reason, not caring if the other person is indisposed or driving. If a teen driver receives a phone call, he or she will never do the right thing and request the caller to ring later. If the call is urgent, the response of a teen driver would be to get excited and possibly cause an accident rather than do the right thing by stopping the car at the side of the road and continuing the conversation. The fourth part of the argument is that teens love to speed. This is especially the case if they have acquired a jazzy new car or if they have a group of admiring buddies as passengers. Teen drivers and passengers get indignant if another car dares to overtake them; the teen drivers invariably respond by picking up speed and overtaking the other vehicle. The fifth part of the argument refers to the habit of teen drivers to keep dangerous close to the vehicle in front. This is largely due to the impatience of teens to reach their destination as soon as possible, and also due to the possibility of another vehicle cutting into the space between their vehicle and the one preceding it. Their impatience makes them blind to the possibility of an accident happening due to it. The last part of the argument points to the fact that teen drivers receive the most number of traffic penalties for their irresponsible driving behavior. Acts like running their vehicles off the road, or crashing into poles and trees are all the result of their impatient attitude, or the ‘egging on’ activities of their buddy passengers, or in response to the challenge of another vehicle that dared to overtake the teen’s car. In conclusion, the statistics of accidents caused by teens, as well as the large number of arguments against teen driving contain vastly more weight when compared to the few, weak arguments that favor teen drivers. The overall conclusion after reviewing both pro and con teen driver sides of the argument is definitely in favor of the latter, namely, teen drivers should be kept off American roads. They are simply not yet ready to face the responsibilities connected with safe driving. By letting them drive freely on our roads, we are not only endangering their own lives, but also the lives and limbs of other innocent drivers and passengers. The view that teen drivers should not be allowed to drive is one that I personally strongly support. References used: Harrop, Froma. “Driver’s Seat Most Dangerous Place for Teen.” Sun-News. 2007. 7 May 2007. < http://www.lcsun-news.com/opinion/ci_5794152> Haverstock, Mark. “Teen Drivers: Accidents Waiting to Happen.” Parenting Teens. October 1999. 7 May 2007. Jackson, Les. “Teen Driving Dangers.” AIADA. 2006. 7 May 2007. Smith, Timothy C. “Crashproof Your Kids: Make Your Teen a Safer, Smarter Driver.” Fireside. New York. May 2006. “Teen Drivers: Fact Sheet.” Cdc.gov. 2007. 7 May 2007. Read More