Hum440 uc critical thinking m7_a2_simpkin_r

526 views

Published on

Published in: Sports, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
526
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Hum440 uc critical thinking m7_a2_simpkin_r

  1. 1. 1 FinalRunning head: FINAL PROJECT Final Project Roberta Simpkin HUM440 UC: M7:A2 Critical Thinking Argosy University Instructor: Sandra Foderick
  2. 2. 2 FinalWhen I was a little girl, there was a horrible accident involving a car and some youngpeople who did not survive. I didn’t go down to the corner of the block like the otherpeople to see it but I’ve always remembered it and what I heard about it; young people,traveling too fast and not obeying safety rules. The question I have chosen is: “Shouldpeople under 18 be subjected to restricted driving privileges?”I say Yes because there have been far too many fatalities involving young drivers. Iwould first like to give my views on this matter and then we will consider the evidencesupporting this claim with arguments from peer-related articles.My personal opinion is yes, young people under the age of 18 should be subjected torestricted driving privileges. The reasons I feel this way are many. I’ve had personaltragedies in my own family associated with automobile accidents, all involving driversunder the age of 18. I had a cousin, age 17 who was involved in a very tragic automobileaccident a few years ago. The factors in the crash involved speeding, wet roads, and a lotof other young people in the car. They could have been talking loud, listening to theradio playing too loud, and not obeying safety rules which would have been a distractionto the driver.Another example of a young driver was the grandson of a friend of mine. He too was 17and ran through a stop sign. An oncoming car hit his car. He did not survive. Anothercase was the cousin of my neighbor who tried to beat a train by crossing the railroadtracks. Another tragic case involved two cars drag racing near a local church. All threeyoung people in one car did not survive and two of them were brothers.A friend of mine once told me, “You cannot put an old head on a young body”. When ayoung person begins to drive, I feel they tend to overestimate their abilities. Driving anautomobile is a privilege and also requires years of experience. A lot of young people donot take driving lessons and I am an advocate of that. They are taught by familymembers or friends and then think they can just go out and drive.I would like to see all states in the U.S. make it mandatory for young people to be at least19 years of age before obtaining a driver’s license. I really don’t see the need for highschool students to drive themselves to school, leave the car parked in the hot sun all day,and then drive themselves home. I rode the school bus until I graduated from high schooland then I worked and saved my money to get a car and pay for car insurance.Not all young people are bad drivers. Some are more responsible than others. Butexperience takes years and years of driving ability. I don’t feel restrictions on drivingprivileges are discriminatory against young teenage drivers. I feel it’s for their ownprotection as well as other people too. It is the parent’s responsibility to monitor their
  3. 3. 3 Finalyoung teens but some parents do not, so this law would be necessary to keep everyonesafe.Some teenagers have jobs, but I drove my daughter to her job or if that is not possible,there is public transportation. I know in other countries that the driving laws are differentbut this is the U.S. I cannot control foreign countries. I am concerned with my country.Teenagers can also drink alcohol under the age of 21 in foreign countries and we’ve seenwhere that can lead. Site the recent example of Natalie Holloway who was vacationingwith her class in Aruba.The following is evidence that supports the argument and I think this evidence supportsmy claim. In the article, “Age performance relationships among accident-repeaterautomobile drivers”, it states, “It has been reported that drivers under the age of twenty-five showed accident records that were several times higher than would be expected fromthe number of such young drivers to be found among the driving population. It suggeststhat there are two factors involved among these young drivers. First, coordination, visionand other driving abilities and, second, attitudinal factors such as over-confidence andcarelessness”, (EBSCO PsycARTICLES database).In “Review of alcohol, young drivers, and traffic accidents”, it states, “In the early 1970s,the drinking age was lowered in most of the U.S. and Canada. As the data on increasingtraffic accidents accumulated, people began to call for the relaxation of restrictions to bereversed. Between 1976 and 1983, many states began to move their minimum drinkingage upward. Most of this is devoted to a study of the effects of this reversal in two states,Michigan and Maine. These particular states were easily studied because they maintainedgood records on accidents and liquor sales prior to the lowering of the drinking age,during the period when more young drivers were drinking, and after the drinking age wasraised. The research presented is a clear and well-controlled time-series study of theestimated shifts in crash involvement and beverage distribution”, (EBSCOPsycARTICLES database). Also, it states, “Motor vehicle accidents are the leading causeof death among youths aged 15-25. Moreover, human factors are important in themajority of accidents, and accident severity is directly related to alcohol. Given that oursis a society in which persons are expected as adults to be able to drink socially and tohandle themselves competently while under the effects of alcohol, it is difficult tounderstand how young adults gain this experience”, (EBSCO PsycARTICLES database).In AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, it stated, “Young drivers, particularly 16- and 17-year-olds have been a significant road safety and health concern for decades in Canadaand the U. S. because of their high risk of collision involvement. The factors that placethem at greater risk have, generally, been grouped into two categories: 1) age-relatedfactors, such as exuberance, risk-taking behavior, peer pressure, and sensation and thrill
  4. 4. 4 Finalseeking, and 2) experience-related factors such as psychomotor skills, perception ofhazards, judgment, and decision-making. Graduated driver licensing (GDL) seeks toreduce the crash risk for young drivers by providing novices with greater opportunities topractice under supervision as well as limiting their exposure to risky conditions andcircumstances while they mature and gain experience. This is achieved by imposingrestrictions, such as limiting unsupervised driving at night or transporting teenagepassengers, which lowers the risk of crashing. Over the past two decades, some versionof GDL has been implemented in all jurisdictions in the U. S. and most jurisdictions inCanada. Research has consistently shown that these programs are effective in reducingcollisions involving young drivers. At the same time, however, young drivers, who areprotected by the GDL system, continue to crash at substantially higher rates than maturedrivers. The current investigation, involving two related studies, attempted to determinewhy this is so--it addressed the reasons young drivers continue to crash, even when underGDL provisions”, (EBSCO, PsycEXTRA database).Adolescents are more likely than older people to engage in risky driving practices, andsome young people are particularly prone to risky driving. Young beginners combinerisky driving practices with driving inexperience, greatly heightening crash risk. Theyoung driver problem is acute in the United States because licensure is allowed at veryyoung ages, and the path to full driving privileges is quick and easy. Risky driving is tiedto developmental and lifestyle factors and is difficult to change. The traditionalapproaches of driver education and penalty-based licensing systems have not workedadequately. Graduated licensing systems now are being considered by many states andhave been adopted by some. These systems do not address risk factors directly but arestructured to provide beginners the opportunity to gain initial on-road experience outsideof situations that have more driving difficulty and therefore more risk and/or thatencourage risk taking. Graduates are older and on their way to maturing out of riskydriving tendencies, and they will have accumulated important driving experience underprotected conditions. The initial graduated systems adopted in the United States varysubstantially in their features. It will be important to evaluate the effect of these systemsin reducing young driver crashes and to determine which set of provisions is optimal interms of both acceptability and effectiveness, (Argosy EBSCO database).Objectives. We describe intervention effects on parent limits on novice teenage driving.Methods. We recruited parents and their 16-year-old children with learners permits andrandomized them from August 2000 to March 2003. Intervention families receivedpersuasive newsletters related to high-risk teenage driving and a parent-teenager drivingagreement; comparison families received standard information on driver safety. Weconducted interviews when the adolescents obtained a learners permit, upon licensure,and at 3, 6, and 12 months post licensure.
  5. 5. 5 FinalResults. Intervention parents and teenagers reported stricter limits on teen drivingcompared with the comparison group at 12 months, with direct effects through 3 monthsand indirect effects through 12 months post licensure.Conclusions. A simple behavioral intervention was efficacious in increasing parentalrestriction of high-risk teen driving conditions among newly licensed drivers, (AmericanPublic Health, 2005, 1995, 447-452, EBSCO Psychology and Behavioral Sciencesdatabase).The field of knowledge most closely associated with the study of argument is logic.Those terms that signify the parts of an argument are the premises and the conclusion.The premise here is “People under 18 should be subjected to restricted drivingprivileges.” The conclusion is “There would be less driving fatalities involving peopleunder the age of 18 if the law in the U.S. stated the legal age to drive was 19”, (Argosy,2010).
  6. 6. 6 Final ReferencesArgosy University. (2010). AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety. (2006). 607 14th Street NW, Suite 201, Washington, District of Columbia, US, 20005-2000, 2006. 181 pp., URL: http://www.AAAfoundation.org, Retrieved June 20, 2010, from http://myeclassonline.comArgosy University. (2010). Forbes, T. W., Journal of Consulting Psychology, Vol 2(5), Sep, 1938. pp. 143-148, Journal Article, EBSCO database, PsycARTICLES, “Age performance relationships among accident-repeater automobile drivers”, Retrieved June 20, 2010, from http://myeclassonline.comArgosy University. (2010). Sivan, A. B., EBSCO database, Rehabilitation Psychology, Vol 29(2), Sum, 1984, pp. 123-125, (Review-Book), “Review of alcohol, young drivers, and traffic accidents”, Retrieved June 20, 2010, from http://myeclassonline.comHartos, J., Leaf, W., Preusser, D., Simons-Morton, B., Persistence of Effects of the Checkpoints Program on Parental Restrictions of Teen Driving Privileges, American Journal of Public Health, (2005, March, Vol. 95 Issue 3, p447-452, 6p, 1 Chart, 3 Graphs), Retrieved June 20, 2010, from http://myeclassonline.com, from the Argosy University EBSCO Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection database
  7. 7. 7 FinalRuggiero, Vincent, Beyond Feelings: Guide to Critical Thinking (2008). (8th ed), McGraw Hill Publishing CompanyWebster’s Dictionary, (4th ed.), Random House, Ballantine Books, New YorkWilliams, A., Graduated licensing and other approaches to controlling young driver risk taking: Risk-Taking Behavior and Traffic Safety Symposium Proceedings, October 19 – 22, 1997, Argosy University EBSCO PsycEXTRA database

×