My Speech Topic, what do you think?

[Jayhawk]

Can't argue with that.  By the way, I wasn't trying to trying to come off like I think the topic is a bad idea.  Now that I've went back and read my post it kinda seems that way.  I was just trying to give insight to help on the paper.  
  Of course it would have stopped the accident from happening if they weren't allowed to drive assuming they are law abiding, BUT what are they chances it would be one of the people who have failed the reflex test.

Well maybe they would have passed the reflex test but failed the physical or skills, especially the skills, section.  Eh, it's all hypothetical anyway.  I think we all agree it would be positive, we just don't know how much effect it would actually have.

[Flipperk]

  Of course it would have stopped the accident from happening if they weren't allowed to drive assuming they are law abiding, BUT what are they chances it would be one of the people who have failed the reflex test.

What would you like the chances to be? Only one way to find out.

[bcadoo]

So our last speech is coming up and I am caught up on either talking about getting rid of manslaughter as a conviction or adding in a reaction test, skill test and a physical ability test in order to receive a license to drive.

The manslaughter speech would be easy, just look at the I-45 topic I posted here in the OClub to get a picture on why I chose that.

As far as the reaction,physical, and skill test, I think while most of accidents in driving occur because of pure stupidity, a lot of accidents also occur because of the inability to react to a situation due to either physically being unable to, because they lack the skills, or even not having the reaction ability to do so. Yes this would be limiting a number of current and future drivers to not being able to drive, and you might even argue the fact that it is illegal to limit people in such way to a freedom. I hate to break it to you, but driving is not a freedom, it is not a right, it is a privilege. We already limit driving by age restrictions, hell I know some 14 year olds who drive better than some of the current drivers. My main point for this is to look at aviation, aviation has strict tests all physical, mental, and based on your skills as a pilot...if you do not pass all of these criteria then you do not get a license.

All of these tests can be tested on a closed course that has situational events setup to test the driver on the three abilities that I mentioned above. These tests are required for ALL applicants and is NOT avoidable, unlike being able to skip the drive with the trooper if you were home schooled in drivers ed. All drivers would be required to do this test once every 5 years, and once every 2 years above the age of 60. The test would have strict guidelines and you are only allowed to fail 3 times in one year, once you failed the third test you MUST have a waiting period of no less than 6 months after the third test. If current drivers fail the test, they will a second chance at the test after a 24 hour waiting period of the first test failed. If the current driver does not pass the second trial their license would be put on probation with curfews, and a third and final test will be issued one week after the second. If the third test is failed, license is revoked and the 6 month waiting period begins.

I know while this does seem extreme, if we look at aviation only 1,077 people died last year due to aviation accidents, over 37,000 died in car accidents. Both vehicles, airplane and car, are both perfectly capable of not crashing, it is the driver of the vehicle that causes the accidents...and aviation has a strict course of testing to make sure that aviation is a safe form of transportation; I believe there is a connection. So why does the biggest form of transportation (driving) have the bare minimum of standards when it comes to testing? I do not know, all of us drive and it would make me feel safer knowing that some teenager who got home schooled by his foot heavy mom, and skipped the trooper ride is not driving by me because he could not pass a simple reaction test.

All of our lives are at stake when we drive and with these tests it would ensure that at least all the drivers on the road have the ability to avoid accidents safely and effectively. As I stated before driving is NOT a right, it is NOT a freedom, it is A PRIVILEGE...you are not entitled to drive; you earn it...you wouldn't let a pilot fly you across the country with the bare minimum of skills to fly right?



This is not all of the speech but the basic idea....any thoughts or comments?

What kind of speech is it supposed to be? Persuasive?

1. What would be your alternative to a manslaughter conviction?  Murder?  Assume you are driving your car and your cell phone rings.  You glance down to see who's calling you and rear-end somebody on a motorcycle who was stopped at a red light....killing them.  Should that be a murder conviction?  Negligent homicide?   There is a reason that manslaughter exists.  There are times when a person actually IS criminally negligent in taking another person's life but it does not meet the standard for what we call 'Murder'.

2.  As described above and in many of the previous posts.  A reaction test isn't going to do much to curb accident rates, because most accidents are caused by poor judgment.  Unfortunately most, if not all of us, are guilty of that at one time or another when we sit behind the wheel and no test is going to fix that.

If your speech is supposed to be persuasive I believe either topic would be tough to do well.

[Jayhawk]

Everyone is speaking to the reaction test but I read it as 3 clear separate tests, reaction, psychical, and skill, am I right?  No test is going to take away all accidents, but 1) taking people who shouldn't be driving off the road and 2) making people take driving more seriously, would have an effect.

IMO...

[Maverick]

The idea for testing isn't really new but to put it into operation as you postulate would require statistical analysis for supporting evidence. There you will fall on your face as the stats won't support the premise of elderly or other wise infirm drivers being the cause of most collisions.

I think you'll find an age analysis has already been completed several times by insurance companies. They use the data gleaned from collision reports to help them set rates based on risk potential of the drivers. There is a reason why drivers under 21 have the higher insurance rates. It has nothing to do with their earning ability either.

You are likely to find it is distracted drivers are far more of a risk than infirm or elderly on the basis of population percentage. Granted that will shift more as time goes on and the population continues to age but I doubt it will swap positions with distracted driving, especially given the number of cell phones growing exponentially.