Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Flipperk on July 29, 2010, 10:17:02 PM
-
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?
-
I like the one about the driving test, but leave out the aviation part, Only 860,000 people hold a private pilots license in the US, so statisically its more dangerous. You could make a point that the majority of the aviation incidents were elderly or low-time pilots though, and still include it in the speech.
-
What Tupac said, I'd take the aviation thing out, at least the numbers, because it not really a good comparison and I think that will be the first thing to pop into someone's head if they hear it.
You didn't give many specifics as to the speech but it sounds like a persuasive speech you'll be judged on. In that case, I would take out the "I hate to break it to you" line or similar tone in the speech. Putting in language like that can alienate the judge(s) and make it sound like you are questioning their intelligence. Rather, a good persuasive speech will present facts where the audience uses the information you give them to "make up their own mind" from your well planned logical arguments. I think the audience should be one step ahead of you before you make that final argument, so then their reaction is "yeah, that's exactly what I was thinking." It's tough to explain and even tougher to do, but that will improve a persuasive argument greatly.
Finally, when you get your main arguments laid out, counter every one of them. It is as important for a successful persuasive argument to understand other stances on the issue.
-
What Tupac said, I'd take the aviation thing out, at least the numbers, because it not really a good comparison and I think that will be the first thing to pop into someone's head if they hear it.
You didn't give many specifics as to the speech but it sounds like a persuasive speech you'll be judged on. In that case, I would take out the "I hate to break it to you" line or similar tone in the speech. Putting in language like that can alienate the judge(s) and make it sound like you are questioning their intelligence. Rather, a good persuasive speech will present facts where the audience uses the information you give them to "make up their own mind" from your well planned logical arguments. I think the audience should be one step ahead of you before you make that final argument, so then their reaction is "yeah, that's exactly what I was thinking." It's tough to explain and even tougher to do, but that will improve a persuasive argument greatly.
Finally, when you get your main arguments laid out, counter every one of them. It is as important for a successful persuasive argument to understand other stances on the issue.
Right, I understand about the aviation... it is a persuasive speech.
Do not worry too much on the way I say everything up in the OP, I just need to know if it would even be a valid argument...this is not the speech just a basic idea and overview.
-
Right, I understand about the aviation... it is a persuasive speech.
Do not worry too much on the way I say everything up in the OP, I just need to know if it would even be a valid argument...this is not the speech just a basic idea and overview.
No, you have a VERY good argument. Ive actually asked myself a few times why we have such loose standards for driving, to get my permit i had to take a 25 question test, and only had to get 17 right. That means im driving, and the only thing ive done is answer 17 questions right, of which the first 2 are my asking me my DOB and last name.
To get a license, you have to get 7 hours of observation and 7 hours of driving with an instructor. (or if you are doing it at home, you can have your parents make up a story about you driving 7 hours) AND you dont have to take a ride with the police officer or whatever. So you can have people with NO driving experience whatsoever driving a car. One kid in my drivers ed class drove himself there - he was 15.
-
Oh, did you come up with the ideas on your own? I read it as you were assigned and had to choose between the two. Per your idea, I've always strongly supported changes in how driver's licenses are issued and renewed. You go into detail about the renewal, time lines, etc. but not much into the specifics of the test. You don't need to tell me what a person's reaction time needs to be, but maybe some ideas of how it could be tested. What are some physical issues that would prevent someone from driving? What are the skills tested for and how?
Overall, I like the idea, I would just care more about what the test is.
Good Luck.
btw, I would refute this by talking about how so many people rely on their vehicles. I would attack you on how senior citizens might need to go to the drugstore or simply the grocery store but couldn't and loose their independence. Public transportation is very lacking in many areas, not to mention the total lack of in rural areas. What about single mom's (real emotional pull) who rely on their vehicle for their livelihood but cannot maintain their license because of some physical problem. Just the quick undeveloped ideas on what might be said to refute the argument.
-
Oh, did you come up with the ideas on your own? I read it as you were assigned and had to choose between the two. Per your idea, I've always strongly supported changes in how driver's licenses are issued and renewed. You go into detail about the renewal, time lines, etc. but not much into the specifics of the test. You don't need to tell me what a person's reaction time needs to be, but maybe some ideas of how it could be tested. What are some physical issues that would prevent someone from driving? What are the skills tested for and how?
Overall, I like the idea, I would just care more about what the test is.
Good Luck.
btw, I would refute this by talking about how so many people rely on their vehicles. I would attack you on how senior citizens might need to go to the drugstore or simply the grocery store but couldn't and loose their independence. Public transportation is very lacking in many areas, not to mention the total lack of in rural areas. What about single mom's (real emotional pull) who rely on their vehicle for their livelihood but cannot maintain their license because of some physical problem. Just the quick undeveloped ideas on what might be said to refute the argument.
Hard to drive if you crash and die, honestly its a catch 22...yes I understand that people depend on their cars for living, but however is it worth killing someone over? (Rhetorical Question) Should I die because someone needs to get to work? Honestly I do not think so...harsh I know, but that's how it is.
You bring up a good point, I would add a segment that concentrates on increasing the availability to other methods of transportation. Increase funding to existing programs and adding thousands of more vehicles to the fleet of public transportation would defiantly help. Possibly funding private companies to have a for hire drivers for citizens who can not drive. Not exactly sure of the full details atm, but somewhere along those lines.
As far as the testing, for example...you drive along a straight street and on either side of the street you would have an object pop up, it is random and no set sequence, you would have to successfully avoid the object...this would test skill, reaction time, and if you can physically manipulate the car to do what you need it to do, IE: turn the steering wheel fast enough, step on the brake fast enough, ect.
It would be tests like this that would test your abilities.
-
I think you're on the right track. :aok
-
As far as the testing, for example...you drive along a straight street and on either side of the street you would have an object pop up, it is random and no set sequence, you would have to successfully avoid the object...this would test skill, reaction time, and if you can physically manipulate the car to do what you need it to do, IE: turn the steering wheel fast enough, step on the brake fast enough, ect.
I've always had a pretty quick reaction time, but I've still had three accidents. None were my fault but all happened as your describing someone pulls out in front of you and there is no time to react regardless of how quick you are. Two of them were speeding cars running a red light and both T-boned me in the driver door. Even though I saw them both before they hit me I still had no time to get out of the way. While I believe reaction time has a lot to do with avoiding accidents(especially the oh **** deer! type of accidents), I don't believe the overall accident percent will drop that much if tested for it. People trying to beat lights just because they can't waste 2 minutes of "their" precious lives will continue to take others.
-
I think a defensive driving speech or practical exercise would be a great block of instruction. My pet peeve about drivers, and people who train new drivers; It's about sharing the road and being aware of M/C's and especially understanding Tractor/Trailers. Most people do not realize, or understand that a fully loaded (80,000 lbs) T/T, cannot stop or maneuver like a car. As a former truck driver, I can't count the number of near-misses I had. People cut in your lane without regard or a care in the world. I know that there are some bad truck drivers too, but I wish that the Driving School would incorporate and make sure people understand about trucks on the road.
<S> Oz
-
I've always had a pretty quick reaction time, but I've still had three accidents. None were my fault but all happened as your describing someone pulls out in front of you and there is no time to react regardless of how quick you are. Two of them were speeding cars running a red light and both T-boned me in the driver door. Even though I saw them both before they hit me I still had no time to get out of the way. While I believe reaction time has a lot to do with avoiding accidents(especially the oh **** deer! type of accidents), I don't believe the overall accident percent will drop that much if tested for it. People trying to beat lights just because they can't waste 2 minutes of "their" precious lives will continue to take others.
Some people have all the luck. What if one or more of those drivers who hit you failed the test, could have that prevented the accident?
-
hell I know some 14 year olds who drive better than some of the current drivers.
It's because 16 year olds have the worst hand eye coordination than any other age group lol a 14 year old normally would have better reaction skills and be less clumsy.
-
It's because 16 year olds have the worst hand eye coordination than any other age group lol a 14 year old normally would have better reaction skills and be less clumsy.
I resemble that remark
-
I've always had a pretty quick reaction time, but I've still had three accidents. None were my fault but all happened as your describing someone pulls out in front of you and there is no time to react regardless of how quick you are. Two of them were speeding cars running a red light and both T-boned me in the driver door. Even though I saw them both before they hit me I still had no time to get out of the way. While I believe reaction time has a lot to do with avoiding accidents(especially the oh **** deer! type of accidents), I don't believe the overall accident percent will drop that much if tested for it. People trying to beat lights just because they can't waste 2 minutes of "their" precious lives will continue to take others.
Unfortunantely you are correct, while we can test their overall ability to drive, we can not test their decision making. But however the tests will, at least, get the drivers who have absolutly no clue how to handle a vehicle off the road.
Even if the tests only bring down the overall fatalities down 1%, That is nearly 400 lives a year.
-
Even if the tests only bring down the overall fatalities down 1%, That is nearly 400 lives a year.
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. :aok
Some people have all the luck. What if one or more of those drivers who hit you failed the test, could have that prevented the accident?
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.
-
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. :aok
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.
-
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. :)
-
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.
-
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...
-
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.