Musicians Team Up with Artists to Fight Drunk Driving

[Omaha Steve]

http://blog.aflcio.org/2006/10/15/musicians-team-up-with-artists-to-fight-drunk-driving/

Musicians Team Up with Artists to Fight Drunk Driving

by James Parks, Oct 15, 2006

Young people between the ages of 21 and 34 are involved in one of every four auto fatalities and more than one-third of all alcohol-related fatal auto crashes. The recording artists, who are members of the American Federation of Musicians of the United States and Canada (AFM), have hooked up with RADD, the entertainment industry’s voice for road safety, to try and save lives in this age group.

According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), nearly one-third of all fatal vehicle crashes last year involved drivers aged 21 to 34. These young adults represented about 25 percent of all fatalities but were involved in 37 percent of all alcohol-related fatalities. That’s why RADD (formerly known as the Recording Artists, Actors and Athletes Against Drunk Driving) and the AFM formed the RADD Music Lives Alliance, says Robert Pineda, RADD’s general manager:

Cultural norms are shaped and changed by media, but lasting behavior change really takes place at the local level, in communities.

FULL story at link above.

[blm]

1. I remember the first version of this, RADD = Rock Against Drunk Driving

It was in the mid80s and they started to do benefit work for MADD - Mothers Against Drunk Driving.

[MrPrax]

2. With an aging population,

we'll figure out soon enough that a 17 or 18 year old is worth more than a first car loan or some foolish notion that they have 'rights' to go splatter an offramp with an rather expensive investment. Usually a healthy sign of being adult, is that we restrict our children's occasional for their own good. We adults don't usually put children into harms' way. But for some reason on this score, I've seen no really good arguments for allowing teenagers to drive and a ton of agruments against it.

Statistically, drunk or not, youth are terrible drivers and the stats should have informed this little bit of 'sacrifice the few, for the benefit of the many' canard a long time ago. Why the hell should experienced drivers have their lives threatened continually by inexperienced drivers whose hormones and maturity are always going to get the best of them. WE ADULTS KNOW THIS -- so why do we continually ignore it, so 'car culture' can appeal to younger buyers.

Ban or restrict to day light hours -- fuck the volunteer approach...it doesn't work. It never works...it's simply a sop for weak politicians to avoid doing the right thing and it gives fanatic moralists like MADD more reasons to restrict alcohol sales (which has absolutely nothing to do with teenagers getting drunk and killing people with their cars)

Jeez, since when did teenagers and their cars become some protect constitutional right?

[MindPilot]

3. They gotta learn sometime. You wanna drive 'em everywhere 'til they're 24?

A 20 year old with just a few hours driving experience is a better driver than an 18 year old with the same experience? Not sure how that makes a difference.

This goes to a larger issue I think where we have actually extended childhood for a couple generations now, and I think that contributes to a population of people who are too security conscience and practice too much risk avoidance. You know, like the sheeple who comprise a significant number of voters.

Frankly the group I have the most issues with on the road are the old guys in a vehicle the dimensions of which they have no idea.

Teens may be wild, impulsive and irresponsible, but at least they can see, hear, and react.

Probably too much to ask for public schools to teach some comprehensive driver training, so we'll just dump another abstinence program on 'em, "we won't teach it so you won't do it".

[MrPrax]

4. I agree partly...

There are a raft of bad drivers (yup old drivers with a history are on my shit list as well) out there that even inspite of fining and points and the odd suspension never seem to learn better habits.

I am just suggesting that we stop looking at driving as a right, but a privilege. Cars are a complicated piece of equipment (like computers) and just because you have the money to buy one, doesn't mean you KNOW how to operate one and that part of the equation always goes missing. Like you said, why aren't the highschools more proactive on this important skill since it is the number one killers of teenagers, who knows?

It's inconsistent with everything else, that when confronted by a driver (any driver) with a bad record and has more than proven his inability to drive due to multiple accidents of their own fault, a lifetime prohibition is in order. Why people think this is a 'hardship' to the criminal, I don't know. Apparently the way the vast majority of people on the planet 'get around' is not good enough for drivers that have demonstrated a tendency for public harm.

But as far as splitting hairs over whether or not one particular teenager has experience or not, I am more than willing to 'postpone' the driving of a few good ones, to keep this statistically nightmarish group off the roads, until THEY prove their trustworthiness on the road. As far as experience, if new drivers were restricted to daytime use only for the first few years, they would gain the chops, the confidence and the abilities to treat 'driving' seriously and not spill out of the multiplex after seeing 'fast anf furious' with dad's car....a few joints, a couple of beers and they become a lethal weapon and a harm to themselves as well as the public.

I am just suggesting that since statistically the insurance industry sees a problem with this group, then maybe the insurance industry's caution should be noted -- rather than wait for shit to happen, simply prevent it in the first place. So what if some 17 year old's nose is out of joint -- fuck'em...there is a lot of stuff we don't let 17 years (esp males) do and for good reason.

Good point by the way on the extending the cradle for the younger set -- that was in the back of my mind, when I wrote what I did. If teenagers are extending their 'development' PAST guardianship, then maybe we should be restricting more of their activities until they can make their own choices. Hell a parent should really think twice about going into to debt to send their kids to college, if they HONESTLY rate their own kid's success. If the kid is going to do little more than get drunk and grab STDs, he can do that at a worksite for four years, just as easily. Maybe after the four years of doing a deadend job, he might improve his college committment -- instead of extending the worthless highschool years into an expensive binge.