It takes a lot to get me really, really, annoyed, but the entire “blame the victim” thing does it. If there is no proof that the teens broke any other law but curfew, the fault lies ENTIRELY with the drunk driver. If they were breaking a curfew law, well, damn…whats that, a misdemeanor? In no way does it change the fact that the liquored up-already-convicted-of-DUI-driver was breaking law. Unless theres ANY kind of proof other than the “they were teens so they must have been on drugs/alcohol/up to no good” thing, why are people blaming them instead of the boozer that plowed into them?
If theres proof they were high or drunk or whatever, so be it. But to blame them without it…well, am I the only person to see a problem with that?
I think a point that’s maybe being misunderstood here is that people aren’t trying to say that teenage divers are necessarily more dangerous or less ethical, but that they’re more vulnerable – especially under certain kinds of circumstances. – and (my position anyway), that’s a reason that parents should be more responsible about the conditions under which they permit their kids to drive.
You started the thread in GD because you didn’t want to be insulted here. I understand that. But do you care to explain in detail why you feel that that your position here is a good idea?
Drunk as a lord, steeering 2000 lbs of metal around? I’d like to know why laws shouldn’t be be enacted to prevent that. Tell us, why is anarchy preferable to this?
Dio, I agree with that. I was not allowed to have a license on my 16th and legal to get one birthday. I was over 17 when my mother let me get a real license. Of course as a kid I was mad about it. But even then I knew it was because she was being careful about my welfare and the welfare of others I might crash into. I spent my early driving years driving elderly relatives around.
Now, I agree that a 17 t0 19 year old driver is more dangerous on the road. They’re young, and most of them didn’t even buy the car they are they are driving. As a middle aged man I’m more conscious of the fact that its my fucking car and life on the road. But we were all young once. (and growing up in the 80’s I’m a bit amazed that I was allowed to even drive at 16 legally, considering the mindset I had then)
But back then, the cops would nly take your beer or in the worst case, call your parents…unless you actually hit something or someone. MADD wpuld be horrified to hear about my graduation party from High School. My step dad gave me and my friends a case of beer and threw me the car keys telling me to have a good time at the parties! Even I am horrified about the things that could have happened. But back then, the laws had lighter penalties. Today, he probably wouldn’'t let me look at a car if my step dad were alive.
How about when there’s a state law (I don’t know about NM, but there are such laws in other states), that restrict young drivers from having too many, usually non-related, teens in the same vehicle? Should rural teens get a pass? Why? Also, if you expect suburban families to provide transportation, why isn’t the expectation the same for rural families?
First - I’m not even arguing that teens are more dangerous drivers (although I think it is often the case). I’m limiting my argument to the data which shows they are at much greater risk, for a variety of reasons already linked to.
But to answer your question of who would they be riding with, how about a parent? Nobody? Other responsible adults? Either way, it’s not really my job to figure out all the possible scenarios that don’t increase their chances of death. As a parent, though, I think it is my job to make sure that 5 kids no older than 16 are not driving around in my car (or anyones car) late at night. That’s my job - I don’t expect a bunch of teens to sit around at midnight to try and figure out how to get home safely - that should have been figured out hours before. I think it would have been nice if someone had done this for the kids in the op too, instead of just leaving everything to chance, secure in the knowledge that if they get crushed by a drunk driver, at least it won’t be their fault (cold comfort, indeed). Because it’s not illegal to be a teen, after all. And hell, we all survived, didn’t we?
I’m struggling a bit with this last statement. You seem to acknowledge that the teens took higher risks by their own actions. And you certainly acknowledge that something bad happened. Yet you’re not willing to say that one might have contributed to the other.
None of this is blaming the victims. But I just don’t see the problem with noting that they took significant, yet preventable, risks that night. And while all the details aren’t available, it appears that 5 different sets of parents all thought it was OK to let these teens take these increased risks. To me, that’s not OK. Even if there is no causation, when it comes to the life of my children, the correlation is enough for me.
How about them? If such laws are in place (Illinois and N.C. both have them), then yes, teens (and other drivers) should follow them. I challenged your (and more so **Dio[/]b’s and others’) assumption that such laws are uniform; AFAIK, they’re not. And IMO shouldn’t be.
I was looking at distance. How far is it frpom your home to the nearest high school? Now, how far is it for some random crossroads community in rural Nevada, Montana, the Dakotas, Wyoming to its nearest high school?
In addition, I hold by the traditional means of child-rearing that says that responsibility is doled out in small doses and trust matching the responsibility naturally accompanies it. A child who has never seen a nude image, never heard the facts of life from a caring adult, never been behind the wheel of a vehicle, never had a glass of wine or a beer with a festive dinner, never had one clue about tobacco, marijuana, etc., for seventeen years three hundred sixty-four days does not suddenly become endowed with adult judgment by act of God on his or her eighteenth birthday. What he or she becomes, generally, is out of control. Better to introduce him/her slowly to what will be expected of him/her as an adult, and what privileges accompany them, on a slow step-by-step process starting at eleven or twelve and ending just short of that birthday.
Just out of curiosity, I clicked the link below the picture in the article of the guy smiling to check the date of the picture. The mugshots do not match the picture in the article. In the inmate mugshots from the county, the guy does not look happy at all.
Wow. Five pages, now with rape-encouraging fashions, illegal drug use and automatic weapons bans. OK, maybe not the the last yet ;).
We’re still arguing re the original data, plus some additional info regarding Owens (the van’s driver) and his pre-accident activity. We have the arresting officer’s testimony that Owens smelled of alcohol, had blood-shot eyes and slurred his speech. We have the report of the following driver in the group of teens saying that Owens was driving in the middle of the road. I’m not sure where “swerve” came into the discussion but it doesn’t appear to come from the witnesses testimony.
There aren’t a lot of facts yet. But the discussion regarding progressive driving privileges has caught my eye.
I think that the training that prospective drivers undergo is woefully inadequate. I remember mine at age 17. I never took Driver Training in high school so I hired a driving school to instruct me so I’d pass the test at the DMV. We drove around maybe a three mile radius of my house, including some freeway time, and after some hours I was qualified to take the DMV test.
And the DMV test is more of the same: Drive around the neighborhood, demonstrate you knowledge of STOP signs, and such, and park a couple of times. That’s it?
I’m not much of a ranter but given the flow of discussion I need to get this off my chest. Driver Training needs to include time spent in an empty lot, with a skid pad, showing the trainee just what cars are incapable of. Show the trainees just how awful reactions times are at 50+ mph. Give them a mild slalom on the skid pad to show how badly cars perfrom in the rain. Put up a mock signal to see how very close you have to be to an intersection to see the light go yellow and still clear the intersection before it turns red.
And so should the DMV test. Rant over.
My other point was that none of the reports called the Jeep Cherokee an SUV. In that area a four wheel drive vehicle might be what’s needed to get tot he front door. It’s an SUV-lite at best. Both vehicles have the same curb weight, ballpark. As for those 3-tons monsters out there, flame away…
But if their driving ability isn’t in question, it doesn’t really make a difference how old they were, as long as they’re old enough to drive. That is, a group of adults in a car who get hit by a drunk driver wouldn’t be considered irresponsible, even if they were out late at night…or would they, by your rationale?
Well I did call it an SUV-lite :). I only meant to point out that a great deal of anti-SUV sentiment is directed at the vehicle mass that some of the later models have achieved. The Cherokee weighs in around 2900 lbs, and so does the Subaru. If anything I was trying to head off any controversy regarding SUV size and its endangering smaller, “normal” vehicles.
The thing is you’re looking at my comment with regard to the silly statistic from a parent’s point-of-view and who you’d prefer to see your kid with in the car s/he’s driving. I looked at the statistic from a realistic point-of-view and asked myself who would be spending an inordinate amount of time with a teen. The conclusion I came to easily was: other teens. Ergo, the statistic is dumb because it’s obvious and isn’t outside of normal expectations. It doesn’t say anything shocking or unusual; it’s a total ‘duh’ statistic. Teens hang out together more than they do with any other group, so it should go without saying that they’re more often with other teens than they are alone or with another age group (especially their parents), and so the numbers would necessarily reflect that. I wasn’t really making any commentary on whether this should be so. Frankly, I don’t see why it shouldn’t be so. The thing is if teens are going to drive, they need to be more cognizant of how not to be distracting to the driver or distracted by the passengers. I have kids and I can tell you they are incredibly distracting. If my daughter shoves her DS in my lap and says, “Hey! Look at this!” one more time, I’m gonna have one of those Bill Cosby conniptions. We have been telling her for years that mommy and daddy can’t just “look at this” while we’re driving. Gah!
Yes, I do and no, I’m not. Because there is no evidence (so far) that anything they did contributed to the accident. They were simply there. We totally wouldn’t even be having this discussion if they were all two years older even if they did exactly the same thing.
But see, the preventable risks that you’re talking about is not in evidence here as contributory to the accident. They could very well have been killed by the drunk driver if mom was driving and it was three in the afternoon. The added risk at midnight is attributable to the actions of drunk drivers (the fact that more drunks are out at that hour), not the carful of teens. The increased risks wouldn’t be so much a factor if there were even stricter policies against drunk driving. This is apparently yet another case of DUI recidivism, which I’m pretty sure is a significant factor is alcohol-related fatalities.
The point is that drunks kill people at all times of the day and that’s a problem. In this case, it happened to be teens. In so many other cases, it’s moms or dads and their children. What difference does it make how old the victims are? They aren’t negligible simply for being there at the wrong time.
As far as your concern goes, there’s nothing wrong with wanted to reduce the vulnerability of your teens to drunk drivers (or even to their own poor judgment). That’s what most parents want to do as well. But don’t, for a moment, believe that they are any safer from drunk drivers in the light of day or when you’re behind the wheel. The odds of avoiding them are just slightly better.
Even if the laws aren’t uniform, or it’s not the law in NM, it’s still incredibly poor judgement on the part of those “parents” who let their 15 and 16 year-olds drive around en masse after midnight (after curfew, even in NM), in a party train of equally young, inexperienced, and yes, ignorant children.
It’s not blaming the victims, it’s not even about the children, it’s about the irresponsible parents.
Also, why can’t rural parents be arsed to drive their kids places, regardless of distance, like you seem to expect suburban parents to do?
“Daddy, can you drive us to the junior prom? Naw, that’s too far away. Get a bunch of your friends together, and y’all can take my car.” Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, on that.