P. 7 Opinion
1
CON: PRO: Is the “One Year” Rule Worth Following? Mirador 3/12/10 Opinion 7 by Katherine Doyle The driving law that restricts teenagers from driving others under 25 years of age until they have held a license for a year is a laudable and effective rule. Fundamentally, disagreement over the “one-year rule” is distilled into a value system: either you value the safety of young drivers or you are concerned about the enjoyment of company on the road. It’s no secret that teens driving their friends are far more distracted than those who drive solo. According to Allstate Insurance, almost half of teen driving accidents involve vehicles with one or more teen passengers. It is far more likely for young people to conduct risky behavior on the road in the process of impressing those in the passenger seats. Take a current example at Miramonte. Many of us have noticed a boy or two who unnecessarily speeds in circles around the junior parking lot; they always have at least one friend in the car. Alternatively, how would it look to be crazily and aimlessly speeding through a crowded parking lot alone in your car? Clearly not as cool. Acquisition of a license does not equate with “good driver.” Everyone of us knows at least one teenage driver who makes us question the sanity of DMV proctors in our area. Needless to say, teenage drivers still demand the practice and experience necessary for becoming safe and responsible drivers. Peer passengers demand the attention that the driver should be aiming at the road, pedestrians, and other cars instead. Not only should drivers be weary of driving their friends, the friends themselves should be weary of the hazardous and irresponsible situation they are committing themselves to. 61% of teenage passenger deaths occurred in vehicles driven by their peers, according to a 2007 study by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. Potential outcomes of the peer driving habit look a bit shabby under the light of this data. It’s true that this law is hard to enforce because drivers can only be pulled over if they’re seen committing another driving offense. But that’s the inherent beauty of this law– the responsible teenager driving their sister to piano practice can get away with helping out the family, while the irresponsible teenager speeding down Moraga Way with a friend in the car gets punished quite severely. It’s actually one of the more fair and decent laws in the books. According to The National Teen Driver Survey presented by State Farm, 90% of teenagers see peers distracted by inappropriate passenger behavior. This statistic is noteworthy because our own age group is admitting that driving with passengers in the first year is particularly dangerous. Repeal of this law would only cause an increase in accidents and death, with car crashes already the leading cause of death for teenagers in the United States. The convenience and company of driving friends is not worth the risk of injury, increased insurance, and possibly the fatal loss of that company that you valued in the first place. by Marina Allen Besides the obvious killjoy aspects of the Year Rule, this law is inconvenient, environmentally unfriendly, and obsolete. They say driving is a privilege – not a right – but as a confirmed non-driver, I resent being constantly reminded of my second- class citizenship as a pedestrian. Getting cars to stop as I walk across the street hardly compares to being chauffeured in elegance by my peers. As a back seat driver, I serve a high social purpose. I have, on a number of occasions, taken the driver’s otherwise dangerous cell phone calls. I have reminded my driver of the double yellow line. I have warned my driver of the oncoming truck racing at 85 mph right at us. Backseat drivers save lives. The presence of another body in the car forces virtually perfect driving. A 16 year- old driver can only receive a ticket for carrying an illegal passenger if a cop pulls them over for another reason. A young driver with a passenger knows he/she can make no illegal mistakes because then he/she will receive two tickets for the price of one. Instead of making passengers illegal, why not license back seat drivers? Help us do our job better. Besides, a law that is commonly broken no longer has the force of law. And boy, is this one broken. Put too many ignored laws on paper and it’s a formula for anarchy. Pretty soon people will think murder is OK. Chaos will ensue. It would be a dull world if sidekicks were outlawed. Where would we be without a Robin sitting shotgun in the Batmobile? What would adolescence be without the novel, “On the Road” which everyone knows is Neal Cassady driving around his sidekick Jack Kerouac? Or without George Bush driving Dick Cheney … oh wait, that’s backwards; wasn’t Dick Cheney driving George Bush? Let us not forget our dear Mother Earth, the one who gives us the land with which we drive on, the material with which we use to drive, and the oxygen with which we use to breath. “Want to go to the movies 20 miles away, O’ friend group consisting of ten separate cars?” “Sure, I’m in the mood to destroy a little rainforest.” Perhaps the solution to global warming shouldn’t involve unnecessary driving codes, causing added exhaust and pollution at the expense of companionship. One-sixteenth of a teenager’s apple pie being spent alone, in silence, is too tasty a slice to abandon. Not to mention, where will we do our drugs? Lose our virginity? Horse around in freedom complaining to each other about authority? To enforce this trivial law would only burden California. Now, juveniles must find far more dangerous locations to do the above. Parks and cemeteries will be littered. Rec. rooms will never be clean. We’ll start moving in packs, on foot. The state is pushing us into ghettos and forcing us to associate with hooligans. California is being irresponsible, placing responsibility on our shoulders. Take the driver’s seat, back seat drivers. Spilling a soda in a friend’s car is a privilege and a right. The “one year” rule stipulates that newly licensed drivers cannot drive passengers under the age of 25 until they have kept their license for one year. Students and parents are aware of how often this law is broken. Should the driving rule be maintained or scrapped? by Mackenzie Lee After years of cheering oppression, new principal Adam Clark was the light on the horizon for Miramonte High School. He borrowed pom-poms from the cheerleaders to pump up the crowd and encouraged the students to become more energetic. He even reinstated performances by the band and mascot at home football games. During the 2009 football season, school spirit was the highest it had been in years. But now, once again, school spirit is in danger. The Acalanes Union High School District has partnered with the Diablo Foothill Athletic League to demand the cheering rules established in November 2004 be strictly followed. These cheer rules eliminate the fun, competitiveness, and school spirit of fans. Expecting fans to keep their cheering clean regarding race, sexual orientation, gender, and swearing is reasonable. But considering clapping or cheering when the opposing team misses a shot disrespectful is over the top. The DFAL should back off on cheering rules and allow students to cheer freely under the supervision of administrators. The DFAL seems to think that students at basketball games are rabid animals with no sense of right or wrong, that students disregard the rules and leap across the court to invoke a riot or fistfight. DFAL attributes the changes to safety and positivity between fans and athletes. “[The Board of Governors] feel that students can get so involved and so excited that they can be very difficult to control,” said Orlando Chiavini, DFAL Commissioner. “This is especially evident in a basketball situation where rivals may be playing and you have two schools separated by only 75 feet of floor space. The school administration feel much more comfortable if they control the stands from the beginning of the game and don’t allow a dangerous situation to arise.” Safety is important, however Miramonte faculty has never felt unsafe at a sports game. “Our kids have been great,” said Associate Principal Jan Carlson. “At no time has it ever gotten out of control. Students are respectful when we approach them and are willing to take direction.” If there were fights at sporting games that would be cause to enforce these strict rules, however there hasn’t been a fight in years. “In all the 15 years I have worked at Miramonte I have broken up maybe one fight,” said Miramonte physical education teacher and head football coach John Wade. “And I don’t remember the fight being that bad, just some pushing.” Maybe other schools need more rules to keep the fans safe, that is understandable. So instead of mandating rules that may be unnecessary for all schools, the individual school administration should be the ones in control of sports rules. After all, the school administrators know their students the best, they see them every day and know what the students can handle. “I don’t go to that many games,” said Chiavini. DFAL employees don’t know students the way that administration and teachers know them. DFAL employees are not fit to make rules regarding students because they do not know it affects students. “Honestly, you are asking the wrong person regarding the school spirit,” said Chiavini. “I don’t really know how [the rules have] affected school spirit.” The administrators are the best officials for this task. Give the people who know the students and their character the right to create the rules, instead of a board of DFAL employees who don’t know the students at all. Misinformed DFAL Limits Cheering for Sports Photo: D. Louie Photo: D. Louie
-
Upload
mhs-mirador -
Category
Documents
-
view
220 -
download
0
description
Mirador by Mackenzie Lee by Katherine Doyle by Marina Allen The “one year” rule stipulates that newly licensed drivers cannot drive passengers under the age of 25 until they have kept their license for one year. Students and parents are aware of how often this law is broken. Should the driving rule be maintained or scrapped?
Transcript of P. 7 Opinion
CON:PRO:
Is the “One Year” Rule Worth Following?Mirador 3/12/10 Opinion 7
by Katherine Doyle
The driving law that restricts teenagers from driving others under 25 years of age until they have held a license for a year is a laudable and effective rule.
Fundamentally, disagreement over the “one-year rule” is distilled into a value system: either you value the safety of young drivers or you are concerned about the enjoyment of company on the road.
It’s no secret that teens driving their friends are far more distracted than those who drive solo. According to Allstate Insurance, almost half of teen driving accidents involve vehicles with one or more teen passengers. It is far more likely for young people to conduct risky behavior on the road in the process of impressing those in the passenger seats.
Take a current example at Miramonte. Many of us have noticed a boy or two who unnecessarily speeds in circles around the junior parking lot; they always have at least one friend in the car. Alternatively, how would it look to be crazily and aimlessly speeding through a crowded parking lot alone in your car? Clearly not as cool.
Acquisition of a license does not equate with “good driver.” Everyone of us knows at least one teenage driver who makes us question the sanity of DMV proctors in our area. Needless to say, teenage drivers still demand the practice and experience necessary for becoming safe and responsible drivers.
Peer passengers demand the attention that the driver should be aiming at the road, pedestrians, and other cars instead.
Not only should drivers be weary of driving their friends, the friends themselves should be weary of the hazardous and irresponsible situation they are committing themselves to. 61% of teenage passenger deaths occurred in vehicles driven by their peers, according to a 2007 study by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.
Potential outcomes of the peer driving habit look a bit shabby under the light of this data.
It’s true that this law is hard to enforce because drivers can only be pulled over if they’re seen committing another driving offense. But that’s the inherent beauty of this law– the responsible teenager driving their sister to piano practice can get away with helping out the family, while the irresponsible teenager speeding down Moraga Way with a friend in the car gets punished quite severely. It’s actually one of the more fair and decent laws in the books.
According to The National Teen Driver Survey presented by State Farm, 90% of teenagers see peers distracted by inappropriate passenger behavior. This statistic is noteworthy because our own age group is admitting that driving with passengers in the first year is particularly dangerous.
Repeal of this law would only cause an increase in accidents and death, with car crashes already the leading cause of death for teenagers in the United States. The convenience and company of driving friends is not worth the risk of injury, increased insurance, and possibly the fatal loss of that company that you valued in the first place.
by Marina Allen
Besides the obvious killjoy aspects of the Year Rule, this law is inconvenient, environmentally unfriendly, and obsolete. They say driving is a privilege – not a right – but as a confirmed non-driver, I resent being constantly reminded of my second-class citizenship as a pedestrian. Getting cars to stop as I walk across the street hardly compares to being chauffeured in elegance by my peers.
As a back seat driver, I serve a high social purpose. I have, on a number of occasions, taken the driver’s otherwise dangerous cell phone calls. I have reminded my driver of the double yellow line. I have warned my driver of the oncoming truck racing at 85 mph right at us. Backseat drivers save lives.
The presence of another body in the car forces virtually perfect driving. A 16 year-old driver can only receive a ticket for carrying an illegal passenger if a cop pulls them over for another reason. A young driver with a passenger knows he/she can make no illegal mistakes because then he/she will receive two tickets for the price of one.
Instead of making passengers illegal, why not license back seat drivers? Help us do our job better.
Besides, a law that is commonly broken no longer has the force of law. And boy, is this one broken. Put too many ignored laws on paper and it’s a formula for anarchy. Pretty soon people will think murder is OK. Chaos will ensue.
It would be a dull world if sidekicks were outlawed. Where would we be without a Robin sitting shotgun in the Batmobile? What would adolescence be without the novel, “On the Road” which everyone knows is Neal Cassady driving around his sidekick Jack Kerouac? Or without George Bush driving Dick Cheney … oh wait, that’s backwards; wasn’t Dick Cheney driving George Bush?
Let us not forget our dear Mother Earth, the one who gives us the land with which we drive on, the material with which we use to drive, and the oxygen with which we use to breath.
“Want to go to the movies 20 miles away, O’ friend group consisting of ten separate cars?”
“Sure, I’m in the mood to destroy a little rainforest.”Perhaps the solution to global warming shouldn’t involve unnecessary driving codes,
causing added exhaust and pollution at the expense of companionship. One-sixteenth of a teenager’s apple pie being spent alone, in silence, is too tasty
a slice to abandon. Not to mention, where will we do our drugs? Lose our virginity? Horse around in freedom complaining to each other about authority?
To enforce this trivial law would only burden California. Now, juveniles must find far more dangerous locations to do the above. Parks and cemeteries will be littered. Rec. rooms will never be clean. We’ll start moving in packs, on foot. The state is pushing us into ghettos and forcing us to associate with hooligans. California is being irresponsible, placing responsibility on our shoulders. Take the driver’s seat, back seat drivers. Spilling a soda in a friend’s car is a privilege and a right.
The “one year” rule stipulates that newly licensed drivers cannot drive passengers under the age of 25 until they have kept their license for one year. Students and parents are aware of how often this law is broken. Should the driving rule be maintained or scrapped?
by Mackenzie Lee
After years of cheering oppression, new principal Adam Clark was the light on the horizon for Miramonte High School. He borrowed pom-poms from the cheerleaders to pump up the crowd and encouraged the students to become more energetic. He even reinstated performances by the band and mascot at home football games. During the 2009 football season, school spirit was the highest it had been in years.
But now, once again, school spirit is in danger. The Acalanes Union High School District has partnered with the Diablo Foothill Athletic League to demand the cheering rules established in November 2004 be strictly followed. These cheer rules eliminate the fun, competitiveness, and school spirit of fans.
Expecting fans to keep their cheering clean regarding race, sexual orientation, gender, and swearing is reasonable.
But considering clapping or cheering when the opposing team misses a shot disrespectful is over the top. The DFAL should back off on cheering rules and allow students to cheer freely under the supervision of administrators.
The DFAL seems to think that students at basketball games are rabid animals with no sense of right or wrong, that students disregard the rules and leap across the court to invoke a riot or fistfight. DFAL attributes the changes to safety and positivity between fans and athletes.
“[The Board of Governors] feel that students can get so involved and so excited that they can be very difficult to control,” said Orlando Chiavini, DFAL Commissioner. “This is especially evident in a basketball situation where rivals may be playing and you have two schools separated by only 75 feet of floor space. The school administration feel much more comfortable if they control the stands from the beginning of the game and don’t allow a dangerous situation to arise.”
Safety is important, however Miramonte faculty has never felt unsafe at a sports game.
“Our kids have been great,” said Associate Principal Jan Carlson. “At no time has it ever gotten out of control. Students are respectful when we approach them and are willing to take direction.”
If there were fights at sporting games that would be cause to enforce these strict rules, however there hasn’t been a fight in years.
“In all the 15 years I have worked at Miramonte I have
broken up maybe one fight,” said Miramonte physical education teacher and head football coach John Wade. “And I don’t remember the fight being that bad, just some pushing.”
Maybe other schools need more rules to keep the fans safe, that is understandable. So instead of mandating rules that may be unnecessary for all schools, the individual school administration should be the ones in control of sports rules.
After all, the school administrators know their students the best, they see them every day and know what the students can handle.
“I don’t go to that many games,” said Chiavini. DFAL employees don’t know students the way that administration and teachers know them. DFAL employees are not fit to make rules regarding students because they do not know it affects students.
“Honestly, you are asking the wrong person regarding the school spirit,” said Chiavini. “I don’t really know how [the rules have] affected school spirit.”
The administrators are the best officials for this task. Give the people who know the students and their character the right to create the rules, instead of a board of DFAL employees who don’t know the students at all.
Misinformed DFAL Limits Cheering for Sports
Photo: D. Louie Photo: D. Louie
