New Study Shows Poverty, Not Age, the Key Factor in Teen Crashes

[Arrian]

Dude, teenagers are not a race. All races have teenagers. It's not us vs. them, like racism is. We've all BEEN teenagers. You imagine this "ageism" stuff for the most part.

As for me:

I find the statistics, combined with what we know from scientific studies of teens (immaturity, increased risk taking, etc), combined with my own experience (I was a maniac teen driver, so were many people I know) to be compelling. Your flawed study and poorly thought-out crusade against "ageism" are not.

-Arrian

[MRT144]

ageism isnt also neccesarily a bad thing. theres a reason we dont have 14 year olds working at NORAD. although i think if we give the same rights to 14 year olds and younger we should also be able to enlist them...right?

[OzzyKP]

And what of all the men who lived with a woman they loved? Were they the most understanding of women's rights? Were they the strongest supporters of woman suffrage? No.

The white southerners who worked with blacks on a daily basis, often having them as servants in their very homes taking care of their own children, did they have more sympathy for their plight? No.

Employers and bosses in run down, dangerous factories, do they have more understanding for the working conditions of their employees who they see every day? No.

The more intertwined with someone the less likely you are to understand or even notice their oppression. Often it takes someone a bit removed from the situation to really notice it (or of course be the oppressed person yourself).

Parents therefore are no better judges of youth rights and abilities than white masters, 1950's husbands, or sweatshop owners.

Furthermore on the whole "well I used to be a teen, so I know all about them" argument, its really quite simple. Not that I expect anyone to pause a moment to read or carefully consider any of my arguments, but its an established phenomenon of the oppressed becoming the oppressor. Lemme give you an example from middle school.

At least in my middle school we had a lot of cliques and there was a well defined social strata. Lets say you are on the bottom of that heirarchy, the low end of the totem pole. Everyone picked on you. You dreamed of some day being one of the jocks or preps or other popular kids in the school.

Then one day you were somehow magically elevated into the top group in the school, the most popular most powerful clique in the place. Are you going to tell all your new friends they are *******s who should stop picking on all the losers at school?

Unfortunately, you probably won't. Sure many of us would say we would, but you probably wouldn't. Cause you know if you start trying to rock the boat then you are gonna get demoted right back to where you came from, being on the bottom of the heep and getting picked on by everyone. The best way to demonstrate to your new friends that you are one of them is to pick on those beneath you even more. Maybe, being insecure, you will pick on them even more ruthlessly than the other people in your new group. Because by putting them down you elevate yourself.

Just like poor southern whites who in many cases shared a similar burden as poor southern blacks, instead of finding a common cause with them, were the most intensely racist. Because no matter how much they were struggling at least they were "better than those n*****" being racist or ageist gives people self-worth. Its a well understood phenomena.

So after being dumped on and dumped on by everyone around you for 18 years and then being magically promoted to that top clique, that most powerful group in society (adults) are you going to rock the boat or are you going to try and solidify your position? Most adults will be even more ageist, because being ageist is itself a way of becoming an adult.

I have seen many examples of this going both ways. Lets consider adults who are supporters of youth. Indeed I know adults who are like 38 and are very strong supporters of youth rights, yet they aren't regarded as "full adults" by adult 'gatekeepers'. Adulthood isn't simply an age you attain, it is a viewpoint you must adopt, it is a cause you must belong to, a social group you must maintain. If you fight against the dogma and expectations of your social group you are excluded from it, no matter what your age is.

Heck look at what happens here in this forum. Whenever a youth rights subject is brought up people immediately react by asking how old I am. Telling me that when I grow up I'll understand. I am 24, I AM an adult. Yet my positions are discredited constantly because I refuse to adopt the 'adult mission statement' and turn my back on those younger than me. Because of that I am an "age traitor" and mocked by people here and elsewhere.

So we see this phenomena in teens themselves. They see how this plays out among adults, that "adulthood" is a mindset not just a birthdate. Of course most teens really WANT to be adults, so how better to be seen as an adult but to fight against teens? So when teens reject youth rights, despite the fact that it would benefit them, they do so to elevate themselves in the eyes of adults around them. It is a form of internalized oppression.

Look at southern blacks that supported segregation. They didn't want to be seen as some dangerous troublemaker like the civil rights workers, so they denounced them in order to win the praise of whites. Same thing with women.

# It is easy for us to criticize the prejudices of our grandfathers, from which our fathers freed themselves. It is more difficult to distance ourselves from our own views, so that we can dispassionately search for prejudices among the beliefs and values we hold. Peter Singer "Practical Ethics"

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by MRT144
ageism isnt also neccesarily a bad thing. theres a reason we dont have 14 year olds working at NORAD.

What are you afraid of? That if 14 year olds were legally allowed to work at NORAD that NORAD would go out and hire a whole bunch of them?

I mean legally I am allowed to work at NORAD, does that mean they'd hire me? No. Should they hire me? No. Do I have experience or skills required for working for NORAD? No. Does the average 14 year old have those skills? No.

Could some of them? Yes.

So why stop ALL 14 year olds from getting such a job? Are you that scared of NORAD's hiring policies? If so, then that's a deeper problem that should be addressed no matter what age limits say.

[Arrian]

Furthermore on the whole "well I used to be a teen, so I know all about them" argument, its really quite simple. Not that I expect anyone to pause a moment to read or carefully consider any of my arguments, but its an established phenomenon of the oppressed becoming the oppressor.

Oppressed? Sure, I had my moments of teen angst, but never once did I suffer fromt he delusion that I was oppressed. How silly.

The middle school analogy does not hold water. Now that I'm an adult I am not directly dealing with teens (until such time as I may be a parent of one). I'm not suddenly "elevated" to adult status and I'm certainly not picking on teens to prove my adultness or somesuch. This was supposed to be an analogy?

Heck look at what happens here in this forum. Whenever a youth rights subject is brought up people immediately react by asking how old I am. Telling me that when I grow up I'll understand.

Ozzy, I can't recall the last person who brought up your age, and I've seen a lot of "ageism" posts from you. The people in this thread are not giving you the "you'll understand" line. Maybe we all like CCR or something...

Yet my positions are discredited constantly because I refuse to adopt the 'adult mission statement' and turn my back on those younger than me. Because of that I am an "age traitor" and mocked by people here and elsewhere.

Meanwhile, we evil ageist oppressors (tm) are tarred and feathered by the Wizard of Oz for "turning our backs" on teenagers... because we don't agree with you.

-Arrian

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


well since social ills can include global warming, inequality, and wars, im not sure about the latter part of your statement. As for the former, there are many studies looking at a number of causal factors. Whats your point?

Why don't people look at a number of casual factors for teens?

And I've made my point (this point) several times now. Why do people refuse to give teens the benefit of the doubt and jump at any hunch that they are all reckless criminals?

[Wezil]

You people are chasing red herrings. It's the hats.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by OzzyKP
"And what of all the men who lived with a woman they loved? Were they the most understanding of women's rights? Were they the strongest supporters of woman suffrage? No. "


Im not sure about the early history of suffrage, but many married men are profeminist, as much so as single men from my experience.

"The white southerners who worked with blacks on a daily basis, often having them as servants in their very homes taking care of their own children, did they have more sympathy for their plight? No."

In some cases yes. There were white southerners who were liberal on race. And white NORTHERNERs who had blacks as home servants. In any case, its hardly the same, as adults (other than poor ones) dont rely on the teen labor of their kids.


"Employers and bosses in run down, dangerous factories, do they have more understanding for the working conditions of their employees who they see every day? No."


Oddly, OzzyKP, the lobby whos dead set against restricitons on teen driving, just happens to be the fast food industry.

"The more intertwined with someone the less likely you are to understand or even notice their oppression. Often it takes someone a bit removed from the situation to really notice it (or of course be the oppressed person yourself). "


"Parents therefore are no better judges of youth rights and abilities than white masters, 1950's husbands, or sweatshop owners. "


yet McDonalds, Inc, and retail stores that rely on teen labor, ARE good judges. My point was not on whos a a good judge, but to to clarify the distinction from race. You dont seem to get that.

"Furthermore on the whole "well I used to be a teen, so I know all about them" argument, its really quite simple. Not that I expect anyone to pause a moment to read or carefully consider any of my arguments, but its an established phenomenon of the oppressed becoming the oppressor. Lemme give you an example from middle school.

At least in my middle school we had a lot of cliques and there was a well defined social strata. Lets say you are on the bottom of that heirarchy, the low end of the totem pole. Everyone picked on you. You dreamed of some day being one of the jocks or preps or other popular kids in the school.


Then one day you were somehow magically elevated into the top group in the school, the most popular most powerful clique in the place. Are you going to tell all your new friends they are *******s who should stop picking on all the losers at school?

Unfortunately, you probably won't. Sure many of us would say we would, but you probably wouldn't. Cause you know if you start trying to rock the boat then you are gonna get demoted right back to where you came from, being on the bottom of the heep and getting picked on by everyone. The best way to demonstrate to your new friends that you are one of them is to pick on those beneath you even more. Maybe, being insecure, you will pick on them even more ruthlessly than the other people in your new group. Because by putting them down you elevate yourself. "


In most case the alpha kids are NOT kids who were picked on who were promoted. Ergo they would put their status at risk. But ALL adults were teens. And their status is NOT at risk.


"Just like poor southern whites who in many cases shared a similar burden as poor southern blacks, instead of finding a common cause with them, were the most intensely racist."

I thought you said the folks with black servants were the most racist? Do you really have any basis for saying who was the most racist, or are you just getting this off the top of your head?

" Because no matter how much they were struggling at least they were "better than those n*****" being racist or ageist gives people self-worth. Its a well understood phenomena."

Which has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

"So after being dumped on and dumped on by everyone around you for 18 years"

That was not my experience as a kid. Im very sorry for you.

" and then being magically promoted to that top clique, that most powerful group in society (adults) are you going to rock the boat or are you going to try and solidify your position? Most adults will be even more ageist, because being ageist is itself a way of becoming an adult."

Take my example. I know parents who wont let their (14 yo) kids ride bikes outside their neighborhood. I know others who will. The latter group is NOT treated as less adult. Its simply a difference of opinion.


"I have seen many examples of this going both ways. Lets consider adults who are supporters of youth. Indeed I know adults who are like 38 and are very strong supporters of youth rights, yet they aren't regarded as "full adults" by adult 'gatekeepers'. "


Im not familiar with anyone who goes around saying theyre a "full supporter of youth rights" but plenty who disagree on issues like the one mentioned above, and also the driving issue. Theyre certainly considered full adults by everyone i know.

"Adulthood isn't simply an age you attain, it is a viewpoint you must adopt, it is a cause you must belong to, a social group you must maintain. If you fight against the dogma and expectations of your social group you are excluded from it, no matter what your age is."


Youre talking out of your hat Ozzy. I mean this bears no relationship to reality.


"Heck look at what happens here in this forum. Whenever a youth rights subject is brought up people immediately react by asking how old I am. Telling me that when I grow up I'll understand. I am 24, I AM an adult. Yet my positions are discredited constantly because I refuse to adopt the 'adult mission statement' and turn my back on those younger than me. Because of that I am an "age traitor" and mocked by people here and elsewhere."

By Sava? Now THAT would be funny. In this instance I think there is skepticism about your position cause of your emotion, and, I must say, your resemblance to an Internet Crank. Youre not just someone who disagrees on one position, youre a leader of a "rights" group, and seem to have made that central to your identity. You may find that other adults look askance at that, but its hardly the same as them looking askance on any given policy issue.


And im sorry this has gotten so personal, but youve raised folks reactions to you in your post to me.

"So we see this phenomena in teens themselves. They see how this plays out among adults, that "adulthood" is a mindset not just a birthdate. Of course most teens really WANT to be adults, so how better to be seen as an adult but to fight against teens? So when teens reject youth rights, despite the fact that it would benefit them, they do so to elevate themselves in the eyes of adults around them. It is a form of internalized oppression. "


I have not notice that among the teens ive observed.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by OzzyKP


Why don't people look at a number of casual factors for teens?

And I've made my point (this point) several times now. Why do people refuse to give teens the benefit of the doubt and jump at any hunch that they are all reckless criminals?

1. Im happy to look at a number of factors. But the situation really isnt analogous to blacks. I can say that there are many historical factors that lead to teens being poor drivers. But that its convenient to deny teens the right to drive for an extra year any way - cause the total harm is they miss a year of driving. If I choose to ignore the historic and social factors associated with black crime rates - well what then? Establish different criminal laws for blacks? That would mean oppression for more generations.
2. I dont think teens are all reckless criminals. My wife and I always point out to each other and are pleased by the many good teens we see - who are doing all kinds of positive things (and thats without any awareness of where they stand on youth rights - so dont start on the "good darkie" meme")

[Dr Strangelove]

When did California's GDL program take effect?

[OzzyKP]

99

[Dr Strangelove]

What month? In the study the authors mention that the 'after' group consisted of teens bone between July 1982 and Dec 1984, yet teens born in 1982 would have been 17 at the time the law took effect, and would actually have driven for several months before the law took effect.

It might also help if you could describe California's GDL, generally these laws restrict the driving of teens at certain ages, either limiting the hours of the day they can drive, whether they have to have an adult in the car and whether they can carry passengers. I don't know the details of California's law.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by OzzyKP


Then how do you explain poor adults with higher crash rates than wealthy adults of the exact same age?

Oh, fer cryin' out loud, that's a no-brainer. How many answers do you want?

Poor adults are more likely than rich adults to be driving cars that are in bad shape (soft brakes, bad steering, etc.)

Poor adults are more likely than rich adults to take poorer care of their cars, and not do things like keep the windshields clean, keep the tires properly inflated, and replace burned-out headlights.

Poor adults are more likely than rich adults to encounter hazardous road contitions where they drive (because their neighborhood streets are in poorer repair and less well-lit)

Poor adults are more likely than rich adults to drive more frequently while intoxicated or stoned.

Obviously poverty contributes to traffic accident rates. That doesn't mean that you have to choose between poverty and age as explanatory factors.

Inexperience causes accidents, but how are teens going to get that experience if you take away their driver's licenses?

They won't, which is why you let them have their licenses but charge them more for insurance. Now, if you want to argue that the category shouldn't be "teen" but instead "new driver," and that all new drivers should be charged exhorbinant insurance rates on the grounds that they're inexperienced, that seems fair. But teens are crap drivers, on the whole, and should be discriminated against.

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly

Oh, fer cryin' out loud, that's a no-brainer. How many answers do you want?

Poor adults are more likely than rich adults to be driving cars that are in bad shape (soft brakes, bad steering, etc.)

Poor adults are more likely than rich adults to take poorer care of their cars, and not do things like keep the windshields clean, keep the tires properly inflated, and replace burned-out headlights.

Poor adults are more likely than rich adults to encounter hazardous road contitions where they drive (because their neighborhood streets are in poorer repair and less well-lit)

Poor adults are more likely than rich adults to drive more frequently while intoxicated or stoned.

Obviously poverty contributes to traffic accident rates. That doesn't mean that you have to choose between poverty and age as explanatory factors.

Considering the poverty rates among teens is far higher than adults - especially middle-aged adults, then wouldn't you think that would have an effect on the results of any study that compared teen & adult fatality rates without first factoring out different income levels?

Or do you deny that all the factors you just listed off (and did a good job of) don't apply to poor teens?

Or don't you care?

Or would you rather ignore the effect poverty has on teens because it runs counter to your worldview regarding teenage drivers?

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
They won't, which is why you let them have their licenses but charge them more for insurance. Now, if you want to argue that the category shouldn't be "teen" but instead "new driver," and that all new drivers should be charged exhorbinant insurance rates on the grounds that they're inexperienced, that seems fair. But teens are crap drivers, on the whole, and should be discriminated against.

You say something reasonable (i.e. treating all new drivers the same, and not singling out teens) then you have to go and blow it by repeating a tired old statement that all teens are crap drivers with nothing to back it up.

[MRT144]

Originally posted by OzzyKP


What are you afraid of? That if 14 year olds were legally allowed to work at NORAD that NORAD would go out and hire a whole bunch of them?

I mean legally I am allowed to work at NORAD, does that mean they'd hire me? No. Should they hire me? No. Do I have experience or skills required for working for NORAD? No. Does the average 14 year old have those skills? No.

Could some of them? Yes.

So why stop ALL 14 year olds from getting such a job? Are you that scared of NORAD's hiring policies? If so, then that's a deeper problem that should be addressed no matter what age limits say.

yeah, thats a bad example, i admit it. but i couldnt help but think about wargames when typing it.