I just saw the number and was like "Wait, I know for a FACT that the rate of drunk driving in the general population has also gone down, and a little digging, and what do you know.
It just undermines my ability to respect their argument.
I wholeheartedly agree with your points. When I was in the military, my commanders saw no reason I couldn't share a beer with everyone while I was there for an overnight training. My parents certainly let me drink before I was 21, as long as I was responsible about it.
If indeed the rate of accidents has dropped, I think it's because there's been so much of a raise in awareness about drunk driving. Because I would lose count if I try to start counting everyone who I know that started drinking before even the age of 18.
Which also leads into some of my arguments about legalizing and regulating drugs and prostitution... but that's another discussion. *grin*
You're right on the money on this one. After doing a little research of my own, it's evident that the hugher drinking age combined with better education, more vigorous campaigning, economic consequences (higher insurance rates for younger drivers) and stiffer legal penalties for drunk driving (and a lowering of the BAC) all contribute to the drop in drunk-driving accidents in that age group. Also, many who were teenagers at the time the age was lower are now parents and it is reasonable to assume that they have educated their kids, offered them a safe ride, required they stay home, etc. The lower age ALONE is not the reason.
It seems to me that society's attitudes towards drunk driving have changed a great deal, and that this probably had far more of a role than changing the drinking age.
To hear my mother talk about it, there was a time when drunk driving was regarded as something almost laughable, more like jaywalking than a real crime. People have a better picture of it, now, which is a good thing, and MADD played a big role in that. I just wish they weren't blackening the name of their own organisation now with this knee-jerk response to the very sensible proposition of the university presidents.
Yeahhhh my parents have stories about when they were younger, and it wasn't a big deal and they would drive home from clubs, and everyone was doing it, no one thought about it.
I can't argue the statistics, I don't know enough about the numbers, but I will the politics of denying 18-20 year olds alcohol. The same politics that allows the elderly to crash cars in the same numbers as teenagers and still avoid restriction. Why?
They vote. 18-20 year olds don't. And even if they did, The tyranny of the majority will rule. No politician has ever lost his job by insulting the competency of teens, but would if s/he did the same for seniors.
Doesn't change my argument any.. ;) And I'm not going to argue the statistics in any detail, other than to point out that the general numbers, so those over 21 have dropped at the exact same rate, implying to me that there are other factors than age involved in why that rate has dropped.
Comments 16
Reply
It just undermines my ability to respect their argument.
Reply
If indeed the rate of accidents has dropped, I think it's because there's been so much of a raise in awareness about drunk driving. Because I would lose count if I try to start counting everyone who I know that started drinking before even the age of 18.
Which also leads into some of my arguments about legalizing and regulating drugs and prostitution... but that's another discussion. *grin*
Reply
Reply
Reply
It seems to me that society's attitudes towards drunk driving have changed a great deal, and that this probably had far more of a role than changing the drinking age.
To hear my mother talk about it, there was a time when drunk driving was regarded as something almost laughable, more like jaywalking than a real crime. People have a better picture of it, now, which is a good thing, and MADD played a big role in that. I just wish they weren't blackening the name of their own organisation now with this knee-jerk response to the very sensible proposition of the university presidents.
Reply
Reply
They vote. 18-20 year olds don't. And even if they did, The tyranny of the majority will rule. No politician has ever lost his job by insulting the competency of teens, but would if s/he did the same for seniors.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment