Comments on: Head to head: John McCardell debates MADD CEO Chuck Hurley http://blog.chooseresponsibility.org/cr-news/head-to-head-john-mccardell-debates-madd-ceo-chuck-hurley/ Just another WordPress weblog Wed, 20 Aug 2008 19:00:02 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2.1 By: Eric Snyder http://blog.chooseresponsibility.org/cr-news/head-to-head-john-mccardell-debates-madd-ceo-chuck-hurley/#comment-169 Eric Snyder Fri, 21 Mar 2008 21:41:51 +0000 http://blog.chooseresponsibility.org/cr-news/head-to-head-john-mccardell-debates-madd-ceo-chuck-hurley/#comment-169 Mr. Kent, I can sit here with the utmost confidence in what I am speaking about, because I am an 18 year old college student. My peers are no longer involved in drinking and driving related fatalities because of several factors, and not a single one is the legal age to drink. Information about drinking and driving related fatalities in now more abundant than ever, and as a result the educated masses of the youth population are making better decisions, based on the full set of information. Everyone is against drunk driving... now, but it was not that way 20 odd years ago, because the information was not there. Another reason the fatalities have gone down is the stricter enforcement and punishment, especially against those underage, of DUI related laws, it is a deterrent to driving, not to drinking. On the University Campus I attend drinking is rampant, both on campus and off campus. Interestingly enough, the campus is a 'dry campus'. I can tell you from personal experience that the more dangerous situations regarding alcohol come at off campus drinking events for several reasons. One, the necessity to drive is often common, and the drinking and driving element is introduced. Two, there is no system of monitoring binge drinking in these environments. There is no supervision to recognize signs of fatal consumption of alcohol, like in the campus arena, causing more deaths off the highway. In summation, 18-20 year olds are drinking, and drinking a lot in one sitting. They aren't driving due totally unrelated events to the Legal Age 21 law. I repeat I have interacted with very few, and the number continues to lessen, who choose not to drink because they are not 21, and will drink after that. Those that do have a fear of the law tend to drink less often, but more in one night, causing a higher potential for fatalities both on and off the highway. This is my peer group, I understand what is going on in their minds, and I understand how to harbor a change for the positive, and that is through education and treating myself and my peers as the adults the Supreme Law of the Land defines us as, that promotes responsibility throughout our communities and saves lives on and off the road. Now, dealing with your highway related claims, there are many contributing factors. Like I said earlier, less young people especially, but people of all age groups, are driving drunk because of the knowledge and advancement of academia now present in our society. People understand the dangers of driving under the influence. Stricter laws and punishments, especially those targeted at 18-20 year olds, reduce the willingness to drive, but not to drink. Also, technological advancements in the automotive industry have lead to saving more lives as well. The implementation of mandatory seat belts has saved more lives in the vehicle than Legal Age 21 can ever wish to 'save'. And how many of these 4000 lives are alcohol related, and how many are from the 18-20 year old range, and furthermore how many of them were not wearing seat belts, and even further how many were not informed on the dangers of alcohol abuse and/or drinking and driving? These numbers are not known, however CR tries to attack this problem at the core and provide education, provided responsibility, and foster growth of citizenry as defined by our Constitution. Mr. Kent, I can sit here with the utmost confidence in what I am speaking about, because I am an 18 year old college student. My peers are no longer involved in drinking and driving related fatalities because of several factors, and not a single one is the legal age to drink. Information about drinking and driving related fatalities in now more abundant than ever, and as a result the educated masses of the youth population are making better decisions, based on the full set of information. Everyone is against drunk driving… now, but it was not that way 20 odd years ago, because the information was not there. Another reason the fatalities have gone down is the stricter enforcement and punishment, especially against those underage, of DUI related laws, it is a deterrent to driving, not to drinking. On the University Campus I attend drinking is rampant, both on campus and off campus. Interestingly enough, the campus is a ‘dry campus’. I can tell you from personal experience that the more dangerous situations regarding alcohol come at off campus drinking events for several reasons. One, the necessity to drive is often common, and the drinking and driving element is introduced. Two, there is no system of monitoring binge drinking in these environments. There is no supervision to recognize signs of fatal consumption of alcohol, like in the campus arena, causing more deaths off the highway. In summation, 18-20 year olds are drinking, and drinking a lot in one sitting. They aren’t driving due totally unrelated events to the Legal Age 21 law. I repeat I have interacted with very few, and the number continues to lessen, who choose not to drink because they are not 21, and will drink after that. Those that do have a fear of the law tend to drink less often, but more in one night, causing a higher potential for fatalities both on and off the highway. This is my peer group, I understand what is going on in their minds, and I understand how to harbor a change for the positive, and that is through education and treating myself and my peers as the adults the Supreme Law of the Land defines us as, that promotes responsibility throughout our communities and saves lives on and off the road.

Now, dealing with your highway related claims, there are many contributing factors. Like I said earlier, less young people especially, but people of all age groups, are driving drunk because of the knowledge and advancement of academia now present in our society. People understand the dangers of driving under the influence. Stricter laws and punishments, especially those targeted at 18-20 year olds, reduce the willingness to drive, but not to drink. Also, technological advancements in the automotive industry have lead to saving more lives as well. The implementation of mandatory seat belts has saved more lives in the vehicle than Legal Age 21 can ever wish to ’save’. And how many of these 4000 lives are alcohol related, and how many are from the 18-20 year old range, and furthermore how many of them were not wearing seat belts, and even further how many were not informed on the dangers of alcohol abuse and/or drinking and driving? These numbers are not known, however CR tries to attack this problem at the core and provide education, provided responsibility, and foster growth of citizenry as defined by our Constitution.

]]> By: Belindadr http://blog.chooseresponsibility.org/cr-news/head-to-head-john-mccardell-debates-madd-ceo-chuck-hurley/#comment-157 Belindadr Wed, 19 Mar 2008 05:31:09 +0000 http://blog.chooseresponsibility.org/cr-news/head-to-head-john-mccardell-debates-madd-ceo-chuck-hurley/#comment-157 well done, dude well done, dude

]]> By: Richard Kent http://blog.chooseresponsibility.org/cr-news/head-to-head-john-mccardell-debates-madd-ceo-chuck-hurley/#comment-151 Richard Kent Thu, 13 Mar 2008 12:15:02 +0000 http://blog.chooseresponsibility.org/cr-news/head-to-head-john-mccardell-debates-madd-ceo-chuck-hurley/#comment-151 Is it ironic that this is posted directly above the empty chair post? Seriously, you talk about the 1000 lives of the highway as if that number means something. It doesn't for two reasons: 1. The minimum drinking age decreased the off highway fatalities - studies show that the non-traffic fatality rate decreased at the dame rate as traffic fatality, so that number is lower than it was before the 21 mda. So a thousand lives compared to what? 2. Trafic fatalities are the real problem. In the same study where you get the 1000 lives off the road, they show there were 4000 lives lost on the road. Now everyone - ok, everyone who actually takes a scientific bent to studyinh this - agrees that 21 reduced traffic fatalitiws, which is where the fatalities are happening. So check you facts before you try to step into the ring again. Is it ironic that this is posted directly above the empty chair post?

Seriously, you talk about the 1000 lives of the highway as if that number means something. It doesn’t for two reasons:
1. The minimum drinking age decreased the off highway fatalities - studies show that the non-traffic fatality rate decreased at the dame rate as traffic fatality, so that number is lower than it was before the 21 mda. So a thousand lives compared to what?
2. Trafic fatalities are the real problem. In the same study where you get the 1000 lives off the road, they show there were 4000 lives lost on the road. Now everyone - ok, everyone who actually takes a scientific bent to studyinh this - agrees that 21 reduced traffic fatalitiws, which is where the fatalities are happening.

So check you facts before you try to step into the ring again.

]]>