Report Sample December 4, 2008 Top Hile Riddle Congressman D

Report Sampledatedecember 4 2008tophil Riddle Congressman District

Report Sample DATE: December 4, 2008 TO: Phil Riddle, Congressman District 233 FROM: John Smith, CEO, Drive Later Project Inc. SUBJECT: Raising the Legal Driving Age Style like a memo or letter (heading). Remember, an informal report is usually internal and should be styled like a memo. Space the heading like a memo! A License at Sixteen Is Not So Sweet Keep everything single spaced except for between paragraphs.

Thirty-four hundred pounds of steel, two hundred eighty-five horsepower, combine that with an unsupervised teen driver and you have a recipe for a fatality. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in 1999, 5,749 teens died of injuries caused by motor vehicle crashes. On average, that’s one teen death on the nation’s roadways every 91 minutes. Another alarming statistic by the Centers for Disease Control, cites the risk for motor vehicle crashes is higher among 16- to 19-year-olds than any other age group. In fact, per mile driven, a 16-year-old driver is seven times more likely to crash than a driver 25 to 29 years old (CDC Injury Fact Book).

These are frightening statistics and should be a wake-up call to all parents and lawmakers. We need to cure this national epidemic, and we can by raising the legal driving age. Leading causes of death among teens include motor vehicle traffic accidents, drowning, falls, and fire/burn incidents, among others. A chart depicting these causes emphasizes the importance of addressing teenage driving safety.

Some states endorse programs that offer teens driver education courses, along with supervised practice. However, most of these states allow teens to obtain a learning permit at age fifteen, which primarily promotes supervised driving rather than real experience. Texas has implemented a Graduated Driver License law, involving supervised driving and restrictions like no night driving or teen passengers. While these measures are steps forward, they should not be viewed as sufficient qualification for novice drivers.

Driving is often perceived as a rite of passage and symbol of independence for American teens. This societal attitude fuels early driving and overlooks the immaturity and incomplete development of many young drivers. Many parents and teenagers are eager to obtain licenses early to ease daily logistics, but this rush often disregards the maturity required for safe driving. Experience does not substitute for the rapid decision-making needed on roadways, especially for those still developing physically and mentally.

Allowing inexperienced teens to drive increases the likelihood of accidents caused by misjudgment, overcorrection, and immaturity. Media reports often highlight reckless teenage behaviors such as drag racing or drunk driving, which garner strong societal reactions for stricter laws. Yet, more subtle errors like misjudging a turn or overcorrecting after veering off the road are equally dangerous and often involve sixteen-year-olds. Raising the legal driving age would reduce these risks by delaying full driving privileges until a more mature age.

Parents play a pivotal role in this issue. Many want their children to start driving early to avoid logistical burdens, while others recognize the risks and support delaying licensing. Peer pressure is a significant factor influencing teens to seek licenses prematurely, often associated with access to unsafe or poorly maintained vehicles. The market targets young drivers with features like advanced stereos, phones, and performance upgrades, increasing distractions behind the wheel. A higher legal driving age would mitigate some social pressures and enable parents to make safer decisions focused solely on their child’s well-being.

Geographical differences also influence arguments about early licensing. Rural areas with long commutes advocate for earlier driving rights, but urbanization trends and traffic congestion make late licensing a safer option for most populations. Delaying licensing encourages teens to utilize alternative transportation such as carpools and public transit, fostering safer commuting habits and environmental consciousness.

Economically, raising the driving age could reduce financial stress on families. Multiple teenage drivers in a household lead to higher insurance costs and more vehicle purchases. Postponing licensing until age eighteen or after high school completion allows families to better plan vehicle ownership and insurance expenses. Furthermore, delaying driving privileges aligns with overall safety priorities, reducing the tragic loss of young lives—a loss felt profoundly by families, educators, and communities.

In conclusion, the data clearly indicates that delaying the legal driving age would decrease fatalities and injuries among teens. It would also promote safer driving behaviors, reduce societal risks, and foster responsible transportation habits. We must prioritize replacing emotion-driven decisions and social pressures with evidence-based policies that protect our youth. The federal and state governments should consider legislative measures to raise the legal driving age, emphasizing the importance of maturity and experience over peer pressure and convenience.

Paper For Above instruction

The article titled "A License at Sixteen Is Not So Sweet" critically examines the safety concerns associated with allowing teenagers to drive at early ages, primarily focusing on the increased risk of fatalities and accidents among this demographic. The author employs statistical data from reputable sources, such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), to emphasize the severity of the issue. The article discusses various state programs like driver education courses, supervised driving, and graduated licensing laws, evaluating their effectiveness while asserting that these measures fall short of adequately preparing teens for the complexities of real-world driving.

The author's methodology involves analyzing accident statistics, legislative examples, and societal attitudes toward teenage driving. They draw attention to the immaturity and incomplete development of adolescents, which compromise their decision-making and reflexes. The conclusion advocates for raising the legal driving age, emphasizing that delaying driver licensing can significantly reduce teen fatalities and injuries. The article also explores parental influence, peer pressure, societal perceptions, and regional differences to provide a comprehensive analysis of the multi-faceted issue.

Applying the principles of project management's triple constraint—scope, time, and cost—the article implicitly addresses safety (scope), legal and societal implications (time), and economic considerations (cost). The proposed solution of delaying licensing aligns with extending the scope of safety measures, extending the timeline for teenage independence, and reducing economic burdens in households with multiple teenage drivers. The article’s emphasis on legislative reform echoes the classic project management approach where changing one constraint (licensing age) impacts safety outcomes and societal costs.

Compared to the textbook's coverage of the triple constraint, the article effectively illustrates how delaying the licensing process can balance safety concerns with societal and economic factors. It aligns with the idea that adjusting project scope (responsibility of driving) and timeline (licensing age) can lead to better overall outcomes. Such an application emphasizes how thoughtful management of constraints can mitigate risks, not just in projects but also in public policy endeavors aimed at societal safety.

The research's next step involves exploring longitudinal impacts of increased licensing age—such as effects on teen independence, traffic patterns, and accident rates over time. Further questions include: How does delaying licensing influence teen driving skills development? What are the long-term societal benefits and drawbacks? To answer these, a mixed-method approach combining quantitative accident data analysis with qualitative surveys of parent and teen attitudes could be employed. Longitudinal studies tracking cohorts over several years would provide deeper insights into behavioral adaptations and safety outcomes.

In conclusion, the article underscores the importance of evidence-based policy reforms to enhance teen road safety. By increasing the age at which teens can obtain full driving privileges, society could significantly reduce the incidence of teen-related accidents. Further research can refine these policies, ensuring they balance safety priorities with the developmental needs of adolescents, leading to a safer and more responsible driving culture.

References

• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2005). Injury Fact Book. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/injury/pdfs/injury_fact_book.pdf
• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2005). Teens Behind the Wheel. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/pdf/teen_drivers.pdf
• Ferguson, S. A. (2013). Teen driver risk: State laws that work. Journal of Safety Research, 44, 67-73.
• Williams, A. F. (2009). Graduated driver licensing: An update. Journal of Safety Research, 40(1), 33-39.
• Preusser, D. F., Leaf, W. A., & Williams, A. F. (2004). The impact of graduated licensing laws on teen driver crashes. Journal of Safety Research, 35(4), 399-406.
• Simons-Morton, B. G., et al. (2014). The effect of graduated driver licensing on teenage crashes: A review. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 70, 111-120.
• Berry, D. C., et al. (2006). Effectiveness of graduated driver licensing: A review of the literature. Journal of Safety Research, 37(3), 235-243.
• Chamberlain, C. (2012). Parental influence on teen driver safety. Traffic Injury Prevention, 13(2), 151–158.
• McCartt, A. T., et al. (2010). Influence of graduated licensing laws on teen driver crashes. American Journal of Public Health, 100(2), 318-319.
• Solomon, J. & Staub, M. (2016). Policy strategies to improve teen driver safety. Policy Studies Journal, 44(2), 235-252.