Women Are Better Driver Than Men Essay

Women Are Better Driver Than Men Essay.

There are valid reasons that women are better drivers than men. Firstly, women drive more carefully than men. According to a research at Carnegie-Mellon University in Pittsburgh, 70 percent of serious car crashes is linked to men even if women had a higher number of minor accidents like a fender bender. Therefore women take the wheel more safely and prudently.

Secondly, women obey traffic regulations better than men do. They generally fasten their seat belts, observe the traffic signal and hardly get caught for driving under the influence (DUI).

In a study released by an analytics company, Quality Planning, the ratio of men to women for seatbelt violation is 3. 08:1, for DUI is 3. 09:1 and for signal violation is 1. 53:1. Finally, women are better at parking a car than men.

It is true that most people, even women themselves, think women drivers are bad at lining up a car. In contrast, the National Car Parks, the U. K. ’s largest parking lot operator, studied 2,500 UK drivers and they concluded women held a dominant position in most categories including appropriate space finding speed, good or very good ‘pre-parking pose’.

In conclusion, it is time to throw out the ineradicable prejudice that women are vulnerable drivers.

Women Are Better Driver Than Men Essay

Driving In Summer and In Winter Essay

Driving In Summer and In Winter Essay.

Every driver knows so well that driving in winter and driving in summer are quite different experiences. The specific of winter driving is related to cold weather and slippery roads. At the same time, in summer the weather and environmental conditions are usually gentler. That is why it is generally supposed that winter driving is more difficult and it requires more responsible attitude from any driver than summer driving does. The main difference between winter and summer driving is connected with the condition of the roads.

It is known that in winter the roads are very slippery, snowy or icy.

That is why it is vital to be very cautious when driving, accelerate and maneuver gently, especially on the crossroads, etc. Besides, it can be good to use snow tires or tire chains. At that, in summer roads are drier and cleaner, so any danger of collision is much lower. Another difference is the necessity to provide the car with special equipment for safety and convenience.

Thus, in winter it is essential to have a blanket, candles, a flashlight, ice scrapers and brushes, etc. However, in summer such things are not necessary. Besides, in winter drivers must do regular checks of antifreeze, engine oil, transmission fluid, etc.

, but in summer air conditioning and cooling system must be checked frequently. Therefore, winter driving is more likely to be connected with various possible difficulties than summer driving is. Nevertheless, it is necessary to mention that any driver must be very careful on the roads in summer time as well, because the majority of other drivers tend to feel more relaxed and less cautious in this time of year. That is why risks of traffic accidents remain quite high in summer. Works Cited: “Car Talk: Winter Driving Tips. ” Car Talk. Dewey, Cheetham and Howe Inc. 2007. 28 Dec. 2007 <http://www. cartalk. com/content/features/WinterDriving/ >.

You may also be interested in the following: compare and contrast winter and summer

Driving In Summer and In Winter Essay

How young is too young to drive? Essay

How young is too young to drive? Essay.

How young is too young to drive? It is a major topic in America today. Many feel that sixteen, the general licensing age, is too young to operate a vehicle. Should a law be passed which changes the legal driving age from sixteen to nineteen? Granted, learning to drive is a teenage right of passage but teens are statistically the worst drivers in the public domain. Therefore, I support changing the legal driving age for the above reason as well as the following three reasons: it will prevent teen deaths, decrease parental stress and save parents money.

First of all, protecting human life should be important to everyone.

The Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) website attributes 6,000 of the 42,000 annual vehicular deaths to teens. My best friend’s brother died two weeks before his seventeenth birthday because he accepted a ride with a friend who was not sure how to proceed through an intersection. Larry Musselman, director of the teen-driving institute at Safe America Foundation, believes accidents like the one involving my friend’s brother happen because the decision-making part of the brain does not mature until the late teens and early twenties.

If drivers were forced to wait until eighteen for licensure they would make better decisions on the road.

Granted, some teens mature before others, but, that does no mean their parents stop worrying about them. Take for instance the March 28, 2006 Daily Herald Article entitled “Lead Foot Puts Teen in Deep Doo-Doo,” which covered the trial of a seventeen year old girl ticketed twice for speeding two months in a row. The judge, also a parent, asked the girl if she considered that her mother prays she will come home in one piece every time the girl drives somewhere. This same concern is why my aunt Debra prefers to drive my cousins to many of the places they need to go, especially, during rush-hour.

As study by A F Williams shows that the crash rate for sixteen year olds is 241 per 10,000 within the first month of licensure and only drops to 107 per 10,000 after 9 to 10 months. Changing the legal driving age will effectively confront parental concerns about their teens driving before they are mature enough. Finally, parents worried about the safety of their teens must also consider how much it costs to have a teenage driver in the household. My uncle Mike refused to buy his daughters a car until they got jobs and could pay either their car payments or insurance.

To be sure, car insurance is expensive for the parents of teens because driver risk profiles (which decide cost) consider the frequency and likelihood of accidents. According to the Christian Science Monitor, 3 out of very 10 sixteen year old drivers will be in a serious crash. Phil Berardelli, a highway safety advocate, urges parents to consider the costs involved in repairing a car that a sixteen year old will very likely wreck. If parents pay for the repairs their child pays a moral cost by not learning responsibility. If the child pays for the repairs then they spend money potentially set a side for college expenses.

It is an inescapable conclusion that parents save when their teens drive as more mature eighteen year olds. To reiterate my point, a law should be passed changing the legal driving age from16 to 18. Doing so would prevent teen deaths, while decreasing parental stress and saving parents money. Moreover, America’s roads, a public domain for all, would be a safer domain for all. Works Cited Franklin, Stefanie. “Raising Driving Age May Raise Safety: Recent Legislation Attempts to Reduce Teen Auto Deaths. ” Daily Titan 3 Mar. 2005. 12 Oct. 2006 <http://www. daily titan.

com/ media/storage/paper861/news/2005/03/22/News/Raising. Driving. Age. May. Raise. Safety-1538494. shtml? norewrite200610131501&sourcedomain=www. dailytitan. com>. Llana, Sara Miller. “Massachusetts Considers Raising the Driving Age to Curb Car Accidents Among Teens. ” The Christian Science Monitor. 29 Mar. 2006. 12 Oct. 2006 <http://www. csmonitor. com/2006/0329/p02s02-ussc. htm>. Williams, A F, Ferguson, S A, and Shope, J T. “Rationale for Graduated Licensing and the Risks It Should Address. ” Injury Prevention. 8(Suppl II) (2002): ii9-ii16. Downloaded on 12 October 2006 from <http://www. ip. bmjjournals. com>.

How young is too young to drive? Essay

Mothers Against Drunk Driving Essay

Mothers Against Drunk Driving Essay.

Candace Lynne Lightner, also known as Candy Lightner, is well recognized as being the founder of Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) (Overbey, 2006). Having been born in the year 1946 in Pasadena, California, Candace graduated from high school and proceeded to enroll in American River College in Sacramento where she also graduated (Lerner, 2011). She later married Steve Lightner and went on to have three children. When her daughter was an infant, Lightner’s car was involved in an accident where it was rammed into from behind by a drunken driver.

Fortunately, Serena, the daughter, suffered minor injuries. However, six years down the line, Lighter’s son, Travis, was run over and seriously injured where he suffered numerous broken bones in the process (Levinson, 2002). He went into a coma but unfortunately received permanent brain damage. Travis was run over by an unlicensed driver who was impaired by tranquilizers while driving and what is perhaps most shocking is the fact that the driver did not receive a single ticket following the accident (Overbey, 2006).


Looking at the history of Lightner, one might say that luck was not on her side especially where her children were concerned due to the numerous misfortunes they were experiencing. As if that was not enough, Lighter’s 13 year old daughter, Cari, was one day in 1980 walking in her neighborhood in Fair Oaks on her way to church for a carnival (Lerner, 2011). She was suddenly hit from behind by a drunken driver who had apparently momentarily passed out then woke up and drove off after having murdered Cari (Levinson, 2002). Her body had been thrown a number of feet and was so badly damaged that not even her organs could be given up for donation. On conducting an investigation on the driver, it was revealed that the offender was a repeat DWI who had been released on bail for a hit and run drunken driving crash merely two days before killing Cari (Overbey, 2006). It was also his 5th offense in a span of four years.

Four days after the tragedy and while in mourning for her daughter a day after her funeral, Lightner started the Mothers Against Drunk Driving in her den. Lightner had also just received news from the police that the man who committed the crime would not even spend time in jail and this brought about so much rage within her, leading her to establish MADD (Lerner, 2011). The main aim or purpose of starting this particular organization was to be able to bring about public awareness of the serious nature of drunken driving in addition to promoting tough legislation against this particular crime (Levinson, 2002). The key issue that led to the creation of MADD was drunken driving, a problem that was also identified as being a social problem. As a response to her experience, Lightner formed MADD so as to help victims of crimes carried out by people driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol, to increase public awareness on the problem and to help the families of such victims (Overbey, 2006).

Before Lightner’s crusade, intoxication was not taken seriously and some comedians even went to the extent of making a career of impersonating drunken individuals on stage. Her perceptive approach was to put human faces on the victims of drunk drivers where statistics were more than just a collection of numbers (Lerner, 2011). Lightner helped individuals come to the realization that deaths caused by drunk driving were actually not an inevitability that could be accepted. The logic as well as emotional impact involved in the MADD resulted to a dramatic transformation with regards to public attitudes toward drunken driving which was now seen as being socially unacceptable (Levinson, 2002). A few policies were created as a result of MADD’s influence even though quite a number of problems were also experienced while implementing the policies. Candy Lightner’s efforts pushed President Reagan to appoint a BRCDD, otherwise known as the Blue Ribbon Commission on Drunk and Drugged Driving in the year 1982 which saw over 400 drunk driving laws being enacted all over the United States (Overbey, 2006).

In the course of the same year, Congress also passed legislation that rewarded states that managed to increase their least officially permitted drinking age to 21 years. However, a majority of states opted to maintain the age limits they had earlier deemed more suitable, and this created a problem for MADD’s mission (Lerner, 2011). Lightner campaigned for legislation that would financially punish those states that would resist Washington’s de facto demand where she also found herself having to counter objections that the measure singled out with regards to legal adults age 18, 19 and 20 years (Levinson, 2002). In addition, MADD began outgrowing its mission and with time transformed the definition of the problem to incorporate the reasonable adults who respond to MADD’s campaigns (Overbey, 2006). Instead of concentrating more on repeat offenders and those who are considered too drunk to drive, today’s MADD focuses on higher beverage taxes and unnecessary low drunk driving arrest thresholds (Lerner, 2011).


When Candy Lightner started Mothers Againnmn n nst Drunk Driving, her main mission was to stop drunk driving, provide support to the victims of such crime and prevent underage drinking. However, as time went by, MADD’s mission outgrew itself in that instead of attacking drunk driving, it started attacking drinking in general. This shift forced Lightner to leave the organization that she herself created because she felt that it was trying to minimize her role as the founder. In addition, MADD completely ignored the real drunk drivers who are the cause of a majority of deaths on the roads and instead paid more attention to social drinkers by embarking on large PR scare campaigns.


Lerner, B.H. (2011). One for the Road: Drunk Driving Since 1900. Baltimore: JHU Press. Levinson, M.H. (2002). The Drug Problem: A New View Using the General Semantics Approach. Westport: Praeger. Overbey, C. (2006). Drinking and Driving War in America. Johannesburg: Lulu.com.

Mothers Against Drunk Driving Essay

Drunk Driving Essay

Drunk Driving Essay.

Drunk driving is a primary cause of highway traffic accidents causing deaths and injuries with enormous monetary costs to society. The drunk driving was first recognized as a policy problem in the literature in 1904, approximately 5 years after the first highway traffic fatality in the United States (Voas and Lacey). In 1982, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration started keeping statistics of alcohol related crashes through its Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) (Stewart and Fell).

In 1982, there were 26,173 alcohol related fatalities, which constituted 60% of all highway fatalities.

In 2002, about 17,419 or roughly 41% of about 42,815 highway fatalities were estimated to be alcohol related which indicates a 19% change since 1982 (Stewart and Fell). Overall, alcohol related traffic fatalities have reduced by about 33% over the last two decades. Policies implemented to curb drunk driving in the last two decades seem to have an impact on alcohol related fatalities.

FARS data shows a 62% decrease (1. 64 to . 61) in alcohol related fatality rate since 1982 (Stewart and Fell). The general decline in the alcohol related fatalities for the general population is believed to be due to a combination of deterrent based laws, increased alcohol awareness and decrease in alcohol consumption, increased publicity about prevention, and general car safety measures (Stewart and Fell). Starting 1980s, drunk driving has been conceptualized as a criminal justice issue.

With the effect of Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) and some other citizen activist groups, the issue has become a public policy problem in which drunk drivers are defined as “sinful killers” who drink and drive irresponsibly and claim lives of “innocent” victims. These efforts, according to Ross, created a “dominant paradigm” which focuses on the blameworthy driver. Thus, framing the issue as of a “sin” and drunk drivers as “deviants” has dominated the policymaking process and socially constructed the drunk drivers as a target group with negative connotations in public mind (Meier).

Policymakers responded the demands by legislating stricter deterrent based measures to punish those “criminal” drunk drivers and deter drunk driving to save lives (Ross). Therefore, it is important to examine how drunk driving emerged as a policy problem and how deterrent based laws are introduced and accepted as a solution to the problem. This paper examines also the effects of MADD on legislation of drunk driving laws and effects of those laws on alcohol related fatalities. Background

The struggle against drunk driving as a traffic safety problem began in late 1960s. Before 1960s, the federal government’s influence on states’ drunk driving policies was minimal. The national character and seriousness of traffic safety problems prompted Congress to enact the Highway Safety Act and the Motor Vehicle and Traffic Safety Act, in 1966. In 1967, the Secretary of Transportation officially promulgated the first federal drunk driving standards in the National Uniform Standards for State Highway Safety Programs.

One of the requirements of this program was for each state to utilize chemical tests for determining blood alcohol levels (BAC) and to enact BAC limits of no greater than . 10 % (Evans et al. ). If an individual is found to be driving with a BAC over a certain threshold they would be arrested for drunk driving. Those standards came with the threat of reducing highway funds for noncompliance. Although some states viewed the 1967 standards and the threats of reducing highway funds as interfering with their sovereign function, they complied with the new standards to participate in highway construction projects.

By 1981 all states had adopted the specific standard of . 10 BAC or a lower level. In 1982, the Presidential Commission on Drunk Driving was created, and the Alcohol Traffic Safety Act of 1982 established a three-year program to provide highway grants for states that adopted certain anti-drunk driving measures (Evans et al. ). In 1983, the Presidential Commission on Drunk Driving recommended that states enact a uniform drinking age of twenty-one years. This approach was ineffective: only four states had done so by 1984.

In response, Congress passed legislation requiring highway funding reductions for any state with a drinking age under twenty-one in 1984. That strategy was effective as the states soon began to establish twenty-one-year age limits. By 1986, all but eight states had adopted the twenty-one-year age limits. By 1989, all states had complied with this federal limit. Congress, by promising grants or threatening to withhold funding (carrot and stick from of coercive federalism), has taken an active role in formulating drunk driving policies and in encouraging the states to adopt them (Evans et al.

). On October 23, 2000 President Clinton signed Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2001 that established the first-ever national drunk driving standard at . 08 blood alcohol content (BAC). According to this legislation, states that do not adopt . 08 BAC laws by 2004 would have 2% of highway construction funds withheld, with the penalty increasing to 8% by 2007. States adopting the standard by 2007 would be reimbursed for any lost funds. As of February 2004, 46 states plus the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico have adopted the national .

08 BAC standard. The federal BAC limit was the last, but not the least measure established to curb drunk driving. It was, indeed, the culmination of efforts targeting drunk driving which dates back to early 1980s (MADD). Although a variety of preventative policies including education campaigns, rehabilitation, and control of alcohol sales have been employed to reduce drunk driving, more emphasis has been placed on the use of punitive policy tools such as license revocation, increased fines, and mandatory jail time.

Policies designed to change undesired behavior frequently frame drunk driving behavior as “sinful” or “deviant”, which suggests that drunk driving may constitute a morality policy. Indeed, drunk drivers are often depicted in the media and policy debates as irresponsible “killer drunks”. The politics around the issue of drunk driving as a morality policy may explain why punitive tools rather than preventive policies have been increasingly used in this policy area (Meier). Anti-Drunk Driving Policy Controversies

Policies pertaining to alcohol have been regulated by local, state and the federal governments over the last century, including the prohibition at the turn of the twentieth century. At different times alcohol has been prohibited, permitted to operate without government control, regulated through licensing, or controlled by monopolies. This policy area is largely controlled by states through a wide range of policies regulating both the sale of alcohol and penalties for alcohol abuse.

Although prohibition on drunk driving is a regulatory policy, it has a separate purpose. As Meier points out, rather than restricting access to alcohol, drunk driving policies are intended to punish individuals who abuse alcohol by drinking and driving (687). Over the last two decades states have adopted a variety of punitive policies to prevent drunk driving and its consequences. Since drunk driving is framed as “sinful” behavior, no one will stand up and support drunk driving.

Advocates of drunk driving policies push for stricter measures to protect “innocent” victims and in such an environment, rational politicians will perceive that the demand for restrictive policies will be greater than it actually is and, thus, compete for more extreme policies because they always see there is a great support for being tougher on “sin” (Meier). These policies will be carried out through strict law enforcement by agencies, which will be awarded by the number of arrests made.

Therefore, law enforcement agencies will also favor more extreme policies because such policies will create an environment that supports more resources for them (Meier). Furthermore, arresting “killer drunks” and saving innocent lives will increase their popularity in the eyes of public. In the absence of organized opposition, therefore, drunk driving policies – shaped with the support of the public, politicians, and the bureaucracy-lead to adoption of coercive tools, which increases the cost of sinful behavior (Ross). As with most public policy issues, this one, too, has many sides.

Just as anti-drunk driving movement supporters form alliances for specific efforts, adversaries also work independently and sometimes together depending on the current situation and how their alliances reflect common concerns. Organizations and individuals who appear to “oppose” the efforts of the anti-drunk driving movement are, in some cases, protecting a different interest or issue, such as business interests and, by extension, the economy (Baum). Despite the strength of the morality policy framework to predict what type of policy tools would be adopted in this policy domain, legislation of the federal .

08 BAC standard departs from this framework on -at least- one major point: there was an organized opposition to the legislation. Opponents of the national . 08 BAC limit consisted of interest groups representing alcohol and hospitality industries and a few non-profit groups defending motorists’ rights. Meier contends that highly salient morality policies permit little role for expertise and the lack of opposition results in avoidance of information that challenges the dominant position. Therefore, morality politics lead to adoption of poorly designed and rarely effective policies.

In the case of . 08 BAC legislation, as with many other anti drunk driving policies, however, existence of such an opposition heated the debate around the effectiveness of that standard to prevent drunk driving. Studies evaluating the effectiveness of . 08 BAC limit and level of impairment at different levels of BAC were often cited by both sides of the policy (Meier 689-90). Opponents of the national . 08 BAC limit, however, differed in their solutions rather than in their conception of the issue.

Both sides of the drunk driving debate agreed on the problem, but they disagreed on the solutions, which is closely related to the definition of the problem. Opponents and proponents of the legislation defined the problems in similar ways. For example, both sides distinguished good people who drink socially from a small minority of alcohol abusers, blameworthy deviants, who drink and drive irresponsibly. The alcohol and restaurant lobbyists could not and did not deny the existence of drunk driving problem. Furthermore, they accepted an obligation to contribute to the reduction of the problem (Baum).

However, they defended that . 08 BAC limit would not affect those abusers but would punish the responsible social drinkers, which in turn negatively would affect alcohol sales. They argued that most fatal accidents involving BAC levels below . 10 were alcohol related, not alcohol caused. In almost all alcohol caused fatal accidents, drivers have had an average BAC level of . 17. Therefore, lowering BAC limit to . 08 would not prevent drunk driving. Instead, some other measures such as strict administrative license suspension, and frequent sobriety checks by law enforcement should be administered.

Proponents of the . 08 BAC legislation, on the other hand, argued that everyone’s safe driving skills are dangerously impaired at this level, and nearly one-fourth of traffic fatalities caused by drunk drivers with a BAC level of . 10 or less (Meier 691-92). Anti-Drunk Driving Movement and MADD According to Reinarman, the anti-drunk driving movement did not spring from a rise in the prevalence of drunk driving or in accidents related to it, but from the fact that the injustices (or negative externalities) attributed to drunk driving have never been treated seriously by legislators and courts.

Indeed, before 1980s drunk driving had been seen merely a traffic offense. The morality policy focus of the Reagan administration created the suitable climate in which the claims of MADD affected the public and legislators (Reinarman). MADD was founded as a non-profit victims’ rights organization concerned with advocating for and counseling victims and bereaved relatives, and monitoring courtrooms. Although many members of MADD are victims or bereaved victims of drunk drivers, general community activists (non-victim) have also been active in many chapters.

A study on a national sample of 125 MADD chapters indicated that victimization alone does not cause activism (Weed). Moreover, victim and non-victim activists share similar social backgrounds and already participate in other voluntary associations, which reveals that MADD tends to be run by activists who have been victimized rather than victims who have become activists (Ross). Despite its inception as a victims’ rights organization, MADD has been blamed for becoming a neo-prohibitionist movement (Hanson).

The goal of the organization, Hanson claims, is no longer preventing alcohol related accidents but preventing drinking. Moreover, MADD members are accused of seeking vengeance through harsh penalties either than rehabilitation and prevention. Reinarman points out that MADD’s goals include the demand for justice or vengeance on the group that took lives of friends and children, which warrants harsh punishment whether deterrence is achieved. He also contends that in the case of drunk driving, the purpose of jail is generally social revenge, not accident prevention.

Advocates of MADD, on the other hand, have always pointed out the public education programs, victim assistance, and legislative activism as their agenda items. Regardless of the objectives mentioned above, MADD has managed to make drunk driving a major public problem. Its approach to the problem assumes that the victim in an alcohol related accident is innocent; the drunk driver’s behavior is willful and it is a crime which should be dealt in the criminal justice system; and harsh punishment is effective in reducing drunk driving by the threat of swift, certain, and severe penalties.

By working against the alcohol industry’s promotion of drinking in general, MADD has focused on the negative externalities created by the drunk driver -framing the issue as a deviant behavior (Ross). This strategy allowed the movement to gain support even from the alcohol industry itself. Starting from being a small group of women to a nationwide organization with over 600 chapters across 50 states, MADD has become the most influential citizen group fighting drunk driving.

The organization’s 2003-2004 annual report shows that its assets reached more than $28 million and revenues more than $53 million (MADD). As with other anti-drunk driving laws, MADD was the main actor behind the federal . 08 BAC legislation. With support of other non-profit organizations, MADD members brought the issue to the public attention. They lobbied key members of Congress, organized media campaigns, participated in press events and other activities, and published fact sheets and statistical information demonstrating the significance of the policy initiative (Ross).

They not only contacted the president and obtained his support, but also reached both Democrat and Republican members of the Congress gaining bipartisan support, necessary for passage of the legislation. MADD saw the fight for . 08 BAC as a fight for public safety. Karolyn Nunnallee, the president of the organization, once said, “The danger imposed by a drunk driver does not stop at State lines. Neither should the standards that define drunk driving” (190). Conclusion Like many other public policy issues, drunk driving can also be defined and addressed in several ways with every definition proposing a different solution.

Contrary to the dominant paradigm, for example, drunk driving can be considered as a public health issue. Then the solution would be rehabilitation of offenders rather than imposing sanctions on them. However, efforts of MADD and other grassroots organizations to define the problem in criminal justice terms by describing the problem as of a “sin” committed by irresponsible “killer drunks” against “innocent” victims succeed over other possible definitions of the problem as well as the solutions attached to them (Meier).

Their success of the definition of the problem yielded social construction of the target group as “deviants” with negative connotations and weak political power who deserve sanctions either than rehabilitation. Although proponents of drunk driving policies have been successful in defining the issue in terms of “sin” that no one could stand for it, opponents were also successful – to some extent – in addressing the issue by questioning the effectiveness of deterrent based policies.

They were able to frame the issue in such a manner that opposition became legitimate. Meier contends that when the opponents are able to change the social construction of the debate from sin to some other dimension, the redistributive nature of the policy becomes open and acknowledged (694). At this point, we can hold that the drunk driving issue was transformed from the politics of sin to the politics of redistribution when alcohol and hospitality industries considered that the stricter laws -as in the case of federal .

08 BAC legislation- would threat alcohol sales. They were not successful, however, in changing issue entirely from being a policy of sin and could not defend drunk driving, but emphasized the potential inefficiency of measures to curb drunk driving. Moreover, they could not sustain holding that position over time and once again the dominant definition of the problem prevailed yielding more punitive tools to deter drunk driving. MADD has been acknowledged as the driving force that transformed drunk driving into a public problem which warrants governmental action.

Moreover, MADD as a citizen advocacy group is an important factor in shaping policies in American states. The results provided evidence for the effects of MADD not only on states’ adoption of anti-drunk driving laws but also adoption of traffic safety measures in general. Works Cited Baum, Scott. “Drink Driving as a Social Problem: Comparing the Attitudes and Knowledge of Drink Driving Offenders and the General Community. ” Accident Analysis and Prevention. 32 (2000): 689-694. Evans, William N. , Doreen Neville, and John D. Graham.

“General Deterrence of Drunk Drivers: Evaluation of Recent American Policies. ” Risk Analysis. 11 (1991): 279-289. Hanson, David J. “Mothers Against Drunk Driving: A Crash Course in MADD,” 2002 <http://www. alcoholfacts. org/CrashCourseOnMADD. html> MADD. Saving Lives: Mothers Against Drunk Driving Annual Report 2003-2004, 2004. Meier, Kenneth J. (1994). The Politics of Sin: Drugs, Alcohol, and Public Policy. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe. Meier, Kenneth J. “Drugs, Sex, Rock, and Roll: A Theory of Morality Politics. ” Policy Studies Journal. 27 (4) (1999): 681-695.

Nunnallee, Karolyn. “Pro & Con: Should Congress Pass . 08 Blood-Alcohol Concentration (BAC) Drunk Driving Standard? ” Congressional Digest. 11 (6-7) (1998): 178-191. Reinarman, Craig. “The Social Construction of an Alcohol Problem: The Case of Mothers Against Drunk Drivers and Social Control in 1980s. ” Theory and Society. 17 (1988): 91-120. Ross, H. Laurence. Confronting Drunk Driving: Social Policy for Saving Lives. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1992 Stewart, Kathryn and James Fell. “Trends in Impaired Driving in the United States: Complacency or Backsliding?

” In Daniel R. Mayhew and Claude Dussault eds. Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Alcohol, Drugs and Traffic Safety, Montreal, Canada, August 4-9, 2002. Voas, Robert B. and John H. Lacey. “Drunk Driving Enforcement, Adjudication, and Sanctions in the United States. ” in R. Jean Wilson and Robert E. Mann eds. Drinking and Driving: Advances in Research and Prevention. New York, NY: The Guildford Press, 1990 Weed, Frank J. “The Victim-Activist Role in the Anti-Drunk Driving Movement. ” The Sociological Quarterly. 31 (3) (1990): 459-473.

Drunk Driving Essay

John Henry: The Steel Driving Man Essay

John Henry: The Steel Driving Man Essay.

John Henry, a USA champion credited for outdoing a steam hammer in a race only to die later, has dominated many stories, songs, novels and plays. Henry was also a legendary illustration of 1800s US worker population. Contemporary illustrations portray Henry as hitting rail barbs; earlier versions show him when having been born with his hands holding a mallet forcing rock blasting openings. Making holes on rocks is an element of the procedure of digging up railroads cuttings and tunnels.

The real John Henry was born a slave (1840-1850), employed by the railway as a manual worker following the Civil War.

He died in his 30s widowing a young beautiful wife plus a baby. “John Henry was among prisoners who were shipped in to perform rail road construction jobs. The prisoners mainly labored at the Lewis Tunnel. The company contracted to lay the rail road was time barred to complete the tunnel work as at 1872” (Stein, 1969, p. 14). Majority of versions depict john Henry as being a black male representing the marginalization of all USA workers occasioned by modern changes in America.

John Henry’s legend is commonly regarded as a classic depiction of the vanity of resisting the 1800s technological advancements that upturned conventional material labor duties. labor activists interpret the story as showing that majority of skilled employees are marginalized owing to firms being less interested in workers’ welfare and health and more interested in production and efficiency. Even though john Henry depicted himself as being more effective than the machine, he labored to death ands the machine nevertheless replaced him (Burt, 2001, p. 17). Henry is reported as having been born strong and huge weighing thirty three pounds.

The man grows to be the mid 1800s renowned steel man to put up railroads across the western mountains. In a bid to protect both his employment and that of fellow workers, upon acquisition by the railroad proprietor of a steam-propelled hammer to substitute his majority blacks crew, Henry invites the proprietor to a challenge between the machine and Henry himself. Henry outperforms the hammer but dies from exhaustion. A particular myth claims that john Henry represented a 1840s Missouri-born slave and that he fought the famed battle against the machine in the course of the West Virginia Talcott Ohio and Chesapeake railway.

Roy C. Long, railway historian, established that many Big Bend Tunnels existed in the course of the Ohio and Chesapeake railway. In addition, numerous black males named ‘John Henry’ worked at the railway. No written proof was unearthed to confirm the existence of such a machine-man battle. Scott Reynolds, a College of William and Mary professor, contends that a Big Bend Tunnel steam machine contest could not have happened owing to the absence of written proof to the same from railway records.

To date, no written evidence has been discovered to clear the air as regards the occurrence and venue of such a duel (Bolden, 2003, p. 63). In his 2006 book “Steel Drivin’ Man”, Scott nelson utilizes John William Henry, who might have worked in Virginia’s Lewis Tunnel and died therein. Nelson argues that the lifeless body of John W. Henry was taken to the penitentiary at Virginia and interred at a group grave next to a whitish workhouse situated near a railway. “Several loopholes regarding the proof that nelson’s candidate was the mythical figure exist.

Identifying a male by the name ‘John Henry’ out of the in excess of two hundred convicts laboring at Lewis Tunnel was very easy” (Bolden, 2003, p. 25). The name combination, ‘John Henry’ was common in the 1800s. It is surprising that nelson did not identify in excess of one candidate. Having identified a male having ‘Henry’ as his name is inconsequential. At no instance in the legend or ballad is it indicated that ‘Henry’ represented a family name. In addition, no evidence has been forwarded to identify Henry as having been a steel driver.

The character could have worked as a shaker, cook, mucker, water boy, sharpener or porter. In the event that Henry was a steel driver, his little figure (5’ 1-1/4” tall) negates the concept that the character was hired as a steel driver. Testimonial evidence has it that bob Jones was Lewis Tunnel’s finest driver. “No proof exists to support the occurrence of a particular Lewis Tunnel competition between machine and a man. Nelson’s claim of a group competition is feeble. It is more likely that hand boring was employed in heading, the place where horizontal openings are needed.

Steam boring was employed on the work surface where vertical openings are required” (Burt, 2001, p. 19). Such a situation would not consist of a competition. It has been concluded that Lewis Tunnel steel borers were only employed on work surfaces and thus they were incapable of performing horizontal drilling. Nelson is close to misinterpreting the application of a contractor for provision of a steam borer boiler. Nelson envisages two side-bi-side hole rows with one having been drilled by a steam borer and the other by use of hands. He implies that both rows are manually drilled. This interpretation is restricted.

Drilling involving two men is referred to as ‘double jack’ usually shortened to ‘double’ and converted into a verb. It has not been conclusively determined that john Henry passed away at Lewis Tunnel. The man might have run away as most prisoners did. Evidence indicating that dead prisoners’ bodies were returned to Virginia Penitentiary is feeble. Nelson mentions a stipulation between the Rail Company and Virginia Penitentiary that demands for one hundred dollar fine should not be returned. “It was agreed that contactors would specify a bond that pledged that convicts returned safely.

Nelson seems to regard taking back a corpse as a secure return; thus corpses were returned to evade the penalty stated in the bond” (Naden, 1980, p. 38). It is more probable that dead prisoners were interred at the Lewis Tunnel cemetery. Testimony confirming this is present and the arrangement seems economical. Nelson asserts that boxes in john Henry’s grave had small sand layers separating them. He implies that sand was deposited at burial time. The supposed grave where john Henry was interred was discovered at the location where Virginia Penitentiary stood. Archaeologists concluded that the earth around the grave wasn’t sandy.

A ballad architect would not regard this arrangement as burying in sand. The concept of “White House” is odd since it is neither a common or anticipated burial location. The concept is also attractive since it brings in mind the Washington white house. John Henry would turn to be a prominent figure to be interred herein. The White House theme was incorporated to attract singers by making them desire for the prominence of their hero. Nevertheless, numerous John Henry’s versions don’t mention the “White House” but state that john Henry was interred in a ‘new’ burial pace.

Controversial peculiarities are improbable to have occurred in the initial version. The idea that numerous editions indicate that John Henry was interred elsewhere confirms that the White House theme was probably an element introduced during transmission of ballad. White house could have been a derivative of earlier “white road’ concepts existent in a particular edition of john Henry. “White road” may have implied the sandy highway going into Sand Ridge graveyard in Alabama. “The graveyard is sandy and borders the railroad tracks. A grave with no markings, probably a 1887 black male’s, is located outside the hedge.

John Henry Dabney, who probably battled a Dunnavant steam mill, could have been interred here” (Pursue, Center, 2005, p. 39). Nelson’s assertion that Cal Evans dislocated from Lewis to Big Bend Tunnel and promulgated John Henry legends is likely erroneous. As a rail road employee, Evans itinerary proves that he never went to Lewis Tunnel. Johnson documents Evans as saying that he never met john Henry but merely related legends as he obtained them from secondary sources. Additionally, nelson does not comprehensibly and coherently provide a review or existing literature on John Henry.

Nelson’s account doesn’t tackle Chappell’s and Johnson’s arguments supportive of West Virginia’s Big Bend Tunnel as john Henry’s location. Nelson also does not mention Dr. Garst’s argument in favor of Alabama’s Coosa and Oak as john Henry’s location. John Henry’s existence was centered on power; the personal raw potency that could not be wrenched from an individual; and weakness signifying the lowly social position the character was placed at. “He inspired and was a model for the many railroad laborers who also toiled in deplorable, uncompromising situations.

John Henry’s narration was also a rebellion anthem or laborer’s attempts at denouncing the inhuman situations surrounding Henry’s work life without attracting rebuff or penalties from their bosses” (Stein, 1969, p. 41). John Henry’s narration also assisted the laborers to envisage their escape from the Tunnel. Other analysts argue that john Henry’s persona was centered on power and sex. Some depictions show john Henry as a man opened to own sexual desires, traversing rural areas driving own steel. Louis W. Chappell points out that sexual imagery is abundant and clear in john Henry’s narrations.

Within the mount the atmosphere was blistering and thick and the room cramped. Numerous laborers were semi-nude or completely nude. Thus the workers chanted sexually –laden songs concerning their work and sexual hero to console them in those hard days (Burt, 2001, p. 63). To suggest that john Henry challenged the machines is absurd since the situation was grim- life-and-earth struggle. Henry, as well as all other laborers, was obligated to oil at the Lewis Tunnel. Majority of all workers passed way within five to six years. Silicosis, occasioned by inhaling of crystalline rock dust, made the laborers succumb.

Louis Chappell (1933) and guy Johnson’s (1929) books discredit the myth that john Henry competed with a Big Bend Tunnel steam borer. The two writers’ efforts failed to identify any substantial evidence despite interviewing about twelve people who labored in building the tunnel. A single man, whose evidence was feeble, alleged to having had witnessed the competition. The rest stated that such a challenge could not have occurred, otherwise they could have heard about it. References Bolden, T. (2003). Afro-blue: improvisations in African American poetry and culture. Literary Criticism. Burt, D.

S. (2001). The biography book: A reader’s guide to nonfiction, fictional, and film biographies of more than 500 most fascinating individuals of all time. Greenwood Publishing Group. John Henry – the story – Alabama. Retrieved on 2nd April 2009 from http://www. ibiblio. org/john_henry/alabama. html Naden, C. (1980). John Henry, Steel Driving Man. London: Routledge Pursell, C & Center, L. (2005). A hammer in their hands: a documentary history of technology and the African culture. London: Routledge Stein, R. (1969). Steel Driving Man: The Legend of John Henry. New York: Blackwell Publishers

John Henry: The Steel Driving Man Essay

Raising the Driving Age Essay

Raising the Driving Age Essay.

Earning a driver’s license is a most important event for most young Americans. Sixteen is the minimum age at which Indiana teenagers can obtain a driver’s license. How can anyone say that rising the driving age would be favorable to the general community? While it is true that the amount of car accidents involving teenagers is notably higher than the number involving the older portion of the population, that is still not a likely reason for declining fifteen and sixteen year olds the right to drive.

Some people might say, “Most sixteen year olds do not have the experience it takes to be in control on the road.” How can one become experienced without practice? There would be so many disadvantages to raising the legal driving age by even two more years.

When most American youths are fifteen and sixteen, they are still under the constant watch of their parents; every aspect of their life is analyzed. While this may be annoying to some teens, it does tend to keep them out of trouble.

Most teens need the driving tips and lessons provided by their parents. A lot of teens are out on their own or in college when they turn eighteen. Therefore, their parents are not there to teach them how to parallel park or merge into a lane of traffic.

Being under your parents’ roof also provides extra motivation to stay out of trouble. Many parents tell their children that their license will be taken or they will be grounded if they get a parking ticket or get busted speeding. The never ending harass of parents tends to steer teenagers away from alcohol, drugs, and other disobedience issues. When you are on your own, your parents are not there to remind you to obey the speed limit and stay a few car lengths behind the car in front of you. These may sound like minor things, but if they are not practiced, you can get into a lot of trouble.

Another reason why it would not be wise to raise the driving age is that many eighteen year olds have schooling they need to get to and jobs they need to hold in order to support themselves or even their own family. It would be senseless to have a bunch of eighteen year olds out on the interstate going forty-five miles per hour or crashing into the median. Just the fact that they are eighteen does not automatically make them better drivers. They still need to practice as with any other task. It seems to me that the only effects of raising the driving age would be a lot of displeased young people and just as many car accidents as we have now.

Raising the Driving Age Essay

Should Senior Citizens Have to Retake the Driving Test? Essay

Should Senior Citizens Have to Retake the Driving Test? Essay.

Whether senior citizens should retake the driver’s test is a very interesting and controversial subject. Although many people feel that singling out a particular group for special treatment is discriminatory, I believe this is outweighed by the safety issues involved.

Elderly people are notoriously poor drivers, and have a disproportionate number of accidents. With the exception of very new drivers, as a group elderly people have the highest accident rate. One reason why this may be so is that older people generally received their licenses decades ago, and are possibly not aware of the new traffic laws.

However, this is probably not the major factor. It is more likely that seniors are less competent drivers because of their diminished sensory capacity and slower processing speed.

Hearing and vision tend to become less sharp with age, and as a result older people might not see objects in their path, or hear warning horns. Furthermore, their reflexes tend to be slower. That is, even if they do hear or see dangerous objects, their slower reaction time might prevent them from responding in time to avoid the danger.

In addition, elderly drivers (perhaps in an attempt to compensate for the above) tend to drive too slowly, often considerably slower than the posted speed limit. Their excessive caution and slow pace tends to irritate other drivers, who may swerve or react angrily, which may increase the possibility of accidents.

I believe that all senior citizens should retake the entire driving test including the vision, written and road tests after they reach age 65 and every three years thereafter. Should they fail, I believe their licenses should be revoked. They should be allowed to take driver’s education classes, but they should not be permitted to drive until they are able to pass the driving test. Hopefully this proposal will eliminate many of the careless accident-prone drivers, and decrease the number of motor vehicle injuries and deaths.

Should Senior Citizens Have to Retake the Driving Test? Essay

My hobby which is driving Essay

My hobby which is driving Essay.

Do you ever get that urge to just run away? Or like you are about to explode with anger for no reason? Ever feel like you are so swamped with work from school that you want to quit college, just for a minute? These are all urges induced by stress. We all find ways to escape in order to gather ourselves, even if it is just for a little while. I live in an apartment in Brooklyn and share a bedroom with my little sister which is a huge stress factor in my life.

I didn’t have many options when I was a young teen. Where was a young girl like me supposed to go when I had had enough? Public transportation never appealed to me. I wasn’t old enough to drive yet, so the only thing I could do was go outside and hang out on the block with my neighborhood friends.

But I yearned to be off by myself once in a while and taking a long walks on cold winter days just didn’t cut it.

I couldn’t wait to grow up so I could just take off and leave when I really felt the need, instead of staying home in a place where a fight was bound to break out. Then I turned 17 my grandpa decided to teach me how to drive. Next thing I knew I had my license and I was off! My life had changed completely. It was now my source of stress relief, and on top of that it enabled me to expand my social life by traveling to more places out of Brooklyn where the party scene was more appealing. Now I could get in my grandpa’s old car and cut through the air at exhilarating speeds with the wind in my hair and my rock music blasting. I was free as a bird.

Everyone has their little method of chilling out and relaxing and driving is mine. Jeff Greenwald gave a great example in Health magazine when he discussed Zen driving. He said that the feeling begins the moment you enter your car, and settle yourself…at that point the car becomes an extension of yourself. Your tires should feel like the bottom of your shoe, and the rear-view mirror becomes your third eye. This is exactly how I release all that pent up tension. My car and I fuse into one and I forget about what I was doing before, I don’t think about my destination, all that matters is what I am doing at that moment. I admit I do on occasion take my anger out on the road but I would NEVER put someone else’s life at stake. That’s why I am usually out driving at weird hours of the night when there isn’t many others out there on the road with me. I like to speed. I like to go on the New York thruway and push that poor peddle of my grandpas Buick past its limits. I may never have driven faster than 100 miles an hour, but I think I’ll save the faster speeds for the day I become a race car driver.

According to the website of Department of Motor Vehicles of New York State there are 3,327,441 licensed drivers in NYC in 2003. I am one of those drivers. Maybe I am not the only one that likes to drive so much. But I try to be responsible because New York City seems to be famous for bad drivers and just because I am careful doesn’t mean the guy next me is. I say guy because a common stereotype is that women are horrible drivers compared to men I think everyone should be able to make their own decisions only after they have reviewed the facts. According to the DMV of the State of New York in the year 2001, men aged 18-24 were responsible for more than three times the amount of fatal car accidents as women aged 18-24. Car accidents are a scary thing to consider but not something I put a lot of thought into when I first got my license, but seeing a number like 422 fatalities of young men and women in NYC alone isn’t something I take lightly.

The second way driving has impacted my life has been by allowing me to travel further with more ease and in comfort. Having a license takes away my dependence on others. I can call my friends; pick them up, and drive to a club in the city on any given night without having to worry about relying on someone else or about taking the train late at night. According to the MTA New York City Transit schedule, the F train which would normally take me about an hour to get to Manhattan from Brooklyn, runs every 20 minutes on late nights and weekends. But as many of you may have experienced this does not often turn out to be the case.

I have waited for several hours at times and when u are coming back from a club or bar and have a few drinks in you, I doubt you are in no mood to wait that long. That’s when some may resort to taking a cab, but not everyone could afford that luxury, and cab fares can add up if you go out frequently. Though I do have to pay the price of staying sober when I drive, I really don’t mind because it is not the most important thing in the world to me. When I drive I control pretty much everything, the only thing beyond my powers is traffic on the roads but with experience you learn there are plenty of ways to avoid it.

Basically I am content to know that I will always have the road to save me from boredom and distress. I will forever be indulging in the pleasures of driving, and no one will ever be able to take that away from me. At least I hope not.

My hobby which is driving Essay

Road Rage Essay

Road Rage Essay.

It’s a jungle out there, well not really, it’s worse than a jungle. It’s a stretch of roadway and in place of the ravenous tigers, stampeding rhinos and slithery anacondas, are your co-workers, neighbours and friends. even Mum, Dad, Brother, Sister and your best friends. They’re in a hurry and your in their way. So step on it! That light is not going to get any greener! Move it or park it! Tarzan had it easy. Tarzan didn’t have to drive to work.

There is no national definition for the term “road rage”. However, it is commonly defined as a societal condition where motorists lose their temper in reaction to a traffic disturbance. In most cases, the traffic situations encountered are typical of today’s normal driving conditions and higher traffic volumes. Road rage consists of a wide variety of aggressive acts committed by one driver aimed at another. Road rage incidents are often minor, but in recent years the number of deaths related to road rage have steadily increased.

it is often a result of aggressive driving. Aggressive driving includes: cutting off other vehicles, tailgating, excessive speeding, careless lane changes, and running of red lights. According to various studies, the reason for the increase is result of several factors including: traffic congestion, longer commutes to and from work, as well as an over all increase in the daily stresses in peoples lives.

Driving is a curious combination of public and private acts. A car isolates a driver from the world, even as it carries him through it. The sensation of personal power is intoxicating. Sealed in your own little world . The safety belt is strapped snugly across your body and if that fails there is the air bag to save your life. Little bells and lights go off if you make a mistake or there is a problem with the mechanics of the car. The illusions of power, of anonymity, of self-containment pile up. You are the master of your domain. Actually driving the car is the last thing you need to worry about. So you can pick your nose, break wind, fantasise to your heart’s content. Who’s going to know?

Jack Levin a Sociologist at Northeastern University’s program for the study of violence says “There is a real illusion of anonymity combined with potency because you have a machine you can command”. Top it off with the stress of work and people perhaps feeling insecure there, or with troubles at home and it can make for a dangerous combination.

Almost all drivers have experienced some occurrence of road rage. Most of these occurrences are as innocent as a rude gesture, but some drivers have lost their lives because of them. Road rage is an act of aggression that can destroy the life of an innocent driver, but current research is helping drivers cope with the stress of everyday life on the road. Many cases of road rage are caused by simple misunderstandings. Whether it be that a driver was not looking before he turned, or he forgot that his turn signal was left on, people tend to take things the wrong way.

Although there is no offence of “road rage” under Victorian law, severe road rage behaviours can be expressed in the form of criminal acts such as assault or conduct endangering life covered by the Victorian Crimes Act 1958 or in traffic offences covered by the Road Safety Act 1998. Where road rage results in death as a result of culpable driving, this is covered by the Road Safety Act.

Today, it is estimated that there were about 84,000 road rage incidents last year alone. That’s exactly 56 times greater than what it was a few years ago. Not all of these incidents involved physical injuries, but they were all recorded as aggressive incidents. On many occurrences drivers used weapons to vent their frustration on the road. The cause of road rage is typically a form of stress. Whether it be a stolen parking space or getting cut-off, an aggressive driver can lose their temper and patience from frustration. These occurrences are typically how an incident would begin. In many cases, the driver whom is running out of time is the most common instigator of road rage.

When the clock is ticking and the driver is running out of options, they may act in haste to get their way on the road. They don’t care who could be put in harms way as long as they get there when they want to. Other cases start from family problems, school, and simple everyday living. However, most of these occurrences relate back to the matter of time.

Don’t drive when you are angry, upset, or overtired. If you are overly upset about something, resolve the situation before driving your car.Everyone makes mistakes. When someone accidentally makes a mistake such as cutting you off unintentionally, any anger you hold to that driver can be resolved by thinking of of your own driving mistakes or faults. The road is no place to think about your problems. By adjusting your attitude to a more “easy-going” frame of mind, other drivers’ faults should not bother you as much. Don’t mistake other drivers’ faults on the road as intentional. as we are all human we all make mistakes. By teaching proper driving etiqutte, It’s our decision what to do and how to prevent violence on our roads.

Some ways to prevent road rage, include to leave a large space between the 2 cars.The larger the space between you and the driver, the less likely a confrontation will occur. Avoid making eye contact with other drivers. One small glance can be misinterpreted by an angry driver and road rage can erupt. another important item of advice would be to never pull off the road to confront another driver. This will only provoke them more, and one can never know what to expect. avoid creating competitive situations while driving. Even if the situation is not your fault, the result is never a positive outcome, especially if you put yourself in a position to be injured or even killed. Do not take other people’s driving personal. If you allow yourself to be bothered by someone else’s driving you are acting in a behavior that promotes road rage.

People who speed, overtake you, and constantly change lanes don’t really get very far ahead of anybody. There’s too much traffic, there’s just too many other people, too many road works too many pedestrians and too many traffic lights. But do stand back and let someone who’s desperate to overtake you. When you come to a traffic light or something, you’re right behind them. So all their hard effort has resulted in nothing, but they happen to be a few metres further than they were ten minutes ago. Taking risks, taking chances and risking their life and limbs of themselves and of other people, after all that energy, got them a few metres further than they would have been otherwise.

In conclusion, please consider other people when you take part in life changing risks, not only are you putting yourself passengers and other drivers and pedestrians on the road in danger But also your loved ones at home, sons and daughters, wives and husbands, partners, friends and business colleagues who you work with. They are the ones who are left to pick up the pieces of their shattered lives if you don’t come home safely. Not just the immediate victims, but the families of the victims and also of the ‘road ragers’ and aggressive drivers themselves. Do you really want to go beyond the point of self-control and live to regret that one single decision you made?

You may also be interested in the following: road rage essay

Road Rage Essay