However, as we've theorized, the drop in fatal crashes that occurred both in the U.S. and Canada might be better attributed to the numerous vehicular safety improvements have been made in cars since the 1980's, and the fact tgat auto accidents in general have decreased. Hence, it is not so implausible to suggest that alcohol-related auto accidents would decrease as part of this trend. In fact, I'd say it's more implausible to suggest the opposite, considering that, again, alcohol-related fatalities among drivers under 21 have fallen by a similar proportion in Canada, despite the fact that the drinking age remains 18 or 19 depending on the region. Incidentally, this is also NHTSA data.

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/ … caused.htm

Fatal crash data. Data from 1982 to date from the seven provinces for which these data are available (Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Ontario, Prince Edward Island, and Saskatchewan) were provided by the Transport Injury Research Foundation (TIRF). The data differ slightly from the United States FARS data in three ways. First, they record driver fatalities rather than driver involvements in fatal crashes. Second, they aggregate drivers age 16-19 rather than drivers under 21 as has been used for the United States. Finally, the TIRF file does not estimate alcohol presence for a driver without a BAC test. The proportion of fatally injured drivers with a positive BAC is calculated only for the drivers with a BAC test. Most drivers are tested: 76 percent of the age 16-19 driver fatalities in 1982 and 93 percent in 1997.
 
These differences may affect comparisons between the Canadian and United States data somewhat. For example, if BAC tests are available less frequently for sober drivers than for drinking drivers, then the proportion of fatally-injured drivers with a positive BAC calculated only from the tested drivers may overstate the proportion for all fatally-injured drivers. But these differences should not affect the trends over time or trend comparisons between the two countries.
 
Figure 31 shows the trend in Canadian fatally-injured drinking drivers aged 16-19. It looks rather similar to the United States trend of Figure 1, with a rapid decrease through about 1993 and no substantial change since then. (The Canadian trend fluctuates more from year to year than the United States trend since the absolute number of Canadian traffic fatalities is much smaller.) Figure 32 shows how very similar the two trends are by plotting both using a base of 1982 = 100 percent.
  [CENTER]
[FONT=Arial]Figure 31.
  Canadian Driver Fatalities, Age 16-19, with Positive BAC
[/FONT] 

[FONT=Arial]Figure 32.
  US and Canadian Trends, Percentage Change from 1982
US:  drivers under age 21 in fatal crashes with positive BAC (FARS)
Canada:  driver fatalities age 16-19 with positive BAC (TIRF)
[/FONT]  [/CENTER]

Figure 33 shows the trend in the proportion of fatally-injured Canadian drivers with a positive BAC. The trend is similar to the corresponding United States trend of Figure 3. The absolute percentages are higher in Canada: 67 percent in 1982 (compared to 43 percent in the United States) and 39 percent in 1997 (compared to 21 percent). Some of this difference may be a result of the different methods used to estimate alcohol involvement in the two data files. Some may in fact reflect higher drinking and driving rates in Canada. But the trends in the two countries again appear very similar. Figure 34 compares the trends directly.
      [CENTER]
[FONT=Arial]Figure 33.
  Percent of Canadian Driver Fatalities, Age 16-19, with Positive BAC
[/FONT] 

[FONT=Arial]Figure 34.
  US and Canadian Trends, Percentage Change from 1982
    US:  percentage of drivers under age 21 in fatal crashes with positive BAC (FARS)
Canada:  percentage of driver fatalities age 16-19 with positive BAC (TIRF)
[/FONT]  [/CENTER]

Figures 32 and 34 show the same thing: as measured by fatal crash data, youth drinking and driving decreases in the United States and Canada from 1982 to 1997 were virtually identical. Other data strengthen this conclusion. In both countries, the number of young drinking drivers in fatal crashes decreased more rapidly than the number of older drinking drivers. A roadside survey in British Columbia produced results similar to Roeper and Voas (1999): a much smaller proportion of drivers age 16-19 than older drivers had a positive BAC, or a BAC exceeding the legal limit of 0.08 (Mayhew and Simpson, 1999).
 
Survey data. Smart, Adlaf, and Walsh (1994) report on biennial surveys of about 4,000 Ontario high school students similar to the Monitoring the Future surveys in the United States. Table 17 summarizes self-reported drinking changes from 1979 to 1991 from the two surveys.
  Since the Ontario data come from a sample of students in grades 7-13, while the United States data come from high school seniors, it's no surprise that overall self-reported drinking levels are lower in Ontario. The reductions, though, are generally similar: a modest reduction in annual drinking, substantial reductions in binge drinking, and reductions close to 50 percent in both daily drinking (at low levels in both countries) and driving after drinking.

The NHTSA attributes this to alcohol education programs in Canada, (which would still question the necessity of a high drinking age), but has essentially no evidence to validate this claim. It could very well be true, of course, but I'm inclined to believe that vehicular safety improvements in industrialized countries resulted in these overall decreases.

Be sure to refer to this data in debates.

Once she arrives at the correctional boarding school, she will be cut off from the surrounding world. Only her birthfather and stepmother will be her lifeline to the world and protection from any torment she will face at this school.

The length of her stay is not determinded by her actions up to the detention at boarding school, so she is not even granted the rights of a criminal who knows for how long they are put in jail.

It is a boarding school which helps the custodial parents to cut off children from the non-custodial parents. It is in fact a part of their marketing.

Please help out. Write the school and make them aware they their presence in this awful business has been noticed, so the Hillsboro girl knows that people still have room for humanity.

For more info see this facebook group and this thread on the Fornits message board.

We host one of the copies of a world directory of Gulag schools. We have records about such school in more than 25 countries.

We maintain victim lists of teenagers who have died during their so-called treatment.

It doesn't matter if the methods used is boot camps, wilderness programs, boarding schools. Teenagers die at them regardless of what type they are.

Here is a link to the mainpage of the database.

We are sorry to say that we had to make a recent update of the victim list because two U.S. teenagers have lost their lives in program this summer.

We're also needing to change our agenda, so we'd like to know what works for the members.

I consider these requirements unconstitutional because they are an invasion of privacy (grades and registration are private matters), biased against age (since someone over 18-years old does not need to prove their GPA from their high school years) and a violation of equal protection under the law.  I do not see how the state could prove that these requirements serve an important state interest that is at all related to the ability of a child to drive safely, and thus cannot pass the strict scrutiny required to violate our right to privacy and equal protection under the constitution. 

I was told by a DMV employee over the phone that driving is a privilege, not a right, and that kids had to earn it.  There is no such requirement for those over 18 and they do have a right as long as they can pass the test and pay the money.  Even insurance companies do not look at the GPA of someone in high school, though some do look at the college GPA if a "child" is in college - but only so far as to decide how much to charge for the premium.

Furthermore, it seems to be a violation of free speech since some people do not believe in tests and grades, including us.  Therefore, if a child pursues his right to not take tests, or not take them seriously if he is required to take them, he/she is excluded from driving.  And, those who cannot or will not prove their grades or their homeschooling or virtual school participation due to privacy concerns are also excluded.  And, those who are philosophically or religiously opposed to registration, grades, and/or testing are also prevented from obtaining a driver's license.  Our "school" goes by the philosophy of Sudbury schools where life is the lesson and no one can grade us on it.  So, no grades are possible.

Furthermore, according to Arkansas law, a child of 14-16 is not allowed to drive without a licensed adult, no matter how skilled or whether they have taken special courses or had 2000 hours of experience.  They are not treated equally to those who are over 18 or even those who may come here from another country, can't read the language (they can have the test translated or read to them), can't understand the signs, and are not citizens - only because of age.  And, those under 18 are restricted by who they can have in their car.  Someone under 16 cannot have any unrelated people in the car.  Someone under 18 can have no more than one other unrelated person. 

These laws severely harm families who need their children to drive themselves.  It may prevent the children from getting a job, going to educational events or lessons, and otherwise pursuing their life, liberty and freedom.  It may even prevent their parents from obtaining gainful employment just because they must get their children to these events.

I believe everyone should be a responsible driver and that licenses should only be retained by those who have the physical and mental ability to safely drive.  However, these age-discriminating laws in no way ensure that.  Can anyone direct me in how to approach this to begin to make changes?

All the best,

Rastko
Belgrade

WRONG! Pick up some talking points in this 6-minute video, if your attention span is long enough.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4CQKPYDRew

According to the famous Harvard Implicit Association studies, most people prefer young people to old people.

Yet, most people seem to be against youth rights. Why is this?

I think if there were some way we could show people just how similar they are to other people regardless of age, the youth rights movement would take off a lot faster. It would be hard since most people today have very selfish ways of thinking.

The Court in that case interpreted § 172.1 of the criminal code so as to allow prosecution of adults who "communicate by computer with underage children or adolescents for the purposes of facilitating the commission of [] offenses."

However, and this is the scary part, the Court defines facilitation to include "grooming," "reducing their inhibitions," and "prurient discourse."  Further, the Court went on to note that "sexually explicit language is not an essential element of the offense[]" and that grooming can include "conversations about their home life, their personal interests or other innocuous topics."  And since the intent to actually commit an underlying offense (or even to meet the minor) is not an element of the crime, the ruling has been interpreted by some as effectively criminalizing online adult-youth communication:

For more information, CTV has a decent article at: http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/s … hub=Canada

The decision can be read at: http://csc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/2009/2 … scc56.html