Response To Graham And White

4. Response Below the title of the article, the authors, Graham and White, presents a sneak preview of the contents of the article that enticed me to keep reading. In the first sentence, the authors write of a “perception that hoons are a major danger” which made me curious as to the reality of the situation. Then, the writers state that young drivers are disproportionately involved in crashes. Citing a statistic that everyone knows is true made me feel on common ground with the authors. The writers were not trying to point fingers, but, instead, wanted to set the story straight by telling us the facts concerning dangerous driving. Soon after, Graham and White started explaining car lingo thus seemingly begging the unfamiliar reader to learn, giving me the impression they want to get the word out about what wasn’t causing the accidents, hoons. Next, the authors point out the media is sensationalizing reports, supported by the concerted efforts of President Trump, of hot-rodders as dangerous drivers. From the get-go, I was
The quality of their arguments is logical, factually sound, and addresses the complexity of the youth driving culture. Towards the end of the article, the authors give suggestions based on statistics as to specific factors that contribute to fatal accidents involving young drivers, none of which included hooning or driving high-performance vehicles. I found my spirit kindred with the authors’, shaking my head in agreement while reading, and in awe of their organized argument. In my opinion, the authors’ different, yet complementary backgrounds in criminology and sociology make for a winning combination in uncovering the probable causes of unsafe driving by young people, while defending the car