Critical Analysis of a Research Article-Driving Behavior of Licensed Essay

Critical Analysis of a Research Article-Driving Behavior of Licensed and Unlicensed Teeagers - Essay Example The hypothesis in the article on driving behavior of licensed and unlicensed teenagers concerns the undesirable effects of teenage driving. It has been observed that teenagers are involved in a higher number of accidents as compared to other groups of people leading to a high death rate and serious injuries. The study determines the prevalence and the risks and associated factors for unlicensed drivers in their teenage years. The major purpose of the study is for exploratory reasons. This kind of study is a form of social research that is conducted by use of questionnaires and formulation of hypotheses. The current case of study is appropriate for this kind of research as it does not have to endorse its typicality. The students who took part in the research gave details about their race, driver education history, alcohol or substance use and their grades in the previous month. The students also gave information on how often they drove and for what purpose. The students also gave information on the most helpful person in teaching them how to drive and the driver’s education. The school location was also an important variable and it was classified into rural, town, suburban and central city. Students were also expected to report on their driving behaviors and occurrences including number of accidents experienced, number of hours driven weekly, the use of seatbelts and the speeding rate they used according to American Academy of Pediatrics (2010). A national representative school based survey was carried out to establish whether students in their teenage years practiced unlicensed driving, the associated behaviors, the risks they are exposed to and demographic factors. Unlicensed driving is driving when one has no official license or when one is not authorized to do so. American Academy of Pediatrics (20100 explains that the survey was conducted on all school attending students regardless of their

Policy memo summarizing a public hearing Assignment

Policy memo summarizing a public hearing - Assignment Example Sally Clark, the Chair of the Committee on the Built Environment, opened the Public Hearing at 5:30, in the Seattle City Council Chambers. Also present were Vice-Chair Tim Burgess, and Council Member Sally Bagshaw.1 Three basic categories of debate and comment were heard on the evening: a) development proposals in urban areas; b) neighborhood planning; and c) complaints regarding the process of the plan amendment process. THE PROCESS FOR ADOPTION OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE ANNUAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The Comprehensive Management Plan of the City of Seattle is open to amendments once a year, according to the Washington State Growth Management Act.2 During 2010, the schedule for the submission, proposal and adoption of specific amendments to be examined was as follows: May 14, 2010: Deadline for the submission of a maximum of 10 applications;3 June 19, 2010: Introduction and briefing regarding the proposed amendments to the Council Committee on the Built Environment;4 July 8, 2010: Pu blic Hearing at which particular proposals are considered, at which argument for or against proposals may be raised, and the proposals to go forward are evaluated; July 14, 2010: Briefing of Committee and further discussion to determine which proposed amendments will be given further review and analysis, in light of the commentary at the Public hearing; July 28, 2010: Voting is conducted;5 December 1, 2010: Final recommendations on the proposed amendments are submitted to the Council.6 SELECTION CRITERIA FOR AMENDMENTS Specific criteria are considered by the City Council in identifying amendments to the Comprehensive Plan, according to Resolution 30976, adopted on May 14, 2007. These criteria can be categorized under the following central statements as follows: A. The amendment is appropriate for the Comprehensive Plan. B. The amendment is legal. C. It is practical to consider the amendment. D. There has been a neighborhood review process to develop and proposed change to a neighbor hood plan, or a neighborhood review process can be conducted prior to final Council consideration of the amendment.7 For the amendment to be appropriate, it has to be in line with the State Growth Management Plan, referred to above. Likewise, it should not contradict national planning, nor should it be possible to implement it by a change in regulations only. If the amendment could be implemented by changes to budget, or already existing programs, or processes, it will not be adopted. Further, the timing, the available staffing requirements suggested by an amendment, and the information available for analysis of the proposal will be considered. Only when the Mayor or Council are in favor of changing policy significantly, if necessary, as proposed by a specific amendment, will it be considered, as long as it does not as mentioned, contradict the Comprehensive Plan. If a proposal has been rejected by the City Council already, it may not be re-tabled. Finally, it must not break nationa l or state laws. SUMMARY: PUBLIC COMMENTARY AND DEBATE The first proposed amendment (Proposed Amendment Number One: PA #1) was tabled by the Department of Planning and Development.8 The essence of the proposal included the suggested update of the shoreline master program, to include comment on a container