Classmate's fatal crash spurs Kiski Area teens' safety video
By Jessica Turnbull
Published: Thursday, Nov. 19, 2009,
Some Kiski Area High School students say the boring videos in driver education class made them fall asleep, not learn safe driving.
So Chelsea Markle, Zac Steele and several classmates spent two years creating a peer-to-peer video after fellow Kiski Area High School junior Lacey Huskuliak, 17, of Bell, was killed in a car crash on Route 66.
"We wanted to keep people's attention," said Steele, 19, of Oklahoma Borough. "We wanted to change the way people drive."
The video will be distributed to 90 Pennsylvania schools to educate students about driving while distracted, said Jennifer McAfee, the high school driver education teacher.
Markle, 18, who appears as a newscaster in the video, said its message was summarized by classmate Matt Cline, who was a passenger in a car that hit a tree at 60 mph. Cline broke his back, was in a coma for three days, on a ventilator for two weeks and in the hospital for a month.
"Be more careful and choose who you hang out with better," Cline said during an interview in the video. "You need to choose who you get into a vehicle with more carefully."
Markle said a video made by students can be more effective than one made by adults.
Markle and Steele, now college freshmen, were among a group of students who were prompted by Huskuliak's death on June 7, 2007.
"We want teenagers to see it, because we want kids to understand that (car crashes) are the number one killer of 15- to 20-year-olds," McAfee said. "It supersedes everything, and no one is doing anything."
The group received two grants totaling $2,000 from State Farm Insurance to create the video, which can be viewed on the Internet at www.youtube.com/watch?v=80e5EA29jUs.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.