The numbers speak for themselves. Statistics have shown that 15% of all accident deaths on UK roads involve drivers under the age of 21. Research shows that 17 to 20 year olds are about seven times more likely to be killed or injured in an accident (per mile of driving). This is illustrated by the fact that 135 teenage drivers were killed on UK roads during 2007, with many more injured. Raising the minimum driving age to 18 would dramatically decrease deaths and injuries.

Raising the age does not guarantee a reduction in deaths. Rather, it would just change the statistics from "17 to 20 year olds" to "18 to 21 year olds". The reason why drivers crash is a lack of experience, and an 18 year old with one year's worth of experience is just as likely to crash as a 17 year old with one year's experience. For that matter, it would be the same with a 35 year old with one year's experience. Raising the age therefore would not dramatically increase deaths and injuries. You may be able to change the age, but you can't change the people! Additionally, one cannot say logically that one must raise the driving age because teenagers are harming others and/or being harmed while driving. For example, a parallel can be found in driving statistics for males versus females. According to studies, males of all ages are 77% more likely to kill someone when driving than females. It would be just as illogical to raise the driving age to 18 as to ban males from driving.it won't help if your sitting on tour butt for two more years doing nothing you might be more mature at 18 but that doesn't mean your mature enough for the road.

One reason to show that 18 year olds have a more mature mind then 16 year olds is because of the pressure of college and being on your own. When you are 18 you think about the life ahead of you which stresses you out because one day you will have to pay for everything and also if you are not yet in college you would rather have some money then your parents pay for an accident.

Everybody is different. To say that someone at the age of seventeen is not mentally mature is a sweeping generalisation. Some people by the age of 18 may well not have reached what the proposition cite as "full mental maturity". Some people may never reach "full mental maturity". We mature at different rates, and therefore we have safeguards to ensure that those driving have sufficient "mental maturity", and it's called "the driving test". If you haven't passed, you can't legally drive without a person who has held a full clean licence for three years with you. Doing so is breaking the law and is punished. Raising the age to 18 would have no effect whatsoever because the driving test is there to ensure the "mental maturity" of the driver before he is fully qualified. Peole are going to be the same no matter how old they are! There are some people that are 20 years old and above that are still not mature. It so depends on what type of person you are. People need to grow up sometime.

Im 17 years old, didnt take drivers ed, took ten questions for my written drivers test (in oklahoma), failed my behind the seat drivers test, went back got a hundred, have yet to be pulled over, and get a ticket. Never got in a wreck, dont talk on my cell phone, can drive in cities like LA and San Francisco no problem. And see many many many horrible drivers everywhere i go. I dont think the age limit should be raised, i think if you fuck up once you lose your privilege to drive period. Stupid biased point.

The immaturity of some young people may deem that they are not sensible enough to be let loose on the roads. British law does not allow citizens most adult privileges until the age of 18. Why should driving be any different?

The proposition forgets that drivers are not "let loose" on the roads, but that they must take a test first to ensure their driving proficiency. And to generalise and say that 17 year olds are immature is wrong. In fact, many boy-racers are over the age of 20 at least. Look at the presenters and audience of Top Gear.

If young people are not permitted to drive, they would effectively be forced into looking for alternatives to get about. This may mean that they are encouraged to use greener alternatives such as public transport. Instilling this idea at a young age could mean that they think about the environment more in the future – an ever increasing issue in today’s climate.

People should have the choice as to whether they drive or use other forms of transport. If the government wanted to promote greener transport then it should do it in a way that does not just discriminate against young people. Also not everybody has access to public transport especially young people! This in turn would be a much less effective way for young people to get about as they would become more reliant on others, like their parents, to get them about which is not always practical.

They should not be allowed to carry passengers until one year after passing the test. This would allow them to acquire some road sense and, hopefully, common sense. Any misdemeanours and the clock restarts. Three strikes within that year and they are banned for life. Brutal? So is the loss of an innocent life.

This has nothing to do with raising the legal driving age. First off there is already a restriction that states that a driver under the age of 18 cannot have more than one non-family member under 18 as a passenger in their car. Get your facts straight. And why should all younger drivers be penalised for the mistakes for a few. As some studies have shown 77% of males of all ages are more likely to kill someone than a female, so should be also ban males from having passengers? Also I thought the 'P' plate process was a 'settling down' process, where PROVISIONAL drivers are watched more closely than open drivers..

They will have lots of work to do! Believe me I know! I tried to learn whilst I was in Uni and I just couldn’t cope with the amount of work and learning how to drive. It’s been two years since I first tried to pass the test and I still haven’t passed!

So instead all the 18 year old drivers are the ones not smart enough to go to University or the ones who do go but had very little time to practice. Now you will just have the poor 18 year old drivers giving their smart friends rides to school. great.

There are just as many people who are careless and inconsiderate drivers who are much older than 17year olds. Some 17 year old drivers are more sensible and cautious than those who have been driving for years. Many more elderly people are dangerous on roads than younger people as they have slower reaction times and can struggle with visibility. Therefore, should older people have to re-take a test to make sure they are still fit to drive? Younger drivers may be less experienced, but doesn't experience come with practice? Therefore why not let people take a test at 17 if they want to? It may make them better drivers as they learnt early and gained practice and experience.

younger drivers today dont cause as many accedents as elderly drivers today because they arnt allowed to drive until the ge of 18 which means they just might give more caution to the road than to a bottle of beer or a bottle of vodka.

The number of car accidents will be reduced if we raise it

Sure, but the percentage? I highly doubt so. All you are doing is discriminating against young drivers and reducing number of drivers and cars on the road. I could lower the number of accidents, too, if I just chose that no one could drive who is over 70.

At 16 teens are still immature. Indeed they may well still not be responsible enough at 18. This immaturity means that they often cause accidents killing either themselves, their passangers or unlucky bystanders.

In the past, driving at a young age was not allowed. Are teenagers mature enough now?. Are they're parents telling them or not giving them permision?. And what does the police think about teenagers driving at a young age?

You should raise the legal age of driving to 18 because the most wrecks that occur are from teens.

Well, over the past ten years, many countries, and parts in the U.S. have committed to a special program known as GDL (Graduated Driver Licensing.) This means that new drivers have to go through two or more restrictions before they earn a full license. According to Www.Idebate.org, GDL has shown a tremendous decrease of teenager yearly-deaths on and OFF the road!!!

many people under the age of 18, can and do drive, but those are the ones that are more than likley to get in an accident.

Many teens under the age of 18 feel more than capable. Some of the maturity levels of teens under the age of 18 are higher than others. raising the age limit will also increase the crime rate oof teens under the age limit commiting offences. Controvesy is the last thing that is needed especially when dealing with teenagers. The current age limit is perhaps one of few things keeping crime rates low. rasing the age limit will increase teen offences.

The driving age should be raised because over 5,000 teens die because they are careless, and I do not want to be hit by a careless teen!!!

Teenagers may take their eyes of the road, texting, and crash into another vehicle.

Just because other countries have it, it doesn’t necessarily mean it is right. The statistics on road deaths in the US reflect those of the UK. America is also considering its stance on minimum driving age at this time.

In countries such as America and Australia the minimum driving age is even lower. This would seem to set a precedent that it is ok. even thuogh they think that we are to young will will still have better grades and better abilities to do thinhgs for more people and jobs.

Only by carrying out the change will we be able to see if it works or not.

The age has a lot to do with driving. When they are 15-17 and still in high school the pressure with school, friends, and daily emotions at that age can distract the young drivers to the point of an accident. Yes, "Only by carrying out the change will we be able to see if it works or not" is a poor idea but with the statistics of many young drivers and accidents, it proves that the age should rise up. People will never know unless they try.

By raising the age it does not guarantee that accidents will decrease. They may simply just be delayed by one year as drivers are having accidents a year later. This would be the case if the accidents were caused primarily by lack of experience as opposed to age.

In addition, carrying out any change just to see if it works is generally a poor idea. If it is not broken, do not fix it.

Surely it's worth restricting the freedom of young people in order to preserve their lives and the lives of others. Freedom is no good to you if you've been paralysed in a car accident or killed your best friend.

I agree with this comment. If you do take some freedom from the young teenagers it only helps them to be stronger later on and more maturer. If you give the young teenagers too much freedom, it only causes them to do what ever they want to the point of dissobeying the rules which their parents give and the goverenment. In addition to the comment, "In fact the younger the driver the more they learn." What are they going to learn from, by having an accident from to much freedom or killing someone at a young age? This only gives more trauma to the younger people.

Without personal mobility, young people are restricted as to where they go and when they go. This not only has implications for the human rights of young people, but may have further reaching impacts such as a hit on the economy if younger people find that their ability to work is constrained. Restrict the freedom of young people? Are you kidding? Freedom is everything to young people. If you take that away then what do they have? Just because someone is young doesn't mean they are incapable of driving safe. In fact the younger the driver the more they learn.

All of these alternatives have their own pros and cons and should be considered in conjunction with a change in the minimum age.

The alternatives to making a test harder is still not a good way to keep the young teenagers from driving reckless. There are many smart teenagers that can pass a test but it is different when getting behind the wheel by themselves or with other passengers. Peoples minds at a young age are very distracted with a lot of information from school, friends, and parents. In addition, there are many pros to raise the age so why don't we try it?

Instead of simply raising the minimum age, alternative proposals could be made. These could include making tests harder to pass, imposing a compulsory number of practise hours or legislating new restrictions on young drivers once they have passed such as not being able to drive at night.

Raising the driving age to 21 would be an over extension because it the voting age in the UK is 18, when a person is recognised as an adult for a lot of different things including the right to vote. To have the driving age raised above that would be patronising to young people and probably generate a backlash in the form of less environmentally friendly attitudes.

The difference between 17 and 18 is insignificant, if you want to make a real difference to accidents cause by inexperienced, immature and unimaginative drivers then a more radical change is necessary. It would be possible to offer free or heavily subsidised travel on public transport for young people up to the age of 21 which would encourage more environmentally friendly attitudes in the next generation.

First of all, the main reason why the driving age is 16 (17 in the UK) is because parents don't have time to drive the teens around. Do you seriously think that they would have time to supervise and assist them?

While a teenager is still living at home, parents can provide them with guidance and assistance in the process of learning to drive. Parents can supervise them when they are practicing, and teach them certain basic safety rules.

At age 18, many are in college and/or living away from home, and do not have access to parental guidance. This may lead them to learn from less experienced drivers such as their peers of the same age, or even attempt to teach themselves without instruction. This is undoubtedly very dangerous and potentially hazardous, as a new driver who has not yet mastered driving may panic and cause tragic accidents.

In Australia the legal age to get your learners is 16-17 in most states. During the course where you learn to drive you must complete hours of supervised learning by an instructor or another experience driver such as your parents. If the parents dont have enough time to 'supervise and assist them' are they very good parents? I mean, that is the role of a parent in general right?

Parents would prefer to get out of bed and pick their teenagers up than to know they were being driven home by immature drivers, who may well have been drinking.

Also, with the ability to drive, they would be encouraged to stay out late....doing inappropriate stuff and getting in serious trouble.

It is a known fact that young adults often stay out late. Without the ability to drive, they will have to resort to other means of transportation, most likely walking or public transit. Most parents would probably not want their teenagers walking home alone late at night.

Yes, many young drivers have accidents due to inexperience, but doesn't that mean that maybe instead they need more experience rather than this chance being delayed? Also, in the same way, a high propensity of older drivers have fatal accidents due to inability, despite extensive experience, so it is unfair to judge a group such as this based solely on one years difference in age.

However, according to the brain researchers in the National Institute of Health, they have discovered that the executive branch of a teenage brain, which is the part that weighs risks, makes judgements, and controls impulsive behaviour, is not fully developed until after the teen years. Therefore an 18-year-old driver would be more developed than a 16-year-old driver. Also, there are studies that show that 16-year-old have more car crashes than 18-year-olds.

Young drivers cause the most crashes because of inexperience not lack of maturity. No matter at what age people start driving, they will have accidents because they have little experience. This question only arises because young people are easy to blame. An adult who has just started to drive has as many crashes statistically as a young person.It is not ALL teens that are dangerous just a small percent. Did you know men are 77% more likely to kill someone while driving then women so does that mean we need to only let women drive? this is the same thing you are stereo typing teens unfairly! In addition to that what if 18 year olds got their lisense at 16 wich totally disproves your point,when you said studies show that 16 year olds have more car crashes thent 18 year olds!

Than wouldnt the brain of a 21 year old be more developed than an 18 year old's? And think about it but most of the hoons on the road are in their 20's not their teens.

getting shot is something that is very hard to prevent. Government can't tell parents how to raise their children. However, driving age is something that can be controlled. Although we cannot prevent children from being shot, we can prevent them from getting into accidents.

Teenagers may walk in less dangerous areas when going to school. Some teens may walk in the shadows of bad parents and may live in bad neighborhoods and can't do anything about it. You wouldn't want your child walking and then getting shot would you??????????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

18 year olds do not have the peer pressure that high school teens do. It is not the maturiety that matters it is the responsibility of getting behind the wheel of a motorized vehical. If you go by the maturiety then the stakes will go for the girls, then the boys. The rate of accident are higher in boys then girls. (19.4 killed per 100,000 male drivers compared with 11.1 killed per 100,000 female drivers)

how can you say even an 18 year old can be mature its only a two year difference from a legal united states driver?

According to http://teacher.scholastic.com/scholasticnews/indepth/upfront/debate/index.asp?article=d0508, males are 77% more likely to kill someone while driving than females. Is it logical to ban males from driving? Likewise, it is illogical to raise the driving age because teenagers are harming or being harmed while driving more than others.

People have this overly assertive position against 16 year old drivers from driving and believe they should take the iniative to raise the legal age to start at 18. Assumptions cannot me made over the general population of teens because of a tiny percentage of other teens who are irresponsible. A lack of maturity does not factor into these situations because learning to drive is gained by experience. As 18 year olds they are not obligated as drivers to have other requirements other than take the driver's test to obtain their licenses. Would you believe an 18 year old with no prior learning experience is more prepared than a 16 year old who has completed all the necessary requirements and above?

the driing age should not be raised to 18 because drivng takes training and sitting on your butt for two more years is not going to put any more expirence in your maturity for4 the road.

i believe that teenagers are allowed to have there freedom to travel and gives them more thought to responsibility

if they raise the minimum age of driving, it really wouldn't make that much of a difference. the danger is still there. 18 year olds still wouldn't be that used to controlling the vehicle or be better at making the right decisions. if they change the age, it is like punishing the kids that make good decisions. is that truly fair? So then what's next? We push it out farther to 21? when people are more likely to drink and drive? when they are more likely able to get into more accidents? changing the age is not the way to solve the problem of accidents. it just causes more anger and debates!