The Minimum Driving Age Should Be Raised to 18
Young drivers, and even older ones, cause many fatal accidents; raising the minimum age at which people can drive might reduce this, but is it a benefit to society, and are the statistics true? We can help lower the accident rates if the driving age is raised to 18 so no more kids can get hurt or killed in a accident on the freeway or by another car crashing into their car if we raise the driving age it will be safer for the young and old drivers.
You can also add to the debate by leaving a comment at the end of the page.
The number of serious or fatal road accidents in the UK will be reduced
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.
17 year olds are simply not mature enough to cope with the skills required for driving
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.
This is false because I would like the ability to drive to work because I am turning into a responsible adult. If YOUR parents did not raise you right other people should not suffer for your insolence.
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 mess up once you lose your privilege to drive period. Stupid biased point.
I'm a female from the u.k and disagree that 17 year olds are immature. Some are but not all of us it's mainly "boy racers" that crash not everybody else. Adults are also liable to crash. So don't raise the age because It's pointless waste of time and money.
Young people may have a “racer boy” attitude to driving
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.
Raising the age limit may do something to promote more environmentally friendly alternatives
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 undergo a one year 'settling down' process
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..
People who go to university will hardy have any time to learn how to drive!
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.
No because younger drivers aren't necessarily dangerous
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.
17 Years of age is a good age to start. Most teens are in there prime from 16 - 26. Those are the best years that they WILL have the best reaction time. In the USA in some states it is 14 to drive. For example, I Iowa they let you drive at the age of 14. That could be bad or good. But the thing is they keep you in a certain area until they reach a certain age. Then you can go across the country. But they don't let anyone under 18 drive anywhere but the home state. So whats the difference in the USA?
If an applicant is 17 years of age or younger when they apply for their learner permit, they must hold the learner permit for six months before applying for a driver license.
However, if the applicant turns 18 during the holding period, they may apply for their driver license upon turning 18.
The six-month learner permit holding requirement does not apply to an applicant who is age 18 or older at the time of application for the learner permit.
Raising Driving Age
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. It could lower the number of accidents, too, if I just chose that no one could drive who is over 70.
should the driving age be raised to 18
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.
not exactly true because it's not only teens that are demonstrating wreck-less driving. My mom is a very cautious driver and the other day we were going home and our light was green and we didn't go right away but before we got a chance to go a truck ran the light and was going at least 65-80 mph. and when you looked at the driver it was someone who was at least 30 years old.
driving at age 16
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?
Why are we still living in the past then, for instance, the media does not promote things they used to in the past ( I.e. Cigarettes) Knowledge has furthered so people know how the clogs twist and turn in the minds of teenagers.
If we ban driving until eighteen then younger teens will feel compelled to drive just to contradict the law, and therefore lowering opinions on driving for under 18s. This situation is neither win win nor lose lose.
Police will disagree ofcourse because they uphold the law, i'm not badmouthing all police officers but if the law were to be changed then would go along with it just fine unless some put their foot down. Whether they like it or not teenagers are the next generation so what can they do to prevent that.
You should raise it!
You should raise the legal age of driving to 18 because the most wrecks that occur are from teens.Teens have a certain way of thinking that "I win you lose," kind of attitude.Or the "My way or no way."
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 http://Www.Idebate.org, GDL has shown a tremendous decrease of teenager yearly-deaths on and OFF the road!!!
age of 18 driving
Many people who are younger than an adult are careless and they don't pay attention to the road. They pay attention to their ipod their cell phones, their radio, but not the road. I know some people do, but we need to be more careful. And making the test harder is just as bad as keeping the age of 16 because people will study to get the license. I think that if you raise it to 18 there will be a lesser chance that accidents will occur. Older people will likely to pay more attention to the road then all the new technology people create.
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!!!
not all should be punished for the careless few that are driving. I think that if they made the driving test more complicated than it would reduce the wreckless teens on the road. So why punish all teens by banning driving from the ones who know how to do the right thing?
Some teenagers text and are therefore not reliable.
Teenagers may take their eyes of the road, texting, and crash into another vehicle. Most accidents happen because the teens think that it is more inportant to talk or text there friends then to pay attention to the road. PUT the PHONE AWAY and PAY attention you cant text when your home or not in the driver seat.
So why don't the parents take the phone from the teens when they're driving and give them back later. I think that sited texting while driving should automatically be a ticket. DON'T PUNISH ALL TEENS for the CARELESS FEW.
yes they should raise it up. 16 year olds are irresponsible. my friends friend and his buddies were killed in a car wreck they were 16.
too many deaths are caused by 16 year old drivers. "oh haha lets get drunk and drive we are cool cuz we are 16!" i dont think so
Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death among 15- to 20-year-olds.
16-year-olds have higher crash rates than drivers of any other age.
16-year-olds are 3 times more likely to die in a motor vehicle crash than the average of all drivers.
According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the National Center for Statistics and Analysis, in 2008:
Hand-held cellphone use was highest among 16- to 24-year-olds (8% in 2008, down from 9% in 2007).
37% of male drivers ages 15-20 who were involved in fatal crashes were speeding at the time.
55%, or 2,014, of the 3,678 occupants of passenger vehicles ages 16-20 who were killed in crashes were not buckled up.
31% of drivers ages 15-20 who were killed in motor vehicle crashes had been drinking some amount of alcohol; 25% were alcohol-impaired, meaning they had a blood alcohol content of 0.08 grams per deciliter or higher.
Statistics show that 16- and 17-year-old driver death rates increase with each additional passenger (IIHS).
I’m sorry but I disagree with you completely.
Yes, I agree there are SOME immature sixteen year olds out there who are like that, but you can’t stereotype ALL sixteen year olds because of something idiotic someone else of that age did.
I’m sixteen years old and I drive better then half the “adults” on the road I see these days.
There are people of ALL ages driving on the road reckless because they think they’re an adult therefore they can get off the hook.
I know people who were OLDER then 16 - more like between the ages of 18 − 30 - who’ve been caught drunk driving or even dying but they don’t expect it to happen to them because they’re “responsible drivers”
When driving, it’s not the age that mostly matters. What mostly matters is if you’re MATURE and RESPONSIBLE.
Other countries are even younger – in America only 16!
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.
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.
The following chart specifies the age at which one may be fully privileged to drive in a particular American state.
Alabama 17 yrs.
Alaska 16 yrs. & 6 mos.
Arizona 16 yrs. & 6 mos.
Arkansas 18 yrs.
California 18 yrs., provisional from 16 to 18
Colorado 17 yrs.
Connecticut 17 yrs. & 4 mos. (w/ passengers); 18 yrs. @ night
Delaware 17 yrs.
Florida 18 yrs.
Georgia 18 yrs.
Hawaii 17 yrs.
Idaho 16 yrs. (night); 15 yrs. & 6 mos. (w/ passenger)
Illinois 18 yrs. (night); 17 yrs. (w/ passenger)
Indiana 17 yrs.
Iowa 17 yrs.
Kansas 16 yrs. & 6 mos.
Kentucky 17 yrs.
Louisiana 17 yrs.
Maine 16 yrs. & 6 mos.
Maryland 17 yrs. & 9 mos. (night); 16 yrs. & 11 mos. ( w/ passenger)
Massachusetts 18 yrs. (night); 17 yrs. (w/ passenger)
Michigan 17 yrs.
Minnesota 16 yrs. & 6 mos. (night); 17 yrs. (w/ passenger)
Mississippi 16 yrs. & 6 mos.
Missouri 17 yrs. & 11 mos.
Montana 16 yrs.
Nebraska 17 yrs. (night); 16 yrs. & 6 mos. (w/ passenger)
Nevada 16 yrs. & 6 mos.
New Hampshire 17 yrs. & 1 mos. (night); 16 yrs. & 6 mos. (w/ passenger)
New Jersey 18 yrs., provisional at 17 yrs.
New Mexico 16 yrs. & 6 mos.
New York 17 yrs. w/ drivers ed; 18 yrs. w/o drivers ed
North Carolina 16 yrs. & 6 mos.
North Dakota 14 yrs. & 6 mos.
Ohio 18 yrs. (night); 17 yrs. (w/passenger)
Oklahoma 16 yrs. & 6 mos. w/ drivers ed; 17 yrs. w/o drivers ed
Oregon 17 yrs.
Pennsylvania 17 yrs. (if crash & conviction free); 18 yrs. otherwise
Rhode Island 17 yrs. & 6 mos.
South Carolina 16 yrs. & 6 mos.
South Dakota 16 yrs.
Tennessee 17 yrs.
Texas 16 yrs. & 6 mos.
Utah 17 yrs. (night); 16 yrs. & 6 mos. (w/ passneger)
Vermont 16 yrs. & 6 mos.
Virginia 18 yrs.
Washington 18 yrs.
West Virginia 17 yrs.
Wisconsin 16 yrs. & 9 mos.
Wyoming 16 yrs. & 6 mos. w/ drivers ed; 17 yrs. w/o drivers ed
Washington DC 18 yrs.
The accidents may just be delayed by one year
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.
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.
It removes the freedom of young 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.
If you do this, this may cause more teenagers to drive illegally.
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.
There are alternatives – such as making tests more rigorous
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.
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?
Raising the driving age to 21 would be a much better idea.
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.
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.
Parents can provide guidance to their teens
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?
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?
It denies young people access to safe transportation
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.
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.
Driving ability should be judged more - why not also a maximum age?!
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.
SENATE PASSES ELDERLY DRIVER RESTRICTIONS
MARCH 3, 2010: On Tuesday, the Mass State Senate passed its version of the so-called "Safe Driver" bill (S2290). The bill, which drew a spirited debate amongst Senators from both parties, contains language that would require drivers age 75 and older to undergo a cognitive and physical abilities test in order to renew their license.
Section 4 of S2290:
(b) Notwithstanding any provision of the first paragraph of section 8, an applicant for a license, or the renewal of a license, age 75 or older shall apply in person. The applicant shall submit an elderly driving assessment form completed by the applicant's health care provider in the health care provider's professional capacity, and the applicant shall submit the assessment form to the registrar. The elderly driving assessment form shall assess the applicant's cognitive and physical ability, including a vision test, and any other condition that might prevent such applicant from operating a motor vehicle. The elderly driving assessment form shall be developed by the registrar in consultation with the medical advisory board established in section 8C. An applicant for a license renewal shall complete the form upon the expiration of 60 months from attainment of the age of 75 years, and every 36 months thereafter. No license shall be issued until the registrar is satisfied that the applicant is a qualified person to receive it.
Inexperience? No, lack of maturity.
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.
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.
Driving age shouldn't be raised to 18
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?
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.
18 year olds are not more mature than their fellow teengers just because they have less peer pressure. Some might be but that doesn't go for all, 18 year olds get the news that they're now adults by the government so ofcourse they will act all sophisticated to boost their young 'responsible adult' status but that's not always the case. If you give younger teens a chance to drive then they would drive and some will even make sure not to accidentally run a red light but if they delay until 18 then more said 18 year olds won't bother driving because what would be the point other than location.
In conclusion all I'm saying is that 15-17 are revved up to a new experience other than school work.
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)
Males are 77% more likely than females to kill someone while driving. Ban men from driving?
Males are 77% more likely to kill someone while driving than females.[http://teacher.scholastic.com/scholasticnews/indepth/upfront/debate/index.asp?article=d0508]] 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.
Even though banning males would lower accidents, it would be sexist and even though women are normally the target of sexist remarks, there would still be strong resistance.
The assumption that teens lack maturity to drive is highly incorrect
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?
no it shouldn't
The driving age should not be raised to 18 because driving takes training and sitting on your butt for two more years is not going to put any more expirence in you. No matter what age you start driving, you will be inexperience. So you minds well start out at 16 where you are still in high school and are not going to college or start working. I'll gradutate high school at 17, so it would be nice to have a license before I graduate, so I dont have to worry about learning how to drive and take the test, when I am on my own. Plus, the only way to know how to drive in the winter, know the speed limit, where pot holes are, and how to handle sharp turns is to get out on the road and drive.
Yes it will actually help, being 19 i can say that at the age of 16-17 i had no clue how to handle snowy type environments. Considering that we are only taught how to drive in the clear skies of the summer, they never prepare you for the harsh driving conditions. Now being 19, i know many roads, i know the speed limit i know how sharp turns are, i know where pot holes are.... all these things are things that have to be taken in to understand the road. I can also admit to being immature during high school as well as seeing a lot more immature teens. Driving to impress people, driving while angry, texting and driving. It would be very beneficial if we raised the driving age to 18 and to me i think it should be 20.
no no no no no no no no no no no no no!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
When teenagers allowed to have their freedom to travel with supervision, letting them drive gives them more thought to responsibility.
When the title of going against a higher driving age is 13 no's followed by 18 more exclamation marks then needed, the writer is most likely not mature enough to drive.
Therefore the driving age should be only for more mature driving ages.
Driving and endangering lives is not freedom.
What do you think?