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.

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.

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.

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.

sources: http://www.2pass.co.uk/ages2.htm http://publicsafety.utah.gov/dld/minor_learner_permits.html

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.

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.

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 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 Www.Idebate.org, GDL has shown a tremendous decrease of teenager yearly-deaths on and OFF the road!!!

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?

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.

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).

http://www.rmiia.org/auto/teens/Teen_Driving_Statistics.asp

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.

There are so many teens causing traffic now-a-days. They constantly ask for directions and are never knowing where to go. They have no idea where anything is. They're always lost

People judge as if they weren't a beginner at some point, yes they ask a lot of questions but that's part of the learning process. How can they know where to go when said people complain saying they shouldn't be driving when in fact they should be giving them directions. Some teenagers are reckless, most are reliable and mature, so don't judge one experience and pin it down on all young adults.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-03-02-teens-cars-main-usat_x.htm

How can someone learn without experience? I can say I didn't read the whole page, because I don't believe everything I'm told and it would be a waste of time. There's a part of the brain that controls judgement and impulses, true, but experience can change the way we see things, and teenagers won't learn while taking the bus every day. You're not going to become a better driver by waiting a few years. Driving supervised for a certain amount of time when young would be more beneficial than waiting until they are 25 and suddenly being trusted and not knowing what to do.

Yes, the brain of a 18 year old is by far more mature than that of a 16 year old.

No

there is a huge difference in the maturity level from 16 to 18.

Everyone is different. Some people will be completely capable and mature by the age of 16, and others should wait until 18. No matter the driving age, there will still be mature drivers and immature drivers on the roads.

A total of 185 people were killed and 17,247 people were injured in a traffic crash involving a young driver and 1 person is killed or injured in a car crash involving a young driver. The 3 main factors of young drivers crashing are 1) inexperience. 2) Risk taking behaviour and 3) immaturity and greater risk exposure. I personally think they should be allowed to take 2 tests, one theory and one practical and if they fail any of them, at least once, they have to wait 6 months before they can resit the test. This will help teens study and understand more about the roads and the dangers that come with it.

Well, i don't know how argue those facts about the deaths and injures, but i do know that for one, raising the driving age will not help. Number one, inexperience, no matter the age there will still be inexperience drivers. Number two, risk taking, most of the time i see 20-30 year olds taking risks and dangering their lives in cars and on ATVs. And number three, immaturity, everyone matures at a different time.

With a higher minimum driving age, the amount of air pollution will be reduced as less cars will be driven. This, in turn, saves our earth.

They cause pollution, kill people, and are completely unnecessary. This would help get rid of all the fat ass people in this world (America). Go for a run, buy a bike. Get active. That is all.

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.

http://dmvanswers.com/questions/257/What-is-the-legal-driving-age-in-my-state

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.

If you do this, this may cause more teenagers to drive illegally.

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.

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.

http://www.massretirees.com/special-news/senate-passes-elderly-driver-restrictions.html

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)

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.

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.

Males are 77% more likely to kill someone while driving than females.^[1] 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.

1. ^ http://teacher.scholastic.com/scholasticnews/indepth/upfront/debate/index.asp?article=d0508

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?

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.

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.

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.

When teenagers allowed to have their freedom to travel with supervision, letting them drive gives them more thought to responsibility.

When 16-year-olds are the highest group of drivers to get into fatal car accidents, followed by 17-year-olds, the amount of fatal accidents will be lower.

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!

When driving a boat, there is normally more area away from other boats and other potentially hazardous objects, so there is a smaller chance of getting in a boat crash

If we can drive a boat at 13 years old, you should be able to drive a car at 16.

New findings from brain researchers at the National Institutes of Health explain for the first time why efforts to protect the youngest drivers usually fail. The weak link: what's called "the executive branch" of the teen brain — the part that weighs risks, makes judgments and controls impulsive behavior.

Scientists at the NIH campus in Bethesda, Md., have found that this vital area develops through the teenage years and isn't fully mature until age 25. One 16-year-old's brain might be more developed than another 18-year-old's, just as a younger teen might be taller than an older one. But evidence is mounting that a 16-year-old's brain is generally far less developed than those of teens just a little older.

The research seems to help explain why 16-year-old drivers crash at far higher rates than older teens. The studies have convinced a growing number of safety experts that 16-year-olds are too young to drive safely without supervision.

The NIH brain research suggests that the problem is human biology. A crucial part of the teen's brain — the area that peers ahead and considers consequences — remains undeveloped. That means careless attitudes and rash emotions often drive teen decisions, says Jay Giedd, chief of brain imaging in the child psychiatric unit at the National Institute of Mental Health, who's leading the study.

"It all comes down to impulse control," Giedd says. "The brain is changing a lot longer than we used to think. And that part of the brain involved in decision-making and controlling impulses is among the latest to come on board."

The teen brain is a paradox. Some areas — those that control senses, reactions and physical abilities — are fully developed in teenagers. "Physically, they should be ruling the world," Giedd says. "But (adolescence) is not that great of a time emotionally."

Giedd and an international research team have analyzed 4,000 brain scans from 2,000 volunteers to document how brains evolve as children mature. This underdeveloped area is called the dorsal lateral prefrontal cortex. The underdeveloped blue on Giedd's screen is where thoughts of long-term consequences spring to consciousness. And in teen after teen, the research team found, it's not fully mature.

When a smart, talented and very mature teen does something a parent might call "stupid," Giedd says, it's this underdeveloped part of the brain that has most likely failed.

"That's the part of the brain that helps look farther ahead," he says. "In a sense, increasing the time between impulse and decisions. It seems not to get as good as it's going to get until age 25."

Already, on average, two people die every day across the USA in vehicles driven by 16-year-old drivers. One in five 16-year-olds will have a reportable car crash within the first year.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-03-02-teens-cars-main-usat_x.htm

I have to say that whatever the driving age is, there are still going to be immature drivers. Raising the age will only reduce it by a small percent. And with this whole new brain findings, who cares? Everyone is different! Young people have been driving for a long time now and we see that the crash rate is going up. The fact that the rate has gone up does not necessarily indicate a lack of maturity. Perhaps some kids are being pushed out on their own with a "learn for yourself" attitude coming from their parents.

I am doing an in-class debate, my partner and I are against raising the driving age to 18. For a lot of reasons: ~Even if the driving age was increased to 18, younger people would still have accidents due to inexperience. ~Many teens are careful drivers and a lot of adult drivers today, started driving before the age of 18. Wouldn't it be unfair to punish all 16 and 17 year olds for the reckless driving of previous generations? ~To improve safety on the roads, the government could make the test harder, they could require a re-test every year until you are 25 and/or make it as the legal guardians of the young driver, (19 and under) choose weather or not their child is ready to drive. ~Scientists studies reveal that risky behaviour affects men in their twenties as well as 16-17 year olds. I mean, would it be fair to ban all young men from driving before they turn 25? Well, the obvious answer is no, becausemost young men already drive carefully and safely. The rare ones who don't are the ones most likely to brake the law and/or drive underage without a licence. I think that punishing the odd trouble-maker is just not cool. ~For a lot of younger people, learning how to drive would be an important part of learning responsibility and taking up adult values. If we keep delaying when kids become adults, then younger people will never learn responsibility. ~Most guardians of a teenager cannot keep taxi-ing their kid(s) around. (In modern society, driving is essential) Mobility has to be reguarded as a right you gain in your mid-teens. Many teenagers also have to get to and from work or school, so they can`t keep relying on their guardians for transportation. (In alot of places where teens live, there are no buses or trains to ship teenagers around) ~Instead of raising the driving age to 18, I think governments should include graduated drivers licensing. (GDL) This way of operating makes sure that newer drivers gain experience from older, more experienced drivers before they get to take the wheel by themselves. ~Some arrangements can limit new drivers to driving in day light and on faster roads. Once a new driver has proved that they can drive under those restrictions, only then should they get a full licence. ~GDL doesn't fit within raising the driving age because it assumes the younger people are still at home with their guardians. If the government were to raise the driving age, then the young learners cannot start to drive until they have primarily left home. Then there is no one to go out with them. ~The base of obesity starts in early childhood. Not in teenage years, so this measure won't make a change. Even saying so, society will pay if the driving age in increased, many young workers won't be able to take up job offers because they have no way of getting to and from work. Not to mention that it would raise the cost of accomplishing business's which will make youth unemployment an even bigger problem, the labour market will be less flexible which will, as I have alreayd said, raise the amount of bussiness accomplishment.

I am a female in grade 7, hoping to do well on her project with one of her friends. Just tryin' to point out the facts! ;)

Well that just you but what about the other people that arn't mature

Maturity is definitely relative. When I was 16 ( and even 15) 7 years ago my friends and I were extremely mature and never attempted maneuvers or speeds that we knew we did not have the experience to do. In my case I never received drivers education classes, but my parents taught me well that driving involves the safety of you and every other person on the road and that they would hate to bury their son to stupidity. So I think that 16 year olds are very well capable of LIMITED driving so long as parents teach them right and they are well educated and thoroughly tested on their driving skills.

the teenagers must be trained first by instructors & their parents at the age of 16 & this training must go on for another 2 years & when they have some experience of 2 years, they must be issued a licence keeping in mind that they now have the ability to drive & control their car well & they must also not be allowed to drive on busy roads on their own before a licence is issued to them. parents and instructors play a major role in training them for safety. thus, instructors must not be corrupt & must also understand the need for safety & parents must give some time to their teen children in assisting them to drive. parents must also not support in bribing the instructors. safe driving etiquette and proper driving knowledge must also be taught & given to them by their parents. government should also make strict laws to ensure that the teenagers as well as the adults are all trained well.

No it shouldn't be raised because it is taking away the freedom of 17 year old's. Many teens want to learn to drive and wait for the moment they turn 17so they can start lesson, for a long time. Driving at the age of 17 is a step for teens to experience the world as a nearing adult. Driving at the age of 17 is really the first big responsibility that a teenager will face. Driving should be a privilege and it should be earn, what else can a 17 year old legal apart from having sex and putting on the lottery? I would much rather my son/daughter to be driving (safely) than becoming a mother/father at such a young age. The age of 17 was set for a reason, so it should be tampered with all these years later, its unfair for the next generation. Most of us started driving at the age of 17, most of us would of thought it was unfair if people were wanting to raise the driving age. Put yourself in the 17 years old shoes, the ones that are away to start driving lessons. Imaging how excited you would be.

Even if the saying... "PRACTICE MAKES PERFECT" is true... why waste the lives of innocent bystanders to irresponisable teens. If the teen cant be responsible, it should ultimately be the job of the parent to step in and say NO. In most cases, the brain of an average 16 year old, regardless of gender isnt mature enough to handle fast reaction in an emergency. So i believe yes, they should raise the age to 18 across the US.

Raising the age limit to 18 is a pointless non-solution. What you will then have are 18-21 year olds that have no better experience behind the wheel than a 16-17 year old would. I don't see why only 2 years difference. So instead of 'died at 16, died at 17" you will see "died at 18, died at 19, died at 20" on the statistically data. What then? Raise the age limit to 21? And have full grown adults not have a clue about driving? Would you have parents chauffeur their kids around till they are able to vote? Not every city has a bus or other transportation system, and most likely if one does have some sort of transit system it is unreliable. How are two working parents suppose to get their children to school functions or work during their work hours? Do we then petition employers to excuse parents to shuttle their 16-18 yr old children around because "junior" is not allowed to drive? Moving the age limit up to 18 opens a whole host of problems...problems From poor social chances for youth to enjoy and test the waters and mature in, to not being able to participate in activities that conflict with the schedules of their parents, to limiting the work potential of 16-17 yr olds, which would stunt their work experience in general and mean that they have to work harder to gain work experience for future and better employment. If one cannot drive at 16, but still be legally able to work, and one doesn't NOT have a way to get to work legally (with out the parent shuttling them around) how does one expect to be employed? One of the first things a potential employer asks is "Do you have a reliable mode of transportation?". Essentially you're not just pushing the driving age up to 18, you're making it almost impossible for 16-17 yr olds to find some sort of independence they need to LEARN how to be those responsible adults you seem to think they magically become once they hit 18. This also doesn't help seniors in high school involved in the work program. This option for seniors allows them to get real life experience in the area in which they wish to continue study in college. To not allow seniors that are 17 yrs of age to drive you make it impossible for them to participate in these work programs unless the school is willing to provide transportation, which of course would cost the tax payers in the end. Are you willing to pay more taxes in order to provide these seniors the oppourtunity at a great program? All because you dont want them driving at 16 and 17 yrs of age? The logic to change the age from 16 to 18 is not sound.

The level of maturity in a 16 year old isnt exactly enough to keep anybody safe. I think it should be raised to 18.

You think that accidents happen because at 16 your an inexperienced driver, well if you raise it that will just be more inexperienced drivers,.... ergo more wrecks..... KEEP IT AT 16

practice doesnt make perfect, perfect practice makes perfect