Yes, let's work to raise the age throughout North America, and the rest of the world, too. Ever since I was licensed at 16 and new darn well I was not ready I have been a supporter of raising the minimum age.
Take the bus, your bike, or car pool until you are older.
The driving-age urban legend revisited
· By: Drivers.com staff
· Date: 2008-10-03
Comments (7) Join conversation
It's every 15-year-old's nightmare. You're just getting to the age of driving privilege when suddenly they raise the bar and you have to wait another year or more. Every year it seems, this rumor flies around, but soon, it may be reality.
Most U.S. states allow driving privileges at around age 16. In some states these privileges are phased in gradually, the idea being that new drivers are riskier and need to gradually gain experience before getting full privileges.
However, is it the new driver that is riskier or the young driver? Is a 16-year-old novice driver more dangerous than a 17- or 18-year-old one?
A new Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) study concludes that, while older new drivers have a higher crash risk than experienced drivers, their risk level is not significantly greater than younger new drivers. That could mean a new push to increase the driving age in many states.
The IIHS points out that teens in Great Britain and most Australian states can't get their licenses until they turn 17. Lawmakers in the states of Delaware, Florida, and Georgia are pushing legislation to adopt 17 as the minimum age. Massachusetts is thinking 17, maybe even 18.
Anne McCartt, IIHS senior vice president for research reckons passing legislation to raise the driving age will be "a tough sell." However, she adds, "it's an important enough issue to challenge the silence and at least consider changing the age at which we allow teenagers to get their licenses to drive … and raising the licensing age is a logical next step to reduce driving by the riskiest motorists on the road, the youngest ones."
What the issue boils down to, according to the Institute study, is balancing the immaturity and inexperience of 16-year-olds, and their greater risk of crashing, against the benefits and convenience of letting them get behind the wheel and begin accumulating experience.
A comparison between New Jersey, which delays licensure until age 17, and Connecticut, which allows it at 16, indicates the advantages of later licensing, the IIHS maintains. Unsurprisingly, 16-year-olds in New Jersey had a much lower fatal crash rate than 16- year-olds in Connecticut. But 17-year-olds in New Jersey, despite being vastly less experienced than 17-year-olds in Connecticut, had just a slightly higher fatal crash rate (32.3 versus 31.1 per 100,000).
These results and other studies look convincing enough to the IIHS to justify raising driving ages.
"Apart from the effects of age or experience, delaying driver licensure reduces crash rates by reducing the amount young people drive," says McCartt.
Read the IIHS news release.
Comments
Doug B, on Saturday, 04. October 2008 at 11:53 AM
Dieter Fischer, on Saturday, 11. October 2008 at 01:31 AM
Hi all,
I tought learner drivers for 25 years. In the end I came to the conclusion to just allow a person to drive simply because they are old enough is not realistic.
There should be an aptitude testm more than just learning road rules. Some, I'm sure are ready to drive at 15, others should mature for a number of years, learning about life; not to take risks, not showing off, becoming aware of others rights, becoming responsible citizens etc.
Kind regards from Adelaide, South Australia
Dieter
www.driving-school.com.au
Dave Penfield, on Monday, 13. October 2008 at 11:11 AM
Not a clearly written article with conclusions that do not match data used ot make these conclusions. Perhaps this mixes emotion with reality. I began driving as early as 10, but that was on and with farm equipment. By 15 I had mastered the mechanics. By 25 I was still an agressive driver. Age, maturity does not marry up to ability.
My daughter was competent at 16 and exercised much better judgement then than I did at twice the age.
William Hayes, on Wednesday, 15. October 2008 at 08:25 PM
I would like to say that, as a high schooler, i can point out people who shouldn't be driving just by the way they act. I agree with Dieter and Dave on this... I am in activities up to my neck and without a car, my parents would have to drive me into town every day and imagine just how many great things i would not have the opportunity to get involved in. Sure you can say that we're not ready, but before you get your drivers license, maybe you could have a teacher's recommendation, like colleges have, stating how you behave in and outside of class. Combined with Dieter's aptitude test, we could probably save more lives this way.
Will
elaine, on Wednesday, 15. October 2008 at 10:35 PM
I agree with those above who call for aptitude testing. this is much better than just selecting and age. OK it may be expensive to do it but the cost of not doing it are huge as well.
At these early ages, each individual needs to be assessed on their merits. That would build respect for the system.
Anon, on Monday, 10. November 2008 at 01:18 PM
Hey you down below,
If you knew you weren't ready, why'd you get it? You have the optino you know.. Don't punish the rest of the teen drivers because some of them don't know how. But seriously, if you weren't ready, why'd you get it? Maybe they should've done a phsyc evaluation...
bolvari, on Thursday, 13. November 2008 at 07:56 PM
I am only 14 right now but I think it shouldn't be raised but there should be a certain amount of drivers training sessions that you should have. So all the people won't worry as much.
