Save on gas. Decrease polution. Roads safer. Teens would have to take a bus or adults drive them places, so more supervision.
2007-02-04 13:59:37 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
I think in lieu of limiting age, it should be increased responsibility. Bring back driver's education for 9th, 10th, 11th graders, and then if they pass all, allow them to drive as 12th graders. Make the 11th graders go through the board of MADD, or a panel of other parents that lost their children to drunk driving.
2007-02-04 14:15:11 · answer #1 · answered by HG 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think 18 would be a better age. It is true that more adults get into accidents, but that is simply because there are more adults than 16- and 17-year-olds! So I don't think that is a valid argument. A motor vehicle is a serious responsibility. Traffic is ridiculous. Eighteen is a much more reasonable age to consider for imparting the responsibility of entrusting the safety of our lives to one another.
2007-02-04 22:14:30 · answer #2 · answered by artemisaodc1 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well we'd save on gas if the age was raised to 60--but that's not really in the spirit of liberty.
I agree with the driving age of 16---allow kids to drive while they're still under their parents supervision. New drivers at 18 aren't going to be significantly better drivers than new drivers at 16. I do agree there should be stricter standards for getting a license---getting mine (about 5.5 years ago) was entirely too easy, but that age shouldn't be a presumption of maturity.
2007-02-04 22:07:28 · answer #3 · answered by Jamie 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Although I am a teen and would probably be expected to say no, I answer yes. Driving related accidents are a major cause of death in teens ages 16-19. People aren't mature enough to have that kind of responsibility behind the wheel, especially boys. So although there are probably some exceptions to the matter, I would general say yes.
2007-02-04 22:11:37 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Stupidity is not age related. How many 18 + people are involved in accidents every day because they are doing ridiculous things behind the wheel? I've seen crazy stuff, like reading books and maps, putting on make-up, shaving, knitting, cell phone usage, watching porn (yeah, it was really annoying when my little one makes comments about the naked wrestling). There is no end to the insanity. Very few were under 21 I'd guess.
2007-02-04 22:38:28 · answer #5 · answered by sexmagnet 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think it might be a good idea. In our state its age 14 and that is way to young. I say this because when I was 14, looking back I had no common sense whatsoever. The 14 year old kids I know now, have even less.
2007-02-04 22:10:25 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
OMG, yes. At least. I have seen too many teens think it is some sort of game. Who can zig-zag the most, who can get to the stoplight first, how close to the curb can you get when turning, how many different things you can do while driving, etc..
They don't realize it is a ton of metal going 65 miles an hour.
2007-02-04 22:10:11 · answer #7 · answered by nomadder 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think it should be allowed at 16. Or else work for kids would become hectic. With our already hectic lives, we need kids to drive as soon as they can. And they are usually reliable, more adults get in car crashes.
2007-02-04 22:08:02 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Driving should not be allowed until you're either in post-high school education, a parent, or employed full-time.
2007-02-04 22:06:45 · answer #9 · answered by Dale K 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
well, in my country it is already not allowed for the people under 18
2007-02-04 22:07:59 · answer #10 · answered by sanja 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋