Who else like myself believe that the age for driving should be 21 years?

Question

Sorry but I believe that 17 year olds are not mature enough to be behind the wheel of a car. After all it is as dangerous as a lethal weapon especially when some parents help their youngsters to be in charge of extremely powerful cars just for a status symbol.

I mean the minimum age!

Answer 1

yes i agree whole heartily 21 for a driving licence and 1 yr with the P in rear window and 21 years also for being able to drink in pubs we might then cut out some violence and road casualties, it seems the way to go

Answer 2

Although it's probably easier for us to say (after we passed our tests at 17) you do have a very valid point.

There are a few benefits from raising the age limit. 17/18 year olds can be immature when it comes to driving. Afterall the biggest cause of death of you men between 17 and 25 is through car crashes (usually from overtaking at dangerous times or speeding).

Also i think 18/18 is a bad age because this is the same age at which people are allowed to drink. So suddenly they have the ability to drive and the ability to be served alcohol, two things which don't mix! And believe me i've know many occasions when young people have driven after drinking (they think being younger makes them more vigilant than older people).

Another benefit which seems to go unnoticed is that, outside of big cities like london, as soon as people are able to drive they get a car and begin commuting to work/university. Like me, they don't experience the waiting at the bus stop or trainstation in the cold. Which leads onto to public transport. How can you tempt someone who has a car back onto public transport? If the driving age was 21, then all those who start working or stay at university will have to use public transport from the age of 16-21. By which time these people may become accustomed to public transport and not see owning a car or driving to work a necessity.

Having said all that though, if I was 16 or 17 I would be furious if I was to be told that now i must wait until i am 21. There are benefits to them driving at 17, they are more independent. Besides in America they can drive at 16.

I think it's more of a culture thing with driving. We need to stop the boy-racer attitude, stop the road rage etc. Tests should be more extensive. Another good suggestion i've always had is to limit the engine size of cars that young people can drive. A bit like with motorcyles.

People aged 17 - 21 can only drive cars that are under 1.2 litres. This would stop the boy racers whizzing around residential areas because the simply wouldn't have the power to do so. This would also cut speeding and dangerous overtaking.

Answer 3

Hello,

(ANS) I think this is a good question & I can sympathise with your sentiments completely. But I do think its NOT a black & white issue by any means, you cannot tar all 17year olds with the same brush.

You cannot say ALL 17year olds are irrisponsible!! clearly this isnt the case at all, I think there are probably a minority of young people especially male who are very irrisponsible when it comes to driving & cars but there are also some extremely bad or dangerous adult drivers too.

**If we are too believe what the insurance industry has to say on this subject then it would seem that there is strong evidence to suggest that the highest risk drivers are aged 17-24yrs old and tend to be new or new-ish drivers or atleast inexperienced drivers.

My answer has to be YES! I think tougher driving tests and much longer periods of probation before a full license is given wouldnt be a bad idea. And if the age for holding a full license was changed to 21 years old I wouldnt be against that in principal at all.

**PS: I've held a full UK driving license since 1988 and still have a clean license today.

IR

Answer 4

No I understand what you are saying but someone who is 19 might need to get to work and live in the countryside where there is no public transport. There should be a limit on the size of the engine so immature 17 yr olds can't have extremely powerful cars. Having said that most of the dangerous driving I see where people bomb down our 20 mile an hour road is people around thirty because they are the only one who can afford the insurance on their 'status symbol'.

Answer 5

In some parts of the country, it is very difficult to get about without a car. Many 17-year-olds are working, and I'm sure parents are not going to want to drive them to and from work. So restrictions should only be used where absolutely essential.

Sure, a lot of youngsters do have accidents, but this could be as much down to inexperience as immaturity. If so, all that would happen is that more 21-year olds would have accidents.

And why choose 21? The safest drivers are in their fifties, but I don't think anyone would approve if we raise the age to 40 or fifty?

So I think we need to work on getting tuition right: there is already a lot more on hazard awareness, etc. And young drivers who show signs of irresponsible driving could be given a longer driving ban, so they have to stop driving until they gain some maturity.

Also, I would mention that often the aggressive driving that I see is not by youngsters in powerful cars (in reality there are not many of them) it is older salesmen and businessmen in a hurry.

Answer 6

It all depends on the individual and that individual's mindset. Some individuals at 17, just aren't responsible to be on the road and it's as simple as that. I got my license at 17 and when i was finally able to get out there, i was responsible with mine, but then again you had some who just weren't and lost sight over what having a driver's license represents. Driving is not a right, it's a privilege! It's serious business and any decision you make (good or bad) affects everyone else on the road with you!

Personally, back then, i was someone who said that the age for getting your insurance lowered should be 21, not 25! Why? You have to be 21 for everything else! Why not be 21 and have your insurance lowered? You have to be 21 to gamble, to go to adult clubs, and anything else you can imagine. 25 is a crazy age for lowering insurance. It should be 21.

Answer 7

Your argument has no merit. Fact: Alcohol kills more teenagers in the US than any other drug. Teenagers have no common sense and will drink, until they puke and then drink some more until they pass out. Teenagers do drink and drive. No your argument is pure BS. When was the last time you went to a party and only had a sip of beer or any time and just had a sip of beer. Teenagers do not drink because they like the taste of alcohol, they drink to see how drunk they can get, and you know that's a fact. Just read the posts here. They make fools out of them self's, want to start fights over nothing. Come on and get real, I think they should raise the drinking age to 25.

Answer 8

All of these answers about upping the age of driving and drinking and buying tobacco is making me ill...... BUT IT'S OK TO SIGN YOUR LIFE AWAY TO THE MILITARY AT 17........if the driving age should be upped then i think senior citizens need to take a driving test to see if they can even keep their licenses....they cause mass amounts of accidents by their slow response time and hesitation, also with all of the medication they are on who is to say they aren't going to pas out or something?? and as far as the drinking age goes....look at europe, they present more civilized nations then the US will ever be and their drinking ages start young if they even have one....and lets up the military age then......it doesn't matter what the drinking age is...ppl who want to drink will drink....and obviously those of you who feel the driving age should be upped never had any kids....how are you supposed to work and do sports etc if you cant drive....morons...oh and i started hunting with a high powered rifle at age 12....i find that to be just as dangerous as driving a vehicle if put into the wrong hands....what a moronic BIAS question/statement

Answer 9

I think that only a minority of 17 year olds isn't mature enough to be behind a wheel. I myself am 17 and learning to drive and would never consider joy-riding, speeding, showing off or buying all those stupid upgrades for the car like exhausts that can be heard miles away.

When someone's immature at 17, they're going to be immature at 21 and will just show off harder. It's only a minority. Most people I know who can drive do so responsably but of course you hear of a few who drive about whilst their friends throw stuff out the car etc.

Answer 10

I do not think that it should be raised to 21. I can't wait to be able to have my own car and be able to go out by myself and not rely on my parents (Mum's Taxi/Dad's Taxi). But, having said that I can fully appreciate what it is that you're saying - perhaps 18 or 19 years, but not 21! By the time people are 20 they want to be able to get around by themselves and be independant. Your 'status symbol' suggestion is quite valid but I suggest you go and have a look at your local college car park (a bit of a weird thing to do but...) or wait 'til the day ends and see what it is that the students are driving - the chances are they will either be Ka's (for the girls) or old fiesta's (for the boys). Also, there are likely to be those boy-racers that have 'pimped' their cars up but i doubt there will be very many.

Answer 11

well what would happen is that if the driving age is 21 and not lets say 17, then everything would go foreward 4 years. So instead of someone starting being mature behind the wheel at 21, it would be at 25. Instead of insurance companies lowering the cost when you turn 25, it would be 29. Get the picture?