driving age should be 21 nationally

Before I even begin discussing the issues posed by the change in licensing age the instigator proposes, I will address the dilemma of imposing a national law on this issue, which should be monitored by the states. You mentioned what was going to be one of my key examples of a necessity for state based laws regarding licensing. You argue that a rigid national law should be in place, but that excludes individuals in agricultural areas and areas with minimal traffic flow that need to have licenses. There is a significant difference between urban traffic and rural traffic and laws need to be tailored accordingly to these differences, not imposed on the states by the federal government. Licensing laws are not one size fits all, different regions necessitate different laws and therefore a federally imposed law would be inefficient and unwise. This is why a national law regarding licensing age has not and most likely will not ever be instituted. In addition, at 21 many are already in college. Many college students cannot rely on their parents for transportation as they are away from home. The onus of forcing all of these individuals into public education would encumber America"s weak public transportation system far too much. It would be difficult for many college students to attend school and extracurricular events, especially if they lived off campus. It would most likely not only increase truancy and reduce attendance not only college, but high schools as well as busy parents fail to get their children to school. Many high schools, including mine, do not have buses and some students live outside their range. Furthermore, most of those not in colleges are employed by 21. Being without a car would be a significant hindrance to these individuals, and imagine how it would affect college students also working off campus or interning in another city. Response to 1) A major factor contributing to the statistical fact that younger drivers are more dangerous is the fact that they are inexperienced. Driving necessitates a learning curve. Individuals do mature to some extent between the ages of 17 and 21 but the major deciding factors in how well a driver performs are experience and focus. 21 year olds are not innately adept at maintaining unwavering attention, and the only reason they have more experience behind the wheel is that the current driving laws allow them to acquire this experience. In addition, college age youth are more exposed to dangerous driving situations, being usually unmonitored by parents and more exposed to narcotics that can impair driving, which brings up my next point. Someone agreed in the comments that 21 is also the age individuals are allowed to begin drinking. Although many are exposed to alcohol earlier, this age is the starting point for frequent consumption among the majority of people. The risks of having people simultaneously begin to learn how to use alcohol and cars responsibly are significant. Response to 2) We could easily begin driver"s education earlier with the current system as well. Perhaps individuals would not be suited to drive full time before 16, but by the instigator"s argument neither are the individuals who would be receiving early drivers education under the proposed law. Therefore, drivers could begin their education early and reap whatever benefits this provides regardless of whether the instigator"s law was passed. Response to 3) All of the individuals denied licenses by this law would still need to get to the same places. It would conserve resources and reduce congestion on the road due to increased carpooling, but the shock it would cause to America"s often criticized public transportation would overwhelm the system and lead to a debacle in transportation.