A bill to raise the driving age to 18.

The con side of this debate will be arguing based on the philosophy that it is better to be given the ability to perform a potentially dangerous task in a time when one is more likely to be in a nurturing environment under supervision and care and able to develop skills rather than first being given such a legal ability in the most reckless and stressful time of a young adults life. In other words, it is pretty apparently that when most life home for the first time to live alone, generally going off to college, they are of the age of 18. Being allowed to drive for the first time in their lives at this point with all the temptations of social life, drinking and partying and having never been given the responsibility of driving before makes one more likely to make poor driving and risky decisions. The pro will probably point back to the statistics cited on case, however the problem with these statistic is that we do not know if in a society where driving is only first permitted at the age of 18 that the distribution of crashes and damages would not merely shift forward several years. In other words, the con thinks it likely that it is the first years of driving rather than the specific years of 16-18 in which individuals are most likely to get into crashes. 1) Valid solutions to the problem of poor lower age driving exists. In many states (my home state of Florida included) those having just gotten a license must for the year or even more drive with a parent or guardian or else face stiff penalties. There are also restricted driving hours in order to condition a driver and to force him or her to get used to driving before allowing for unrestricted driving abilities. These restrictions would be much more difficult to put in place were the first age in which someone were permitted to get a license in place once most students already move away from home to go to college. 2) Allowing those 16-18 to have cars provides many benefits to them and to their lives High school students are able to establish basic credit history through their first cars. By living with their parents and working under their supervision, there can be a certainty of payment that will put the youth of to a good start in terms of establishing his or her self as a responsible individual in the eyes of creditors and society. Modern students are more involved than ever. Students are completing hundreds of hours of community service and participating throughout the country. Putting a demand on the parents for transportation is damaging and limits the youth and students ability to participate in the community or on a broader level. In many areas public transport does not exist and students are limited in their access to activities and events which are needed to keep them competitive for college, scholarships and other such things. _______ Responding to the Pros arguments 1) The National Teen Driving Statistics says * Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death for teenagers. * 16-year-olds have higher crash rates than drivers of any other age. * 16-year-olds are three times more likely to die in a motor vehicle crash than the average of all drivers. ________________________________ None of these show that these things are age specific rather than first time driver specific. Given that the two overlap throughout the country, you can not prove in any way that 18 is a safer first driving age than 16. _________________________________________ 2) In fact a recent report by AAA estimates the cost of crashes involving 15-17 year olds to be $34 billion annually in medical expenses, lost work, property damage, quality of life loss and other related costs in 2006. In 2006, 974,000 crashes occurred in 2006 involving drivers ages 15 to 17 according to the analysis conducted by the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation for AAA. ___________________________________________ This argument does not prove much of anything. There will always be a cost associated with letting untrained drivers on to the road. However, I would argue that letting a bunch of drunk college students get their hands behind the wheels for the first time is even more dangerous than allowing for earlier training. _______ 3) 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. a 16-year-old's "the executive branch" of the brain is generally far less developed than those of teens just a little older - the part that weighs risks, makes judgments and controls impulsive behavior. Scientists at the NIH campus in Bethesda, Maryland have found that this vita area develops through the teenage years and isn't fully mature until age 25. That is why brain and auto safety experts think that most teenagers are just too immature to handle today's cars and roadway risk as they tend to treat cars more like toys or video games. ___ First of all: Why is pros argument not to raise the age to 25 if this is when development stops. Pro has to prove why 18 is any better than 16 in any meaningful, concrete and non arbitrary way. More importantly, much more of driving is made by the motor system of the brain which turns behavior into unconscious and rote activity rather than that controlled by the central executive. Anyone who has driven miles and miles only to not remember the route they took or the motions of the drive can attest to this fact. What matters most is that good driving habits are conditioned in individuals and the best way to have this happen is to have individuals primed through good driving experiences surrounded by nurturing parents rather than having their first experiences surrounded by drunk frat friends.