The rule of "getting your driver's licence at least after you're 16" shouldn't apply to everybody

"For example, in the state of Arizona, we've installed quite a few photo radar cameras along our highways and our intersections. These not only deter young drivers from speeding, the biggest cause of accidents," What about the country roads and roads that do not have such cameras? "Why should we put convenience in front of safety? " Why not? We do this already (Drugs, alcohol, etc. ) (Not saying that I agree with the previous) Plus, we could put restrictions on drivers below 16. (such as, but not limited to: they have to be enrolled in school, passing all grades, nobody in the car under twenty one etc. ) "First, drivers are ALREADY tested. At 16, you obviously have to get a license by testing for it. If you fail it, most states require that you add an additional learning permit time or wait a set period of time until you can apply again. That's your deterrent right there" Actually, drivers no longer have to take this test. (Well, in most places anyway) You just have to show up, get your picture taken, etc. (of course, you have to have so many hours of "training". ) "But how are we going to test these individuals? Written tests? Those are easy to memorize and recite. Simulator tests? Not only do they not accurately represent a real car (no real feedback to the driver) but they're also easy to fake. Driving tests on the road? Imagine the cost, the time, and the frequency" I agree with you on the written tests: they are easy to memorize, and you soon forget them. If we hired people who work at the drivers licence office to ride with the young drivers say, each week for a short period of time, the hired workers could show the young driver tips about driving. This would help more than it would hurt. Driving for an hour each week will not hurt the hired worker. As they did previously, if you score lower than acceptable, you would not be able to come back. "Here's one problem with a driving test though: most kids aren't even big enough to fit in a car. I'm 16, 5' 7", starting to learn how to drive, and as of 6 months ago, I couldn't even reach the pedals. Most kids younger than me can't get any closer. Not to mention being able to see over the steering wheel. Even so, children or young adults behave much differently in a car accident than adults do. When I was in an accident (my mom was driving) I hit my head on the passenger side window and blacked out; my mom was completely fine, along with the other adults in the vehicle. " First of all, I would like to say good luck on your driving:) (btw, we are the same age and height) Anyways back to the debate, the steering wheel can move up or down to a person's liking, and the seats are adjusted to move back and forth. ( and about your wreck: My friends and I were in a wreck in October. The whole time I thought: we are gonna die. But we made it out alive and the ambulance said we were lucky to be alive. We flipped over three times! ) Sorry I keep getting off track. "First, 16 year olds are determined as the earliest mature with the most need for driving. So it's the best age to start allowing kids to drive. " The youngest age you can start working is 13. (of course this has some restrictions and it is considered 'light work') The main reason kids don't get a job when they are 13,14,or14 is because they don't have transportation. . http://www.youthinformation.com... ""Yet no state places an outright ban on driving by 16-year-old 'junior operators. " Instead, more than 30 states employ a 'graduated driver licensing" system for 16- and 17-year-olds. In Massachusetts, for example, they are prohibited from driving during the first six months with passengers under the age of 18, a sensible way to limit distractions. But other aspects of the law are ill-considered. For example, junior operators must be off the road from midnight to 5 a. m. , while National Safety Council data point to the 9 p. m. to midnight period as the time of highest risk for teen accidents and fatalities. " This is what we have in our state, but this could be just the same for anyone under 18. "It comes down to instruction, not age, that these teens are lacking and thus resulting in accidents. " This is why we need to have a thorough program. ----arguments---- 1. It would actually make better drivers. ---If we had a thorough tests and watched every driving move they made like a hawk, we could watch them to see if they are eligible for the licence. Nowadays, sixteen year olds just have to go in the DMV, do a few written tests, etc etc. .. (they have to do some training, but no one REALLY listens to every word said or written. ) This means some careless sixteen year old can go up to the DMV, get their picture taken, show them the papers that they supposivly studied, and then leave with their licence. Then they get together with their friends, and do some crazy tricks to celebrate with their friends, and then BAM! They go home with possible tickets, lost friends, and worse-they don't go home at all. Now say a fourteen year old goes up there. They pass all the tests, and are put on strict restrictions. Hopefully parents will monitor the children to see if the children are living up to the restrictions. If we did have this test, let's say the same sixteen year old went up to the DMV, had to do all the tests and such, then failed. They were also failing in school, etc. The DMV could tell the sixteen year old he couldn't get his licence until he started passing or turned eighteen. By time the sixteen year old turned eighteen, he was mature enough to drive. By time the fourteen year old turned sixteen, they would be more experienced than the sixteen year olds today. 2. Some people need it more than others at different ages. ---Take me, for example. I started working at fifteen. I also live out in the country. My father is a single parent, raising me and my brother. He cannot afford to drive me everywhere I want. I am a mature driver, I wear my seat belt every time, and I do not speed. I could have used that licence when I was fifteen. I do have my licence now, and it helps out a whole lot. Now look at one of my friends. Her name is Valerie. She has no reason to be driving. She doesn't have a job, and she lives right in the middle of town, so she just walks everywhere. She was able to get her licence last year; I was not. Thus: some people need it more than others at different ages. 3. It is not the person's AGE it's the person's inexperience. Like I mentioned before, If we had tight restrictions and better teaching, we would have more younger experienced drivers. This is better than less experienced older drivers. I know I keep saying this, but it is true: lots of driving, studying, closely watching, restrictions = younger but better experienced drivers. --------or---------- walking in and getting your picture taken= older but not to experienced drivers. Some numbers and whatnot: 53% of teens are killed in a car accident occur on weekends. {there are no restrictions on driving on the weekends as of now, but we could change this to anyone under a certain number cannot drive on the weekends. } 65% of passenger deaths occur with a teen driving. {again, no laws against this, but we could put restrictions as no passengers under the age of [enter number] 41% of teenage motor deaths occur between 9:00 pm and 6:am. {there is a law against this one, but it is between 12:ooam and 5:00am. Again we could easily change this rule to no driving between [enter times] 2/3 of teenagers who died last year were not buckled up {better teaching and taking away their licence until they are [age] can prevent this. 16 year olds have higher crash ratings than that of any other age. {proper teaching and thoroughly picking who can and cannot get their licence can correct most of this. } SOURCES FOR 3 and numbers= . http://www.5myteen.com...