A bill to raise the driving age to 18.

As far as I am concerned, side pro and I are essentially arguing very similar positions overall and this debate has degenerated into whether or not being able to drive with restrictions at age 16 goes with side pro or side con. Since we both agree that the ideal system is one in which those from age 15 or 16-18 are gradually given more rights and responsibilities in driving, we are at a bit of a standstill it seems. As my side was the first to mention the idea of gradual licensing in my first argument, I think that those reading should take this as a concession on the pro side that a hybrid system of gradual license giving such as often happens in the status quo is better than a strict system in which one can only get a license at age 18 as seemed proposed by the pros initial argument. If this is the case, then I think you can give me the win on face. Pro seems to concede on many levels that driving at age 16 may be needed for so many things including those who must work to sustain a family. In doing must judge whether or not he has essentially conceded this round to me. In this debaters opinion, side pro has given no concrete reasons why age 18 is that much better than age 16 or any earlier age. Moreover, as each individuals brain development varies immensely it would probably be better to set a period of gradual licensing that could begin at any age when the individual could show matureness and a capacity to drive responsible. This should not inherently be based on age. Risk statistics based on age seems overall a rather lousy way to give a basis for qualification for things that very widely based on individual. I doubt that brain studies are close to as advanced as side pro suggests: Why? Because if they really were, then we could just implement a brain scan for every individual attempting to get a license to see if they are developed enough to qualify. This would establish an actually objective test based on brain chemistry which the reality and pros case does not. I want to give a personal anecdote her to explain why having the right to drive at a younger age can often be beneficial for families. My mother became sick when I was 15 and had to go for elaborate chemotherapy sessions. Because she was so weak after driving even from that age I had to be the one to often drive the car. My father was working to sustain a family throughout the day and I would be driving with my mother in the car because she was physically unable to drive me herself. Students often have charitable and useful functions which require a car. If more service projects can be done and more alturism exists in the community, then side con has more than proved its burden to show that the status quo makes our society overall a better place. The other side really does not address the bulk of my arguments. If individuals have their first driving experience in an environment in which heavy drinking is encouraged and in which peer pressure is on to incentivize faster driving then we are more likely to have individuals conditioned to drive poorly. Whether or not younger brain development makes risk behavior more likely, we can be sure that such a social environment does so as well to some large degree. A couple of minor responses. Overall Auto insurance rates have a minimal increase because they tend to be pro-rated and based on experience ratings.. Your argument about families is pretty limited as if there is too high of cost for insurance for families they can choose not to get their kids a car. Having a car is not a prerequisite for having a license. Besides, individual insurance companies and car dealers can still deny individuals the ability to get a vehicle in and of themselves. This has little to do with whether the individual should be able to get a license which is only a recognition from the state that that individual is qualified to drive. There is no guarantee they will get a car or even apply for insurance. The global warming argument is cute but will have a very minimal impact at best. Focusing on making more fuel efficient cars and etc is more worthwhile and this argument is ultimately not a reason to deny individuals who could handle driving a car the ability to do so. It is a good thing that we start giving the ability to drive to those who are under the age where they are considered adults. We acknowledge that at that age they still have to learn and be tutored in something as risky and complicated as driving. We allow them to build up credit with their parents as co-signers and to work up to a situation of fiscal responsibility. We allow them to drive to run errands for the family and in general become more vital in facilitating and assisting in their family and community. Gradually as they turn 18 we let them go with the full knowledge that they have experienced enough on the road to be safe and productive drivers and that their good driving instincts will win over the peer pressure of their drunk friends to risk life and limb and go faster and faster.