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

Interesting topic. I've always thought the same, but because of my advanced maturity I've understood why the law is the way it is, so thus I NEGATE. I argue that the law should change mandatory the way it is, for a few key reasons. The just of my side will be attacking my opponent's points and warranting them as such, thus your reason for negating. On to addressing my opponent. To summarize: My opponent offers both extremes, both good and bad drivers, and why it should flex. 1) Bad drivers With bad drivers, their license can be taken away as the law requires; in any case, this is the just of your deterrent to bad driving. 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, but it also prevents current drivers who are older than adolescents. So you're doing one thing to prevent two instances, much better than stopping them at 16. 2) Under 16 For these drivers, there's no real justification to just allowing them early on. For instance, they could end up being those bad drivers, and the younger they get, the more likely they are to have poor driving characteristics. Why should we put convenience in front of safety? Even if a select few can pass the course required (and I'll address this later on), it's not practical to implement this system for a select few. Even still, convenience should never be an issue. Carpooling, biking, walking, buses, metro systems, jogging, boarding, even home schooling need be exist already. It's unlikely that a kid can't go to school because he's inconvenienced; after all, with going to school being a law in the United States, schools have to find ways to bring children to school. 3) Testing these drivers There's two flaws with this argument. 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. 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 accuratly 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. 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. ------------- ------------- My only sole argument for now is that the 16-year-old drivers law stands to do a couple things. 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. But it also balances out the extremes, these bad drivers and the needy drivers, like my opponent suggests. In a sense, 16 year olds are the "average" of these categories, so it benefits the most amount of people. Hybrid programs like the resolution suggests are over complicated and hard to administer because there's really no accurate way to test each individual. I propose a counter plan; something similar to the Graduated Driver's License program already implemented by 30 states. "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. " . http://www.boston.com... It comes down to instruction, not age, that these teens are lacking and thus resulting in accidents. "Driving is, after all, a skill like any other; it is not mastered overnight — or after a few weeks of classroom instruction and a couple of hours in the seat. " . http://www.motorists.org... So with this program, we keep the benefits of 16 year old driving and also keeping them safer. Thus, you must NEGATE (CON) this resolution.