Driving age, good or not old enough?

The United States government is very passionate about trying to change the age that a person may obtain their drivers license from the age of 16 to 18. Their claim for this is that the younger generation of drivers, 16-20 year olds, cause over 50% of the accidents in the U.S. in the past ten years. The government has a bill in the works now that teenagers won’t be able to get their permit until the age of sixteen, and then get their license when they turn eighteen. People are becoming very outraged at the thought of this because the two sides of this argument have been arguing and debating about this for the past couple of years. The neutral party, however, is intent on staying neutral on this manner and not getting involved. I, personally, have mixed feelings on this because I’m nineteen and have had my license for three years, but on the other hand I can see why the government wants to do this because I have done a lot of stupid things as a young driver.
The proponents for changing the age to eighteen have very good facts and statistics and arguments to support their claim. First they have provided facts and stats for the past ten years that out of all the reported traffic accidents, ranging from totaling a car to a minor fender-bender, 50% have been caused or happened because of a teenage driver. They claim that if a few more years of a teenager’s life would come before they received their license then they would be ready to operate a motor vehicle on public streets. Another claim is that a teenager is more susceptible to operating a vehicle under the influence of harmful substances such as alcohol, or different forms of drugs or illegal substances. Also the amount of minor consumptions has substantially increased in recent years which cause more worry for government officials. They are extremely worried about this because since a human body isn’t fully formed until the age of twenty-one there is always the worry of a teenager going to a party, having access to their car because they are old enough to drive, getting in, and driving off to go get food or go to the next party. This is probably the biggest factor in the argument for the proponents of changing the age to eighteen.
Also others argue that the state issued driver’s test is substantially too easy and should be made more difficult and that more hours in the car should be necessary in order for teens to pass the tests and obtain their license. Along with this claim, officials are saying that doing this would not only help out the accident total, as it would probably decreases based on statistics, but more gas would be saved and the environment would benefit from this most importantly. Al Gore was one of the first men to totally back this one hundred percent with actual scales that showed rising the age would give the earth’s ozone layer a better chance of maintaining itself if less gas was produced for cars and less natural resources were burned. Along with this it could cause the U.S. becoming fewer dependants on foreign oil, which has been a big deal for America in recent years based on the current situation in the Middle East and with Iraq, and the other countries in the East.
The opponents to this law being change claim that based on their age they should not be discriminated against. If teenagers can do many things such as going to school full time and getting good grades and if they pass the required tests that are given during the driving exam then they should be able to get their license. People think it is ridiculous that government officials blame teenagers for their lack of driving skills based on their youth, and people have shown proven evidence that states the years of 23-35 are responsible for the most DUI, drunken driving accidents in America over the past twenty years.
The neutral members in this discussion state that they agree that the state wide required test, in every state, should be increased and the hours in the classroom, and driving portion should be more intense and difficult. Also the written test should give more typical driving scenarios and more signs to identify so that they can teach teens the most effectively and if they fail then they have to wait a full year until they can take the test again. But on the other hand they agree that the government cannot place all the blame on just the teens and leave out the instructors or the state for choosing the instructors because it is not always the teenagers fault but sometimes their instructor that makes the difference.
In closing I would like to say that I have opinions for both parties. I agree that the tests and course should be more difficult and strenuous for the teens and that if they fail they should have to wait a year to take their test again. But on the other hand I think the law and age should remain just as it is, at the age of sixteen. I mean if a person wants to wait until they are older or if a parent wants to stop their child from getting their license then that is their prerogative and the teen should respect that. But if a parent wants to take their kid to get their license and then buy them a car or help them buy a car then more power to them. I personally love driving, and I am happy my parents allowed me to get my license at sixteen. I have experienced a lot since I have started driving and I plan on learning more and more based on my driving experience and what I will experience in the future. It will help me in later life because I have gotten a few tickets but in the end it is for the best.