Raising the driving age just means you'll have a lot more inexperienced 25 year olds driving around instead of instead of inexpreienced 18 year olds.
well, I'm open to alternative analyses, and yours is thoughtful. However, I remember my own 16-25 years. I can't count the number of times I went out, pissed drunk, could even see straight, to drive home. Now, you have to admit, an adult is less likely to attempt to drive home drunk than a 16-year-old. I know that's the case for me. Yeah, some of the problem is inexperience, but some of it must also be general lack of social maturity. (actually, given the relative frequency with which I'd drive either drunk on alcohol, or high on any number of chemicals, and given the number of times I've been pulled over by the cops while flying high or drunk, I'm lucky to be alive and lucky to have only once been charged with DWI.)
Also, yes, if we're not going to commit ourselves to the massive costs of public transit infrastructure, then we need some consideration for private transit. Given that you're a truer rightist than I, I'll assume you're not open to the idea of increased public transit in areas wherein the economic feasibility is questionable. Given that situation, sure, we need to allow children to drive.
But you have to admit that raising the drinking age is not a viable solution to the drunk driving problem. Raising the driving age would at least ameliorate (but, you're right, probably not alleviate) that problem.
Great points, angus. I think inexperience is an issue, but so is maturity and the level of judgment exhibited at certain ages. The person who first learns to drive at 20 or 21 will not necessarily drive the same way he/she would have at 16, nor will that person necessarily exhibit the same poor judgment about drinking and driving. So I think that you're right on the money in saying that problems with younger drivers such as recklessness and drunk driving are a combination of immaturity and inexperience.
But to play devil's advocate on the driving age, I have another theory. My mom made all of us learn to drive at 16 (not that it took too much prodding) because she said you have to learn to drive while you're still relatively fearless. She said she never knew anybody who learned to drive after reaching full maturity who was a good driver. As I think about it, she was probably right. Those who learn to drive later in life are often very skittish and overly cautious, and never develop the skills that those who learn younger develop.
There's no easy answer. It's like letting your kid cross the street on his own for the first time. You may be scared to death, but you do it anyway because you know you have to at some point. We can't keep delaying adulthood; that's not the answer. And most kids are VERY crafty about getting around the rules that adults set for them in any case.
I tend not to favor "solutions" that effectively mete out collective punishment based upon group behavior. I think instead that there should be strict BEHAVIORAL guidelines when it comes to drinking and driving, and that breaking them should bring severe punishment. That way we focus on the problem people, deter others who may be otherwise tempted, and hopefully control the problem that way rather than just issuing a blanket "punishment" to every young person. And as I've said before, it's hard to argue that it makes sense that a person can be old enough to marry, and old enough to give his life for his country, but not old enough to have a drink legally.
angus, I also applaud your honesty and your refusal to submit to politically correct posturing. I too have driven drunk, but I don't think to anywhere near the extent that you did. I ALMOST got busted for it once, but got very lucky, so my worst legal run-in remains speeding (and I'd like to keep it that way).
