Ernest Marsh wrote:
I'm not sure this is hypocritical - surely it is acknowledging the fact that thngs have changed.
We now have faster cars, more of them, AND a whole raft of passenger safety features, and car handling aids, which tempts youngsters with NO EXPERIENCE to imagine that if Michael Schumacher can step out of a 100 mph wreck, so can they.
Things have changed, yes. But inexperienced drivers have been having accidents for decades, and whilst the faster cars of today make it possible for a young tearaway to have a high-energy accident, those specific safety features combined with the better design of newer cars also makes it possible for the inexperienced-but-attempting-to-be-sensible driver to avoid having an accident that they *would* have had in an older car. It might not be hypocritical to suggest it based on a full discussion of all the points, but it did feel pretty hypocritical in the context of that particular discussion.
And where does it end? If we start saying 17-19 year olds aren't sufficiently mature to drive, what other things might we then raise the age limit on...
One thought that's just crossed my mind. If someone learns to drive in their teens, there's at least some chance a parent may be able to impart a few valuable bits of driving advice (I know mine did), or that the new driver will spend some time gaining experience with a parent as passenger rather than a friend egging them on. If the age limit is increased, more people will start their driving after they've left home, and what would replace the parental input then?