Raise the Driving Age?

The American Thinker usually has some great articles, but somehow a particularly dreadful one got through to the website.

Nearly all of the arguments have inherent flaws. Perhaps he should have read Jeff Jacoby's recent article on the myth of saving gas. Besides the absurd "national security" it would (not) bring with reductions in oil usage, the author makes some rather amazing and rather obnoxious claims: "Fewer hours fritered away on the road means more hours studying." Right. This is a remarkable fantasy land claim. Kind of like socialism. Too bad it doesn't work. Cars plus teenagers does not mean worse grades. How can he even write that with a straight face?

Also, cars make girls pregnant! Of course, the more teenage boys with cars the more pregnant girls! So, let's just raise the driving age. Maybe this is true, but to raise the driving age because of this is just plain stupid. Let's get to the heart of the problem here: cars don't make girls pregnant.... I think we're looking in the wrong direction here.

Then of course there's drug and alcohol abuse. Raise the age? That doesn't solve much, because far more older persons than teenagers are going to drive drunk. So I guess that means....ban cars!

And finally, the one with the most concrete support, but probably the one that is the most flawed nonetheless. Teenagers represent a higher percent of accidents and damage than their percentage of drivers should suggest. Therefore, raise the age, right? Wrong. That will just make the next age group have the highest rates. Think about it. What is it that teenagers have in common? They're new drivers. There's a novel idea. Teens are more accident prone because they have no driving experience. That is the real probem: teens are new drivers. They have only a few miles under their belts. Experience is everything, age, I am willing to bet, really has little to do with it.

Raise the driving age? There really is no logical reason to do so.