The issuance of driving licenses in the US is based on the state an individual resides. In essence, the requirements of acquiring a driver’s license are largely dependent on state laws, and an individual is advised to ensure they familiarize themselves with these laws to obtain such documents. The national driving age, however, cuts across most of the states, at 16 years. In others, one can drive as young as 14 years of age. Individuals who have attained these ages are advised to provide the necessary documentation required by the state they reside in to sit a driving test and get a license. They should undergo 50-hour practice hours to satisfy the authorities in charge that they can maintain safety while on the roads. They are eligible for a level 1 license on the satisfaction of the instructors, after which they can legally hit the road. According to the Census Bureau, teenagers made 22.4% of the American population in 2018. In essence, therefore, the number of teenage drivers out in the road is close to a quarter of the total population, assuming a hundred percent drive. Studies show that the highest cause of death among this large number of teenagers is car crashes (Tefft et al., p. 2). This is partly attributed to risk-taking due to a lack of brain maturation among these individuals (Gicquel et al., p. 2). Lack of maturity of the brain is in itself attributed to adolescence during teenage. Addressing this problem has seen scholars suggest different alternatives, most of which revolve around stricter traffic rules, none of which has helped so far. There is a need to switch gears to the aspect of age to find a long lasting solution. The federal government should, therefore, increase the minimum age for the acquisition of driving licenses across the states to at least 18 years.
The carnage on American roads is mostly due to the immaturity and the psychological challenges of the youth. Statistics from across the hospitals add up to the numbers provided by the police on deaths. Gicquel et al. put this into perspective, submitting that most of those who are hospitalized from road carnages in the country come from the teenage age group (p. 1). The statistics are not any different in other developed countries in the west. Teenagers call the shots in the number of deaths from traffic accidents in the UK, Canada, and other countries. The numbers are worrying and will continue running into the future. They are more likely to speed, engage in drunk driving, and disregard traffic rules, which may come out as outdated. Their lack of experience only worsens the situation. The problem is widespread across the states and, according to the Center for Disease Control (CDC), accounts for the highest costs in motor vehicle injuries. In 2017 alone, 2,364 teens were killed in road accidents in the US, and about 300,000 were hospitalized (CDC). Losing such a high number of young people is not only disappointing for the victims but also catastrophic to the country that depends on the future contribution of these people in the building of the nation.
The problem of high cases of road accidents among teenagers affects the teenagers themselves, their victims, their parents, and guardians and, ultimately, the government. Accidents are recipes for physical disability, other complications, and death. Teenagers who get involved in such accidents, therefore, either die or spend the rest of their lives living with a disability or other life complications. They may be plunged into depression afterward and end up slowly nearing their deaths as a result. The victims of such accidents suffer the same fate. According to the statistics gathered by the CDC, the number of victims is more in males than females. Most specifically, two males get involved in teenage accidents for every one female victim. The number increases with the presence of teen passengers. Teenagers are more predisposed to accidents when they lack an instructor, are in the presence of their compatriots, or are newly licensed. Victims of these accidents are taken in for medical attention by hospitals under the financial tutelage of their parents or medical covers or both. As such, the parents get to feel the financial pinch, footing part of the hospital bills. They are also plunged into psychological distress as they stress over their children. Medicare and Medicaid come in to fund the hospital bills as well. They, therefore, feel the financial pinch in cases that would have otherwise been prevented. Such accidents jeopardize the government’s effort to promote traffic safety, undermining their quest to reduce healthcare costs and ultimately robbing the whole country the service of young men and women who would otherwise steer the nation to the next level.
The answer to the question of teenage accidents, according to this study, lies with the behavioral address. Addressing behavior means studying the psychological causes of teenage road accidents. Experts have established a connection between the cognitive and behavioral attributes of young people with their propensity to engage in a road crash. In essence, teenagers, adolescents to be specific, have a web of developmental changes going on their bodies, which alter complex social interactions and hence their decision making. They become more irrational, instantaneous, and rush in their decision making. Adolescents experience challenges of emotional development. They become emotionally unsteady and therefore suffer anxiety, anger, guilt, depression, and shame (Savi et al. p. 3). They also bear the shortcomings of exaggerated thinking. Their risky behavior contributes significantly to the high number of accidents in which they engage.
Age, therefore, plays a crucial role in the high number of teenage road accidents in the US. UK laws limit the minimum driving age to 17 years. There are plans to raise this age to 18 years in a bid to address the rampant accidents among the younger population. In 2017, only about 274 young people aged 17-24 died in road accidents in the UK (Finnerty). This number if way lower compared to the US. The number of young people driving in the UK is less than those in the US. Furthermore, the UK drivers are more mature than their US counterparts and hence the difference. As such, it would be plausible to have the government increase the minimum driving age to at least 18 years. This way, they will increase the level of maturity needed for one to become a driver and hence improving their decision making and risk-taking. 18-year-olds are better placed to make informed decisions and are a little higher in the hierarchy of emotional development. They are almost adults and, therefore, better placed to handle grave life matters. This will not only improve safety on the roads but also give the young populace time to mature up before undertaking positions of responsibility. It is a safer option and will advocate for more physicality in movements and hence encouraging fitness among teenagers.
The proposal to increase the minimum driving age has elicited mixed reactions from the public with a significant proportion airing contrasting views. Some counterarguments have risen in the process, accusing the proposal of limiting the transportation options for teenagers and denying them an opportunity to take responsibility and gain valuable experience. Since most teenagers at 17 and below are active school goers and socially invested, limiting their travel options and putting them back at the mercies of their parents and guardians will make them look policed and would in return push them to more rebellion. Some level of freedom, according to those who advance these claims, enables the teenagers to gain some level of responsibility and hence autonomy. Autonomy is vital in creating confidence, which is an essential attribute of life. Raising the bar to 18 years will also deny the country the services of an energetic chunk of the population, which and hence undermining creativity and invention. Furthermore, exposing them to early driving experiences hones their skills, molding them into expert drivers in the future. Those advancing these claims also cite the majority who are obedient and abide by the traffic rules as enough reason to let the teenagers continue driving. They instead advise for the undertaking of alternative options that exploit the control in the roads.
Withdrawal of driving privileges for these teenagers means reduced confidence in their ability. The relationship between these individuals with authority, just like parents, is very significant. Since they are naturally inclined to be rebellious, attempts to have them under control without establishing a point of coincidence only serve to worsen their adherence to rules. As children grow into adolescents, they increasingly develop the desire for autonomy and individuation (Branje, p. 171). They become more rebellious under strict control and develop the urge to break the law under such circumstances. They become deaf to the law and authority and more predisposed to crime. Outlawing driving among the 14, 15, 16, and 17-year-olds will only serve to enrage them. Those already in the age group are most likely to be inconvenienced, and the country may end up solving more cases of illegal driving and, worse still, more accidents from such. Outlawing driving for those below 18 years is, therefore, a potential attack on teenagers, and they may respond in ways that may prove costlier than the expectations of this intervention.
While these arguments may sound plausible, there is a need to pay more attention to the scientific description of the danger that the youth poses while on the road. They are more predisposed to crash than are their older counterparts. As such, the younger youth are more inclined towards appealing to the emotional rush decisions and the instantaneous needs, rather than safety. They are not in a position to support themselves fully and hence still under the care of parents and guardians. Teaching them responsibility does not only stem from allowing them to drive. Many ways can be exploited to keep them responsible. By allowing them to take up summer jobs, for instance, they are taught responsibility and molded to become the citizens they ought to be. Driving does very little to instill the amount of discipline that these summer jobs do.
Furthermore, there is no serious restriction of movements as they are still allowed to move around in public service vehicles. The government cannot be restrained in its course of action based on the emotional reactions of the teenagers when the need for such is a grave as public safety. Appeal to emotions will only serve to massage the problem and tag many others more along the way. The law should not be made to suit people’s infatuated preferences but rather to address the common good of society on the grounds of plausibility.
Most road accidents in the US are attributed to careless driving by teenagers. The low minimum age requirement for drivers across the American states is to blame for this phenomenon. Teenagers have a challenge in the maturity of thoughts, are irrational, and rush in their decision making. They have a risky behavior that does not auger well with duties like driving, which needs high-level sobriety. The answer to the problem lies with the introduction of stricter regulatory frameworks regarding the minimum age for the acquisition of a driver’s license. More specifically, it would be prudent to increase the minimum driving age to 18 years, from the current lows. Countries with such higher minimum driving ages have relatively fewer accidents attributed to age and hence a projected success with the adoption of a similar threshold. While such a decision would deny teenagers of their autonomy and independence and limit their movements, it stands out as the most suitable science-based solution to the problem of road carnage in the US. It will not only help to reduce the numbers but also give the youth time to gain maturity before taking such delicate responsibilities.