In my opinion, it reduces teenagers' crashes. The age of 18 is the end of the adolescent period and the beginning of the adult one, where people usually become more conscientious and responsible. However, at the age of 16 adolescents are usually highly impulsive and imprudent which can lead to some critical and dangerous behaviors. According to the Atlanta Constitution, two out of three teenagers passengers deaths are caused by an accident drove by other teenager (January 14, 2000, par 1). That is why raising the driving age to 18 can decrease the teenagers accidents because of their maturity and responsibility. The research conducted by the Insurance Institute of Highway Safety on the driving age subject revealed that increasing the age of driving leads to a reduction in accidents rates for teenagers' drivers (Lund & Koroknay-Palicz, May 4, 2009, par 3). .
On the other hand, opposers believe that driving lessons can solve the problem, thus there is no need to increase the driving age. The problem is that young drivers lake the driving mechanisms and some driving skills. According to Pollatsek, Fisher and Pradhan (October 2006), the reason of teens accidents can be informational; it is when teenagers lack the knowledge of driving mechanisms: they don't know where to look to avoid risks. This possibility can be solved with driving lessons (p. 255). The driving license will not be given unless the student becomes ready. According to Lund and Koroknay-Palicz, whether the person is 16 or 30, the driving test will eliminate dangerous drivers (May 4, 2009, par 13). Thus, it is not about the age, it is about the efficiency of the driving education.
Nevertheless, driving lessons are neither the solution for safety, nor are they the one for inexperience. They are not capable of enlightening young drivers about some safety procedures and they are not qualified to persuade them to follow these instructions to reduce damages.
