Titus

New drivers are idiots. You know nothing, you have no experience, you have no reflexes... you are a driving pile of potential death.

I don't believe anyone should be able to drive until 18.

Your two statements are totally illogical. All new drivers are idiots, so it doesn't matter if you start driving at 16 or 40, you still have zero experience and zero reflex.

In actual fact, it makes more sense for drivers to begin driving at 16 because
a) they are probably still living at home, and have someone to learn from (presumably)
b) they are likely driving their parents' car, and so are not in complete control of their driving needs (i.e. if they fuck up, their parents can take the keys)
c) driving is not yet a crucial part of life - that is, they still have someone to drive them places, as opposed to moving out and then getting a license and being quite literally just thrown into the jungle

All, and I mean all the sixteen-year old drivers I know (the number is about 8) have had an accident ranging from a 300 dollar fender bender to rolling the car into the ditch and completely totaling it.

Insurance costs head and shoulders more for teens than it does for adults. Besides being a state-sponsered and thusly guaranteed source of revenue (in MN anywhoo), perhaps there's a reason?

Sure, it's a narrow perspective, but I think it's a good example. You won't find much variation around the Americas.

Oh, there's no doubt that younger drivers are worse than older drivers. And part of that is a function of age and maturity. But most of it is a function of experience.

Setting the driving age to 16 gives kids a couple years of experience in a more structured, controlled environment. I think better laws need to be put in place (such as mandatory driver training), but simply moving the driving age up is not the right solution. IMO, kids need that experience under their parents.

All these ages are arbitrary, anyway, since you can't apply one age where kids will be mature enough to drive/vote/whatever.