Teenagers on the Road Run the Risk of an Acciden

Throughout the past decade, the rate of teenage automobile crashes has risen. Teens have become more and more careless with their driving over the years. It may be the teens lack of experience or that they are just too young to have the responsibility of driving a car. As the years have gone by, teens have become more distracted while driving. With their cell phones buzzing uncontrollably, the music blaring, and their friends yelling in the back seat; teens are having a hard time focusing on the other drivers around them. Teenagers have a very hard time “multitasking” while driving, posing more of a hazard when on the roads (Zernike). Driving comes with much responsibility and maturity, two things an average teenager lacks. Why are teens more likely to be in a car accident than someone who has been driving for years? Raising the driving age will put teenagers and others on the road out of the risk of getting in an accident. With the pros and cons, teens are inexperienced, putting those around them at risk, and are distracted very easily. The use of appeal to logos and pathos explains the pros and cons of teens and driving.

One claim explaining why the age limit to get a driver’s license should be higher than sixteen is teenagers are very inexperienced when first beginning to drive. Driving comes with much experience, something a sixteen year old driver does not have. According to Williams, the driving experience of a teenager, has been known to being a “major factor” impacting automobile crashes. Although, the driving age of teenagers may only seem to concern a small amount of the world’s population, it does pertain to the safety of everyone around the teenage driver. Using appeal to logos, Williams’ evidence proves a sixteen year old teenager lacks experience when first driving. In contrast to those with restrictions, eighteen year olds that have restrictions “jumped 12%” in the amount of deathly automobile accidents (Roan). The significance of the data shows having restrictions does not impact whether the driver has the experience of not. With appeal to logos, Roan validates eighteen year olds with restrictions cause more accidents than those teens without. To make sure teens are more responsible when driving a car, Lund insists on going through numerous “driver education” classes to compensate for more driving experience. Despite Lund seeming outrageous, it is very crucial to society nowadays that teens get the most of their driver’s education. Even if that requires more time behind the wheel with an instructor. In spite of the many that will disagree, a driver’s test is taken to separate “dangerous drivers” no matter the age (Lund). At first, Lund states to get the experience needed, a teen should go through more driver’s education, but Lund then follows up with a statement proving a teen with fifty hours of behind the wheel training with an instructor will be ready for when it comes time they take the test to get their license. With raising the age a teenager could drive, the amount of car crashes would “greatly reduce” (ProQuest Staff). Recent studies like these shed new light on making the driving age limit higher than sixteen, which previous studies had not addressed. For the counter-claim, the driving age should not be raised because a teenager is very busy and need to be able to drive when starting to “work”, going to “school” or going to “practices”, which is allowing parents more free time (ProQuest Staff). This discovery is very important for not only teen drivers but the parents of the teens as well. Through many claims and counter-claims, the argument about teens being inexperienced when first beginning to drive at sixteen is argued and explained.

For the second argument, teenagers are making the roads society drives on a major accident waiting to happen. The safety of everyone is very important and keeping sixteen year olds off the roads would save a lot of lives. If a sixteen year old were to get “proper training”, there would be no worries if they were driving or not (Morelli and Johnson).When given the proper training, a teenager will be more prepared for driving on their own making it safer for the others who are driving as well. These findings are very important because past researchers found it to be the age of the driver to be the problem, when in fact it is actually the training the teens are given. Copeland gave information on how it is the parents who are in charge of whether their teen is properly trained because they should be taking their teen on “many driving sessions” instead of just relying on the instructor. When a teen gets training from their parents, it is much different than having an instructor teach them. A parent causes the teens to become more cautious and aware of their surroundings from behind the wheel. This discover will have an impact on the way teens begin to drive, it also has an impact on parents as well because it will save their teens life as well as another person. Would raising the age limit to eighteen make a difference? From the ages of sixteen to seventeen the rate of crashes has decreased, but from sixteen to eighteen “even more lives” are being saved (Morelli and Johnson). Although teens look forward to getting their license at sixteen, safety to themselves and others is much more important. It may seem as if Morelli and Johnson are trivial, it is very crucial to today’s society and their safety. Williams comes to the conclusion that if the driving age were to be raised, a “larger number of crashes” would occur. These findings challenge the work of earlier on researchers who believed inexperience was the problem when in fact it is a combination of both the age of the driver and the inexperience. “Don’t Raise Driving Age” states “holding off” a teen from getting their license will benefit tremendously in the long run and keep the roads and society safer. Even though many may not agree with this, it will lower the amount of automobile accidents creating a safer environment for all the people. When a teen first gets their license, in order to protect others and help the teen become more experienced, providing “restrictions” would create boundaries for teens (“Don’t Raise Driving Age”). These findings benefit both the teenager driver along with the other drivers on the road. With restrictions teens are still allowed to have their freedom, but also being safe at the same time. With the use of many claims and counter-claims, the argument of teens being dangerous to others is argued and explained.

For the third and just as important argument, teenagers are constantly distracted which causes numerous problems when driving. With a rise in technology, teens have been putting themselves and others around them at risk once they pick up their cell phone. Technology is a major factor to teen crashes nowadays, “texting while driving” takes the teens eyes off the road for a split second causing them to lose control and crash (Ricks). Although the idea of teens texting and driving only applies to teens, as a matter of fact it applies to everyone on the roads. It only takes a split second, and in that second a friend or family member could pass away. Ricks uses appeal to pathos because it relates to emotions. Teenage drivers need the capability to drive just as much as other driver, making “inexperience” the problem and “not age” the issue (ProQuest Staff). The data is important to the argument because much of society believes teens are the problem when in fact it is anyone who has not had the correct training. In 2011, a study took place with teens who drove and “45% of all students” stated they have texted while driving throughout a thirty day period (Healy). Recent studies like these shed new light on teens not having phones while driving. Cell phones are a hazard to all and cause accidents on a daily basis. Copeland explains how parents can initiate “consequences” for when their teen driver is caught texting while driving. These findings have important significance for teens to be mature and responsible when behind the wheel. Morelli and Johnson suggest that when a teen crashes, it is a combination of “immaturity and inexperience”, leading teens to be involved in the most accidents. Many teens may think they are experienced enough to drive friends around town, but really they are put on the road with people who have been driving for years. The DMV also has an impact on setting “restrictions” for teenagers who carry passengers (Leonard). There is a rule that a teen must wait a year after they get their to drive friends, but in today’s society no one follows that rule. If teens got caught, there should be a punishment which will make the teen never want to break that rule again. With the use of many claims and counter-claims, the argument about teenagers being distracted easily is explained and argued.

In conclusion, the age for when a teen gets their license should be raised from sixteen to an age where the teens are more mature and experienced. Through a pros and cons argument, the claims of teens being inexperienced drivers, distracted constantly, and dangerous to those around them while driving. Whether or not the age limit is raised, teens should take more responsibility and become more aware of their surroundings. That way the rate of automobile accidents is reduced, making the roads a safer place to travel for all.

Cite this page