Originally Posted by West Peterson
Your analogy is ludicrous and downright childish. It sure seems like you're trying to start something. This kid certainly DOES need to be put in the hole, and the county/state needs to make an example of him to show just how serious this matter is, and how serious they are in combating it. The fact that no one got killed in this case should NOT undermine the seriousness of the accident.
Good post West. That's the point of all this. The 25 yo with one year of driving is NOT the same as a 17 year old with the same amount. the critical thinking, judgment making ability of the human brain is NOT developed until between the ages of 22 and 25, which explains alot about why kids do what they do. By 25, the 1 year driver has alot more ability to keep themselves out of these situations whereas the 17 yo simply does not think about them at all in the same context. They can't.
The early driving allowance was primarily becuae of farm requirements, and somehow got stuck in our culture. Today it is ludicrous that a 16 yo drives and we give them full license to drive a 3500 weapon around, because that's exactly what it is. The minimum driving age in my opinion is 18. graduated license requirements like the UK has at least for motorcycles, M1, M2 etc. I don't know if they have this for cars but probably should have.