However, the editors' main argument for making such an age adjustment is not only lazy, but simply condescending and demeaning to all youth, and fails to reflect a more complex reality.
However, the editors' main argument for making such an age adjustment is not only lazy, but simply condescending and demeaning to all youth, and fails to reflect a more complex reality.
I will acknowledge a University of Utah professor's research findings, which suggest that a "key portion of the brain that analyzes information and selects an appropriate response is still forming when a child is 16, 17 and even 18 years old," but using these findings as evidence that children cannot be responsible drivers, or that they are inherently less responsible and less capable of making good driving decisions as adults, is simply an over-extension and not a responsible argument to make. Some of the most conservative and careful drivers I know are 18 and under, while conversely, I know many adults that I would never send my children with or be comfortable driving with myself. In fact, I suspect that if the University of Utah professor were further questioned, he/she would acknowledge that not everyone's brain develops at the same pace and in the same exact way. Additionally, as brain imaging technology and the science of cognitive brain development is still fairly new, it is irresponsible to make broad-sweeping claims regarding "all" adolescents' development.
Furthermore, the Tribune's core argument further implies that children are not as mature as adults. As a general rule, various forms of immaturity probably do tend to manifest themselves more commonly among adolescents than in adults, but I think we all know of extremely mature youth, as well as extremely immature adults. Therefore, using the age of 16, 17, or 18 as an arbitrary cut-off marker signifying maturity not only fails to fully address the real extent of the issue, but also is demeaning to those young teens that are responsible and aware of those around them. I, for one, never want to send the message to my children, or any other teens, that they are inherently inferior to adults. This is simply not the case and not what we should be teaching our children.
I believe in the potential and capacity of our youth, and would make the counter-argument that more often than not, a manifested lack of maturity and poor decision-making among teens has more to do with insufficient teaching and preparation than it does with brain development, or lack there-of. So, if teens make up only 7.4 percent of all Utah drivers, but are involved in 27 percent of all crashes, then maybe we should spend more time looking at how they are prepared to take control behind the wheel, rather than blaming it on an insufficient brain capacity. In this point, I agree with the Tribune: Utah's graduated driver license process, which allows teen's to accept gradually increasingly more responsibility, is a step in the right direction. Finally, we need to hold parents more responsible for the training and evaluation of their children. A parent should be keenly aware of a particular child's readiness and skill and should not allow one who is not prepared to drive without appropriate supervision.
This is indeed an important issue and I hope that we can take real steps to better ensuring the preparation and safety of our children on the roads, without using ill-conceived or degrading arguments, which simply are not needed.