>Sixteen-year-olds are dangerous drivers. Their rate of fatal crashes per mile is three times as high as the rate for drivers age twenty and over, and nearly tw

>Sixteen-year-olds are dangerous drivers. Their rate of fatal crashes per mile is three times as high as the rate for drivers age twenty and over, and nearly twice as high as the rate for drivers eighteen and nineteen. The article suggests not letting teenagers drive. If this were to be done, would accidents as a whole be reduced, or would the accidents just move up an age cohort? If it's inexperienced drivers in general that are dangerous, then not letting teenagers drive won't help. >He found that teens took more risks when their friends were around Steinberg attributes this to peer pressure and teenagers calling each other chicken. Yet I wonder if this isn't just a special case of the bystander effect. When there are many teenagers together, everyone expects somebody else will be the voice of reason and caution. If none of my friends complain when I steer my car with my feet, it can't be that dangerous. Surely someone would stop me if it was actually a stupid idea... If that were true, supervising teenagers all the time might actually make them more reckless, not less. I think it's very risky to just take your prejudices at face value and looking for scientific evidence afterwards.