GDLs are the most effective way to prevent car accidents involving teenagers. They help educate teens on how to drive so that they gradually pick up skills that aid them on the road.
More time of instruction contributes to teens earning more experience. Text one sates that raising the driving age won’t save lives, and studies demonstrate that it’s inexperience that lead to these situations. This goes to show that it’s rushing the learning process rather than young age that is the root-cause of the problem. Text two communicates that teens don’t possess the road experience to make safe driving decisions and says 20% of accidents are caused by teens. Since GDLs provide guidance, teens can mistakes then, with someone to guide them, preferably than later. Text one states that raising the driving age just creates accident-prone drivers at 18 instead of 16. This proves that raising the driving age wouldn’t be a successful solution for car accidents.
Taking away the driving privilege doesn’t solve the issue—GDLs do. Text one reveals that all men are 77% more likely to kill when driving than women. This demonstrates that teens aren’t the main issue. Nevertheless, only prohibiting men and allowing …show more content…
On the contrary, GDLs result in improved skills in the long-run. Text one expounds that cars are necessary for the mobility of this country. In this aspect, you can see that teens may come across adversity in their daily lives. GDLs give you the opportunity to earn benefits, so this reward pushes teens to put more effort into their driving progress. Text two goes into detail about the driving restrictions. For instance, a 16 year-old might have the privilege to drive during daylight hours. This supports that teens might have limitations; however, these restrictions will advantageous by keeping teenagers in line while not provoking driving. This will later have a positive impact by putting a stop to
More time of instruction contributes to teens earning more experience. Text one sates that raising the driving age won’t save lives, and studies demonstrate that it’s inexperience that lead to these situations. This goes to show that it’s rushing the learning process rather than young age that is the root-cause of the problem. Text two communicates that teens don’t possess the road experience to make safe driving decisions and says 20% of accidents are caused by teens. Since GDLs provide guidance, teens can mistakes then, with someone to guide them, preferably than later. Text one states that raising the driving age just creates accident-prone drivers at 18 instead of 16. This proves that raising the driving age wouldn’t be a successful solution for car accidents.
Taking away the driving privilege doesn’t solve the issue—GDLs do. Text one reveals that all men are 77% more likely to kill when driving than women. This demonstrates that teens aren’t the main issue. Nevertheless, only prohibiting men and allowing …show more content…
On the contrary, GDLs result in improved skills in the long-run. Text one expounds that cars are necessary for the mobility of this country. In this aspect, you can see that teens may come across adversity in their daily lives. GDLs give you the opportunity to earn benefits, so this reward pushes teens to put more effort into their driving progress. Text two goes into detail about the driving restrictions. For instance, a 16 year-old might have the privilege to drive during daylight hours. This supports that teens might have limitations; however, these restrictions will advantageous by keeping teenagers in line while not provoking driving. This will later have a positive impact by putting a stop to