Ah, I see, we are just missing each other a little here. Probably my fault for focusing so much on the driving test itself instead of the assumption of competency incompetency.That was just sloppy word choice on my part. I apologize. I fully believe that there are a large number of children under the age of 16 who can drive responsibly. As I've previously mentioned, I have a 13 year-old brother who I adore to no end. He won't accept anything other than straight As, has sent away for a chemistry set so he can finish high school early and has already started brushing up his "resume" so he can attend MIT. I would trust him behind the wheel of a car more than many of the 16 year-old yahoos out there.
However, I do believe the number of kids under 16 that are capable of driving is so small that it wouldn't be worth the price of opening the driving test to all ages.
I'm not asking for universal exceptions. I would still lean towards limiting, in most cases, the ability to take the test to those who are 16.
But in rare cases, where the child in question shows that they may have competency enough to warrant being made the exception, they should be made such.
This would mean someone like your brother may be allowed to take said test, but someone who was like I was at 13 would never be allowed to take the test.
The exceptions wouldn't be for everyone, just those that show they have the competence to warrant an exception.
this would only be true if the parents were making the decision to let their child drink based on their perceptions of the child's maturity. The law doesn't make that a requirement. They could be letting the kid drink simply because they are bad parents.The parents are indpendent in the sense that they are an outside party passing a judgement on the maturity of the child and assigning them responsibility based off of the child's perceived ability to cope with the consequences of their actions.
I agree that it should be lowered to 18, but I think in special cases it should even go lowered.I'm not inherently opposed to what you suggest. I certainly agree that the drinking age should be lowered to 18 and not just if you are married. I do disagree with you that it would be feasible to establish such a system, but at that point it's just nitpicking.
I would say that when the kid displays obvious competency (such as getting into MIT at 13) they should be considered an exception to the rule.
It's just a matter of clearly defining the parameters for competency.