Driving To The Funeral Analysis

After reading Quindlen’s argumentative persuasive essay called “Driving To The Funeral”, it was clear that she was against the driving age being 17. On the other hand, I believe the driving age should stay at 17. While I do drive and consider myself to be a very safe driver, not every teenager is. Of course one could say that we’re all attached to our cellphones by the hip and can't even put it down while driving, but that's not always the case. Personally I don't use my phone as I'm driving, but others do, and it's not always teenagers. There will always be bad drivers out on the road, and some may be newer drivers. Nonetheless, everyone older should not be considered “perfect drivers” Within “Driving To The Funeral”, there are some good statistics but she uses these statistics to make absurd claims. For example, that “why not 13- year olds drive?”. Or that “parents are ultimately planning their children's funeral”. With these aggressive statements, it's hard to read this essay without feeling personally attacked. It feels as though while reading this I'm being thrown into a category of breaking laws like drinking and driving, driving late, too many people in the car, always on my phone etc. I take driving very seriously just as many other young drivers do, not only is my life at stake but also the numerous lives of others. …show more content…
1 cause of death among 15 to 20-year olds in this country”. When I turned 16 I knew that I wasn't ready to start driving yet, and waited till I was 17 to get my permit. Teenagers should drive when they feel ready to be behind the wheel, which should be around the 17 age range. I also agree with Quindlen's point that in New Jersey we have among the strictest laws but are rarely enforced. With the laws being more enforced it shows that if you're driving recklessly there will be