The other side to the argument is - Who should be responsible for young drivers education and the vehicle they drive. Maybe a standard in education and restriction in vehicle types is the answer (similar to motor bikes)
I have four kids at home & one drives with another eligible in a year. So far one accident, which was minor of hitting a gate when reversing from the driveway.
We are restricting my kids to four cylinder older cars (Mazda 323 & TN Magna), except in the country where they use the VZ Commodore.
If my son had not been able to drive by 17, then he would not have 4 years work experience at McDonalds, attend Scouting events as a Rover, attended TAFE education, etc.
When I started driving I experienced four accidents by my mid-20's until I enrolled in an advanced defensive driver training course. This taught me so much re skid control, etc that I have never forgotten. Since then only one accident (currently 44 years old).
Have investigated sending my kids on defensive driving courses, but now three types. Up to 60km/hr, up to 80km/hr and up to 110km/hr. I can understand this, but the cost is huge.
But I will still pay for the course so that my family is safer. To myself it is a better form of insurance against serious, life changing injury that could occur.
So in summary:
* I agree with limiting the engine kilowatt power output to weight ratio of cars for young drivers.
* Enforce better driver education rather than limit age.
Has anyone else done advanced driver training courses recently ?