For the sake of my own children, I disagree. While there may well be some
cases of discrimination based on age, which may even be justified for certain
reasons, in many cases, it is simply and profundly based on assumption of
maturity, capability and responsibility. I fo one would HATE to see 13 year olds
behind the wheel of a car (though I hate to see some ADULTS there as well), and
in addition, no matter the mental booklearning and IQ, would never allow a 14
year old to do heart surgery on me, either. "Children" should not be married, as
has been consistently demonstrated; nor should they be....renting cars. It is
not a matter of looking down on them, it is very clearly and simply managing the
maturity factor. That is why human "pups" HAVE parents, since they cannot fully
care for themselves. While a foal can rise and awlk within hours, sometimes
minutes, a human "foal" takes a year or more.
The clear difference between limits for youth and
the aged (while some discriminatory action IS justified, since it would be
idiotic to allow someone with no sight to drive)is that an elderly person HAS
maturity; they need to still perform well enough to rent that car or do the job
they apply for, but the maturity is clearly not in question. That cannot be said
for the general population of 13,, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18,...year olds. You get the
idea.
The day a 17 year old is self-sufficient AND can
take care of their own ersponsibilities - including defending action agains them
should they bash their car into another or injure another rider - without such
action being directed at their parents, then my position could change. Until
then the one getting the free ride doesn't have the right to steer the ship; and
experience is still the best teacher, of both skill and maturity. Assuming one
is "good enough" to be exempt or that there should not be rules to goveern one's
behavior creates chaos.
