Few people argue that government should increase the minimum age criteria of driving lisence to increase road safety. It is the result of increasing road accidents in city areas, mosty due to carelessness of teenagers. However, I believe this regulation will significantly affect those adults who earn their livelihood from pathao, indrive or other travelling services which outweigh the advantages.
The main advantage of this regulation is decreased in road accidents. Most of the accidents are proved to be caused by teens who don’t follow traffic rules. They drive recklessly that cause severe accidents, also deaths in some cases. If this rule is impemented, these iresponsible teens are no longer allowed to drive which will ensure road safety and damage control.
On the other hand, implementation of this law hugely affects low age drivers and travel servicers. Cab, taxi and pathao services are the main income generation sectors of undergraduates. These people are from middle class who work in travelling services and earn for their livelihood. The changes in age criteria increases financial burden to those people. Similarly, limiting by age cause high level of scarcity in public transports. Maximum people rely on indrives and cabs for small routes and convenient travel. Binding low age drivers evntually contributes to scarcity of cabs, autos, indrives. For example, in the Kathmandu valley the most pominent transport is pathao and indrive which fast and convenient. Reduction in these transports hampers local residents who use them for travelling purposes.
To sum up, increasing age limit to reduce accidents cause huge impact to middle class people and local residents. Athough, it contributes in reducing accidents and road safety, I believe, the financial burden created to undergraduates and transport scarcity for residents outweigh its advantages.