The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety says states should raise the driving age to 17 or 18. Should Minnesota and North Dakota take that advice?

No. The purpose of raising the driving age is to lower the accident and fatality rates among teen drivers. But there are other ways of pulling those rates down that would be far less drastic and less punitive to the vast majority of young drivers, who navigate their teen-driving years successfully and without major incidents.

Lowering the accident rate would be a great thing. But Minnesota, North Dakota and probably other states should choose the least intrusive means of doing so.

Minnesota already has taken a big step in that direction by strengthening its graduated drivers license provisions. These sensible laws stretch out the training period for young drivers before the teens are allowed to drive with no restrictions. The laws in some states also impose special requirements on teen drivers, such as prohibiting driving at night or with teen passengers in the car.

Here’s another suggestion, although this one would cost more money: Strengthen drivers education. Some 90 percent of high schools offered drivers education in the 1980s, compared to only 20 percent today. And among that 20 percent, those who offer simulator training often use out-of-date equipment that can seems outclassed even by Playstation 3 or Xbox360 video games.

Raising the driving age to 17 or 18 would be too drastic, especially in states where long distances mean people depend on their cars. Instead, states should explore other ways to lower the accident rate and adopt the methods that make the most sense.

— Grand Forks (N.D.) Herald, Sept. 15