The reservations about votes for 16-year-olds are well-founded (Letters, June 19). As a retired teacher of history and modern studies, I defer to no-one in my respect for the potential of young people, I endorse Mr Evans's view that these youngsters in civic matters typically "know nowt about owt".

The reservations about votes for 16-year-olds are well-founded (Letters, June 19). As a retired teacher of history and modern studies, I defer to no-one in my respect for the potential of young people, I endorse Mr Evans's view that these youngsters in civic matters typically "know nowt about owt".

In my first year of teaching I took a sixth-form of boys for modern studies. I set them a simple (as I believed) 20-question test on politics and government. If memory serves, the top mark was nine, with most scoring around five. These pupils were mainly the children of professional and managerial parents, yet still knew almost "nowt about owt".

Most 16-year-olds have little experience of the world outside their home, school and social interaction with equally uninformed peers. Only when they have experienced the world of work, handling money and paying taxes, dealing with health problems, being responsible for other people, will they be in a position to vote for sound reasons. A crash-course in civics is no substitute. The notion of giving full adult voting rights to children is quite absurd.

Donald R Buchanan, 75 Antonine Road, Bearsden, Glasgow.

It is a pity that your correspondents Stuart Winton and John Evans don't have the confidence to give 16-year-olds the opportunity to vote. After all, at 16 they are on the cusp of adulthood, hopefully of contributing to society through starting work or preparing for exams to take them to colleges and universities, developing skills the country will benefit from in the future. Under present arrangements, there may well be 18-year-olds serving in the armed forces, but have not yet had the chance to vote. And it wasn't 16-year-olds who voted in Mrs Thatcher and her poll tax, or Mr Blair and his illegal war.

Ruth Marr, 99 Grampian Road, Stirling.

your article failed to mention the ability of young drivers to buy and insure relatively fast cars so that they can drive them the way they do on a PC game without fear of the consequences of an accident. If only you could reboot in real life.

A trawl of the internet suggests that a teenager would expect to pay more than £1000 to insure a car valued at about £10k. How can they afford to buy and/or insure such a car? Are parents asking? Should they stop insuring cars in their names for a son or daughter, or is non-insurance common among teenagers? I don't know.

There was an accident recently where a teenage driver had written off a car. I know how much my insurance would be loaded if I did that. But he promptly went out and bought another and crashed it as well. How could he afford that?

Perhaps insurers could help by limiting further the engine size and power of cars that high-risk 17 - 25-year -olds drive. Or does that just fall into cloud-cuckoo-land, bearing in mind my comment about non-insurance? I do worry what the future holds with two teenage children not yet of driving age.

Dougie Jardine, 20 Buchlyvie Gardens, Bishopbriggs.