New Ontario Laws for Young Drivers

[psychedelics07]

I am 20 years old with my G license.  Under current law I am allowed to have up to .08 BAC

I enjoy going to a friends/girlfriends house to watch the Leaf game and have a couple beers, and other similar situations.  I believe by the time I leave, I cause no danger behind the wheel. I feel I am responsible for only having a couple over the course of the entire night if I am driving.

The article regarding the 3 teens killed while under the influence..  "Mulcahy's father, Tim, my son is dead"    Just because his son made the wrong decision doesn't make sense the others in this age group should be punished.  It's ridiculous. And for him to petition and make widespread advertisements..  well... screw him!! (I mean this in the nicest way possible  )

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

The article regarding the 3 teens killed while under the influence..   "Mulcahy's father, Tim, my son is dead"    Just because his son made the wrong decision doesn't make sense the others in this age group should be punished.  It's ridiculous. And for him to petition and make widespread advertisements..  well... screw him!! (I mean this in the nicest way possible  )

I don't care how you meant it.......if anyone desrves the right to do what he is doing , its him.
Save your vitrol for those polititions who haven't felt this man's loss.

You are way out of line.

 

[psychedelics07]

I disagree.  My opinion is that I dislike what he is doing by discriminating against this age group.  I'm assuming you picked up the hint of cynicism in my remarks,  however,  I never attacked him for being wrong,  but as the fact I don't like it.  It's my opinion and I'm allowed to have it.  I don't believe I am out of line, as the majority of posters on this topic are opposed to this new law (and this man is in favor of it.)  Had his son not died but merely got injured,  would this then not be out of line?

 

[chris_log]

I don't care how you meant it.......if anyone desrves the right to do what he is doing , its him.
Save your vitrol for those polititions who haven't felt this man's loss.

You are way out of line.

As regrettable as what happened to him is.....I tend to think this father is on a personal crusade that is going to adversely affect innocent people. My issue is that he and MADD are considering 21 year olds 'young' and want to restrict the activities of ADULTS...when his son and friends were only 16 and 17 at the time (which begs the question, why were they drinking at all...where were the parents then). You'll notice that in news reports the incidents that MADD and this guy are using to justify their draconian proposals involve teenagers aged 18 and under, not 19-20-21 year old adults.

As sad as this man's loss was, I would argue that maybe he should look inward and ask why his young son was drinking underage and driving, as opposed to banning the legitimate activities of other people. His kid was DRUNK, not a kid who had a beer or two (giving him a legal BAC) and then getting in an accident. It's self serving and ignorant to assume that just because your kid did something idiotic that other people's kids (and more importantly, adults like ME) will do it too.

 

[psychedelics07]

Piper I feel the exact same way.  So I guess I am not (or at least the only one then) 'out of line'.

Thank you.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

You know, if you replace "car" and "DUI" with "gun" and "shooting", this thread sounds alot like the Gun control debate thread.

It's funny beating up on gun owners, until suddenly politicians start beating up on car owners, too.  Then, suddenly, it's not funny...

 

[slowmode]

You know im all for the part of this proposed law that says no alcohol in the system while driving...sounds like a fantastic idea. But the part that really angers me is the no more than 1 teen passenger. Many teens cant afford cars or buses so they hitch rides with there friends to school, church, or even to social events. By imposing this restriction this is limiting a lot of people from going out. Also I guess ill be the first one to bring this up...so much for carpooling and lowering greenhouse emissions.

Liberals..  :

 

[Sheerin]

Personally I'd rather Ontario brought in a zero tolerance policy for drinking and driving for all drivers of all ages.  But that's never going to happen.

There are many, many, many stupid drivers who are under the age of 21.  And in many cases their stupidity gets ramped up when they're driving with their friends.  The questions remains, are they the majority of drivers in this age group or just a very noticeable minority?  I honestly don't know, though my gut tells me it's the latter more than the former. 

I'd think the easiest way to combat these drivers would be to expand the penalties for careless/reckless driving.  Of course, the problem with this is that the vast majority of times, there are no cops around when these jackasses drive in a truly reckless fashion. 

Parts of this proposed laws are pretty useless from what I've seen.  Does anyone have the link to the actual proposal, not the proposal that has been filtered through the media? 

 

[chris_log]

You know, if you replace "car" and "DUI" with "gun" and "shooting", this thread sounds alot like the Gun control debate thread.

It's funny beating up on gun owners, until suddenly politicians start beating up on car owners, too.  Then, suddenly, it's not funny...

It's the typically Liberal response to any perceived problem "let's ban it and it'll go away".

 

[ARMY_101]

It's an excellent law in the theory behind having a zero tolerance policy regarding drinking and driving.  That is one of the many issues where you can't simply give out a "hey, what you did was wrong, so please don't do it again" ticket, so banning it is the issue.  However, I'm concerned about why young drivers have been targeted into being the only ones affected by this law.  Are people with steady jobs and out of university some how exempt from driving drunk?

 

[IntlBr]

Studies have consistently shown that young drivers partake in riskier behaviours, and are more likely to have accidents than older, more experienced drivers.  Why do you think that insurance companies have high insurance fees for young, male drivers?  Just because they can?  No - its because the numerous studies they've comissioned have demonstrated time and time again that these people are the ones that are likely to screw up.  I will be affected by this law, but I am for it.  I have worked as a professional driver, and have been driving for a long time (since 14 in Alberta, before that law was changed as well).  The people with generally riskier driving behaviours are the ones that this law will hit - and I support that.

 

[chris_log]

It's an excellent law in the theory behind having a zero tolerance policy regarding drinking and driving.  That is one of the many issues where you can't simply give out a "hey, what you did was wrong, so please don't do it again" ticket, so banning it is the issue.  However, I'm concerned about why young drivers have been targeted into being the only ones affected by this law.  Are people with steady jobs and out of university some how exempt from driving drunk?

You're missing the point (and so are alot of people in this thread). The new law will ban ANYONE 21 and under from having any alcohol in their system while driving, regardless of the class of license they have. I'll have a couple beers with dinner and I am CERTAINLY not drunk nor even slightly impaired in my driving skills. So why should I not be permitted to engage in a LEGAL activity (driving with less then 0.08 BAC) when anyone else 22 and up can. It's age related discrimination.

I did a little imprompteu survery of sorts yesterday (not scientific and not representative of course, just for arguments sake). Driving to school I observed 10 traffic infractions over a 5 minute drive through campus and student-heavy areas (where, naturally, there are many young drivers). ALL OF THEM were committed by people who were easily 30+. I've almost died on the road around 30 times since I got my new car last year (these are big enough incidents that I can remember them vividly)....EVERY SINGLE INCIDENT was involving someone who was easily 30+ years old, most were seniors (I've yet to have a near death experience that was my fault, I'm a good driver minus my own little whoopsie with the OPP). I have pretty bad road rage and I keep track of all the idiot drivers I've encountered, and the worst drivers (running red lights, not signalling, driving drunk, tailgating) are seniors. So until they start taking licenses away from people 65+, then the Ontario government can get stuffed.

 

[1feral1]

I'm pretty sure I posted this in the right place.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20081118/AUTOS_young_drivers_081118/20081118?hub=Canada

Essentially, under this law 'youth' 21 and under will have to have a zero BAC to drive (right now it depends on your class of license, not age), can only have one other 'youth' in the car with them and 'youth' will have an automatic 30 day license suspension for speeding (a 19, 20 and 21 year old isn't a youth, he/she is an adult).

WTF? Not only is this ANOTHER 'let's ban it' proposal from the Ontario government, but it's blatently unfair. Older people drink and drive, and speed. This is age discrimination, pure and simple. Quite frankly, it's bulls**t.

Thoughts?

IMHO, under 25's count for a large portion of the road toll, and many of those under 25's were drunk or were alcohol related some how. Speed and inexperience are also factors.

As much as older people drive drunk too, most older drivers are responsible, and do not. Anyone that drives drunk or under the influence of drugs is an idiot, regardless of age.

OWDU

 

[Shamrock]

I've almost died on the road around 30 times since I got my new car last year (these are big enough incidents that I can remember them vividly)....EVERY SINGLE INCIDENT was involving someone who was easily 30+ years old, most were seniors (I've yet to have a near death experience that was my fault, I'm a good driver minus my own little whoopsie with the OPP).

People over 30 only seem to make up half the equation of your near death experiences.  And given the level of personal accountability you demonstrated after your 'whoopsie,' I don't doubt your being the victim of others' driving.


When I picked up my motorcycle license, it was under graduated licensing.  Provisions of that license (BAC and demerits for unlawful operation) were applied to my existing license.

 

[chris_log]

People over 30 only seem to make up half the equation of your near death experiences.  And given the level of personal accountability you demonstrated after your 'whoopsie,' I don't doubt your being the victim of others' driving.


When I picked up my motorcycle license, it was under graduated licensing.  Provisions of that license (BAC and demerits for unlawful operation) were applied to my existing license.

Personal accountability? Tell ya what sunshine, I'll give you a serious traffic ticket and you tell me you wouldn't try and get out of it. I was passing a car and sped up to avoid an accident, thats why I got my ticket. Regradless, I got nailed by a law that doesn't catch the people it was intended to catch (street racers) and I paid the price for it. I paid the fine and court costs, you can keep your snide 'personal accountability' comments to yourself. I'm a damn good driver.

IRT your comment about your motorcycle license, well of course they'd apply (I assume this was Ontario) M1 conditions to an M1 license regardless of your car driving experience. Them's the rules.

Finally, I said all of my near death experiences involved someone over 30. How does 'all' equal 'half'? Just curious. I'm not arguing that these observations are any more then that, I'm just calling them how I see them. I'm 21 and will be for another few months, so it's possible this proposed law will affect me. I'm arguing that its unfair to place unfair conditions on youth when older people are just as bad.

By that logic (more youths crash their cars, so they should be restricted more)....since more aboriginals per capita are jailed in Canada each year then any other race, let's allow warrentless searches, random spot cheks and mandatory curfews for all aboriginals across Canada. It's the same logic. Not sure palatable now is it?

 

[aesop081]

Finally, I said all of my near death experiences involved someone over 30. How does 'all' equal 'half'?

Because in all of those cases, people over 30 were half of the equation. YOU were the other half in each case.

 

[chris_log]

Because in all of those cases, people over 30 were half of the equation. YOU were the other half in each case.

:

Sigh, I wish I had a crayon and colorful paper here sometimes since people seem to need things spelled out so simply. I was referring to the people who did the idiotic thing to cause the near accident. When someone blows a red when I'm going through, I don't consider that my fault. I don't cause near accidents.

 

[aesop081]

Sigh, I wish I had a crayon and colorful paper here sometimes

Thats how most of us feel about you too..........

 

[chris_log]

Thats how most of us feel about you too..........

I'm sure they do. Thankfully, I don't care. I prefer to impress people who don't live through their internet personas.

 

[Shamrock]

IRT your comment about your motorcycle license, well of course they'd apply (I assume this was Ontario) M1 conditions to an M1 license regardless of your car driving experience. Them's the rules.

No.  These provisions applied to all of my license.  That means were I to be operating a Class 3 vehicle with any alcohol in my system, I would have my license revoked.  Even if I had been drinking that one beer to avoid an accident.