New Ontario Laws for Young Drivers

[aesop081]

people who don't live through their internet personas.

Thats funny....pot, this is kettle.........

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Folks, lets try something unique here.....like staying on topic.
Bruce

 

[Kat Stevens]

Of course it's age related discrimination, just like insurance costs, ability to rent a car, voting, buying alcohol, buying cigarettes, applying for CPP, joining the army, and just about a zillion other things.  And, know what?  Everyone here has had to deal with almost all of them at one time or another.  Is it fair?  Not really.  Is it worth an internet tantrum?  Maybe.  Can you change it?  Unlikely.

 

[ARMY_101]

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 said that I'm supporting the same position as you in regards to the law being age-related discrimination.  In theory the law is excellent (hey, ban drunk driving with stiff penalties) but the fact that it only affects people under 21 is the problem I see, and it's the same one that you've mentioned.  The fact that some people under the age of 21 commit risky behaviours is not reason to unfairly police the entire group - there are just as easily older adults who do the same.

 

[CountDC]

Outrageous, especially the one passenger 19 and under rule.  Does that mean I can't take my little cousins to hockey practice? Does that mean a 21 year old mother couldn't drive her children to pre-school? The law seems like a GREAT  : idea until you realize that there ARE cars full of people under 21 who AREN'T on mail-box smashing, crack-smoking joyrides.

The one passenger rule is that if the driver is 19 and under they are only allowed one passenger - the 21 year old mother is still safe as long as she hasn't been drinking.

 

[Michael OLeary]

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.

So propose an alternate that will address the statistical basis for age related concerns over driving restrictions and insurance rates.

Would we be hearing less bitching if someone proposed that any application to be licensed have to pass a $500 battery of psychological tests (paid for up front by the applicant each time) to determine if someone is actually mature enough to be a responsible driver?  That could be applied to everyone and we might still see a lot of younger people (and older ones too) waiting a long time to get their full licenses.

It's easy to ***** when you're not offering realistic alternatives.

If there had been internet forums when modern DUI laws came into effect would we have been hearing from people whining that .08 was completely arbitrary and that they were fully capable of driving with 1.00 BAC?  Would that have made the .08 regulation a bad law - as someone who lost a family member to the lack of strct regulation on drunk driving many years ago, I don't think so. These laws all start somewhere, and with lawmakers trying to solve real problems wth the best compromise solutions.

 

[slowmode]

The ONLY thing i'm complaining about is the passenger part of the law....I can care less about the alcohol.

 

[Michael OLeary]

The ONLY thing i'm complaining about is the passenger part of the law....I can care less about the alcohol.

And there have been reported studies that the distractions provided by passengers can be a major factor in accidents.  Offer solutions, not complaints.

The effect of distractions on the crash types of teenage drivers

Teenage drivers are overrepresented in crashes when compared to middle-aged drivers. Driver distraction is becoming a greater concern among this group as in-vehicle devices, opportunities for distractions, and teenage drivers’ willingness to engage in these activities increase. The objective of this study was to determine how different distraction factors impact the crash types that are common among teenage drivers. A multinomial logit model was developed to predict the likelihood that a driver will be involved in one of three common crash types: an angular collision with a moving vehicle, a rear-end collision with a moving lead vehicle, and a collision with a fixed object. These crashes were evaluated in terms of four driver distraction categories: cognitive, cell phone related, in-vehicle, and passenger-related distractions. Different driver distractions have varying effects on teenage drivers’ crash involvement. Teenage drivers that were distracted at an intersection by passengers or cognitively were more likely to be involved in rear-end and angular collisions when compared to fixed-object collisions. In-vehicle distractions resulted in a greater likelihood of a collision with a fixed object when compared to angular collisions. Cell phone distractions resulted in a higher likelihood of rear-end collision. The results from this study need to be evaluated with caution due to the limited number of distraction related cases available in the U.S. GES crash database. Implications for identifying and improving the reporting of driver distraction related factors are therefore discussed.

Study Cites Teen Driver Distraction Danger

Ninety percent of teens said they rarely or never drive after drinking or using drugs, reflecting a trend that has seen teen traffic deaths involving alcohol drop by about 35 percent from 1990 to 2005, according to National Highway Traffic Safety Administration data.

But teens reported a host of other in-car distractions that researchers say help make traffic accidents the No. 1 killer of U.S. teens, with a fatality rate four times higher than drivers aged 25-69, based on miles driven. About 5,600 teens died in traffic accidents in 2005, and about 7,500 were driving cars involved in fatal accidents.

Researchers found that one teenage passenger with a teen driver doubles the risk of a fatal crash, while the risk is five times higher when two or more teens ride along. Most states have laws restricting passengers when teens drive, but 15 states do not.

Nearly 90 percent of teens reported seeing peers drive while talking on cell phones and more than half spotted drivers using hand-held games, listening devices or sending text messages.

About 75 percent said they see teens driving while tired or struggling with powerful emotions, such as worries about grades or relationships. More than nine of 10 teens also reported seeing teen drivers speeding and half said they sometimes drive at least 10 mph over posted speed limits themselves.

"The environment for a teen driver is much more challenging and demanding than most of us adults thought. They're trying to manage all of that while trying to navigate the vehicle at the same time and they're pretty inexperienced at that," said Laurette Stiles, vice president of strategic resources at Bloomington-based State Farm.

 

[slowmode]

And there have been reported studies that the distractions provided by passengers can be a major factor in accidents.  Offer solutions, not complaints.

Will Do.

Car pooling is needed for MANY people..especially those living in rural areas. I'm sure people over 21 who have passengers get distracted to. They could easily just make the law say that you can only carry as much passengers as there are seat belts. Also how about not carrying passengers under 15? Also why not look at peoples driving records? If one is known to be  a dangerous driver than why not put restrictions on them. There are quite a few good drivers under 21, and i'm one of them. Ive never went over the speed limit, I never got a ticket, been in a collision, and Im safe on the road.

THe Point i'm trying to get across is this is going to make life harder for a lot of people who cart afford cars or bus tickets and rely on car pooling. Im sure there are as much dangerous drivers who are over 21 as there are under.

 

[Michael OLeary]

Im sure there are as much dangerous drivers who are over 21 as there are under.

Based on what?

This is an issue because accident statistics show that teenagers have higher rates of accidents and that in-car distractions from passengers is a recurring factor.  Just because someone finds car-pooling to be their affordable transportation option doesn't mean they will automatically be a well-behaved passenger, or that their driver is more responsible than average.  You're failing to address the established facts that have led to these regulations, and are instead arguing simply for your preferred options from an emotional bias.

 

[slowmode]

Based on what?

This is an issue because accident statistics show that teenagers have higher rates of accidents and that in-car distractions from passengers is a recurring factor.  Just because someone finds car-pooling to be their affordable transportation option doesn't mean they will automatically be a well-behaved passenger, or that their driver is more responsible than average.  You're failing to address the established facts that have led to these regulations, and are instead arguing simply for your preferred options from an emotional bias.

Im not arguing your points..since there all to correct. But yes your right, i'm giving my emotional opinion. I cant really argue much because the Stats do show the truth.

 

[Celticgirl]

Inexperience and immaturity are major risk factors when it comes to dangerous driving and while these qualities are not exclusive to youths, it is typically new, young drivers who are inexperienced and immature drivers. By "immature", I mean taking risks and being impulsive. It's a known fact that younger drivers take more risks than older ones. That doesn't mean that older drivers are all better drivers or that none of them take risks or make bad judgments on the road. I see it all the time, so I know it's not just the teens. One example: a trucker nearly crushed me on a recent drive to NB because he didn't see me in the passing lane and decided to pass the car in front of him without checking his blind spot first. This was a so-called "professional driver" and I doubt he would be under 21. People make mistakes on the road all the time, regardless of age. I have to agree with comments here that older drivers (let's say 70+ for the sake of argument) can be as much a problem as the young and inexperienced ones. The brake-then-turn thing (no signal or a too-late signal), for instance, drives me nuts and seems to be very popular with 'more mature' drivers.

I think that the point of a graduated licensing system or the new law Ontario is proposing is to take a known high-risk group and focus on them to try to reduce the number of accidents on the road. I understand the frustration, but it is not unlike other laws that have come into effect in recent years. The booster seat law in N.S. had my daughter staying in her booster seat until the age of 9 (she now likes it so much that I may have a hard time convincing her to give it up, lol). Many parents and children were in an outrage over the implementation of this law because the kids had already been riding without a carseat for a while and would have to now start using one again. Some children felt humiliated. Some parents caved in to their children's tantrums and refused to follow the new law. However, the key factor here is SAFETY. The law was not intended to punish anyone because of their age or size. Likewise, the fact that driving laws are being made more 'restrictive' is not intended to punish anyone for their lack of experience or their age; it is a SAFETY issue, first and foremost.

I fully expect that driver re-testing above a certain age will be implemented in the future for similar reasons. Call it age discrimination if you want, but I will be all for it when it happens. Statistics don't lie.

 

[Michael OLeary]

I fully expect that driver re-testing above a certain age will be implemented in the future for similar reasons. Call it age discrimination if you want, but I will be all for it when it happens. Statistics don't lie.

It is very likely that if these new regulations decrease the accident rates of younger drivers and the "new" identifiable high risk group becomes older drivers, we may see increased regulations and tightened testing requirements for that demographic.

 

[CountDC]

I fully expect that driver re-testing above a certain age will be implemented in the future for similar reasons. Call it age discrimination if you want, but I will be all for it when it happens. Statistics don't lie.

Good post.

For the part quoted - I support mandatory testing without age discrimination.  I think everyone should be retested every 5 years.

 

[tynanfromBC]

I don't think these laws are to strict at all.

How many of you guys know that 18 year old, 2 years driving experience under their belt, and think they are the hottest shit on the road? thinking because they haven't been in an accident yet, they can speed excessively? how many of you have been in a collision involving a cocky new driver who sits their and blames there friends in the car, or you for you rearending them?

I've been rearended three times now. twice i was at a full stop at a red light. All three incidents were involving new drivers, cars fully loaded. one of which blew a .05 on her breathalizer and lost her license. Here in BC, we have way stricter laws than ontario has implemented and good on it. I've got no respect for any new driver who thinks they are the best because they passed their lame-duck drivers test first try. I especially hate the ones who fail 3 or 4 times.

Though the young drivers accident rates may go down, and the older drivers may be the higher demographic, the point is to REDUCE accidents that can be easily prevented. Driving is one of the most dangerous things we do day in and day out.

 

[Celticgirl]

Driving is one of the most dangerous things we do day in and day out.

So true. We forget sometimes the power we wield when behind the wheel. (Sorry for the alliteration; completely accidental.  )

I support mandatory testing without age discrimination.  I think everyone should be retested every 5 years.

I'd be fine with that, too.  8)

 

[George Wallace]

- I support mandatory testing without age discrimination.  I think everyone should be retested every 5 years.

I'm just curious as to how far you carry this sentiment?  How about your military qualifications?  How about your Civie Job qualifications?  Would we require that to be the norm for marriages too?  Just wondering how far this could be stretched.

 

[George Wallace]

On a more serious side, mandatory retesting every five years would be more of a burden on the resources of the Provincial Government and Tax Payer than anything else.  It would also be an additional burden on the individual to take time off work, as well as an added expense deduction from their personal income.  Where would we get the large number of Examiners on short notice?  Would "unqualified" or "incapable (polite word for incompetent/immoral/corrupt/etc.)" Examiners result in even more "poor" drivers being licenced and on the roads? 

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I, for one, think it's bullshyte and bogus. The one constant of the McSquinty gov't and this sorry assed province, is if they don't understand the problem or it's to difficult to attack the true root problem, they just ban it. Fuckin' Bantario centred in the asshole of the province, Moronto. The rest of the normal people in this province don't think like these latte drinking elitist dickweeds that the 905 belt keep electing.

 

[Love793]

Rocketryan 

                          Here is a thought the others can take a cab if they can afford to drink to the point where they cant drive than take a cab home .        That's what me and my friends did when we where that young .

Until you find the cab driver is a 20 year old univerisity student