New laws for young drivers?

[Chuck U. Farlie]

All over the news for the past couple of days has been these new laws that McGuinty has been pressing - mainly as a response to that guy who's spoiled son killed himself and two others while driving drunk this past summer.

If you haven't heard about it, I think the suggestions are:

1. Zero alcohol tolerance if under 22.

2. Zero speeding tolerance if under 22 - 30 day suspension of license if caught.

3. No more than 1 passenger allowed in the car (who are not siblings).

There may be more too it.. I am not sure.

Point 3 is particularly limiting especially to more rural young adults. How can a group of them go to the movie/church/school sporting event/work, etc etc? They would not be able to carpool, and anywhere outside if the biggest cities doesn't have public transport to meet the need. If a bunch of 20 year olds want to go to a bar or party where alcohol is served, then every second one has to stay sober and drive a separate car? Yeah right!

I am well over 22 years old, so this doesn't effect me, but I can't help but be shocked at how much of a nanny state this province is becoming!

Here is the letter I sent to McGuinty and a handful of MPPs regarding this:

This email is regarding new laws for young drivers, which I don't think are necessary at all.

Looking at this law it makes me wonder: just when do we call people adults? I always thought it was 18?

When I was 18, 19, and 20 I was an infantryman in the 3rd RCR battalion. I guess the country thought I was mature enough to handle weapons while I served under the UN in Bosnia. The majority of my fellow soldiers were also under 22 years old... I guess if this law is passed then anyone under 22 should not be allowed to join the military either... they are simply too immature to handle that kind of responsibility.

When I was 21 I got my AZ license and got a job with Pepsi. I guess I was mature enough to haul 40000 pounds on the road.

These days if I was 18 to 21 I would not even be considered mature enough to drive with a couple buddies in my car or even have a beer and drive home....

It is truly pathetic how this province is becoming such a nanny state under the guidance of the Liberals.

[M.Dancer]

Just when I was thinking of getting a learner's permit...

[guyser]

Just when I was thinking of getting a learner's permit...

You will find it restrictive, but on the other hand, no premium charge until you have your G2, assuming of curse that your wife already has a car and incurance.

These new laws are restrictive, and frankly dumb from my perspective. Not all mind you ...

New Rules,

1) 0 BAC on anyone 21 and under

2) ages 16-19 only one other person under 19 allowed in the car for the first year of driving.

The BAC I am fine with that. If you are under 19 it makes sense, and if you are a new driver I see the reasoning behind the move.

One other person in the car? How the hell can some rural people get around for school, hockey practice etc.

But we all know to thank MADD , dumbasses, and also to thank the dad of one the killed drivers in Muskoka last summer.

He was on the TV and claimed, "I was shocked to find out my son had multiple tickets on his record !"

Hey Dad, bullshit. All you had to do was read your policy and you would have seen his record with your own eyes.His tickets are on there.

And another thing "dad", thousands of kids drive safely all the time in this country, just because you furnished your son with a rocket and no knowledge of how to drive is not all the other kids faults, its yours. Yes your son was killed, but it was preventable, and it was plainly forseeable. I am sorry for your sons death, but instead of doing the right thing when he was alive, you do the wrong thing in his death. Nice.

So like other things in this province and country, they introduce new laws when the old ones sit on the books unused.

To MADD, make up your damn mind you no good bunch of do-gooders. (probably the highest "expense" ratio of donations vs operating costs of any charity--IOW they line there own pockets) Either the law says we can have a drink and anyone over .08 is charged (MADD introduced suspensions to anyone over .04) or take it o .00, meaning no one can have A drink and drive home.

We also inadvertently gave the police ammo to pull over any and all young drivers. All the cop has to say is "you three guys looked 19 and under.

Another thing, the Insurance Bureau of Canada is quoted as saying " we are glad to see these new measures that will reduce the number of deaths of our young on our highways"

Oh yeah? Here is a cowpie to chew on dude. People in insurance pay very little if one is killed in a car accident. We pay through the nose if an injury occurs, so, while we are not smiling at a death, we know it costs us hundreds of thousands less than if the little bugger lives. ( Thats for you Madmax-Im not just a mouthpiece parroting the line ->smiley face>)

Welcome to McGuinty's new Ontario.

I will suggest that we do what we did until the early 1960's in Toronto, and that is lock the swings at all playgrounds .

Do it for the kids Dalton.

Doofus ass Premier.

[Oleg Bach]

Just when I was thinking of getting a learner's permit...

I was considering getting a horse at the way things are going.

[Mr.Canada]

The only thing I have a problem with is the 1 other teen passenger allowed. That just creates a situation where there'll be more cars with young drivers in them and this isn't good. It kind if destroys the dd thing. Teens are going to drink and I think if 1 person is the dd and can give 4 of his mates rides home safely, that is a good thing. This will lead to more teens drinking and driving not less. Take away the limit and put it at say four teens per auto and I like it.

[guyser]

The only thing I have a problem with is the 1 other teen passenger allowed. That just creates a situation where there'll be more cars with young drivers in them and this isn't good. It kind if destroys the dd thing. Teens are going to drink and I think if 1 person is the dd and can give 4 of his mates rides home safely, that is a good thing. This will lead to more teens drinking and driving not less. Take away the limit and put it at say four teens per auto and I like it.

The they will be charged with impaired driving.

17 y o with a car needs a licd driver of 4+ yrs beside him and who has less than .05 BAC.

A G2 driver has had restrictions of no more than one driver during the hours of 12 and 5AM since 2005. (G drivers and family excluded)

[Chuck U. Farlie]

The they will be charged with impaired driving.

17 y o with a car needs a licd driver of 4+ yrs beside him and who has less than .05 BAC.

A G2 driver has had restrictions of no more than one driver during the hours of 12 and 5AM since 2005. (G drivers and family excluded)

I didn't go through graduated licensing, but from my understanding one can go from a G1 to a G2 after 8 months provided they take a driver training course - 1 year without. So theoretically a 17 year old could have a G2 and then not need a licensed driver beside them.

Now, I don't know how long it takes to go from a G2 to a G, but no doubt they should be able to get a full G by the time they are 18 or 19.

It seems to me that I did a hell of a lot more before I was 20 than most kids will be allowed to here... and I was impatient to do what I did (travelled Europe at 17, hitch-hiked to Yukon and back, and rode a motorcycle to Halifax and back at 18 before joining the army).

I think if you treat kids like kids, they will be kids... if you treat kids like adults they will become adults. Stop babying these adults.

Like I said before... if you can join the army and go to war, you should sure as hell be able to drink a beer and drive a car without restrictions that other adults don't have.

If I was 17 or 18 again I would have left this province and possibly the country by now.

[guyser]

I didn't go through graduated licensing, but from my understanding one can go from a G1 to a G2 after 8 months provided they take a driver training course - 1 year without. So theoretically a 17 year old could have a G2 and then not need a licensed driver beside them.

Almost.

A G2 driver 19 and under cannot have more than one 19 and under passenger.midnight to 5 am.

[Mr.Canada]

Almost.

A G2 driver 19 and under cannot have more than one 19 and under passenger.midnight to 5 am.

Guyser, I totally agree with the new law but if we limit the teens in a car driven by a teen we are putting more autos on the road.

How is this environmentally friendly?

Big oil will be happy I'm sure.

If we can raise it to 4 teens it would be much more enviro friendly and would make more sense. I fully support having a designated driver in this configuration. Let's put some of the onus on the young people and educate them not lord over them with daddy knows best.

[blueblood]

And they wonder why rural people scoff at city people, keep passing laws like this pissing off rural Canadians. Good way to put the kibosh on designated drivers for kids as well. Tougher drunk driving laws would have made the trick, but oh no, they have to go after law abiding citizens. Punishing everyone because of a few idiots, its the Liberal way!!!

[eyeball]

The solution for DUI speeding and teenagers is to outfit cars driven by kids with breath alcohol ignition locks and engine speed govenors. This technology has been on the shelf for decades.

Actually I would have thought 90% of us would be 'driving' cars on completely automated road and highway systems by now. I think the inability to drink a cold beer while being driven home by my car is a mark of just how primitive our transportation system still is.

[RB]

As a parent, I agree with these new restrictions on the teens. I also have a teen driving, and they don't really think of consequences whenever they are with the friends.

We passed our own rules about a month ago, no other teens/friends in the car. No cousins or anyone else without prior approval of parents. One strike and the car is gone.

Kids are dangerous with their hormones. Unless they can show results of being responsible and caring for others they should not be allowed to drive. I would even go up the age to 18 with the graduated license.

Edited November 20, 2008 by RB

[blueblood]

The solution for DUI speeding and teenagers is to outfit cars driven by kids with breath alcohol ignition locks and engine speed govenors. This technology has been on the shelf for decades.

Actually I would have thought 90% of us would be 'driving' cars on completely automated road and highway systems by now. I think the inability to drink a cold beer while being driven home by my car is a mark of just how primitive our transportation system still is.

the solution is for kids to smarten the hell up or end up as road pizza like the rest of the drivers on the road.

I'd say lower the driving age for kids so they have more experience by the time they are 18. Farm kids can drive by the time they are 12, loaded semis by the time they are 16. Experience makes better drivers, not age.

[eyeball]

I had teens that either drove or were driven, they're all pretty much grown and gone now. They survived and so did we.

I spent a few nights worrying about them all right. Mostly I was worried about how far away they have to go now to get away from people always trying to shut them down. In the rural town I live in you could walk to the bush and beach party sites when I was a kid and they've either all been developed or otherwise shut down now. We used to get chased off the odd time if things got out of hand but that was pretty rare, usually when kids from out of town showed up. Now it seems the kids always get shut down and never get a break so they feel compelled to drive long distances along the surrounding logging roads to get away and find the privacy they want.

A few adults tried acting as chaperones but they felt the pressure from cops and backed off. Any suggestion that kids be given some space in town within safe walking distance was suggested but that went over like a lead balloon too. Its just too bad teenaged hormones and social morals are at such odds with one another. It definitely makes a touchy issue harder to deal with.

[eyeball]

the solution is for kids to smarten the hell up or end up as road pizza like the rest of the drivers on the road.

I'd say lower the driving age for kids so they have more experience by the time they are 18. Farm kids can drive by the time they are 12, loaded semis by the time they are 16. Experience makes better drivers, not age.

A few people have been advocating the same thing about drinking for the exact same reason.

[blueblood]

A few people have been advocating the same thing about drinking for the exact same reason.

Drinkings different because the body isn't fully developed. Driving can be learned at around 12, people can learn better when they are younger and it's more time to get experience.

[RB]

I can see how those in the rural areas are affected. The fact remains that one person that dies or become incapacitated because of carelessness of teen driving is one too much.

Obviously the results of teens on the road are overwhelming when we have to change laws every 10 years or so and with more penalties. Says teens have undesirable behavior on the road.

[eyeball]

I can see how those in the rural areas are affected. The fact remains that one person that dies or become incapacitated because of carelessness of teen driving is one too much.

Obviously the results of teens on the road are overwhelming when we have to change laws every 10 years or so and with more penalties. Says teens have undesirable behavior on the road.

Its obvious that simply changing laws every 10 years or so is not the answer. I think we should give technology a chance. Almost all the undesirable behaviour that is most dangerous results from speeding and DUI and these can both be easily addressed with engine speed govenors and breathalyzer ignition interlock devices. These would be no more restrictive of a kid's liberty than training wheels on a bicycle.

Adults in one car families might chafe at having to drive more slowly or blow into a tube every so often but that's a small price to pay to ensure their kids are driving safely and that society is protected.

Edited November 20, 2008 by eyeball

[Topaz]

IF the teen was under the drinking age he shouldn't have been and that was really is the reason the accident happened. I think parents and the high schools should have more info. on the dangers of drinking and drinking and driving. Most teens think you drink to you pass out and then you have some teens drinking and doing drugs at the same time and parents don't seem to either believe their child would do it or they dobn't want to deal with it. I think what the province should do it apply the same rule to adults that drive and drive and maybe people who are caught over and over again, their license and car should be taken away until they get help and prove they are no longer a threat on the road as a driver.

[cybercoma]

At 19 a person is legally allowed to drink. As a designated driver, a 19 year old person should be allowed to transport his or her drunk friends safely to their destination with a G2 or G license. Only allowing one other passenger in the car will force more of these people to drive and increase the likeliness that they will do so drunk.

The thinking is probably that this will reduce the number of 19 year olds drinking as well. Of all the people who drive to a party, if no one drinks and drives and everyone carpools with the maximum 1 passenger, only 1 out of 2 will be able to drink under this law. Before, you could have 4 other people in your car that could drink at a gathering; meaning, 4 out of 5 can drink with the previous system. This legislation is clearly aimed at taking away the privilege of drinking that 19 year olds currently have.

As I alluded to, it is highly unlikely that this will reduce drunk driving. It would more than likely have the opposite affect by causing more young adults to consider getting behind the wheel drunk. But, that probably was not the intention of the law. This law is designed to restrict the drinking habits of young adults in a way that would not meet the same kind of resistance as raising the drinking age. The Ontario Government has officially put themselves in the business of legislating morality not unlike 80 years ago.

[cybercoma]

IF the teen was under the drinking age he shouldn't have been and that was really is the reason the accident happened. I think parents and the high schools should have more info. on the dangers of drinking and drinking and driving. Most teens think you drink to you pass out and then you have some teens drinking and doing drugs at the same time and parents don't seem to either believe their child would do it or they dobn't want to deal with it. I think what the province should do it apply the same rule to adults that drive and drive and maybe people who are caught over and over again, their license and car should be taken away until they get help and prove they are no longer a threat on the road as a driver.

I only partly agree with you. Whereas the dangers of drinking and driving are well known, so students do not need more education on this matter, the dangers of drinking until you pass out could probably use a lot more focus. I seem to recall hearing on CBC Radio that there was some consideration of warning labels being put on bottles of liquor and cases of beer. That's probably not a bad idea. There should certainly be more education about the adverse health effects associated with the over-consumption of alcohol.

[eyeball]

As I alluded to, it is highly unlikely that this will reduce drunk driving. It would more than likely have the opposite affect by causing more young adults to consider getting behind the wheel drunk. But, that probably was not the intention of the law. This law is designed to restrict the drinking habits of young adults in a way that would not meet the same kind of resistance as raising the drinking age. The Ontario Government has officially put themselves in the business of legislating morality not unlike 80 years ago.

Perhaps, I think the intent of the law is probably moot compared to the intent of the government which is to be seen doing something.

So what about automated hands free driving? We rely on computers to drive rovers on Mars, fly drones over Afghanistan and land 747's and so on, surely there's more than enough technology on the shelf to start developing automated cars and roads. How hard would it really be to line roads with DGPS transeceivers and put GPS systems and automated control systems into vehicles? It seems to me the savings in health care, insurance, legal fees, etc etc etc would more than offset the cost over time. Other savings would likely accrue through moving vehicles more efficiently through rush hour traffic meaning less fuel burned and less time wasted in traffic jams. The social, economic and technological spin-offs of being the first country to complete the process of fully automating the automobile are probably incalculable.

Automating driving is something that would stimulate economic growth while also saving people's lives and money. Right now would be the time to start doing it since re-tooling the auto industry is a likely prescription fro the economic crisis the auto sector is in. I think this is the perfect time for a truly visionary politician or government to lay down a challenge that would be more relevant to more people's lives than Kennedy's challenge to put a man on the moon within a decade ever was.

Thousands of people are killed every year due to driving. If people really think its worth giving up rights and freedoms to save one life then how much would saving thousands be worth?

This issue of automating driving is a real no-brainer. We should have started doing it years ago.

Edited November 20, 2008 by eyeball

[M.Dancer]

Perhaps, I think the intent of the law is probably moot compared to the intent of the government which is to be seen doing something.

So what about automated hands free driving? We rely on computers to drive rovers on Mars, fly drones over Afghanistan and land 747's and so on,.....

I'm sure if it was easy and cheap we would already have it, I bet it's neither. As well, having a AI drive your car is all well and good, until it fails and you nhave to drive yourself...good thing they actually have Pilots on 747s..better to not depend on something that could fail or for that matter, would not be on every road in the world.

Pie in the sky ideas are best left for Sci Fi

[eyeball]

I'm sure if it was easy and cheap we would already have it, I bet it's neither. As well, having a AI drive your car is all well and good, until it fails and you nhave to drive yourself...good thing they actually have Pilots on 747s..better to not depend on something that could fail or for that matter, would not be on every road in the world.

Pie in the sky ideas are best left for Sci Fi

What a Luddite. I'd rather shoot for pie in the sky than pick up the pies your horse leaves behind.

[Wild Bill]

We're all getting diverted from the real problem again! Passing more and more laws just gets ridiculous. The real issue is that passing laws is easy and cheap. Enforcement costs money. Yet the only thing that will work is more enforcement.

Yeah, like that's gonna happen!

The amount of police presence on the roads of Ontario is almost nil, outside of radar traps. I wouldn't be surprised if in the last 20 years they've actually CUT the number of cops patrolling the highways. I rarely see one except when obviously responding to an accident. Reactive instead of proactive.

The reason is also obvious. Radar traps make a lot of money for the number of officers needed. Patrolling COSTS money! While the official goal is public safety in reality it's all about the budgets.

When us old farts were young it was a common thing to get pulled over for a minor infraction. EVERYBODY makes mistakes, especially when we are new at a task! Driving is no different. One needs observation and correction while being trained. I can't begin to count the number of times a cop let me off with a warning. A warning was all that was needed. I appreciated not getting a ticket and I LEARNED! Now kids make their mistakes in an unsupervised vacuum and if their driving gets so bad that they make a horrible mistake then we throw the book at them! To paraphrase Robert Heinlein, it's like raising a puppy and letting him pee wherever he wants and then when he's full grown if he makes a mess you THEN beat the hell out of him!

We also had cops on neighbourhood patrol beats. We had far less B&E's then as well.

Today we expect young folks to take enough training to get their licence and then we just turn them lose on the roads, essentially unsupervised! If you had a breakdown and were parked on the shoulder of the QEW do you seriously expect that a cop would pass by and stop to help in any reasonable amount of time? You'd be waiting until the Crack of Doom! Any cop will tell you to make sure you have a cell phone.

So young folks just keep driving and hopefully never get so bad at it that they cause an accident. The only corrections they ever get are if they DO have an accident!

It's not just young folks. Lots of older drivers have learned dangerous aggressive habits, particularly in rush hour. Why not? The chances of getting caught by a cop are nearly zero.

We have more accidents, more injuries and sadly, more deaths. As a response we get more laws. Meanwhile, we never enforce the ones we have!

It's cheaper to just send a few cops out to write up the reports after the deaths, I guess. Can't spare too many though. Gotta have enough to work those radar guns...