Vanilla 1.1.4 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.
Chit Chat: New law makes it illegal for drivers under 22 to have any blood alcohol level
Bottom of Page-
Seeing how theres a long weekend just around the corner, I thought this would be useful information for some of you. Basically, our fearless leader Mr. McGuinty has now made it illegal for drivers in ontario under the age of 22 to consume any alcohol whatsoever before getting behind the wheel. This new law conveniently comes into effect during the civic long weekend.
Loving the nicknames McGuinty receives in this article: Daddy McGuinty, Uncle Dalton but best Premier Pinocchio
Also love how he proposed to make it illegal for young drivers to have more than one teenage passenger in the vehicle at a time. This guy should be rolled up in a carpet and thrown off a bridge.
Article:
http://www.thepassinglane.ca/2010/07/zero-tolerance-law-for-young-drivers-makes-zero-sense.html -
A lot of states have enacted similar laws already, specifically the one-passenger-only thing (exceptions are usually made for siblings).
I think if I was still 21 or younger, I would be more angry about this, but as I am not, I don't care too much. Keep those youngins off the road!
-
I don't think its unreasonable to not have a drink before driving. What's the big deal?
-
Oh yeah, I don't think that's unreasonable at all.
The passenger limit is more something I could see there being an argument against. Though I'd definitely support it if it were applied to only G2-level drivers, regardless of age.
-
I don't think its unreasonable to not have a drink before driving. What's the big deal?
I guess people are riled up because it's legal to drink (19+), and other (older) people can have a drink and drive, so why are we making a special case for "novice drivers"?
I sort of agree with that in principal. It should either be 0 tolerance for everyone (which is probably the best idea, actually), or equal 19-21 year olds.
Anecdotally, I know a lot more adults (45+) that drink and drive than kids (19-25). I think there's been a pretty big cultural shift in the acceptability of that kind of behaviour...
-
Because they're novice drivers?
There's already a zero tolerance for drinking and driving for G2-holders. This just extends it.
Though I would support zero tolerance for everyone, and I think you might be right, fleamo, about the 45+ sect. Specifically men. I see it all the time (having 2-3 beers and driving home), and I do not care for it.
-
Yeah, it seems pretty accepted in our parents' generation still.
I see why people would be mad about this, but I just don't think it's really a big deal or that it would affect many people.
-
There's nothing saying a 21 year old isn't far more advanced a driver than a 45 year old who just got his license.
-
Because they're novice drivers?
But we already have a method for counteracting that; it's the graduated license system. If you get your G, you should be treated like everyone else who has a G, regardless of age.
If you get your G1 at 25, your G2 at 26, and your G at 27, you still only have three years driving experience. You can drink, but a 19 year old with their G can't.
No. It's not because they're novices. It's because (apparently) teens have a higher rate of car accidents involving alcohol.
-
1) Those opposing this keep making such a big deal about how now these drivers can't have even a scant 0.01% of alcohol in their system. Do you really think it's aimed at Responsible McSafetyDriver who only has one beer while out at the bar then drinks water the rest of the night because he's driving and understands the dangers involved in driving while intoxicated?
2) If you're 22 or older, why do you give a shit? This doesn't affect you, and there's no reason for anyone not affected by this to care. This isn't some insane violation of rights or freedoms, we're talking about not drinking and getting behind the wheel of a car. And if you're 19-21 and actually hold a G license - that is, you fall within the extremely small subset of people this has any bearing on - well, you're between the ages of 19-21 and no one cares what you think anyway.
-
First they came for the drunk teens and I didn't speak up...
-
why do you give a shit?
I think that, all things being equal, laws should strive to affect everyone the same way. For me, it's a matter of principal. We already have a system for protecting less experienced drivers. There are a lot of other ways you could handle this, without imposing patchwork restrictions on an existing:
- You can't get your G until you're 21. All other classes of licence have zero tolerance.
- You can't get your G until 3 years after you get your G2.
- 0 (or very, very low) Alcohol tolerance for everyone, all the time.I think drinking and driving is dumb. I've done it... and by that I mean had a drink or two then drove. But then I'm asking myself "where is the line? I feel fine, but maybe I'm over. Is 2 drinks too much? 3?" Having an alcohol tolerance other than 0 is just making things more complicated. "If you're going to drink at all, don't drive," is the message that I think we should be sending, and the law should reflect that.
-
eastsidemags:Also love how he proposed to make it illegal for young drivers to have more than one teenage passenger in the vehicle at a time. This guy should be rolled up in a carpet and thrown off a bridge.
Didn't that law already come into effect a while ago? Although I think it only applies to young drivers who only have their G1 or G2, and not those with a full G.
As for this new drinking law, it is totally legit. Sure if you use comparisons of older people with the same driving experience as younger people, then this law sounds unfair to somewhat experienced young drivers who are "responsible." In principle that sounds nice, sure, but if statistics historically and always tell us that young drivers are more prone to accidents and especially alcohol-related accidents (regardless of whether or not you account for driving experience), then I really don't see any legitimate counter-argument to a law that prevents them from drinking and driving, especially when people's lives are at stake. If it creates an "unfair" and rather trivial inconvenience for a handful of young drivers, then tough luck.
-
fleamo:No. It's not because they're novices. It's because (apparently) teens have a higher rate of car accidents involving alcohol.
OK, well this, then. Or because teens are more likely to be involved in an accident due to the distraction of other people in the car (again, apparently). Either way, I don't really see the big deal.
And also, while it's totally possible for a new 19-year-old driver to be better and more responsible than a new 30-year-old driver, the reality is that the vast majority of people get their licenses in their late teens. I got my G1 at 16, G2 at 17 and G at 19, and I imagine this time line is pretty standard, if not delayed. So really, it is targeting novice drivers for the most part.
Or we could just get into the whole "the teenage brain makes bad decisions" thing.
-
MW:Because they're novice drivers?
There's already a zero tolerance for drinking and driving for G2-holders. This just extends it.
Though I would support zero tolerance for everyone, and I think you might be right, fleamo, about the 45+ sect. Specifically men. I see it all the time (having 2-3 beers and driving home), and I do not care for it.
That is such a horrible gender stereotype. I see just as many females have a couple drinks then drive home as men. Most times the women are drinking coolers or wine which have a higher alcohol content.
-
fleamo:
why do you give a shit?
I think that, all things being equal, laws should strive to affect everyone the same way. For me, it's a matter of principal. We already have a system for protecting less experienced drivers. There are a lot of other ways you could handle this, without imposing patchwork restrictions on an existing:
- You can't get your G until you're 21. All other classes of licence have zero tolerance.
- You can't get your G until 3 years after you get your G2.
- 0 (or very, very low) Alcohol tolerance for everyone, all the time.I think drinking and driving is dumb. I've done it... and by that I mean had a drink or two then drove. But then I'm asking myself "where is the line? I feel fine, but maybe I'm over. Is 2 drinks too much? 3?" Having an alcohol tolerance other than 0 is just making things more complicated. "If you're going to drink at all, don't drive," is the message that I think we should be sending, and the law should reflect that.
I agree, but, for me, it still remains a non-issue, and not even the kind of non-issue that I still care about because it has grander implications. Let's get some beers and go driving and laugh at 19-year olds who can only do one or the other.
-
fleamo:
I
Anecdotally, I know a lot more adults (45+) that drink and drive than kids (19-25). I think there's been a pretty big cultural shift in the acceptability of that kind of behaviour...
I agree with you to a certain extent. In the GTA I think this is the trend. But just go up north and you can throw it out the window. I have friends who live up in Muskoka and they not only drink and drive but they drink while they drive. It's extremely common place up there and is widely accepted.
Grandparents did it, parents did it and now their kids do it and it will get passed on as being acceptable behaviour to their kids. -
crime:That is such a horrible gender stereotype. I see just as many females have a couple drinks then drive home as men. Most times the women are drinking coolers or wine which have a higher alcohol content.
We're both talking anecdotally here. There's no reason to argue.
-
Let's get some beers and go driving and laugh at 19-year olds who can only do one or the other.
hahahah.
-
Adam, you typo'd principle twice in this thread. Get it togther dude.
On everything else, I agree with Bryan. Since I turned 22, every 19-21 year old I've ever met has been an idiot. We should change the law so they can drink or speak in public, but never both. And very rarely the latter.
This angry message has been brought to you by two days of diarrhea.
-
There are laws for a reason biased on your driving experience, why are we additionally attaching age restrictions as well, age means nothing to driving ability.
-
I don't necessarily know where the line is drawn here, but I feel that younger people are generally less aware of their capabilities under the influence of substance. I see it more as a law based around the relationship between teenagers and responsible alcohol consumption than about the relationship between teenagers and driving ability.
-
davedey:There are laws for a reason biased on your driving experience, why are we additionally attaching age restrictions as well, age means nothing to driving ability.
Your proof that age has nothing to do with driving ability is to link to footage of Harri Rovanperä's son?
-
Less Than Bryan:
davedey:There are laws for a reason biased on your driving experience, why are we additionally attaching age restrictions as well, age means nothing to driving ability.
Your proof that age has nothing to do with driving ability is to link to footage of Harri Rovanperä's son?
I never said lineage didn't.
-
Adam, you typo'd principle twice in this thread. Get it togther dude.
I'm getting stupid in my old age.
-
davedey:I never said lineage didn't.
So you're saying that, despite the fact that he's probably been behind the wheel of a car longer than you have and is the son of a renowned rally driver, Halle Rovanperä is exactly the same as an average 8-year old and it's fair to compare them?
edit: look Tom, our avatars match now!
-
You guys are so cute.
-
Less Than Bryan:So you're saying that, despite the fact that he's probably been behind the wheel of a car longer than you have and is the son of a renowned rally driver, Halle Rovanperä is exactly the same as an average 8-year old and it's fair to compare them?
davedey:There are laws for a reason biased on your driving EXPERIENCE, why are we additionally attaching age restrictions as well, AGE MEANS NOTHING to driving ability.
-
And you went to the trouble of scaling yours properly. I feel tacky now.
-
Tacky and lazy.
