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-
Lacky?
Tazy?
-
davedey:
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.
Did you see the way he was cornering? And how slow he was going? There's no way an 8-year old has the fine motor skills or strength to drive like an adult. Nor are they large enough. Plus, kids (like 19-21 year olds) are retarded. So yes, age does mean something to driving ability.
I think my biggest problem with this little argument here is that I'm not sure how to properly respond to something so monumentally stupid.
Phastball:Tacky and lazy.
Don't feel too tazy, I just happened to find one on the first page of Google Image Search that was the right size.
-
Just to preempt the inevitable reply, let's just clarify that there's really nothing that age actually plays a factor in. The voting age is 18, but a properly informed 10-year old would have a better idea of political processes than a 20-something who doesn't give a shit, and a morbidly obese toddler could probably hold his liquor better (and some might argue, more maturely) than some skinny chick on her 19th birthday. Age restrictions are based entirely on a huge amount of variables that are just way easier to generalize as pertaining to age, and let's face it, it's pretty accurate. Children should not be driving for a ton of reasons, saying "you're too young" is just the easiest way to cover them all.
-
durr quoting is not editing.
-
sure, but we already have a system that works BETTER than age, it's called the graduated licence system, that's why tacking on additional age requirements is dumb, as you've stated, it don't work well.
-
davedey:sure, but we already have a system that works BETTER than age, it's called the graduated licence system, that's why tacking on additional age requirements is dumb, as you've stated, it don't work well.
Yes there are merits to the graduated license system but there are still a number of reasons why children shouldn't be driving until a certain age, some of which are purely physical. Sons of rally drivers with modified cockpits notwithstanding, there's no way I'd trust an 8-year old to have the maturity - physically and mentally - to properly operate a car and not get anyone killed.
-
I'm not arguing against age restrictions. Age restrictions are fine.
There's already an age limit for driving. It's 16. 17 (basically) for your G2, and 18 for your G. There's also an age limit for drinking (19) which is the limiting variable for our current "minimum legal drinking and driving age". My problem is that they're tacking another age qualification on top of this, rather than just changing the underlying system.
Anyone who has graduated to their G and is over the age of 19 should be subject to the same rules for drinking and driving. That's why we have minimum ages and licenses and all that shit; they are proof that you meet a certain criteria. If you don't want teenagers to drink and drive, change the age requirements for the G, or the age requirements to drink. Or do any of the other things I suggested.
What they're doing now is stupid and obfuscating.
-
Less Than Bryan:
davedey:sure, but we already have a system that works BETTER than age, it's called the graduated licence system, that's why tacking on additional age requirements is dumb, as you've stated, it don't work well.
Yes there are merits to the graduated license system but there are still a number of reasons why children shouldn't be driving until a certain age, some of which are purely physical. Sons of rally drivers with modified cockpits notwithstanding, there's no way I'd trust an 8-year old to have the maturity - physically and mentally - to properly operate a car and not get anyone killed.
so what you're saying here is: you're taking my specific example of how age doesn't relate to driving ability and modifying it to say that i think all 8 year old should be driving down the streets of canada?
-
fleamo:I'm not arguing against age restrictions. Age restrictions are fine.
There's already an age limit for driving. It's 16. 17 (basically) for your G2, and 18 for your G. There's also an age limit for drinking (19) which is the limiting variable for our current "minimum legal drinking and driving age". My problem is that they're tacking another age qualification on top of this, rather than just changing the underlying system.
Anyone who has graduated to their G and is over the age of 19 should be subject to the same rules for drinking and driving. That's why we have minimum ages and licenses and all that shit; they are proof that you meet a certain criteria. If you don't want teenagers to drink and drive, change the age requirements for the G, or the age requirements to drink. Or do any of the other things I suggested.
What they're doing now is stupid and obfuscating.
100%
As a 21 year old who doesn't have a car/will be 22 well before he has a car, I'm pretty much in the who-cares boat but I completely agree with this. Throwing in this completely arbitrary age limit outside of the systems that are already in place does not make a whole lot of sense to me. -
fleamo:I'm not arguing against age restrictions. Age restrictions are fine.
There's already an age limit for driving. It's 16. 17 (basically) for your G2, and 18 for your G. There's also an age limit for drinking (19) which is the limiting variable for our current "minimum legal drinking and driving age". My problem is that they're tacking another age qualification on top of this, rather than just changing the underlying system.
Anyone who has graduated to their G and is over the age of 19 should be subject to the same rules for drinking and driving. That's why we have minimum ages and licenses and all that shit; they are proof that you meet a certain criteria. If you don't want teenagers to drink and drive, change the age requirements for the G, or the age requirements to drink. Or do any of the other things I suggested.
What they're doing now is stupid and obfuscating.
I don't even know where to start. Your argument is essentially, hypothetically, that if there is a law that says 19 year olds are responsible enough to drink, and then there are also separate law provisions which outline how people that age can get their licenses, then therefore that must mean they are responsible to do both at the same time. Correlation is not causation. the drinking age does nothing to indicate driving ability, and the G system does nothing to indicate responsibilty for drinking. this is a problem rooted in cultural and social issues about young people and youth, i.e., social/cultural factors that lead to the problems we have now (young people having more alcohol-related crashes), and those issues aren't addressed by separate criteria for two different things. it's almost as if your argument doesn't even seem to acknowledge the statistics that young people have way more alcohol-related crashes. it boggles me...
-
Go back and read my other posts and get un-boggled.
Seriously.
-
kelliott:Correlation is not causation.
Awesome.
-
I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not.
Edit: Not to mention the fact that kediot basically used that premise incorrectly...
-
Leaving the potential sarcasm aside and getting serious: i did read your other posts. Look, I'll admit, IN PRINCIPLE everything you're saying is completely reasonable. with the systems and laws we have in place, shit should be "levelled out." but that ain't the case, and I just feel you're not being pragmatic.
-
I'm being TOTALLY pragmatic; I'm a pragmatist. It's this patchwork law that's not pragmatic. It's like some weird fucking jenga game of legislature where they keep tacking on stupid addendums and rules, rather than passing laws that actually make sense.
I guess it's just a holdover from my programming days. BE EFFICIENT. DON'T ADD UNNECESSARY LINES OF CODE.
-
davedey:so what you're saying here is: you're taking my specific example of how age doesn't relate to driving ability and modifying it to say that i think all 8 year old should be driving down the streets of canada?
So what were you saying, then? That age doesn't matter? We covered that; yes it does. I don't know what point you're still trying to make.
kelliott, as usual, I'm not sure you understand what's going on in this thread and it would probably be best, for all of us, if you left.
-
no i understand completely where you're coming from. from your perspective, we have the G system and the drinking laws that more or less SHOULD correspond, based on how they are designed, to be a fair system for people of all ages, which is why we don't need any other unnecessary laws.
all i'm sayin is that i don't think these "systems" are accounting for cultural factors, which i believe would explain the statstics that state that it really ISN'T "fair"...if your theory worked then alcohol-related crashes would be levelled between the age groups, but they arent and that's the problem
-
i'll leave momentarily, but only because i'm done work now and the logic others are purporting is blowing my mind currently.
-
fleamo:I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not.
Edit: Not to mention the fact that kediot basically used that premise incorrectly...
I was more entertained, because I recognized that he used it incorrectly. And it's probably a term he learned on this board (probably from you!).
-
In light of the "driving high" thread, I realize the irony, but I think they should just enact a zero tolerance policy.
-
Being one of the few to actually fall into this category I must say it somewhat unfair. I'm 21 and have had my G since I was 19. I'm with fleamo on this one and think it should be effective over all ages not just 19-22. Say I meet my dad for dinner and a drink (which we do pretty often) now he is allowed to drive home but I gotta wait around for a few hours or get a ride home? Seems kinda bull.
I've never drove and had more than 2 beers before driving and I'm not saying anybody should be drinking and driving but it definitely should be a zero tolerance, or the same tolerance across the board. I guess I'll have to wait til march until i can have my 1 beer with dinner again. Til then I guess I'll have to just smoke a joint at dinner and drive home.
-
With the smoking laws in this province? Good luck.
-
MW:
fleamo:I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not.
Edit: Not to mention the fact that kediot basically used that premise incorrectly...
I was more entertained, because I recognized that he used it incorrectly. And it's probably a term he learned on this board (probably from you!).
Half sarcastic/half serious? i guess. in regards to the serious half, i was recontextualizing it to demonstrate my point. sorry if it was an unclear contextualization.
any ways, i guess what i'm saying in a nutshell is that 1) this law is not superfluous and 2) not unreasonable because there is a clear disproportion of alcohol-related crashes between the age groups. why shouldn't that be addressed?
-
PaulAitken: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.
The issue has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with age and responsible drinking. The law says we're okay with a 25 year-old driving with a 0.07 BAC (well, essentially, though not technically, but that's another point). It's not irresponsible for a 25 year old to drive with a 0.07 BAC.
We're not okay with a 21 year-old driving with a 0.07. However, doing so would be just as responsible as the 25 year old. The lawmakers (whether they know it or not) are uneasy with inexperienced drivers (primarily young) driving near-drunk, but have picked the wrong selection criterion.
Driving at 0.08 would be irresponsible, and show a relationship between age and responsible drinking (just as it may for the 25 y/o). If the issue is too many kids driving over 0.08, the response is greater deterrence, not punishing (previously) law-abiding people. If the issue is too many people at 0.07 getting in accidents, the problem is either the limit we've set or people not being experienced enough to drive at 0.07, which we've dealt with through Graduated Licensing.
The only possible counter-argument to this is that it takes young drivers longer to become experienced drivers than older people. I imagine this is false, but if so, the answer becomes reworking the graduated licensing system.
-
What if the problem is too many 21 year olds getting in accidents at 0.07?
-
The only possible counter-argument to this is that it takes young drivers longer to become experienced drivers than older people. I imagine this is false, but if so, the answer becomes reworking the graduated licensing system.
Like I said, I imagine it is false, but I'm admittedly working on assumption. I imagine the proportion at 0.07 accidents is the same between 21 year olds and older drivers of the same driving experience. Even if I'm wrong, I think the problem is then in the ages we've set as acceptable in the graduated licensing system.
EDIT: I suppose I didn't include my inherent assumption that an "experienced driver" is better driving at 0.07 than a non-experienced (using the terms loosely).
-
I don't know. Isn't there a bit of concern about a 19- or 20-year-old kid who's just learning how to properly control his alcohol consumption (how alcohol affects him and in what conditions) and at the same time, really still learning how to drive. I mean, I got my G when I was 19, and I certainly thought I was an awesome driver back then, but I am a significantly better driver now. I also remember being a little bit older than that and being shocked at getting extremely tipsy after one drink, likely because I hadn't really slept the night before and hadn't eaten all day (I've said before that alcohol tends to make me sick easily, but I've never been able to get drunk easily).
Imagine the same MW, just got her G and really just started drinking, and feeling pretty tipsy but thinking to herself, "I only had one drink, which for my body type should be way under 0.07, so this must be what 0.07 feels like. I'm cool to drive home." (I mean, I didn't, but you can see how a kid might have gotten there.)
-
You're right, there's a concern about a kid not knowing he's over 0.08 and driving. This is why we punish based on your BAC, not based on what you thought your BAC was. It's also why we punish for breaking the law, not for being pre-disposed to breaking the law.
I'm just as worried about the "seasoned vet" who drives after three drinks thinking he's under 0.07 because he's been drinking all his life.
The exact concern is also there for a 25 year-old who just took up drinking. Perhaps the law should be "if you're a new driver and new drinker, you cannot do them in unison"?
-
kwijibo:
The exact concern is also there for a 25 year-old who just took up drinking. Perhaps the law should be "if you're a new driver and new drinker, you cannot do them in unison"?Isn't that essentially what this potential law is? There are a bunch of contingencies (a 25-year-old who just takes up drinking but has been driving for ten years, a 25-year-old who has been drinking for six years and just learns how to drive, etc.), but the majority of people are going to learn how to drive around the same time they learn how to drink. The idea behind the law isn't perfect, but it definitely would work for the most amount of people. How in the world would you classify someone as a "new drinker" if they're in their mid-late twenties?
And I'm aware that what you "thought" your BAC was has no relevance on your punishment, but the punishment is kind of irrelevant too if you "thought" your BAC was OK and then you ended up killing someone. That's all I'm saying.
Again, I would fully support a zero tolerance law put into affect for everybody.
-
Nope, the potential law is regarding young drivers. They could easily fix it by off-setting the driving and drinking age more. Or, extend graduated licensing, so that all new drivers (whether new drinkers or experienced) have to reach a certain level of driving skill before being able to try it near-drunk. Or, don't allow drinkers (experienced or not) to drive.
The killing someone is true across age groups as well. We, as a society, allow an acceptable amount of drunk driving (both above and below 0.08), and the consequences of that is people are going to die. It's not the kids' fault. Once you're old enough to drink, and old enough to drive, there's no reason you shouldn't be allowed to drink and drive in the same way everybody else is.
The problem is they've identified a problem with a lofty goal of correcting it, but they've attempted to do so by imposing an arbitrary age limit, which is discriminatory.
I'm not saying this is an egregious breach of their rights, I really don't care much. I'm more interested in the proper enactment of reasoned legislation. This offends me as a person of reason.
