A bunch of idiots decided that too many people are getting killed by young drivers and they've decided to do something about it.

A new law has a few different points in it, like limiting blood alcohol to 0% until you are 21 (right now its 0.8% I think). This part of the law is fine.

The idiotic part is that, if this passes, drivers 19 or under can only have one other passenger in the car 19 or under. This is in place even if you have your full license and it is the middle of the day. This means that 3 19 year old guys will not be able to go see a movie together unless they take two cars.

I'm 19, so if this passes this is going to affect me for only a little longer, but it is still a moronic attempt to control drunk driving.

Linky:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5gtt0M9L2Muz6WPdEHNhKahaYbSyw

Is anyone else pissed about this?

The last option seems rather harsh but I have no idea on the stats that they are a result of?

Is it that the vast majority of deaths are the passengers of said cars driven by under 21's?

I can understand the theory behind why they'd pass such a law. Having more people in the car increases the chance of the driver becoming distracted from conversation or movements inside the vehicle or whatever. That said, I'd be surprised if this gets past simply due to environmentalist opposition. It'd pretty add another 1.5X as many of teen drivers on the road (of which there are already a fair few) and obviously that's more fuel used and more pollutants spat out of the car exhaust.

What I would say is that specifying age is a silly move, rather, they sould specify a duration after a person completes their test and acquires their license. Older adults drive around with passengers as well after all, and if they just passed their test they could be just as likely to get distracted as a teen who just passed their test.

But then, I don't drive ('tis expensive ;<) or live in Ontario, so it's not a big deal for me.

Rhodite:
The last option seems rather harsh but I have no idea on the stats that they are a result of?

Is it that the vast majority of deaths are the passengers of said cars driven by under 21's?

No, but there's been some rather spectacular multiple-fatality crashes with carloads of 4-6 teens in the news over the past couple of years. People are blaming driver distraction, especially given the lower level of experience young drivers have, for those.

I can see the reasoning behind the law; whether that's enough to justify such restrictions or not is debatable.

-- Steve

I think all driving should be based on natural selection.

Seriously though, that's fucked up. I think after 18 you should get all the rights of an adult.

Whay not walk to the movies or take the bus,tram,train?

I think all driving should be based on natural selection.

Hardly fair for the innocent victims of retards at the wheel now is it?

The second rule does seem fairly harsh, but I am forced to admit that for once, it is understandable. At least it's based in fact, since its supposedly been proven, and more importantly, logical, that more teenagers in a car together raises chances of an accident. But limiting the ability to drive friends around for everyone is just a bit over the top. I would suggest applying such a restriction against people who have already been in accidents or gotten tickets or some other kind of transgression.

Amnestic:
What I would say is that specifying age is a silly move, rather, they sould specify a duration after a person completes their test and acquires their license. Older adults drive around with passengers as well after all, and if they just passed their test they could be just as likely to get distracted as a teen who just passed their test.

Well said. By the time a driver in Ontario turns 19, assuming they got their G2 when they turned 17, they'd have a strong driving education and 2 years of on-the road experience. Unless they or their friends are careless, they should have no trouble driving with 2 or more other people in the car.

Whay not walk to the movies or take the bus,tram,train?

Unless you're lucky enough to have your house, your friends' houses, and the movie theater all in the same town, walking is impractical, even if you and your friends walk ridiculously fast.

Amnestic:

I think all driving should be based on natural selection.

Hardly fair for the innocent victims of retards at the wheel now is it?

Place a ten inch steel spike in the centre of every Steering wheel, attempting to remove it results in a cloud of cyanide gas being released into the cabin. Driving standards would skyrocket.

This law sounds just a little draconian and probably unenforceable too. All you'd need is one decent fake ID.

That's why I love the miraculous invention called the bicycle. This great machine converts energy from your own body to relatively fast motion, basically giving you a very cheap way of transport and it gives you your nessesary excersise while traveling. Also, you will never get stuck in trafic jams and has no negative effects on the environment.

I would imagine the second will increase the amount of accidents caused by drink driving. If you can only give one person a lift then whats the point of there being a designated driver. Either that one person is going to have to make a hell of a lot of trips or most under 19's at the party/social/pub will be sober through the night. I doubt either of these will happen, leading to more people under 19 driving around drunk. Something which inexperienced drivers should not be doing.

I really doubt that cops will pull you over for having two or three people in the car. I'm sure they have better things to do then arrest you for getting a lift.

Meh. I don't see it as a big deal, but I'm an old fart at damn-near 30yrs old. Now y'damn kids stay off'a my lawn!

Aardvark Soup:
That's why I love the miraculous invention called the bicycle. This great machine converts energy from your own body to relatively fast motion, basically giving you a very cheap way of transport and it gives you your nessesary excersise while traveling. Also, you will never get stuck in trafic jams and has no negative effects on the environment.

Unless your friends also happen to have bicycles, you're out of luck. Also, you can't ride bicycles on highways, or be a "designated biker."

EDIT: Maybe you could be a "designated biker" if you have one of those bikes that seats 2 people, but the drunk guy/girl would probably fall off. A lot.

In many situations, however, a bike is quite handy to have. Just not the "give my friends a ride to a movie theatre/club/hip, cool place of choice" situation.

As a resident of Ontario who is only 16, this is very worrying for me because it defeats the entire purpose of getting my lisence asap, I would much rather use the public transportation (OC transpo in my region) to get around because it`s cheaper and less of a hassel.

In Wisconsin you cna only have one person in your car for 6 months after you get your license. It's not necesarily drunk driving, everyone knows that the more teenagers you get together it's only a matter of time before someone does something stupid. Just this morning a classmate of mine ran into a combine. We also have the "Zero Tolerance" law, if your under 21 and you have any alchahol in your blood, there goes your license.

In Iowa when we get our intermediate license [16] then we can have as many people in the car as long as there is enough seat belts. We can only drive from 5 am to 11:30 pm though!

Back home in New Mexico, I believe you now have to be 18 to receive your full license, and technically, it's illegal to be driving under that age after 11:30 at night, I believe. However, it's very, very rarely enforced. In all my years of driving, I've only heard of one person receiving a citation for breaking that particular law, and it was because he was a mouthy little jerk who argued with the cop when he was in the wrong. I'd suggest driving carefully, normally, and as you always have, and on the off-chance you break a traffic law and are pulled over, and the cop isn't a Nazi, you should be fine.

I just read this on the news and as going to make a post myself.

The legal drinking age in ontario is 19, and 18 in quebec (which is a 20 min drive away), Also I've been looking to see if adults under 21 get caught more often drinking and driving than other ages demographics and so far and answer is no

The age groups that accounted for the largest percent of alcohol-related traffic deaths were ages 25-34 and 45-64. Each made up 23% of the deaths in 2007.

The age group with the highest percentage of drunk drivers involved in fatal car crashes was 25-34. This age group accounted for 26% of the fatal accidents.

http://www.edgarsnyder.com/auto-accident/drunk-driving/statistics.html
yes I know they're from the US, but stats are stats, and Canada seems to be missing them atm.

So according to this we should insitute the ban on 25-34 year olds and 45-64 year olds instead.

Also the max one other person in the car is rediculas, I have siblings I need to drive. I car pool to class in the morning because the bus stop is far and it would take hours to get there by bike. Not everyone lives in $#@# downtown toronto. People have more than 1 friend.

This is crazy, and I will personally come down to Toronto with a van filled to capacity with 18-21 year olds and protest myself. What the liberal party is forgetting is that in 3 years all these people are all going to definatly be within voting age and be perma-pissed at the liberal party for a long time.

While this seems like something that would affect you, remember that Ontario has been trying to push a higher driving age for the past 5 years or so, I don't think any new laws will be made any time soon.

Or atleast, I'm preying so, only a year and a half till I can get my license :D

It's about as rational as most traffic regulations, i.e. not very.

The rational way to establish traffic regulations is to privatize the road system--when highways are owned by private corporations who set the terms of use, a rational plan for who is allowed to use the roads will emerge, because it's in the private corporations' best interest to see to it that the roads are convenient, safe, and well-maintained. As it stands, the people who pay for the roads and set the rules aren't responsible for anything--if a bridge collapses into a pile of splinters, well, that's the inspector's fault or the contractor's fault. It's not the politicians' fault. If the state makes irrational laws it doesn't have the manpower to enforce, well, that's the drunk drivers' fault.

(I'm not saying the drunk drivers AREN'T at fault, but the only thing the state does if you get caught drunk driving is confiscate your license. An intelligent corporation would make you sign an agreement whereby if you get caught drunk driving, they confiscate your CAR.)

Plus, government interference has all but killed convenient public transportation in the U.S., which is a large part of the reason why there are so many cars on the road in the first place.

I'm going to be 21 in just under a year, and hell it'll be pretty good getting some people off the road (j/k please don't stone me :p) But just because I'm soon to be outside this range, I know how it would affect new drivers and their daily lives, and I'm a firm believer of 18 adult and you should have all the privliges and responsibilities of that. You can vote and go to war but you can't drink till 19?! How the americans put up with this I have no idea, and I personally would have went banana's if I lived there. But this age thing is getting retarted.

Yes, driving on our roads is a privilage, but people also have to do so to live out their daily lifes.

This is a bone head moronic move on the part of McGuinty and he'll soon have my letter, or 2 or 3....

Well that is retarded...sure glad I live one province over. :)

The 1 other person in a car part is stupid, but the drinking part IMO isn't strict enough.
Heck, if I could make the law, about 45% of all drivers would have already lost their license with 0 chance of ever getting it back.

But since that's never going to happen I'm going to post one of the google ads I got.

UK and EU Driving Licence
European and UK driving licences. No driving test! Legal loophole.

From that website:
...You may need a licence if yours has been taken away for traffic offences or because you failed your test. However, there's no need to worry because now it is simply a matter of applying here...

fix-the-spade:

Amnestic:

I think all driving should be based on natural selection.

Hardly fair for the innocent victims of retards at the wheel now is it?

Place a ten inch steel spike in the centre of every Steering wheel, attempting to remove it results in a cloud of cyanide gas being released into the cabin. Driving standards would skyrocket.

This law sounds just a little draconian and probably unenforceable too. All you'd need is one decent fake ID.

Oh i love you :)
HaHa lol best thing i've read all week

Robert0288:

http://www.edgarsnyder.com/auto-accident/drunk-driving/statistics.html
yes I know they're from the US, but stats are stats, and Canada seems to be missing them atm.

So according to this we should insitute the ban on 25-34 year olds and 45-64 year olds instead.

ok 2 things about that

1. us and canada have different drinking laws, so yes it would matter
2. where is the age break down in those stats? i never saw any, it was just how many drivers blew over .08

as for the law, i think it's a great idea, too many stupid kids are driving around and have no clue on how to control a car, they put in graduated licenses to lower accidents, it helped but not much, the kids today aren't being responsible and have no desire to be

it might be wise to also take points off the parent's license too or jack up the kid's insurance if they get ticketed or in an accident

How about if you break the law you get punished by them taking your license? Then when people claim it is an injustice they could be reminded that a license is a privilege.

I know that here, in Texas, you can only have one other friend in your car for 6 months after you pass the test, but you can have unlimited family members. It's a pretty big loophole, as anyone can be your cousin.

Over here, they're planning to have 'S' plates for Seniors.

I don't know what the repercussions will be, but I'll bet that someone's going to get pissed off.

I agree up until the "3 guys" part; that's just stupid.

Di22y:
Whay not walk to the movies or take the bus,tram,train?

Not particularly useful when none of those exist where you live, its 30 degrees FH below zero and its snowing. I believe there is some thing similar to this here in Wyoming, but it doesn't effect me anyway, as I got my license before the law was passed, and I was grandfathered in.

the trouble is that young kids lack serious experiance. "well friggin duh" you say but this is a point , simple as it seems that just cant be ignored.

driving a car is complicated for a few reason, number one its MOST of the time an easy thing to do. it can suck you in, you can drive for years and never experiance any trouble, then one day, same road, same traffic conditions, same car, WAM accident. you go from business as usual to a life or death situation in less than the blink of an eye, kids arent equipted to relize or deal with this kind of a situation. kids dont think about what COULD happen they only thing about what HAS happened. they have drove to the movies every saturday night for the last year , what could go wrong? never a thought to a blown tire, or an oncoming drunk driver, or some other twit more interested in whos on the other end of a cell phone than keeping their attention on the road. driving is perhaps the most dangerious thing we do on a daily basis yet its very nature lulls you into not relizing just how bad things can go wrong so quickly.

as an adult driver i know this from hard experiance. i needed 1 or 2 accidents under my belt to take driving as seriously as it should be. ive had 2 , nothing got hurt but my pride and the car of course but ive never forgotten them and its made me a loads better driver.

on the other side of the coin is older drivers. they are just as much an issue as the young know it all because you can become TOO scared of your car. thats when you end up driving 30 MPH on a 65 MPH freeway not relizing that all those 'crazy drivers' your so scared of are in fact NOT crazy and YOUR now the problem.

anyhow i dont see that limiting the number of people in the car will make much of a difference, kids by their very nature get distracted by simple things like bright colors and shinny objects, the drinking thing makes sence though, in fact i dont see why that isnt common policy for everyone. there is no doubt that drinking screws with your judgment so why allow any drinking and driving? i WORK in a bar and i know the real situation. ive got customers that can drink a case of beer and you would never know it, ive got other customers who have 2 beers and are blasted. but how can you tell the difference in reguards to whos ok to drive and who isnt? hell im trained to deal with drinkers and i certianly cant tell whos to drunk to drive. i mean ive had guys come in after working a 16 hr shift and have 2 beers and fall asleap at the bar, but the same guy comes in on a saturday night and can drink like a fish and still talk/walk at closing time as good as they did when they first came in. anyhow more than one of my customers have gotten a DUI by simply blowing over the limit despite the fact that they passed all the other reaction tests and ive known a few that didnt past the reaction tests but didnt blow over .08. the laws are simply to vague where a blanket no tolerance law would solve everyones problem.

either we want people to NOT drink and drive or we dont. whats our real goal here? do you want to 'limit' it or do we want to STOP it?

Fire Daemon:
I would imagine the second will increase the amount of accidents caused by drink driving. If you can only give one person a lift then whats the point of there being a designated driver. Either that one person is going to have to make a hell of a lot of trips or most under 19's at the party/social/pub will be sober through the night. I doubt either of these will happen, leading to more people under 19 driving around drunk. Something which inexperienced drivers should not be doing.

That's a pretty good point actually. I feel sorry for the older member of the group that is designated driver night after night because they're 22 and have more then one person in the car :P

I don't know if that kind of law was passed here but I heard something like it proposed a while ago. It was mainly to allow police to break up hoons who just drive around making trouble.

tikiwargod:
As a resident of Ontario who is only 16, this is very worrying for me because it defeats the entire purpose of getting my lisence asap, I would much rather use the public transportation (OC transpo in my region) to get around because it`s cheaper and less of a hassel.

Good! Driving cars should be as inconvenient as possible to encourage people to stop fucking driving. How we, as a society, decided that putting one, maybe two, and very rarely more people in a two-ton steel contraption was the best way to get people around, I have no idea. Take the bus. Take the train. Ride a bike. WALK! If these aren't good options where you live, exercise your democratic right to tear your leaders a new asshole about it!

I got my license ASAP when I was sixteen, but that's so that my insurance premiums would drop as quickly as possible. Surprisingly enough, the reason that your insurance rates are so high when you're young or a new driver is because, holy shit, young drivers and new drivers are far more likely to cause accidents than regular adults! Sure, it sucks now, and it certainly sucked for me when I was in the middle of BC's years-old almost-identical system, but it's a good idea, and as far as I know it's been quite effective here.