# New Ontario Laws for Young Drivers



## chris_log (18 Nov 2008)

I'm pretty sure I posted this in the right place.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20081118/AUTOS_young_drivers_081118/20081118?hub=Canada

Essentially, under this law 'youth' 21 and under will have to have a zero BAC to drive (right now it depends on your class of license, not age), can only have one other 'youth' in the car with them and 'youth' will have an automatic 30 day license suspension for speeding (a 19, 20 and 21 year old isn't a youth, he/she is an adult). 

WTF? Not only is this ANOTHER 'let's ban it' proposal from the Ontario government, but it's blatently unfair. Older people drink and drive, and speed. This is age discrimination, pure and simple. Quite frankly, it's bulls**t. 

Thoughts?


----------



## dapaterson (18 Nov 2008)

Expand the program, removing the age restrictions.  All new drivers.  Anyone convicted of DUI.  Anyone getting 9+ demerits.

I'm all for cracking down on bad drivers, but not restricting it based on age.


----------



## Strike (18 Nov 2008)

I would seriously call that age discrimination.  This whole thing smacks of the other thread about society coddling kids in school by removing the "F" grade.  Way to show these young adults that you trust them.  And yes, that's what they are, young adults.  They may still be your little baby, but they have grown up and most are probably now living on their own, doing their own laundry, and paying their own bills.  If they are responsible enough to be expected to pay taxes, then they should have the same rights as everyone else.


----------



## Snafu-Bar (18 Nov 2008)

It's just another cash grab in the grand scheme of things. Although the intentions are good(stopping DUI) the results of this aren't going to "fix" the problem. Some people are going to do it anyways, the end results will end in tragedy sooner or later regardless of intervention. Since people have been driving they have been having accidents. It's never going to change no matter how many "idiot proof" laws they come up with. 

 The person behind the wheel is going to do as S/He wishes, even it means people get killed.

 They put in a street racing law, has it prevented people from doing 140+ on the highways, absolutely not. Although it does provide the LEO's with a measure of control by allowing siezure of the vehicles and ban on driving for the person behind the wheel, it still does nothing to prevent it.

 Untill the automobile is built with controls within to limit speeds automatically depending on the vehicles location will anything be "prevented" but this is generations away from being a reality yet. But drive by wire will make it's way to the market and people will simply be "limo'd" around by thier vehicles with only voice controlled access to the vehicles operation. IE "hello this is your car/truck where would you like to go?" 

 Cheers.


----------



## kratz (18 Nov 2008)

I read about this proposal last night at Canada.com. Their news  story on the proposal shows the zero tolerance BAC is for all age and classes of drivers. Even a new provision to punish those caught trying to circumvent their punishment by driving a court ordered Breathalyzer ignition vehicle.



> Ont. to seize cars on spot when drivers found over alcohol limit
> 
> Jordana Huber
> Canwest News Service
> ...


----------



## GAP (18 Nov 2008)

We've had pretty restrive rules for some time here in Manitoba....it does not stop it, but there are a heck of a lot of Designated Drivers now when my sons are going out (all except for the 19 year old....his friends don't seem to have gotten the message....they will )


----------



## Celticgirl (18 Nov 2008)

Piper said:
			
		

> I'm pretty sure I posted this in the right place.
> 
> http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20081118/AUTOS_young_drivers_081118/20081118?hub=Canada
> 
> ...



We've had a Graduated Licensing System here in Nova Scotia for many years, and it sounds like the new Ontario law will be similar to this. I don't think it specifies a certain age, though. Rather, the rules are focused around new drivers (in the first two years of getting their license). I do think it was a great thing for the province to implement and has probably saved some lives over the years.

I think that the new legislation in NS banning cell phone use while driving is also a step in the right direction. I hope that this is amended to include (if it doesn't already) sending text messages while behind the wheel.


----------



## Snafu-Bar (18 Nov 2008)

Ontario's had graduated liscensing for a couple of years now as well. This is just adding pressure on the younger drivers to not drink if they intend to drive, thus they are reverting from the allowed .08 to a zero tolerance, zero alchohol approach. For those who are G1 or G2 it's already restrictive enough on the allowable conditions to be behind the wheel, but of those conditions THIS is the one that fits the criteria the best.

 The prospects of being a 19 year old just getting my liscense i'd probably give up on it, too much of a headache.

 Cheers.


----------



## Thompson_JM (18 Nov 2008)

I still see this as pure age discrimination. pure and simple...

Dalton Miguinty has always struck me as a flaming idiot with little to no concept of reality... (re: Gun Control) and this simply proves it once again...

these rules will not do anything to solve the problem in my opinion.... since the reality is there is little difference in a car full of 21 year olds, and a car full of 22 year olds....  

and for what its worth, ontario has had a graduated licensing system in place for years. with severe restrictions imposed on new drivers when it comes to where when and how they can drive.  

personally this sounds like a pretty weak attempt to make it look like he cares "please someone think of the children...."

I have nothing against the rules for alcohol... but the rule about the number of youth in the vehicle? give me a @#$ break!  when I was 20 i was driving 8pax vans all over this province for DND. granted I did have more thorough driver training, but even still... it just strikes me as flat out retarded. 

As much as I hated Harris, Next election I'm voteing conservative just in the hopes that Dalton will be Done.


----------



## Conquistador (18 Nov 2008)

What bugs me is this:



> Perhaps the most precious thing we have in society is our children, and that includes our older children


19-21 year olds are allowed to vote, drink, smoke and buy firearms,  but they're still seen as "older children"? Gimme a break!


----------



## The Bread Guy (18 Nov 2008)

Wonder how many complaints they'd get if they tried imposing zero tolerance and automatic suspensions for drivers older than 65 or 70?


----------



## aesop081 (18 Nov 2008)

I'm confident that more legislation will make us safer..........


----------



## Rocketryan (18 Nov 2008)

This is just brilliant, 
Lets screw over the kids going home from a party, say, 4 of them are drunk, and then you have the DD, so now the DD is breaking the law by not letting the drunks drive them selves home...Same with students that car pool or depend on friends for rides

I think the speeding one is a bit harsh but oh well, I agree with the new rules for drinking too

Is it possible they can cancel this law?


----------



## CountDC (18 Nov 2008)

Seems to be some misunderstanding here - I read that the restriction on number of passengers was for those 19 and under.

 Think this would be better if it was changed from age to years as drivers same as NS. A new driver is a new driver regardless of age.  Also wonder where they came up with 19 - this is the legal drinking age in Ontario so it seems to me a prime time to encourage car pooling and designated drivers.  Can't do that if you are only allowed one passenger.

On the news they talked about this and presented the reason for the restrictions on teens was because studies supposedly showed that teens with passengers were more likey to have accidents and speed as they showed off for their friends. Obviously the people that did that study do not drive the same roads I do as everyone but me and the 90 year old sunday turtle speeds.  Most accidents I hear about are rush hour traffic to and from work - not the teens again.

I just think teen accidents that results in deaths get a lot more attention so give a false perception. 

Those that think this law will not make a difference are wrong IMO - it is more a matter of what difference it will make.


----------



## karl28 (18 Nov 2008)

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 .


----------



## kratz (18 Nov 2008)

It is not a law ...yet. At the moment it is a proposal on the table. Kind of like a trial balloon to gauge public reaction to the concept.


----------



## Snafu-Bar (18 Nov 2008)

Rocketryan said:
			
		

> This is just brilliant,
> Lets screw over the kids going home from a party, say, 4 of them are drunk, and then you have the DD, so now the DD is breaking the law by not letting the drunks drive them selves home...Same with students that car pool or depend on friends for rides
> 
> I think the speeding one is a bit harsh but oh well, I agree with the new rules for drinking too
> ...



 Depending on the MOOD of the LEO and the conditions for which he is dealing with, it's more than likely a ticket would be issued, but that would probably be it. If the LEO feels confident that the driver is not under the influence and is truly driving people home and not to another party/bar they could get the obligatory warning and be on thier way.

 As for cancelling it,not likely... this is Canada we need more un-enforceable laws to control people who have the ability to control themeslves but choose not to.  :

 Cheers.


----------



## benny88 (18 Nov 2008)

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.

Also, Rocketryan's post about the DD has excellent merit. This now requires 1 out of every 2 young people to be a DD rather than 1 out of 5-7. This will lead to....ding ding you guessed it! more drunk driving.

Frankly, I predict this legislation will turn out to be an embarassment. It will not be followed (Guaranteed.), it will not be enforced (As Snafu-bar said, hopefully Police will use common sense), and the provincial government will look like a bunch of asses for wasting money even trying to keep this afloat.


----------



## GAP (18 Nov 2008)

The number of passengers generally applies to a time, something like 11pm, that indicates it is for partying purposes, rather the running the rug rats to hockey....


----------



## benny88 (18 Nov 2008)

GAP said:
			
		

> The number of passengers generally applies to a time, something like 11pm, that indicates it is for partying purposes, rather the running the rug rats to hockey....



That would be more reasonable, but nothing has been said about any sort of time restrictions. Regardless of the time frame there will still be events where this law will conflict with completely innocent things, like the examples I listed above.


----------



## psychedelics07 (18 Nov 2008)

I am 20 years old with my G license.  Under current law I am allowed to have up to .08 BAC

I enjoy going to a friends/girlfriends house to watch the Leaf game and have a couple beers, and other similar situations.  I believe by the time I leave, I cause no danger behind the wheel. I feel I am responsible for only having a couple over the course of the entire night if I am driving.

The article regarding the 3 teens killed while under the influence..   "Mulcahy's father, Tim, my son is dead"    Just because his son made the wrong decision doesn't make sense the others in this age group should be punished.  It's ridiculous. And for him to petition and make widespread advertisements..  well... screw him!! (I mean this in the nicest way possible  )


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (18 Nov 2008)

psy said:
			
		

> The article regarding the 3 teens killed while under the influence..   "Mulcahy's father, Tim, my son is dead"    Just because his son made the wrong decision doesn't make sense the others in this age group should be punished.  It's ridiculous. And for him to petition and make widespread advertisements..  well... screw him!! (I mean this in the nicest way possible  )



I don't care how you meant it.......if anyone desrves the right to do what he is doing , its him.
Save your vitrol for those polititions who haven't felt this man's loss.

You are way out of line.


----------



## psychedelics07 (18 Nov 2008)

I disagree.   My opinion is that I dislike what he is doing by discriminating against this age group.  I'm assuming you picked up the hint of cynicism in my remarks,  however,  I never attacked him for being wrong,  but as the fact I don't like it.  It's my opinion and I'm allowed to have it.   I don't believe I am out of line, as the majority of posters on this topic are opposed to this new law (and this man is in favor of it.)   Had his son not died but merely got injured,  would this then not be out of line?


----------



## chris_log (18 Nov 2008)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> I don't care how you meant it.......if anyone desrves the right to do what he is doing , its him.
> Save your vitrol for those polititions who haven't felt this man's loss.
> 
> You are way out of line.



As regrettable as what happened to him is.....I tend to think this father is on a personal crusade that is going to adversely affect innocent people. My issue is that he and MADD are considering 21 year olds 'young' and want to restrict the activities of ADULTS...when his son and friends were only 16 and 17 at the time (which begs the question, why were they drinking at all...where were the parents then). You'll notice that in news reports the incidents that MADD and this guy are using to justify their draconian proposals involve teenagers aged 18 and under, not 19-20-21 year old adults. 

As sad as this man's loss was, I would argue that maybe he should look inward and ask why his young son was drinking underage and driving, as opposed to banning the legitimate activities of other people. His kid was DRUNK, not a kid who had a beer or two (giving him a legal BAC) and then getting in an accident. It's self serving and ignorant to assume that just because your kid did something idiotic that other people's kids (and more importantly, adults like ME) will do it too.


----------



## psychedelics07 (18 Nov 2008)

Piper I feel the exact same way.   So I guess I am not (or at least the only one then) 'out of line'.

Thank you.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (18 Nov 2008)

You know, if you replace "car" and "DUI" with "gun" and "shooting", this thread sounds alot like the Gun control debate thread.

It's funny beating up on gun owners, until suddenly politicians start beating up on car owners, too.  Then, suddenly, it's not funny...


----------



## slowmode (19 Nov 2008)

You know im all for the part of this proposed law that says no alcohol in the system while driving...sounds like a fantastic idea. But the part that really angers me is the no more than 1 teen passenger. Many teens cant afford cars or buses so they hitch rides with there friends to school, church, or even to social events. By imposing this restriction this is limiting a lot of people from going out. Also I guess ill be the first one to bring this up...so much for carpooling and lowering greenhouse emissions.

Liberals..  :


----------



## Sheerin (19 Nov 2008)

Personally I'd rather Ontario brought in a zero tolerance policy for drinking and driving for all drivers of all ages.  But that's never going to happen.

There are many, many, many stupid drivers who are under the age of 21.  And in many cases their stupidity gets ramped up when they're driving with their friends.  The questions remains, are they the majority of drivers in this age group or just a very noticeable minority?  I honestly don't know, though my gut tells me it's the latter more than the former.  

I'd think the easiest way to combat these drivers would be to expand the penalties for careless/reckless driving.  Of course, the problem with this is that the vast majority of times, there are no cops around when these jackasses drive in a truly reckless fashion.  

Parts of this proposed laws are pretty useless from what I've seen.  Does anyone have the link to the actual proposal, not the proposal that has been filtered through the media?


----------



## chris_log (19 Nov 2008)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> You know, if you replace "car" and "DUI" with "gun" and "shooting", this thread sounds alot like the Gun control debate thread.
> 
> It's funny beating up on gun owners, until suddenly politicians start beating up on car owners, too.  Then, suddenly, it's not funny...



It's the typically Liberal response to any perceived problem "let's ban it and it'll go away".


----------



## ARMY_101 (19 Nov 2008)

It's an excellent law in the theory behind having a zero tolerance policy regarding drinking and driving.  That is one of the many issues where you can't simply give out a "hey, what you did was wrong, so please don't do it again" ticket, so banning it is the issue.  However, I'm concerned about why young drivers have been targeted into being the only ones affected by this law.  Are people with steady jobs and out of university some how exempt from driving drunk?


----------



## IntlBr (19 Nov 2008)

Studies have consistently shown that young drivers partake in riskier behaviours, and are more likely to have accidents than older, more experienced drivers.  Why do you think that insurance companies have high insurance fees for young, male drivers?  Just because they can?  No - its because the numerous studies they've comissioned have demonstrated time and time again that these people are the ones that are likely to screw up.  I will be affected by this law, but I am for it.  I have worked as a professional driver, and have been driving for a long time (since 14 in Alberta, before that law was changed as well).  The people with generally riskier driving behaviours are the ones that this law will hit - and I support that.


----------



## chris_log (19 Nov 2008)

ARMY_101 said:
			
		

> It's an excellent law in the theory behind having a zero tolerance policy regarding drinking and driving.  That is one of the many issues where you can't simply give out a "hey, what you did was wrong, so please don't do it again" ticket, so banning it is the issue.  However, I'm concerned about why young drivers have been targeted into being the only ones affected by this law.  Are people with steady jobs and out of university some how exempt from driving drunk?



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 did a little imprompteu survery of sorts yesterday (not scientific and not representative of course, just for arguments sake). Driving to school I observed 10 traffic infractions over a 5 minute drive through campus and student-heavy areas (where, naturally, there are many young drivers). ALL OF THEM were committed by people who were easily 30+. I've almost died on the road around 30 times since I got my new car last year (these are big enough incidents that I can remember them vividly)....EVERY SINGLE INCIDENT was involving someone who was easily 30+ years old, most were seniors (I've yet to have a near death experience that was my fault, I'm a good driver minus my own little whoopsie with the OPP). I have pretty bad road rage and I keep track of all the idiot drivers I've encountered, and the worst drivers (running red lights, not signalling, driving drunk, tailgating) are seniors. So until they start taking licenses away from people 65+, then the Ontario government can get stuffed.


----------



## 1feral1 (19 Nov 2008)

Piper said:
			
		

> I'm pretty sure I posted this in the right place.
> 
> http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20081118/AUTOS_young_drivers_081118/20081118?hub=Canada
> 
> ...



IMHO, under 25's count for a large portion of the road toll, and many of those under 25's were drunk or were alcohol related some how. Speed and inexperience are also factors.

As much as older people drive drunk too, most older drivers are responsible, and do not. Anyone that drives drunk or under the influence of drugs is an idiot, regardless of age.

OWDU


----------



## Shamrock (19 Nov 2008)

Piper said:
			
		

> I've almost died on the road around 30 times since I got my new car last year (these are big enough incidents that I can remember them vividly)....EVERY SINGLE INCIDENT was involving someone who was easily 30+ years old, most were seniors (I've yet to have a near death experience that was my fault, I'm a good driver minus my own little whoopsie with the OPP).



People over 30 only seem to make up half the equation of your near death experiences.  And given the level of personal accountability you demonstrated after your 'whoopsie,' I don't doubt your being the victim of others' driving.


When I picked up my motorcycle license, it was under graduated licensing.  Provisions of that license (BAC and demerits for unlawful operation) were applied to my existing license.


----------



## chris_log (19 Nov 2008)

Shamrock said:
			
		

> People over 30 only seem to make up half the equation of your near death experiences.  And given the level of personal accountability you demonstrated after your 'whoopsie,' I don't doubt your being the victim of others' driving.
> 
> 
> When I picked up my motorcycle license, it was under graduated licensing.  Provisions of that license (BAC and demerits for unlawful operation) were applied to my existing license.



Personal accountability? Tell ya what sunshine, I'll give you a serious traffic ticket and you tell me you wouldn't try and get out of it. I was passing a car and sped up to avoid an accident, thats why I got my ticket. Regradless, I got nailed by a law that doesn't catch the people it was intended to catch (street racers) and I paid the price for it. I paid the fine and court costs, you can keep your snide 'personal accountability' comments to yourself. I'm a damn good driver. 

IRT your comment about your motorcycle license, well of course they'd apply (I assume this was Ontario) M1 conditions to an M1 license regardless of your car driving experience. Them's the rules. 

Finally, I said all of my near death experiences involved someone over 30. How does 'all' equal 'half'? Just curious. I'm not arguing that these observations are any more then that, I'm just calling them how I see them. I'm 21 and will be for another few months, so it's possible this proposed law will affect me. I'm arguing that its unfair to place unfair conditions on youth when older people are just as bad.

By that logic (more youths crash their cars, so they should be restricted more)....since more aboriginals per capita are jailed in Canada each year then any other race, let's allow warrentless searches, random spot cheks and mandatory curfews for all aboriginals across Canada. It's the same logic. Not sure palatable now is it?


----------



## aesop081 (19 Nov 2008)

Piper said:
			
		

> Finally, I said all of my near death experiences involved someone over 30. How does 'all' equal 'half'?



Because in all of those cases, people over 30 were half of the equation. YOU were the other half in each case.


----------



## chris_log (19 Nov 2008)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Because in all of those cases, people over 30 were half of the equation. YOU were the other half in each case.



 :

Sigh, I wish I had a crayon and colorful paper here sometimes since people seem to need things spelled out so simply. I was referring to the people who did the idiotic thing to cause the near accident. When someone blows a red when I'm going through, I don't consider that my fault. I don't cause near accidents.


----------



## aesop081 (19 Nov 2008)

Piper said:
			
		

> Sigh, I wish I had a crayon and colorful paper here sometimes



Thats how most of us feel about you too..........


----------



## chris_log (19 Nov 2008)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Thats how most of us feel about you too..........



I'm sure they do. Thankfully, I don't care. I prefer to impress people who don't live through their internet personas.


----------



## Shamrock (19 Nov 2008)

Piper said:
			
		

> IRT your comment about your motorcycle license, well of course they'd apply (I assume this was Ontario) M1 conditions to an M1 license regardless of your car driving experience. Them's the rules.



No.  These provisions applied to all of my license.  That means were I to be operating a Class 3 vehicle with any alcohol in my system, I would have my license revoked.  Even if I had been drinking that one beer to avoid an accident.


----------



## aesop081 (19 Nov 2008)

Piper said:
			
		

> people who don't live through their internet personas.



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


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (20 Nov 2008)

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


----------



## Kat Stevens (20 Nov 2008)

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 (20 Nov 2008)

Piper said:
			
		

> 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 (20 Nov 2008)

benny88 said:
			
		

> 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 (20 Nov 2008)

Piper said:
			
		

> 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 (20 Nov 2008)

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


----------



## Michael OLeary (20 Nov 2008)

slowmode said:
			
		

> 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.
> 
> ...


----------



## slowmode (20 Nov 2008)

Michael O`Leary said:
			
		

> 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 (20 Nov 2008)

slowmode said:
			
		

> 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 (20 Nov 2008)

Michael O`Leary said:
			
		

> 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 (20 Nov 2008)

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 (20 Nov 2008)

Celticgirl said:
			
		

> 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 (21 Nov 2008)

Celticgirl said:
			
		

> 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 (21 Nov 2008)

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 (21 Nov 2008)

tynanfromBC said:
			
		

> 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.  )



			
				CountDC said:
			
		

> 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 (21 Nov 2008)

CountDC said:
			
		

> - 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 (21 Nov 2008)

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 (21 Nov 2008)

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 (21 Nov 2008)

karl28 said:
			
		

> 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


----------



## CountDC (24 Nov 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> 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.



don't see the conection but my military qualifications are tested on a regular basis and I get a report every year - called a PER, unless you do really bad and get an early "report" called verbal, written, C&P, compulsory release. If you have a 416's you have to do the written test to to have a new 404 issued everytime it expires, used to require a valid Defensive Drivers course too (allowed mine to expire so don't know the current standards). Don't have a civvie job but when I did many years ago we were tested everyday - pass the test or get fired. Marriage - the only test for that is day to day life - fail it and you get a divorce.


----------



## CountDC (24 Nov 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> 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.


You pay for your own test, use your own vehicle.



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> 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.


priviledges cost - you know it is an expense you will have so save for it - you have 5 years to do it, $1 a month covers more than the current cost of a road test here. Double the cost to cover any additional expense plus increases and it is still only $2 a month. Can't afford it - perhaps it is time to trade the car for bicycle.



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> 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?


I would guess the same place they got the current examiners.  What short notice?  Doesn't take an extremely long time to train testers so plan it for a year, maybe two at the most,  down the road. Wouldn't be any more poor drivers than the current system puts out there. Yes there will will always be the "incapable" but I believe those to be in the minority thus the testing will at least keep people on their toes and pickup some that shouldn't be out there.

I also believe that when someone has a change in medical condition that may prevent them from being a safe driver doctors should be required to report them.


----------



## helpup (24 Nov 2008)

Read the arguments and there are allot of valid points that I do agree with.  But I am not nor will I ever be a fan of legislating or creating Laws to get rid of a problem.  We live in a nanny society as it is and there seems to be no end in sight to well intentioned Govt legislating away at problems.  Especially when they do it so it appears they are making "real" change in our lives that will improve our quality of life.  Even though most of the time it is just on a subject that will cause the least amount of real life change or mean the less in the grand schemes of running the province or country.

Now having said that we are already encountering problems in the military with people on G1 and being able to drive. Or they loose Civi licence for one of these new law infractions and there goes their 404's.  It is already happening for anyone Drinking and driving under the new stringent rules. ( I am against drinking and driving on anything more then a beer or two over, say a dinner) Since they are checking more we have more DUI's in this area, Fine lose your spot on tour, lose your 404's big fines all around.  Scramble to find replacement drivers ( these guys are generally young 18-25 range who are still learning about how decisions are going to affect their jobs)  Now add into the mix no carpooling, and the other host of rules that they can breach and the number of lost 404's will increase by a huge number.

Yet very rarely( if at all) does anyone drink and drive with military vehicles.  It is just not done any more or all that often in the past.  We have had continual bun fights with MSE for drivers not having a full G and being able to drive Staff car/ Duty Van.  Even if they have had the complete Driver Wheel Course.  

I can see it now in Pet we will have the MP's pulling over a full car finding the young driver is a G1 entering base with 3 other people to get to work and he will lose his licence.  Car pooling is suppose to be a good thing to get more cars off the road and we want to allow those restrictions?  Not all kids have cars and there frankly are many who should not have them but they will use Friends to get to and from where they want or need to go now that will be viewed as illegal?

I am under the firm belief that if you try to legislate away the problems of young drivers you will increase the time it will take for them to become responsible adults driving or not.  Drivers Ed is a good program, making them pay for the increased cost of accidents in their demographics is a good call. Give them incentives to be better drivers rather then try and legislate stupidity.


----------



## Celticgirl (24 Nov 2008)

helpup said:
			
		

> Give them incentives to be better drivers rather then try and legislate stupidity.



What would an example of such an incentive be?


----------



## CountDC (24 Nov 2008)

in the military case I would think keeping your 404s and place on tour would be the incentive.


----------



## helpup (24 Nov 2008)

Good question, there are many approaches they can take.  Try the monetary one for example.  Much like they are now trying for the not smoking.  Offer a cash or tax benefit to any driver who after getting his G1 licence can go 3-5 years with out a speeding ticket, alcohol infringement, or in other words spotless driving record.  I think the cost of that would actually be cheaper then all the accident claims. 

Or work with the insurance industry to create a graduated cost amount for insurance.  each 1 or 2 that you drive with a clean record your rates go down and the Govt will kick in as well to make it a bit more affordable.  Set some limits on it and advertise the heck out of it.  

People are, in general, very much into awards based incentives.  They work much better then warning's, fines and the like.  

You would be getting your desired results (safer drivers) with out the need to make new laws or increase the restrictions on current ones.   

Add to that take age out of it and include any new driver.


----------



## Celticgirl (24 Nov 2008)

Helpup, I think you have some great ideas there re: incentives. However, I don't know if I can agree with you that these things will create "better" drivers. I think that in order to do that, people need more than just money in their back pockets. 

Defensive Driving is a wonderful program. I know because I took it not once, but twice - once shortly after getting my license at my father's insistence, and again when I lost points from a speeding ticket 8 years later. What I have learned in DD has probably prevented me from being involved in half a dozen accidents because I knew how to avoid them. 

Another thing that I think works well with the graduated licensing system in NS is the fact that new drivers (not just young drivers, any new drivers in the first 2 years of getting licensed) cannot drive between the hours of midnight and 5 a.m. Statistics show that more accidents occur during those hours than any other time(s), and therefore, having a minimum of 2 years of driving experience under your belt gives you the know-how to respond to situations in the wee hours that you might not have as a new driver. 

Dropping the BAC to zero and keeping passengers to a maximum of one are great strategies as well because these are things that could distract or impair your abilities to make good decisions on the road if you are not a seasoned driver. That's not to say that drinking and driving is okay for experienced drivers, but they at least have put in enough time on the road and therefore, the expectation is that they are able to cope a little better than a new driver with a small amount of alcohol in their bloodstreams and/or 2 or more passengers in their vehicles. 

Let's face it: Two things make "better" drivers - knowledge and experience. Money might be an incentive to be more cautious, but if you don't know what you are doing out there, all the monetary rewards in the world won't save you...or the rest of us from you.


----------



## ARMY_101 (24 Nov 2008)

Perhaps you could then combine monetary incentives with knowledge?  What if, on top of the current initiative behind licencing (take a driving course and you can test for your G2 four months earlier), they also added in a defensive driving program?  You pay for the defensive driving course, and if completed you'll receive money from the government/insurance company for this added knowledge.  Is that viable in reducing accidents?


----------



## karl28 (24 Nov 2008)

ARMY_101  

              I believe there is a program with some insurance companies that if you have something like young drivers of Canada they give you a discount towards your insurance at least that is what mine did for me way back when I was 18 .


           My only other concern with this new law is what happens to a young couple that are going grocery shopping with there kids and both are under the age limit that restricts how many people can be in the car ?


----------



## CountDC (24 Nov 2008)

ARMY_101 said:
			
		

> Perhaps you could then combine monetary incentives with knowledge?  What if, on top of the current initiative behind licencing (take a driving course and you can test for your G2 four months earlier), they also added in a defensive driving program?  You pay for the defensive driving course, and if completed you'll receive money from the government/insurance company for this added knowledge.  Is that viable in reducing accidents?



According to at least some insurance companies it is viable - some already offer discounts if you have a current defensive driving course. Get your licence through a driving school such as Young Drivers and some insurance companies will charge you the rates of a driver with 3 years experience.


----------



## Celticgirl (24 Nov 2008)

karl28 said:
			
		

> My only other concern with this new law is what happens to a young couple that are going grocery shopping with there kids and both are under the age limit that restricts how many people can be in the car ?



Simple - Put an age restriction on having children.  ;D 


(just kidding)


----------



## CountDC (24 Nov 2008)

Celticgirl said:
			
		

> Simple - Put an age restriction on having children.  ;D
> 
> 
> (just kidding)



I Agree - not kidding. The young couple under 19 should put a restriction on the number of kids they have. 

As the question is for a young underage couple with kids the solution is that one of them goes shopping, maybe with one child,  while the other stays home and babysits.


----------



## helpup (24 Nov 2008)

DDC, Drivers Ed and the rest are part of the package that all drivers should be doing, add it to an incentive program ( What I mentioned as an example ) and you will have the incentive added to people for being better drivers.  I agree with a graduated licence per see, but I think with this new legislation we are going about it the wrong way and becoming more of a nanny state. People get better at driving ( and pretty well everything) with experience.  They need to get that experience.  Cell phone bans, driving during the daylight between certain hours, passenger restrictions, the list goes on.  They are all valid points that should be pointed out and practiced by all.  Yet we as a people are saying we need laws to bring us to this level?.....  Bring back accountability, you get in a accident by doing something stupid there is enough laws on the books to have you punished both criminally and financially through insurance premiums. Those are the style of laws that LEO's do not go out of their way to enforce for man power, common sense reasons.  These are the LAW's that will give some parents the backbone to say to their kids nope you cant do that it is against the law.  But my point is we should not need a law to get accountability back into our lives.


----------



## helpup (24 Nov 2008)

CountDC said:
			
		

> I Agree - not kidding. The young couple under 19 should put a restriction on the number of kids they have.
> 
> As the question is for a young underage couple with kids the solution is that one of them goes shopping, maybe with one child,  while the other stays home and babysits.



Actually I recall reading that families would be exempt from the limit on passengers. i.e it is OK for Mom/Dad to drive their 3.5 kids but not to carpool other kids.


----------



## CountDC (24 Nov 2008)

helpup said:
			
		

> Actually I recall reading that families would be exempt from the limit on passengers. i.e it is OK for Mom/Dad to drive their 3.5 kids but not to carpool other kids.



3.5 kids at 19! - Send them to a birth control clinic instead of worrying about their driving. Wait - .5 - what happened to the other half??

I read a report that there was an exemption for siblings too so looks like the family car pool is safe.

now just have to get the pesky neighbour kids that are always bumming rides taken care.


----------



## ARMY_101 (24 Nov 2008)

I agree on the issue of any person becoming parents before 19 or 20 (even that's young), but I don't see it as being fair to say they have to limit the number of children they have in order to drive.  If they want to screw their lives up at 17 with three trophy kids, by all means do it, but it's unnecessary to limit how many people they can drive.


----------



## Celticgirl (24 Nov 2008)

ARMY_101 said:
			
		

> I agree on the issue of any person becoming parents before 19 or 20 (even that's young), but I don't see it as being fair to say they have to limit the number of children they have in order to drive.  If they want to screw their lives up at 17 with three trophy kids, by all means do it, but it's unnecessary to limit how many people they can drive.



I'm going to go out on a limb here and take a guess that you don't have any kids.   Children are a HUGE distraction in a vehicle. The more kids you have in the vehicle, the greater the distraction. 

I think it's more than fair to limit the number of children in your vehicle if you are inexperienced. I only have the one child and had already been driving for 12 years when I had her, and it was still a challenge some days to keep my mind on what I was doing behind the wheel!   

I think you are assuming that kids will behave like little adults in a vehicle. You forget that there will be times they'll be screaming/crying/puking/whatever, and you want to be able to maintain your composure at those times. A young parent + an inexperienced driver + 2 or more frazzled munchkins = disaster on the road. I don't care if that appears to be a politically incorrect sentiment or not. That is reality.


----------



## CountDC (24 Nov 2008)

ARMY_101 said:
			
		

> I agree on the issue of any person becoming parents before 19 or 20 (even that's young), but I don't see it as being fair to say they have to limit the number of children they have in order to drive.  If they want to screw their lives up at 17 with three trophy kids, by all means do it, but it's unnecessary to limit how many people they can drive.



tempting.

I'll stick to the driving part - as others have already posted the stats show otherwise.  Stats show that teenagers with several of their teen buddies in the car are more prone to drive in a hazardous manner and have an accident thus the restriction in number of passengers. If the young couple chose to "screw their lives up at 17 with three trophy kids" then why should we believe they are responsible enough to drive safely? I'll go with keeping them restricted simply to protect the kids. I've known people that fit this mold and they should not have kids or be driving.


----------



## ARMY_101 (24 Nov 2008)

Celticgirl said:
			
		

> I'm going to go out on a limb here and take a guess that you don't have any kids.   Children are a HUGE distraction in a vehicle. The more kids you have in the vehicle, the greater the distraction.



And I agree with them being a distraction.  It however seems unfair to force parents to limit the number of children they carry at one time.  As a parent, is it always feasible to only bring one child and leave the other (or however many others) behind?  Could you always find someone to watch the other child while the other is out with you?



			
				CountDC said:
			
		

> tempting.
> 
> I'll stick to the driving part - as others have already posted the stats show otherwise.  Stats show that teenagers with several of their teen buddies in the car are more prone to drive in a hazardous manner and have an accident thus the restriction in number of passengers. *If the young couple chose to "screw their lives up at 17 with three trophy kids" then why should we believe they are responsible enough to drive safely?* I'll go with keeping them restricted simply to protect the kids. I've known people that fit this mold and they should not have kids or be driving.



Because that seems to be discrimination by taking something into account that has nothing to do with someone's driving.  We don't take licences away from people who have been convicted of theft, why should we base a teenager's licence on their poor sleeping around choices?


----------



## Celticgirl (24 Nov 2008)

ARMY_101 said:
			
		

> And I agree with them being a distraction.  It however seems unfair to force parents to limit the number of children they carry at one time.  As a parent, is it always feasible to only bring one child and leave the other (or however many others) behind?  Could you always find someone to watch the other child while the other is out with you?
> 
> Because that seems to be discrimination by taking something into account that has nothing to do with someone's driving.  We don't take licences away from people who have been convicted of theft, why should we base a teenager's licence on their poor sleeping around choices?



I don't think you are following me here. This is not about your (or anyone's) perception of "fairness". It is about safety. Is a 20-year-old parent's freedom to take 2 or 3 children with them on a trip to the grocery store more important than the safety of said children? 

People have lost a lot of freedoms over the years in the name of safety. Our government now insists on bike helmets, seatbelts, booster seats under age 9, no BAC over 0.8, etc., etc. Isn't saving lives more important than individual freedoms? I certainly think so, and I wouldn't want to go back in time to when things were different. People will say "we didn't have such-and-such law when I was a kid and we all turned out fine". No, "we" did not. People died. People got injured. That is why the laws were created and enforced. 

As a parent, it disturbs me that some folks are more concerned about themselves and what they might lose out on by not having the 'right' to have a drink before driving or not having the 'right' to have a carload of friends in their vehicle when _my_ child is one of the millions that are travelling the same roads with those drivers. _My_ child is being put at risk every day. That is what I think about when I hear these protests against new safety regulations. Why is your freedom to cart your friends around more important than the lives of the innocent people you may harm or kill? Can you not suck it up for a couple of years and put some effort into becoming a responsible driver rather than worrying about 'me, me, me'?

Let us not forget, after all, that driving is a privilege, not a right. Sometimes, "we" forget that, dont' we?


----------



## Highlander60 (24 Nov 2008)

:threat: Well like many things everyone has an opinion and there is no perfect solution. The more legislation there is the more work for police to keep track of, and stupid people will always find new ways of being stupid. If only common sense could be legislated we would not be forced to keep coming up with new rules and less freedom.


----------



## ARMY_101 (24 Nov 2008)

Celticgirl said:
			
		

> I don't think you are following me here. This is not about your (or anyone's) perception of "fairness". It is about safety. Is a 20-year-old parent's freedom to take 2 or 3 children with them on a trip to the grocery store more important than the safety of said children?



It's definitely about safety.  I agree that they're a distraction, but if they're a distraction why do we only have to limit it to young drivers?  Does it not seem stereotypical to say that *all*_ drivers under 21 would be unable to handle these distractions, but finally at 21 they're able to?  What about those with 5 years experience by 21, but the brand new driver who only gets her licence at 20?




			People have lost a lot of freedoms over the years in the name of safety. Our government now insists on bike helmets, seatbelts, booster seats under age 9, no BAC over 0.8, etc., etc. Isn't saving lives more important than individual freedoms? I certainly think so, and I wouldn't want to go back in time to when things were different. People will say "we didn't have such-and-such law when I was a kid and we all turned out fine". No, "we" did not. People died. People got injured. That is why the laws were created and enforced. 

As a parent, it disturbs me that some folks are more concerned about themselves and what they might lose out on by not having the 'right' to have a drink before driving or not having the 'right' to have a carload of friends in their vehicle when my child is one of the millions that are travelling the same roads with those drivers. My child is being put at risk every day. That is what I think about when I hear these protests against new safety regulations. Why is your freedom to cart your friends around more important than the lives of the innocent people you may harm or kill? Can you not suck it up for a couple of years and put some effort into becoming a responsible driver rather than worrying about 'me, me, me'?
		
Click to expand...


And those limitations of freedoms have been "demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society".  Driving with a BAC less than 0.08 applies to all people, it doesn't say "all women must have less than a 0.05 BAC; all men must have less than a 0.1 BAC".  That would create an unfair bias and segregate people based on their gender, and not how well they can handle alcohol.  I'm all for this law being able to reduce the number of fatalities on the road and prevent people from drinking and driving, but why does it only have to apply to people under 21?

What ever happened to "every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability"?




			Let us not forget, after all, that driving is a privilege, not a right. Sometimes, "we" forget that, dont' we?
		
Click to expand...


Just because it's a privilege doesn't mean it can be unfairly regulated.  Driving is a privilege but we can't say no ____________ (insert religion/gender/age/race/etc.) are allowed to drive._


----------



## Michael OLeary (24 Nov 2008)

ARMY_101 said:
			
		

> I'm all for this law being able to reduce the number of fatalities on the road and prevent people from drinking and driving, but why does it only have to apply to people under 21?
> 
> What ever happened to "every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability"?



Does this mean you also argue against drivers over 80 having to be retested?


----------



## ARMY_101 (24 Nov 2008)

I believe so, because if anyone at any age does something seriously against driving laws or rules of the road they should be retested, regardless of their age.  But I'm sure you have a response ready for either answer


----------



## Celticgirl (24 Nov 2008)

ARMY_101 said:
			
		

> What ever happened to "every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability"?



The age restrictions for drinking alcohol, gambling, smoking, and voting are okay with you, though? That's age-based discrimination, is it not?

What about the medical restrictions of the military and police forces here in Canada? If I am mentally or physically disabled, I cannot apply. If I am too young or too old, I cannot apply. Discrimination?



> Just because it's a privilege doesn't mean it can be unfairly regulated.  Driving is a privilege but we can't say no ____________ (insert religion/gender/age/race/etc.) are allowed to drive.



Oh, but we do. We say no drivers under the age of 16. I guess all the 15-year-olds are being discriminated against. 

Listen, I remember what it was like to be of an age where I couldn't do all the things older people could do, like legally drink beer or buy a lotto ticket, but I accepted this as being part of a functional society. You will get older, you will gain more experience, and you will become part of the group that has fewer restrictions someday.


----------



## George Wallace (24 Nov 2008)

Ah yes!  Growing up and moving out of Mom and Dad's.  Paying Rent.  Making Car Payments.  Paying Insurance.  Paying for Hydro, Water, Cable/Satellite, Telephone.......sigh!  Shopping for food.  Finding a job.  Sigh!  Those were the days, eh!


----------



## Celticgirl (24 Nov 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Ah yes!  Growing up and moving out of Mom and Dad's.  Paying Rent.  Making Car Payments.  Paying Insurance.  Paying for Hydro, Water, Cable/Satellite, Telephone.......sigh!  Shopping for food.  Finding a job.  Sigh!  Those were the days, eh!



Privilege has its price.


----------



## Michael OLeary (24 Nov 2008)

ARMY_101 said:
			
		

> I believe so, because if anyone at any age does something seriously against driving laws or rules of the road they should be retested, regardless of their age.  But I'm sure you have a response ready for either answer



So, we should just wait until each person has a serious accident before we try to exercise control over whether or not that individual should be driving?

Why have driver's tests at all then, we'll just wait until they screwup and deal with it then.


----------



## ARMY_101 (24 Nov 2008)

Michael O`Leary said:
			
		

> So, we should just wait until each person has a serious accident before we try to exercise control over whether or not that individual should be driving?
> 
> Why have driver's tests at all then, we'll just wait until they screwup and deal with it then.



The person at 80 has at least been qualified with their licence and been driving for several years.  The retesting after an accident would be to ensure they are still capable of driving, which would be different from just trusting a person to be a good enough driver, then testing them once they have an accident.


----------



## Michael OLeary (24 Nov 2008)

ARMY_101 said:
			
		

> The person at 80 has at least been qualified with their licence and been driving for several years.  The retesting after an accident would be to ensure they are still capable of driving, which would be different from just trusting a person to be a good enough driver, then testing them once they have an accident.



Hmmm, we've tried trusting young drivers to be good enough drivers.  Unfortunately, accident statistics prove that many of them have failed at it, and this has resulted in the government enacting new regulations  Why can't more new drivers just perform better in order to to avoid restrictions on their age group?  So many many teenage drivers don't care enough to be good drivers, and they have invited these new restrictions upon their peers.


----------



## George Wallace (24 Nov 2008)

Michael O`Leary said:
			
		

> Hmmm, we've tried trusting young drivers to be good enough drivers.  Unfortunately, accident statistics prove that many of them have failed at it, and this has resulted in the government enacting new regulations  Why can't more new drivers just perform better in order to to avoid restrictions on their age group?  So many many teenage drivers don't care enough to be good drivers, and they have invited these new restrictions upon their peers.



.....And as a result, higher Insurance rates for younger drivers.  

Go figure.


----------



## Shamrock (24 Nov 2008)

The Google is weak with me tonight.

I have found statistics on collision fatalities and injuries in Ontario by age group, but I can't find anything similar for citations by age and a breakdown of licensed drivers.

Edit: Found it.


----------



## George Wallace (24 Nov 2008)

So those statistics show persons between 18 and 24 averaging over 1000, and those 25 and over averaging around 900.


----------



## GAP (24 Nov 2008)

Interesting....watching Canada's Worst Driver....distracted driver's exercise....a teenage driver's chances increase by 100% for each teenage passenger present.......


----------



## George Wallace (24 Nov 2008)

Shamrock said:
			
		

> .........................., but I can't find anything similar for citations by age and a breakdown of licensed drivers.
> 
> Edit: Found it.



Those numbers indicate a large "influx" of drivers from outside of Ontario in the over 25 years of age ranges.


----------



## Shamrock (24 Nov 2008)

A mish-mashed synthesis:


16-1920-2425-3435-4445-5455-6465+*% of Pop*5.1%8.3%17.7%21.8%19.95%13.8%13.3%*Fatality*31 (0.00069%)50 (0.00069%)66 (0.00042%)69 (0.00036%)54 (0.00031%)43 (0.00036%)65+ (0.00056%)*Injury*3077 (0.69%)4972 (0.68%)8,612 (0.55%)9,292 (0.49%)7,323 (0.42%)4,376 (0.36%)3455 (0.3%)*Suspensions*556 (0.13%)1787 (0.25%)1114 (0.0072%)468 (0.0024%)201 (0.0011%)74 (0.0006%)17 (0.0001%)

Edit: 
1.  George, I don't think it reliably reports a large out-of-province influx but rather just a large increase.  If it is the case that these represent new in-province drivers starting at the age of 24, then there may be credence to the age-ist bastards.

2.  This data is from descriptive stats only and no true inferences should be made from it.  It does not differentiate repeat offenders or non-reported incidents.

3.  This took a bunch of work, and I still can't find the traffic violations by age.


----------



## Michael OLeary (24 Nov 2008)

How about this breakdown from those stats pages.  I have only looked at driver stats because death/inhury sats for passengers does not identify the drivers' ages.


*16-19 age group*
*5.11 % of drivers
8.22 % of driver fatalities*

*20-24 age group*
*8.3 % of drivers
13.26 % of driver fatalities*

*25-34 age group*
17.77 % of drivers
17.51 % of driver fatalities

*35-44 age group*
21.83 % of drivers
18.3 % of driver fatalities

*45-54 age group*
19.95 % of drivers
14.32 % of driver fatalities

*55-64 age group*
13.77 % of drivers
11.41 % of driver fatalities

*65+ age group*
13.26 % of drivers
19.98 % of driver fatalities

The 16-19 and 20-24 age groups are well over-represented in driver death stats.  Hopefully the current restrictions will improve driver capabilities across the younger age group and also have a follow-on effect on the next group's statistics too.


----------



## Burrows (25 Nov 2008)

I have already written to my MPP on this subject and hope to receive a reply indicating he will not support these changes.

One issue I have is that I was taught by a licensed driving instructor to always go with the flow of traffic.  By cracking down on the speed laws, it becomes illegal for me to keep up with said flow if it happens to be driving faster than the speed limit.  By not going with the flow I am more likely to be involved in a collision.  Of course,  I'll have to die before anyone can change it back.


----------



## George Wallace (25 Nov 2008)

Shamrock said:
			
		

> A mish-mashed synthesis:
> 
> 
> 16-1920-2425-3435-4445-5455-6465+*% of Pop*5.1%8.3%17.7%21.8%19.95%13.8%13.3%*Fatality*31 (0.00069%)50 (0.00069%)66 (0.00042%)69 (0.00036%)54 (0.00031%)43 (0.00036%)65+ (0.00056%)*Injury*3077 (0.69%)4972 (0.68%)8,612 (0.55%)9,292 (0.49%)7,323 (0.42%)4,376 (0.36%)3455 (0.3%)*Suspensions*556 (0.13%)1787 (0.25%)1114 (0.0072%)468 (0.0024%)201 (0.0011%)74 (0.0006%)17 (0.0001%)
> ...



Table 2.17: Driver Population by Age Groups, 1988-2005
  Age Groups   
*Year          16-19          20-24           25-34             35-44             45-54             55-64               65+             Total * 
*1988*      310,764      643,691      1,588,516      1,353,841       898,103        714,266       608,931       6,118,112 
*1989*      323,109      631,470      1,634,187      1,409,053       931,991        720,788       639,826       6,290,424 
*1990*      322,542      629,478      1,666,474      1,467,699       964,925        728,380       669,385       6,448,883 
*1991*      319,584      627,931      1,673,502      1,501,765      1,018,365       736,652       696,432       6,574,231 
*1992*      314,685      623,707      1,665,433      1,528,726      1,082,883       745,759       727,568       6,688,761 
*1993*      326,389      621,934      1,655,573      1,566,083      1,136,365       758,840       758,244       6,823,428 
*1994*      358,817      622,704      1,645,962      1,611,972      1,190,442       770,882       783,181       6,983,960 
*1995*      360,847      614,094      1,621,989      1,659,749      1,240,072       782,871       806,396       7,086,018 
*1996*      361,571      612,060      1,608,567      1,717,050      1,297,289       805,486       856,144       7,258,167 
*1997*      394,512      624,532      1,611,708      1,789,110      1,360,555       837,606       919,584       7,537,607 
*1998*      412,589      634,053      1,593,744      1,845,474      1,415,258       872,426       954,212       7,727,756 
*1999*      426,643      642,808      1,576,673      1,895,323      1,475,588       907,235       994,044       7,918,314 
*2000*      438,170      659,331      1,582,207      1,935,150      1,540,499       939,838      1,026,179       8,121,374 
*2001*      449,853      671,424      1,580,758      1,946,713      1,577,920       990,745      1,049,203       8,266,616 
*2002*      458,627      686,561      1,580,837      1,945,944      1,612,219      1,053,877     1,075,439       8,413,504 
*2003*      457,049      704,720      1,575,345      1,940,896      1,653,604      1,105,726     1,104,215       8,541,555 
*2004*      453,157      719,861      1,567,346      1,929,418      1,698,350      1,157,824     1,129,641       8,655,597   
*2005*      447,954      727,529      1,557,476      1,912,898      1,748,335      1,206,374     1,161,644       8,762,210   



I was looking roughly at where the 16-19 year olds of 1988 roughly moved along to 2005.


----------



## helpup (25 Nov 2008)

Celticgirl said:
			
		

> People have lost a lot of freedoms over the years in the name of safety. Our government now insists on bike helmets, seatbelts, booster seats under age 9, no BAC over 0.8, etc., etc. Isn't saving lives more important than individual freedoms? I certainly think so, and I wouldn't want to go back in time to when things were different. People will say "we didn't have such-and-such law when I was a kid and we all turned out fine". No, "we" did not. People died. People got injured. That is why the laws were created and enforced.
> 
> As a parent, it disturbs me that some folks are more concerned about themselves and what they might lose out on by not having the 'right' to have a drink before driving or not having the 'right' to have a carload of friends in their vehicle when _my_ child is one of the millions that are travelling the same roads with those drivers. _My_ child is being put at risk every day. That is what I think about when I hear these protests against new safety regulations. Why is your freedom to cart your friends around more important than the lives of the innocent people you may harm or kill? Can you not suck it up for a couple of years and put some effort into becoming a responsible driver rather than worrying about 'me, me, me'?
> 
> Let us not forget, after all, that driving is a privilege, not a right. Sometimes, "we" forget that, dint' we?



Your right driving is a privilege, not a right.  And your even more right by saying that people have lost a lot of "rights" over the years.  It is debatable if seatbelts, boosterseats etc are rights though.  

However I have to point that there is one fact that is guaranteed when your born...... You will Die.  As to saving a life to protect individual freedoms, that unfortunately is a very slippery slope that leads to people being chipped and eroded of their own responsibility to make sound choices.  That in turn makes them less able or willing to make those choices.  Why should they the Government will make them for them.  A end result is a continuing loss of responsibility being fostered on making your own choices, for yourself or your family.  As you pointed out we have rules <LAWS> now that were not there not that long ago and your view is they are a good thing.  I will even state that allot of them out there are good rules, and ones I follow.  But there is a mindset in people and politicians that they can legislate stupidity away.  And in the end even if they realize they cant a politician will make a calculated move that goes like this. " hey there is not much I can do for most things here but I have to be seen as doing something, lets see what can I do that will look good, change little and can be pointed out as I am doing good things in power."

But where does it stop, if you take the mindset that if a law saves even one life it is worth it.  Yet it makes me wonder that by preventing people from making sound choices and learning by them you are setting them up for a point later in life that they will fail drastically in something due to lack of experience or decision making abilities and die or kill someone as a result.  

Laws by there very nature are made made constructs that are designed to allow a society to function, they can have and will change over time.  but in the last decade and more we have seen a increase in preventative laws, that do in my opinion take away from society.  There are other mechanisms in place or should be in place to address issues of needless deaths and I will be the first to say that the age group targeted has a distinct disadvantage with not making mistakes or needing experience.  

In the end as I have stated I am not a fan of nanny laws and this to me is one of them


----------



## Michael OLeary (25 Nov 2008)

So, what have been the effect of these "Nanny State" laws on accident rates?

From this source given above.

1988

Ontario population - 9,439,600

Persons killed in all classes, rate per 100,000 - *13.1*
Persons injured in all classes, rate per 100,000 - *1,251.7*

2005

Ontario population - 12.558,669

Persons killed in all classes, rate per 100,000 - *6.1*
Persons injured in all classes, rate per 100,000 - *572.1*

Rates of killed and injured in vehicle accidents reduced by half over 17 years.  I wonder what that has done to help control the taxes we would have been paying to provide emergency and health services for all those others who would have been killed or injured without these changes?

It's not just a personal decision, it affects us all in some way.


----------



## helpup (25 Nov 2008)

Michael O`Leary said:
			
		

> So, what have been the effect of these "Nanny State" laws on accident rates?
> 
> From this source given above.
> 
> ...



Your right especially with our medical system coming out of the Taxpayers pockets. I grant you your point that the Stats show there is a direct decrease in the amount of deaths.  How much of that is directly due to increasing " Nanny Law's " is debatable.  For example how much of the deaths and injury were prevented by making the cars over all safer ( airbags, ABS, better headlamps, crumple tech the list goes on.) Sure allot of these improvements were legislated, ( a form of legislation I prefer over increased restrictions over people) Most of those improvements you could argue would of made it into mainstream eventually due to market demands by people wanting those improvements.  How much of those deaths were prevented due to increase " blitz's " by LEO's for existing laws,  such as increase in the ride program? Those were based on existing laws not creating new ones.  

Yes there are laws that can be termed Nany laws that are good ones,  and even most of them as I stated I agree with and follow.  Yet the overall trends we are at now, I can not say I am a fan of.  We have municipal laws that are banning tobogganing down certain hills, ( hey a kid got hurt or died lets ban it,) we have curfews in other jurisdiction ( well the kids will cause less problems.  The list goes on more then I have time to do a cursory search for.  Most of these laws boil down to basic responsibility.  Both on the individuals case and in the parental obligation.  

And as was brought up before by differant proponents, this can be viewed as age based discrimination.  I follow that line of thought but people don't vote, drive, drink until certain ages, we as a society have stated they are not developmentally mature enough to make those sound choices until a certain age.  And that will change depending on the province, country and culture.  Most teens may not agree with this until they are no longer a teen, but the reality is during that timeframe you are still developing, maturing and learning the basics of making sound decisions based on life skills you are learning.  That for driving doesn't really change as you get older.  The first time driver at any age is in the same boat.  They may be fully developed in maturity, but on the road for the first time it is a whole new ball game for anyone at any age.  To learn to drive safely it will take more then just laws to increase your safe driving experience.  It takes a good tutor, DDC or other such courses and experience with all driving conditions.  I don't think anyone should, 1st week of driving, try doing Montreal traffic on the highway.  ( I know may experienced drivers who still cringe at it) but use existing laws and enforce them fully, educate, motivate with incentives. lets slow down the creation new laws or you will have some soon saying that due to heart attacks occurring during snow removal no one over XX age can shovel snow in the winter, they must use those between the age of XX - YY or pay for a company to remove the dangerous snow.


----------



## ARMY_101 (25 Nov 2008)

Kyle Burrows said:
			
		

> One issue I have is that I was taught by a licensed driving instructor to always go with the flow of traffic.  By cracking down on the speed laws, it becomes illegal for me to keep up with said flow if it happens to be driving faster than the speed limit.  By not going with the flow I am more likely to be involved in a collision.  Of course,  I'll have to die before anyone can change it back



So he told you to break the law?


----------



## Brad Sallows (26 Nov 2008)

Regulations of such trivial nature are a guide to the thinking person with common sense, not a straitjacket.


----------



## Cronicbny (1 Dec 2008)

Michael O`Leary said:
			
		

> So, what have been the effect of these "Nanny State" laws on accident rates?
> 
> From this source given above.
> 
> ...



I suppose it's also possible that a series of other things affected these rates too. I know my 1988 VW Golf is nowhere near as safe as a brand new 2008 Golf (think how much safer that '88 Golf is compared to a ten year old car of the time). How much of the statistics could be representative of that sheer change in automotive safety and new laws requiring air bags, ABS etc etc? It's a question none of us has the answer to. Likewise, I don't think anyone can say for certain that Graduated Licensing has had that big of an impact. Has it had one? Certainly. 

Now, is a driving with a Zero BAC a good idea? Absolutely. Should we outlaw drinking whilst driving for everyone? To prevent accidents related to drinking and driving - we absolutely should.

Smoking kills people. We should ban it outright.

Drinking... ditto. Ban that too.

Obviously we can't do all that (well we COULD I suppose) so instead we design our laws around maximizing personal choice and public safety. Or at least we should.

The problem I have with this suggestion from Ontario is the sheer pointlessness of it. By 21 most drivers are likely still in Graduated licensing and are unable to drink and drive anyhow. Looking at the previous stats (licensed drivers by age) the significant MINORITY of drivers would be those who have completed the Graduated licensing program by 21. So now Timmy (a good random name) who has fully FIVE years of driving experience is now 21 years old. He can't have a beer at Fred's Grey Cup party but Sam, the 22 year old who just finished graduated licensing and has two years of experience (or whatever it would be in Ontario) can. It just doesn't make sense in my mind.

Now how about this odd scenario. Timmy is from Ontario but his 19 year old lab partner Jenny at York University is from Alberta. She has no restrictions on BAC on her license. Is she subject to the Ontario law even though she holds an Alberta license? Of course she is. Does she know that? Does it really matter? What about the thousands of young tourists who cross the border from the US for a weekend piss up in Canada? Guaranteed they don't know. So suddenly we are doing what exactly? Suspending licenses from out of province? Impossible. Impounding cars? Also sketchy, especially for our Southern Friends who have something called "property rights". 

I'm just thinking out loud about the myriad ramifications of passing an age based law, rather than a law that rightfully should be applied to the appropriate area of provincial jurisdiction - the drivers license. Every province administers different rules for drivers. Ditto for alcohol. To mix the two outside the auspicies of the Criminal Code is a slippery slope IMO.

Imagine this. In BC you can't buy cigarettes unless you are over 19 (thats easy to imagine), now imagine the province bans smoking while driving for people under 21 since it is a proven distraction. Ridiculous? Yes. Is it actually dangerous? Absolutely, they are SMOKING and DRIVING - two things more or less guaranteed to kill you.

All this just to say that I don't think the goal - reducing deaths and injuries on the road by 19, 20 and 21 year old drunk drivers - is accomplished in any enforceable, reasonable way by the new restriction. The easiest and most legally correct solution is simply to extend the Zero BAC period on Graduated Licenses. This is also by far the cheapest way to administer this change and avoids the endless ream of paperwork that would be found requesting license suspensions from other jurisdictions - only to have those requests flatly denied.

That took too long... my apologies to all.


----------



## George Wallace (1 Dec 2008)

Cronicbny said:
			
		

> I suppose it's also possible that a series of other things affected these rates too. I know my 1988 VW Golf is nowhere near as safe as a brand new 2008 Golf (think how much safer that '88 Golf is compared to a ten year old car of the time). How much of the statistics could be representative of that sheer change in automotive safety and new laws requiring air bags, ABS etc etc? It's a question none of us has the answer to. Likewise, I don't think anyone can say for certain that Graduated Licensing has had that big of an impact. Has it had one? Certainly.
> 
> Now, is a driving with a Zero BAC a good idea? Absolutely. Should we outlaw drinking whilst driving for everyone? To prevent accidents related to drinking and driving - we absolutely should.
> 
> ...



Were you actually trying to say something there?  If you were, I missed the point.


----------



## CountDC (2 Dec 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Were you actually trying to say something there?  If you were, I missed the point.



Wow - thank god I wasn't the only one.  Was starting to think I needed some real strong happy juice after reading it 3 times.


----------



## tamtam10 (4 Dec 2008)

I'm totally for making our roads safer, because their not at all right now. However, these proposals are completely unfair for younger drivers (and I say younger because a 19, 20 or 21 year old is not a youth). They are based on age descrimination and in my opinion is not the best way to go about making our roads safer.


----------



## Koenigsegg (4 Dec 2008)

I have seen countless "experienced" drivers in the ditch or pulled over so far this season, and I have yet to see a "young" driver in the same situations during that same time.
Yet, somehow it is all the youngsters driving too fast and causing all the problems...BS.  I havent seen a young male driver tailgate me yet.  Lots of older drivers and young women though.  Not a slight towards ladies...just an observation from my experiences as a motorcyclist and driver.

I understand that they have to start somewhere in order to increase the safety of our roads, and make people more law abiding.  I also understand that new drivers are the easiest to start with (they can be molded like putty as they have not developed as many bad habits).  But I do hope that if the laws stay in place (I guess I mean only the speed one), they will begin to affect all age/experience groups.

So in short, the only new things I seem to agree with are the speeding and BAC ones to a degree.  I just hope that they extend the focus to everyone over time.


----------



## Michael OLeary (4 Dec 2008)

Koenigsegg said:
			
		

> I have seen countless "experienced" drivers in the ditch or pulled over so far this season, and I have yet to see a "young" driver in the same situations during that same time.
> Yet, somehow it is all the youngsters driving too fast and causing all the problems...BS.  I havent seen a young male driver tailgate me yet.  Lots of older drivers and young women though.  Not a slight towards ladies...just an observation from my experiences as a motorcyclist and driver.



OK, now explain insurance rates based on recorded accident statistics for young (in particular young male) vs. older drivers.

It would appear that your personal observations may not be statistical significant.


----------



## jeffb (9 Dec 2008)

It looks like the Ontario Government is backing down on the one passenger restriction. 

http://www.cp24.com/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20081208/081208_driving_rules_hm/20081208/?hub=CP24Home



> TORONTO — Ontario's Liberal government is backing down from its proposed passenger restrictions on teenage drivers.
> 
> The province introduced legislation designed to reduce the number of accidents by young drivers that included a limit of only one teen passenger for drivers 19 and under with a G2 graduated licence.





I think this is a great decision. You can't tell teenagers that they are only able to have one passenger and then encourage them to have a designated driver.


----------



## CountDC (9 Dec 2008)

Perhaps you should have quoted this part instead:

Transportation Minister Jim Bradley told the legislature today that he is withdrawing the controversial passenger limits from the bill.


----------



## karl28 (9 Dec 2008)

I think this is a good move on the Government part .


----------



## Koenigsegg (20 Dec 2008)

Sorry for the very late reply.
This is to Michael O'Leary.

I personally cannot explain the insurance rates.  But I can tell you that most of the problems today stem back to previous court cases, and the Bob Rae provincial government trying to change the way the insurance companies did things.  He cost the companies a tonne of money, and then in the end...with in days of the changes being implimented, the government changed their minds.  Huge waste of money.  The people who designed the insurance systems got buggered too, but that's beside the point.
The rates are not entirely based on the statistics, and some of the classes have almost no touch on reality.  I, not knowing much about it myself, will stop there because if I continue I could spout incorrect information, or mix up facts.
But I have it on very good authority that young people are getting screwed unneccessarily.  We've always been getting screwed, yes...no surprise there.  But is outrageous for in some cases no reason.
In order of the rates to be fair, you can't class insurance.  But in order for the insurance companies to stay afloat with our sad court system, insurance has to be classed.  It's a catch 22, and crap rolls down hill.


----------



## The Bread Guy (1 Aug 2010)

Reviving necrothread to remind you that as of today (1 Aug 10):


> .... it will become an offence for any driver 21 or under, regardless of licence class, to have a blood alcohol level above zero. Those drivers who have a blood alcohol level above zero will face:
> • an immediate 24−hour licence suspension,
> • 30−day licence suspension,
> • up to $500 in fines ....


More here.


----------



## The Bread Guy (4 Aug 2010)

This from the Canadian Press - highlights mine:


> A young Toronto man has gone to court to challenge Ontario's new law prohibiting drivers 21 and under from having any alcohol whatsoever in their systems.
> 
> Twenty-year-old Kevin Wiener filed his application in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice today, alleging the law that took effect Aug. 1 is unconstitutional because it is based solely on age.
> 
> ...


----------



## REDinstaller (4 Aug 2010)

I think the law change is a good thing. Most 18yr olds in Ontario look forward to the day they can go into a Liquor store legally and buy a 24 drive to the lake with some buddies and then try to come home. If the stats support the provinces case then too bad. It suck to be a young driver, but the fatalities speak for themselves.


----------



## ModlrMike (4 Aug 2010)

As someone who works in an emergency room, I have to say that my anecdotal evidence supports these changes. While I see many MVCs involving alcohol, the under 21 age group is over represented, and tend to be involved in more catastrophic events.


----------



## REDinstaller (4 Aug 2010)

Hopefully the Ontario Govt wins the challenge as there are enough issues with young drivers as it is. How will they balance speed, agressive driving, texting and booze?


----------



## Michael OLeary (4 Aug 2010)

> Twenty-year-old Kevin Wiener filed his application in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice today, alleging the law that took effect Aug. 1 is unconstitutional because it is based solely on age.



OK, so let's make it for anyone who hasn't graduated High School and held steady employment for at least two years.  Better?  

And I'm sure the Government can come up with a testing method for those who wish to challenge the requirement, one that will be even more onerous that completing a GED (at least) and getting a job.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (4 Aug 2010)

If Nanny McSquinty doesn't get voted out next election you'll have to wear a football helmet in the shower.


----------



## ModlrMike (4 Aug 2010)

I think he might be out of luck. A quick read of the link below certainly sets the precedent.

Manitoba GDL regulations: LINK

One enters the GDL programme at 16 years of age, and it lasts 60 months. However, the 60 month period is not reduced by starting older. Interesting to note is the requirement for 0% BAC for 36 months during the first full licence period. The upshot being one could be 25 years old and still have to drive alcohol free (given that you got your learner`s as late as 21 years of age).


----------



## Fishbone Jones (4 Aug 2010)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> I think he might be out of luck. A quick read of the link below certainly sets the precedent.
> 
> Manitoba GDL regulations: LINK
> 
> One enters the GDL programme at 16 years of age, and it lasts 60 months. However, the 60 month period is not reduced by starting older. Interesting to note is the requirement for 0% BAC for 36 months during the first full licence period. The upshot being one could be 25 years old and still have to drive alcohol free (given that you got your learner`s as late as 21 years of age).



It should be based upon your initial license. Whether you get it at 16 or 60. If it's your first one, you serve the probation period. Then it would be equal. 

If anyone hasn't noticed, the current Ontario government isn't young adult friendly.


----------



## George Wallace (4 Aug 2010)

I think he is out of luck as well, even with his "age discrimination" line of defence.  Age is already set as to when you can get a Driver Lic, when you are old enough to purchase liquor, when you are old enough to vote, etc.  He really has to find how Age Discrimination is being applied.

What he may land up doing is raising the Legal drinking age in ON, raising the age one must be to get a Dvr Lic in ON, and perhaps raising the Voting Age in ON.  Wouldn't he be surprised.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (4 Aug 2010)

Tango18A said:
			
		

> I think the law change is a good thing. Most 18yr olds in Ontario look forward to the day they can go into a Liquor store legally and buy a 24 drive to the lake with some buddies and then try to come home. If the stats support the provinces case then too bad. It suck to be a young driver, but the fatalities speak for themselves.



You got your provinces mixed up. The legal here in Ontario is 19 not 18 as in Alberta.


----------



## George Wallace (4 Aug 2010)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> You got your provinces mixed up. The legal here in Ontario is 19 not 18 as in Alberta.



 ;D  That is why 18 year olds in ON look forward to that day that they can legally buy beer (Their 19th birthday).


----------



## Retired AF Guy (4 Aug 2010)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> ;D  That is why 18 year olds in ON look forward to that day that they can legally buy beer (Their 19th birthday).



When you put it that way, you are so right.


----------



## Neill McKay (4 Aug 2010)

recceguy said:
			
		

> It should be based upon your initial license. Whether you get it at 16 or 60. If it's your first one, you serve the probation period. Then it would be equal.



Exactly.  I think there's a similar measure in New Brunswick as part of the graduated licensing system, and that seems to be the reasonable way to do it.



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> Age is already set as to when you can get a Driver Lic, when you are old enough to purchase liquor, when you are old enough to vote, etc.  He really has to find how Age Discrimination is being applied.



Again looking at New Brunswick, the _Human Rights Act_ used to define 19 as the age below which it was permissible to discriminate on the basis of age.  (I see now that this provision was repealed in 1992 - no idea why.)  There may be a similar provision in other provinces.

It's certainly understood that there will be some things that children can't do.  Nobody wants three-year-olds to vote or six-year-olds to drink, but there has to come a certain age above which one can have all of the benefits of being an adult, including freedom from discrimination on the basis of age.  I'd suggest that it's something less than 21.


----------



## ModlrMike (4 Aug 2010)

recceguy said:
			
		

> It should be based upon your initial license. Whether you get it at 16 or 60. If it's your first one, you serve the probation period. Then it would be equal.



I think it still is, and I agree. I was only focusing on the young adult group as it`s germane to the man`s argument.


----------



## HavokFour (5 Aug 2010)

I for one thought you weren't supposed to have any alcohol in your blood when driving regardless of age.

This is all rather silly if you ask me.


----------



## REDinstaller (5 Aug 2010)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> ;D  That is why 18 year olds in ON look forward to that day that they can legally buy beer (Their 19th birthday).



Exactly, no more borrowing a fake ID or steeling it out of the old man's fridge. And I think Mr. Wiener is in for quite a surprise. Discrimination is usually against an individual or small minorities. The 18-21 yr old band in Ontario is huge, and it just makes common sense. We as a society usually create a solution to a problem, hence the new law.


----------

