Zero Tolerance for 1st 5 years of driving...

I got a kick out of last nights paper. Our local Police Inspector was going on about how great these new laws will be. I went to school with this inspector. At just 17 years old, he cruised the streets in an all black, big-block Nova with a modified 396cu.in. engine (a real street-sweeper!) and no graduated licensing of course.

How could he POSSIBLY have survived without today's draconian laws to protect him?

I can't resist the urge to put pen to paper much longer!...

Our local Police Inspector was going on about how great these new laws will be. I went to school with this inspector. At just 17 years old, he cruised the streets in an all black, big-block Nova with a modified 396cu.in. engine (a real street-sweeper!) and no graduated licensing of course.

He obviously "forgot where he came from." One drunk driving crash, granted a tragic one, and now the whole system is declared "broke." We've got a provincial government that has a limited (read: no) ability to think and uses emotion and panic almost exclusively.

Was it Cicero who said "The more laws, the less justice"?

Yes, it was. Cicero also said "He only employs his passion who can make no use of his reason." Think that applies here?

Radar Identified wrote:

Cicero also said "He only employs his passion who can make no use of his reason." Think that applies here?

With regard to Queen's Park? Does it ever!

You know, maybe they should ban parents from buying souped-up cars for their kids. Maybe they should hold parents accountable when they don't take the keys away from their kids when they drive like Mulcahy's son. Reasonable? Not really, but to a certain extent that'd make more sense than these new laws.

Radar Identified wrote:

You know, maybe they should ban parents from buying souped-up cars for their kids. Maybe they should hold parents accountable when they don't take the keys away from their kids when they drive like Mulcahy's son. Reasonable? Not really, but to a certain extent that'd make more sense than these new laws.

No, it is simply easier to tax the living lights out of the offender instead of having a functional family talk about driving. And the insurance companies make more money.

Radar Identified wrote:

You know, maybe they should ban parents from buying souped-up cars for their kids.

It may be worthwhile to investigate the effectiveness of limiting the hp of one's vehicle based on driving experience regardless of age. I don't foresee any major issues as it should more or less cover most sports cars and some luxury vehicles without penalizing those that need trucks, for example.

It may be worthwhile to investigate the effectiveness of limiting the hp of one's vehicle based on driving experience regardless of age.

Personally I think the laws were fine just the way they are, but you raise an interesting point, maybe a revision to graduated licensing?

It would've been better if the kid's car had been taken away when he showed such irresponsibility, but by his father. He could've stopped it, but didn't. Now all young/inexperienced drivers are going to pay. At least the media is starting to blast the government for it now.

Germany has a four year driver education course as part of their regular school cirriculum, or at least it used to. That is why more than half of the Autobahn can have no posted speed limit but it has the lowest collision rate of any major road network in the world. It takes a long time to get a driver's licence there, but it's part of your school work. They get considerably more freedom with their driving than we do because of it. If the government really wanted to prevent future crashes like the one that started this thread, they'd look at such a process. But they won't. Too much thinking involved.

Radar Identified wrote:

That is why more than half of the Autobahn can have no posted speed limit but it has the lowest collision rate of any major road network in the world.

I belive most (if not all) of Autobahn has the speed limit of "No less than (something)". The speed limit is also adjusted via overhead displays depending on weather, traffic conditions, and there are different speeds for each lane.

Radar Identified wrote:

At least the media is starting to blast the government for it now.

They should visit our site. People seem to have brought up all the proper points media has conveniently ignored.

Radar Identified wrote:

It would've been better if the kid's car had been taken away when he showed such irresponsibility, but by his father. He could've stopped it, but didn't. Now all young/inexperienced drivers are going to pay.

Exactly my point just above. Only raises one question - does the guy work for an insurance company? Because your insurance rate goes up throught the roof when you check the magic "has you license been suspended/revoked in the past 5 years" box.

Radar Identified wrote:

Germany has a four year driver education course as part of their regular school cirriculum, or at least it used to. That is why more than half of the Autobahn can have no posted speed limit but it has the lowest collision rate of any major road network in the world. It takes a long time to get a driver's licence there, but it's part of your school work. They get considerably more freedom with their driving than we do because of it. If the government really wanted to prevent future crashes like the one that started this thread, they'd look at such a process. But they won't. Too much thinking involved.

BINGO!!!

http://cp24.com/servlet/an/local/CTVNew ... b=CP24Home

McGuinty finally realized that teens have a voice (it's called Facebook). Now I hope he learns just how powerful they can be come election day.

The Dalton Gang and the YELLOW journalism have seen the light!

http://www.thestar.com/article/543564

I love this and had to post it

hwybear wrote:

This is too complicated. No need to re-invent the wheel.

Just make it simple...We already have the following conditions:

G1 = zero alcohol

G2 - zero alcohol

Just add that a "G" driver must be a minimum of 19yrs of age.

G1/G2 already have lower demerit point levels, which multiple tickets will take care of a suspension for demerit points.

Wait a minute! Aren't you not supposed to be drinking until you turn 19, with or without a license?

racer wrote:

hwybear wrote:

This is too complicated. No need to re-invent the wheel.

Just make it simple...We already have the following conditions:

G1 = zero alcohol

G2 - zero alcohol

Just add that a "G" driver must be a minimum of 19yrs of age.

G1/G2 already have lower demerit point levels, which multiple tickets will take care of a suspension for demerit points.

Wait a minute! Aren't you not supposed to be drinking until you turn 19, with or without a license?

Yes, but for example, you obtain a G licence (no alcohol condition) and you can be 18. Stop the driver, but can still pass Approved Screening Device test...therfore legally allowed to drive....and can issue a ticket for "under age consumption".

Bel: I like that one.

So we make it simple, if you are under 19 no drinky. Although, I still don't agree with age being a defining legal requirement. Numbers mean jack because we all know the boys at work who care about nothing but themselves. Not really the most mature people on the planet but they help to choose your leaders.......

I belive most (if not all) of Autobahn has the speed limit of "No less than (something)". The speed limit is also adjusted via overhead displays depending on weather, traffic conditions, and there are different speeds for each lane.

Some of it does, yes. The Berlin Ring had variable maximum and minimum speeds, as I recall. There is a requirement in the "no speed limit" areas to be able to stop your vehicle within your line of sight. The German government recommends a speed of 130 km/h. I felt safer on the German Autobahn than anywhere else I've driven. No left lane hogs, no "Toronto lane changes," no dangerous tailgating, no merging onto a high-speed expressway at 30 km/h, speed's at your discretion and you knew exactly what to expect from everyone else on the road. Germany may not have everything right but they know how to drive.

Only raises one question - does the guy work for an insurance company?

Makes you wonder. It's about the only semi-logical (if very poor) reason that he didn't take his son's car that I can think of, anyway.

Bel: Nice. Got a kick out of that one.

Radar Identified wrote:

Makes you wonder. It's about the only semi-logical (if very poor) reason that he didn't take his son's car that I can think of, anyway.

Last time I checked, adding a "Speeding 50+" to the online insurance rate calculator doubled the premium from its base. Adding 2 of them tripled it. There is, quite apparently, a good reason for it. Why could Tim Mulcahy not see that?

Too busy working out the deal for his kids Ferrari..................

Why could Tim Mulcahy not see that?

I dunno. Tyler Mulcahy's insurance should've been astronomical based on his age and traffic convictions, so it's not like he could've hid it from his dad. Tim Mulcahy didn't have the guts to stand up to his son, for whatever reason it may have been...

UPDATE: Transportation Minister Jim Bradley has announced that he will withdraw the portion restricting the number of passengers that he had proposed. They mused about it but now they've officially decided to withdraw that part.

Jim Bradley Can go and @#$% himself, along with McGuinty, Father Mulcahy and the Grand Stats Master!

I hope those young adults run them right out of town!!!!

If any regular poster finds my new signature offensive, please PM me and I will remove it ASAP!

Radar Identified wrote:

UPDATE: Transportation Minister Jim Bradley has announced that he will withdraw the portion restricting the number of passengers that he had proposed...

That's a start, now drop the rest of it as well and I can get back to focusing my anger on Bill 203!!

One speeding ticket = lose license (and job in many instances). Come ON!! This regime has made nervous wrecks of thousands of new drivers. Is that really a safe way to drive? Scared S**tless!? I'd rather my kids pay more attention to what's in front of them on the road than what digit some plastic needle is pointing to a good foot or two below their ideal forward view.

This law makes me want to puke... Im 20 years old, have had my g licence for aprox three years or so because I did not take drivers ed, so g1 16-17 g2 17-18 g 181920... now Im no angel, I will admit to having had a beer and driven when I was 18.... but other than underage laws it was not illeagle. But your going to tell me, that after three years of driving, And two years of legaly being allowed to have 2 beer in 2 hours and blow well below the limit... that now all of a sudden im a menace to the population? Blow it out your other end government.... The day I get that ticket, will be a day the officer will never forget let me tell you that...

The law says if im not mistaken, the law says 21 and under, That means untill you are legaly concidered 22, This law applies....

This country is more concearned with young people having a life, than murders...

Murders kill people and get parole in 7 years, A young person gets a driving offence, and is screwed for 5 years in the case of a ticket and 6 years in the case of an accident..

Why not just kill some one?! you get treated better!

PS. What is the bill number for this, I cannot find anything on the subject...Lots of news articals on what the bill entails, but nothing on what the bill is called or the bill number.

PrincessKyle wrote:

This country is more concearned with young people having a life, than murders...

Murders kill people and get parole in 7 years, A young person gets a driving offence, and is screwed for 5 years in the case of a ticket and 6 years in the case of an accident..

Why not just kill some one?! you get treated better!

And the gun registry was a good idea(*cough*). I'm not going to bash the kids, but those three years aren't that much, yet. I know you wanted to hear that but there is a disproportionate number of accidents involving new drivers, we can't hide those stats.

Now, here is what you would like to hear. Give a real road test to drivers, young and old, new and seasoned say every three, four years. We'll give special consideration to them there police officers, 5 years. Now we can hand out insurance premiums based on ability and number of KM driven....wait that makes sense so the gov't would never go for it.....carry on.

PrincessKyle wrote:

This country is more concearned with young people having a life, than murders...

Murders kill people and get parole in 7 years, A young person gets a driving offence, and is screwed for 5 years in the case of a ticket and 6 years in the case of an accident..

Why not just kill some one?! you get treated better!

I hear what you are saying.

Step back and consider this for a moment......I completed 12yrs of work this past January. I have been to 0 (zero) murders. I forget how many fatalies I have been to (20+). I would not want to begin with how many injury collisions I have been to, NOR the amount that involve alcohol.

I would never deny that alcohol is a LARGE factor in many accidents, and that drinking and driving is very unsafe, Not to mention stupid. My only argument here is that its only one demographic effected...

This about it logically, People who get into alcohol related accidents are either over the legal limit, Or they would have blowen a warning causing a smart officer to give a 12 hour...

People who break laws, will break the law no matter what the law says, Becuase its not like they cared to begin with. This new law just makes me a criminal for having one beer.

Im Italian, My family drinks wine at 10 am. So now Im a criminal because my nona and I have a nice drink of wine on the patio in the summer time?

I will say again, All this law does is make young adults look more and more like criminals, instead of people who are just trying to make a life for them selves. The law should be changed to this

Under 19 regardless of license class is zero tolerance. 19+ Normal legal limit.

Ive started a petition to try to change it. Or at least to have the politics hear out our side of the situation before just blindly changing the laws. Please sign regardless of age, every signature helps.

Because ive already gotten many people bashing me for condoning drinking and driving, I want to make it 10000000% clear....

I DO NOT CONDONE drinking and driving, I just want a fair, and properly written law.

Reflections wrote:

Now, here is what you would like to hear. Give a real road test to drivers, young and old, new and seasoned say every three, four years. We'll give special consideration to them there police officers, 5 years. Now we can hand out insurance premiums based on ability and number of KM driven....wait that makes sense so the gov't would never go for it.....carry on.

Would rather see re-testing & higher standards put in place than anything else. Some people get really good at driving; others learn, barely pass their driving test, then continue to get worse, bumping and crashing into things constantly without realizing that they are inspirations for public transit, so they continue to drive. (Like Michael from CWD2.) Subsequent re-testing might get some of them, who are disasters waiting to happen, off the road.

The gov't should think of the benefits: Fewer collisions, so less time drivers spend in traffic (saves gas, among other thing), less money spent on investigations (big $$$), people don't spend time in the hospital (lowers health care costs), people don't get into collisions so they don't have to miss work due to injury (improved productivity), also easier to guarantee delivery of goods on time & budget due to fewer crashes.

Makes a lot of sense on an economic basis alone, and we're not even talking about the human toll. However.... you said it best "makes sense so the gov't would never go for it."

Ontario already had the lowest rate of drunk driving in NA. While the death of Tyler Mulcahy was a very public event, the rate of drinking and driving among young adults these days is actually very low. The difference between a 50-year-old with a BAC of 0.04 and a 20-year-old with a BAC of 0.01 is the 20-year-old is more sober, but he's the one who will lose his license. The only thing I can say is that if they made driver licensing & testing harder, maybe since people would have to work much harder to earn it and keep it, they'd be more likely to drive safely, and also know how they're supposed to drive. (Hand-in-hand with that, less likely to drink and drive.) If licenses are practically given out in a Crackerjack Box, there's a little more tendency to be cavalier when exercising its privileges, I think.

RI for president!

That's the problem of allowing the MADD cows to dictate our policy. Even their founder left'em because they shifted their focus from responsibility to prohibition. Eventually they'll remember that if nobody drives, there won't be any drunk drivers, and the sheeple will follow them.

Those who made the point about the fact that laws shouldn't be changed just because the occasional idiot breaks them are correct.

I'm also in favour of proper education, with an emphasis on proper mindset and driving habits. 4 years in high school sounds about right to me in addition to proper public safety campaigns.

BAD: This is bad because we say so.

BETTER: Doing 140 on a country road in the rain is bad because water is a lubricant, which reduces your traction, increases your stopping distance to the point where you will crash into anything that comes up.

GOOD: The driver who stopped, gave himself enough space to make an evasive manoeuvre and was scanning the mirrors, so he didn't get rear-ended by the driver behind him.

Focus on education instead of threats!

Education is best, but it's a long term plan and makes sense - political suicide.

Stricter punishments to existing laws have the potential to bring more immediate results, but are less than ideal when looking at the big picture. It brings little education on the issue, just that "This is really bad, m'kay?". We're also just punishing cases where the offence has already happened. I actually don't have a big problem with these stricter punishments, as they apply to those who have committed the offence. People shouldn't be allowed to break laws because they are ignorant of the issue, or decide that it is "not a big deal."

Then there are the 'nanny' laws like this one, that try to punish before the offence has happened. Kind of a mix in between education and stricter punishments. I don't really like these laws, and that includes speeding laws, even though I respect the speed limits and follow them. It takes away the need for us to be responsible on our own. Education is key, and once we have that, we can increase punishments for those who willingly choose to put others at risk.