Radar Identified wrote: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.

People should not be penalized for their youth. The assumption that young people have no maturity and therefore we need to enact laws to protect them is nuts. These politicians should be at the airport welcoming home our combat troops and then explain to them why they are not mature enough to drive without "protective" legislation.

Theoretically... but in practice? We have motorists who have been in 40+ collisions and are still licensed. I think the demerit point system and enforcement should a "backstop" to ensure safe driving, not the primary method.

Besides, I think most people could use refreshers/pointers on driving every now and then. Doesn't mean that the re-testing has to be 100% perfect, but a driving examiner could, in a post-test de-brief, point out the poor driving tendencies that some of us have. Driving on Lawrence Avenue & Mount Pleasant earlier today made me think of that.

I think there's a balance, but I'm afraid that Ontario has gone so far to restrict young drivers that we may actually see our collision and death rates go up. Give a person no responsibility and they'll never be responsible. Some have suggested "raising the driving age." What will that achieve? A person with 0 years of driving experience at 16 has the same amount of driving experience as someone who's 25 and has 0 years of driving experience. The difference is, as you start getting into your 20s, it becomes harder to learn things, particularly visuo-spatial/psycho-motor things like driving, so it would take longer for people to learn how to drive properly, and they'd probably crash their cars more. I think the drinking & driving rules we had for young/new drivers was fine. Maybe just take Bear's suggestion: "G" driver must be at least 19 yrs of age.

I think parenting makes a far greater difference than some magical 'age of responsibility', which brings us back to education. There is probably a medical reason not to let your 8-year-old get drunk, but once you hit puberty, I think your capacity for reasoning and processing information is about equal to an adult. The only thing lacking is experience. Make it against the law to get that experience, and you just end up with older-looking children.

Heck, I first got drunk when I was two years old. Look how I turned out.

PrincessKyle wrote: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..

PK...have to stop doing that.....making sense that is....

Fact is, I don't know how much alcohol intake in how much time will produce 0.04% blood/alcohol level. I am a fairly typical Canadian who rewards myself with a cold beer after cutting the lawn, cleaning the shop, washing the car, etc., etc. Then I'm apt to have another one while barbecuing some burgers. If I run out of BBQ sauce, I'm hoppin' in the car and runnin' down to the store for more. No idea what my blood alcohol level will be. Not gonna' try to figure out the alcohol wheel, I'm just going!

I come from a time when impaired driving was tolerated. I know what "real" impairment feels like. I really, really doubt my ability to drive down the road is going to be affected at .04% (or .05%, or whatever the new level is).

Also:

Stats show a disproportionate number of accidents are caused by new drivers. Well, DUH! They're NEW. I would expect to see 99% of all accidents be caused by new drivers. I think it makes a BIGGER statement that so many EXPERIENCED drivers have accidents. What's that all about?

Bookm....think we did this beer ratio thing before.

Good quick guideline. (weight, sex will affect it, but this is a standard average)

1 drink (beer, glass wine, 1 shot) = 15 mgs of alcohol in 100ml of blood.

2 drinks = 30mgs

3 drinks = 45mgs

4 drinks = 60mgs etc

Body Eliminates 15mgs of alcohol per hour.

hwybear wrote:sex will affect it,

So what if I'm not getting any!?!?

Bookm wrote:

hwybear wrote:sex will affect it,

So what if I'm not getting any!?!?

You'll get heavier......

Bookm you probally wouldn't get stopped going to the store for some BBQ sauce unless you took out your red one with the "SPEEED" license plate.

I think it's mostly to do with all this population growth. Way back in Bookm's day (1903?), you could be impaired and drive down the road without meeting too many cars (limits the input you have to process and decisions you have to make). If you were impaired enough to crash, chances are you would drive into a ditch and maybe hit a tree. Now, streets are always busy and that ditch has become a busy sidewalk. That "tree" might now be a bus stop. The margin for error becomes very small, though for more rural places like Stratford and even off-season Orillia, all these new strict guidelines seem ridiculous. So once again, we can blame Toronto for being so crowded and making the rest of us suffer.

Bear, do you think BAC is a good measure of the level of impairment? The most "impaired" I get is after two beers while fixing the car, then taking it for a test drive around the block. Face is a little red and might seem happier than usual, but my reaction times are okay. Decision making might be affected, so I don't go far or into busy areas. Even being a svelte 200 lbs, I would not be able to drive with four beers (assuming about 1-1.5 beers per hour). 4-6 beers is the area where I just sit on the couch and tell funny (to me) stories. At that rate, CAA's online drunkered meter puts me at just 0.0384 BAC.

Squishy wrote: Way back in Bookm's day (1903?),

Oh, SNAP

tdrive2 wrote:Bookm you probally wouldn't get stopped going to the store for some BBQ sauce unless you took out your red one...

Wifey's car isn't much more subtle, LOL.

Squishy wrote:I think it's mostly to do with all this population growth.

Could be also due to shifting attitudes toward drinking and driving. "One for the road" used to be a literal expression, people would grab a beer and drink it as they drove to their destination. Now we shake our heads at the gall of someone who would stop in traffic, look over at the cop next to them, and proceed to crack open a cold one and chug the beer in front of the officer. And yes, that has happened.

I've done it where it was legal, more for the novelty value. And it was a single beer, nothing else.

Radar Identified wrote:

Squishy wrote:I think it's mostly to do with all this population growth.

Could be also due to shifting attitudes toward drinking and driving. "One for the road" used to be a literal expression, people would grab a beer and drink it as they drove to their destination. Now we shake our heads at the gall of someone who would stop in traffic, look over at the cop next to them, and proceed to crack open a cold one and chug the beer in front of the officer. And yes, that has happened.

But the reason why it has become such a social taboo can still be linked to population growth, as the one act of driving drunk starts to affect more people. At least, that's my theory.