http://www.thestar.com/News/Ontario/article/538115 I watched a 1-hour interview with Mr. Mulcahy on Legal Briefs with Lorne Honickman a few weeks ago. I felt terrible for him because he lost his 18-yr.old son at a very young age. When I listened to his pleas for "no tolerance" legislation with regard to drinking and speeding, I really did sympathize with him but knew legislation would never be passed based solely on his emotional recommendations. Of course, I was wrong. We can't ignore the number of drinks this 18-yr.old quickly consumed, then ripped down the road at a blistering pace (as confirmed by his surviving girlfriend). But we already have plenty of harsh laws prohibiting such behavior. Mr. Mulcahy suggested that if his son had lost his license to the two speeding tickets he had received months earlier, he would not have been able to be driving that night and would still be alive. With all due respect, this is nonsense. I just can't see how speeding tickets relate to drinking and driving. And not just drinking, but drinking a ridiculous amount (my kids would use the word "s**tfaced). All these new laws are going to do is harshly punish rural families. It seems that most legislation comes from leaders familiar with big cities such as Toronto or Ottawa. They say things like, "maybe riding the bus for a few months will teach them a lesson". Well guess what gentlemen, many of Ontario residents don't HAVE bus service. many of use live over 20 miles from the nearest town. Taking the license from a kid in this situation (for one speeding ticket) will surely spell the end of his/her job and place undo pressure on the parents. Is this really what our government wants? To punish parents for raising a child that has the gaul to rack up ONE lousy speeding ticket?? Perhaps, instead, we should be THANKED for instilling in our children that it is NOT OK to drink yourself stupid and fly down the road. Maybe that speeding ticket isn't a clear indication that a kid is going to go out a kill someone. Maybe it's just what it is... A SPEEDING TICKET! As much as I feel for Mr. Mulcahy, I don't see why he feels he must punish me and my kids with "zero-tolerance" legislation. To suggest "we" cannot stop at one or two drinks is an unfair statement. Everyday, thousands of young Ontarians stop at one or two drinks without ANY difficulty! Yet now they're going to be slammed for acting in a mature, self-controlled manner! Possible Scenario: - Take my oldest boy who's 6', 200lbs. - He spends the day helping me with yard work. - After a hard days work, I thank him over barbecued steak and a beer. - He then hops in his car and heads over to his girlfriends. - On the way, he's stopped and relieved of his license due the the single beer that has NO effect over his abilities behind the wheel. Is this really how we want to live our lives in this Province?

Topic

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

by: Bookm on

78 Replies

User avatar
hwybear
High Authority
High Authority
Posts: 2934
Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2008 7:21 am
Location: In YOUR rearview mirror!

Posting Awards

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

We are speaking of 2 different things there. There is: 1) Driving with more than 80mgs of alcohol in 100ml of blood. This is the total amount a person has consumed. 2) Impaired driving - if the symptoms and signs are there after 1 drink, theoretically one could be charged with impaired driving. This is how a body has reacted/ been influenced by alcohol (speech, eye colour, face, reaction time, stability etc..)

Squishy wrote:

Bear, do you think BAC is a good measure of the level of impairment?

We are speaking of 2 different things there. There is:

1) Driving with more than 80mgs of alcohol in 100ml of blood. This is the total amount a person has consumed.

2) Impaired driving - if the symptoms and signs are there after 1 drink, theoretically one could be charged with impaired driving. This is how a body has reacted/ been influenced by alcohol (speech, eye colour, face, reaction time, stability etc..)

Above is merely a suggestion/thought and in no way constitutes legal advice or views of my employer. www.OHTA.ca
User avatar
Reflections
High Authority
High Authority
Posts: 1489
Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2008 2:49 pm
Location: somewhere in traffic

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

We are speaking of 2 different things there. There is: 1) Driving with more than 80mgs of alcohol in 100ml of blood. This is the total amount a person has consumed. 2) Impaired driving - if the symptoms and signs are there after 1 drink, theoretically one could be charged with impaired driving. This is how a body has reacted/ been influenced by alcohol (speech, eye colour, face, reaction time, stability etc..) My eyes a green and they stay that way......or do you mean bloodshot??

hwybear wrote:

Squishy wrote:

Bear, do you think BAC is a good measure of the level of impairment?

We are speaking of 2 different things there. There is:

1) Driving with more than 80mgs of alcohol in 100ml of blood. This is the total amount a person has consumed.

2) Impaired driving - if the symptoms and signs are there after 1 drink, theoretically one could be charged with impaired driving. This is how a body has reacted/ been influenced by alcohol (speech, eye colour, face, reaction time, stability etc..)

My eyes a green and they stay that way......or do you mean bloodshot??

http://www.OHTA.ca OR http://www.OntarioTrafficAct.com
PrincessKyle
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 8
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 5:25 pm

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

I used this before to explain something to some one... this is to show how dumb it is to say that such a high number of young drivers get into accidents, Vs people over the age of 22... if there is a city with 100 drivers in it.. 90 are 21 and under, and 10 are 22 and over, Then it stands to reason that 80% of accidents in that city will involve a young driver no? Thats why the same for males insurance being higher that young females. Because there are more young male drivers on the road than young female drivers, Just like there are more honda civics on the road that other models of cars, and bla bla bla bla The sats show convenient numbers, done on test subjects that are taken in convenient demographics... Im just wondering when there is gunna be a kid wearing a hat in an accident and then that will become a new law too... As some one said on here once before.

I used this before to explain something to some one...

this is to show how dumb it is to say that such a high number of young drivers get into accidents, Vs people over the age of 22...

if there is a city with 100 drivers in it..

90 are 21 and under, and 10 are 22 and over, Then it stands to reason that 80% of accidents in that city will involve a young driver no?

Thats why the same for males insurance being higher that young females. Because there are more young male drivers on the road than young female drivers, Just like there are more honda civics on the road that other models of cars, and bla bla bla bla

The sats show convenient numbers, done on test subjects that are taken in convenient demographics...

Im just wondering when there is gunna be a kid wearing a hat in an accident and then that will become a new law too... As some one said on here once before.

- What ever happened to "Innocent Until Proven Guilty"?
User avatar
hwybear
High Authority
High Authority
Posts: 2934
Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2008 7:21 am
Location: In YOUR rearview mirror!

Posting Awards

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

We have shown stats can be construed to whom ever wants the "point" they want to make.

PrincessKyle wrote:

The sats show convenient numbers, done on test subjects that are taken in convenient demographics....

We have shown stats can be construed to whom ever wants the "point" they want to make.

Above is merely a suggestion/thought and in no way constitutes legal advice or views of my employer. www.OHTA.ca

Similar Topics