TJQ Posted November 18, 2008 Report Share Posted November 18, 2008 A new Liberal proposal... I can handle the zero tolerance... though even that seems a bit excessive... you can go to war for your country.. but you cannot have one beer and get behind the wheel even one hour later.... what the hell.. And even worse, you and your buddies under 21 cannot car pool to school in the morning or drive to work together... unbelievable... excessive comes to my mind. To me this is pushing thr rules to a new extreme.. its ridiculous... Mark my words.... next law... you won be able to smoke in your own house if you have company... Im very disappointed in my government tonite... I have to call my MPP http://www.ontariotenants.ca/government/mpp.phtml New Ontario law to target young motorists and suspended drivers 5 hours ago TORONTO — A proposed Ontario law that would demand zero blood alcohol levels for all motorists 21 and under and limit the number of passengers in the vehicle would also get tough on people of all ages who drive with a suspended licence, The Canadian Press has learned. Sources said the legislation, to be introduced Tuesday, would go after people who still drive despite having had their licences suspended for drunk driving by immediately impounding their vehicle for seven days. A vehicle would also be seized for seven days if someone who has been ordered by the courts to install an ignition locking device that tests the driver for alcohol is pulled over in someone else's car. Heavy habitual drinkers who ignore the laws and licence suspensions must be dealt with, said Prof. Robert Solomon of the University of Western Ontario, a national director of Mothers Against Drunk Driving. "These are guys who have a drinking problem and if you don't address it, they're going to rack up a number of crashes," he warned. The zero blood alcohol limit for Ontario drivers aged 16 to 21 would apply even to those who have enough experience behind the wheel to move up from the more restrictive graduated licences to a regular driver's licence. "There is a wealth of research indicating that zero blood alcohol content limits until you reach the age of 21 significantly reduce deaths and injuries among young drivers," said Solomon. "Those between 16 and 25 represent 13.7 per cent of the population, but 32.1 per cent of the alcohol-related traffic deaths. Impaired driving remains the number one criminal cause of death in our country." New Brunswick passed legislation with a zero tolerance for alcohol for drivers 21 and under earlier this year, while Manitoba and Nova Scotia have similar no alcohol rules for the first five years for all new drivers, regardless of age. Under the new bill, teenage drivers in Ontario would only be allowed one passenger aged 16 to 19 - although there would be exemptions for brothers and sisters. Studies show just one teenage passenger with a teen driver doubles the chances of an accident. That risk increases with the addition of every teenage passenger, according to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. New drivers in Ontario are currently allowed as many passengers as they want during the day, but for the first six months of their G2 graduated licence they can't have more than one person under 19 in the vehicle from midnight until 5 a.m. Under the proposed legislation, young Ontario drivers caught speeding would face a series of escalating sanctions, starting with a 30-day licence suspension. That grows to 90 days for a second offence and to a total suspension for a third offence. The person would then have to start over with beginner's driver training courses and apply for a new licence. "Three strikes and you're out," said the government source. People who continue to drive despite having had their licenses suspended for outstanding traffic tickets or for medical reasons would not be subjected to the automatic impounding of their vehicles, said the source. That's because drivers who had their licence suspended for not paying tickets won't be able to renew their vehicle permits until they are paid, and sometimes there's a lag behind the returning of a licence that had been suspended for medical reasons and the actual paperwork. "The people we're targeting are people who have been charged with driving under the influence and are driving with a suspended licence," said the source. "We want to go after people where there's pretty hard evidence that you're breaking the law." Until recently, Premier Dalton McGuinty rejected calls to ban young drivers from drinking alcohol, suggesting it was something better left to parents than to a provincial law. He changed his mind after lobbying by the father of one of three young men killed in an accident last summer. Tim Mulcahy campaigned publicly for changes to the drinking and driving laws after his son Tyler, and two young friends, died in a crash in Muskoka after they had been drinking, taking out full page ads in newspapers urging McGuinty to "make a difference and reduce future suffering." Mothers Against Drunk Driving, which has been campaigning for laws to stop young drivers under 21 from drinking, said it was "very pleased" with the Ontario legislation but saddened that it took a tragedy to prompt government actio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
irishfield Posted November 18, 2008 Report Share Posted November 18, 2008 Dang... I thought we were going to get scolded for our NF threads! LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
holdfast Posted November 18, 2008 Report Share Posted November 18, 2008 Could be worse, could have an 11 hour meeting discussing the Tim Hortons cup issue instead of street violence. I love TO, it truely is my favorite city. In case your wondering. Double double or Mayor Miller. Thats an easy one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raf Posted November 18, 2008 Report Share Posted November 18, 2008 mcguinty is your nanny Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2 tone z71 Posted November 18, 2008 Report Share Posted November 18, 2008 why give them 3 strikes first offence no more license ever ,they crash and kill someone ,Murder it is off to jail you go you will have all the time ya need to sober up,our goverment is unfortuantly out of touch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fang Posted November 18, 2008 Report Share Posted November 18, 2008 (edited) I heard this driving in this morning. What a moronic and ecomonic negative impact involving the limit of 1 passengers. What about any 21 year old taxi drivers/bus drivers . I guess they're out of a job. I see a ton of kids car pooling into the high school every morning. What I would really like to see if zero tolerance on the habitual D&D. How many people are still driving with 3 or more convictions. Edited November 18, 2008 by Fang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
solopaddler Posted November 18, 2008 Report Share Posted November 18, 2008 why give them 3 strikes first offence no more license ever ,they crash and kill someone ,Murder it is off to jail you go you will have all the time ya need to sober up,our goverment is unfortuantly out of touch Yesterday late afternoon as I was driving home from fishing in Michigan my wife and 2 young kids were involved in an accident. They were stopped at a red light with one other vehicle stopped about 6' in front of them. A young girl driving her parents vehicle with a 2 week old G2 license rammed them from behind at 60km an hour. Didn't even brake. She apparantly was talking on her cel phone. Our vehicle was rammed forward into the car in front. Most importantly everyone is okay although my kids were shaken. I'm furious beyond belief at this lame brained twit and have no sympathy whatsoever for her or anyone like her. I tend to agree with the above statement. Maybe after I cool down I'll soften my stance but I doubt it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob v Posted November 18, 2008 Report Share Posted November 18, 2008 I'm afraid I can't disagree with the zero tolerance booze thing . I think there's no better way to teach young people the right way at the start. When I think of all the really dumb things me and my friends did when we were teens back in the 70's it scares the pants off of me. We were the lucky ones... in those days DUI meant 3 months no licence or your wrecked vehicle not covered by insurance. The unlucky ones are either dead or killed someone else in the process. The no more than one teenager - that's probably a bit much in my opinion. - perhaps they could change that to no more than one teenager after dark or something. But there's no easy answer. Accidents will happen - and as a society I think we need to try and make things better and try and lower the liklihood of preventable accidents - perhaps learn from other's mistakes. I read the story in the paper today about the father whose son (the son was the driver) and two or three of his friends got killed after drinking all day and driving afterwards. Tough thing to have to live with. Trouble is we have to legislate these kinds of changes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kemper Posted November 18, 2008 Report Share Posted November 18, 2008 (edited) I personally (being a young driver) have a problem with the blanket statements that get laid on us. I am a male driver, which according to my insurance company means that I should have to pay the $2 500 a year more than my sister does. Does this mean that I PERSONALLY am that much more likely to cause an accident, no sorry it doesnt. There needs to be a "prove yourself" time period. Yes, there is alot of crapty young drivers on the road, but there is also a whole lots of crapty older drivers on the road too. I have a perfect driving record, not so much as a warning for speeding, no fender benders, NOTTA . Same goes for my criminal record, squeaky clean with not so much as an underage liqour ticket (most of my friends cant say the same) BUT according to the government I am a hazard on the road. I wont get a break on my insurance until I turn 25, get married or have a kid. "Under the proposed legislation, young Ontario drivers caught speeding would face a series of escalating sanctions, starting with a 30-day licence suspension. That grows to 90 days for a second offence and to a total suspension for a third offence. The person would then have to start over with beginner's driver training courses and apply for a new licence." Right, because that makes a whole lot of sense. I guess if I am 19 and going 5 over the limit and get pulled over I must be more dangerous than someone who is 24 and going 49 over the limit. Give me a fraekin break. Some of these politicians need to get their dam heads screwed on right. Yes, drinking and driving is a terrible problem on our roads, and those caught drinking and driving need to be penalized in a BIG way. But lets remember that it should be just as illegal for a 40 year old to drink and drive as it is for a 19 year old. Also, its EXTREMELY impractical to limit those under 21 to one passenger in their car. That doesnt even make any sense. Well, I guess next time me and 2 buddies want to go fishing I have to get mommy to drive us. Crack down on drunk driving, crack down on speeders and dangerous driver, but for loves sake dont continue to bust my balls because I happen to be in the 18-22 age bracket. Edited November 18, 2008 by kemper Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
irishfield Posted November 18, 2008 Report Share Posted November 18, 2008 21 and you can't have more than one passenger. Guess Leah would have had trouble taking the first two kids to the mall with her and I wouldn't have been able to drive her home from the hospital with the first one! Absolute nonsense.... and new drivers have zero tolerance to start with as it is. One drink puts them over the limit they have for them anyhow. Why do we need to legislate more restrictions just because one out of a million got it wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kemper Posted November 18, 2008 Report Share Posted November 18, 2008 also, I bet the government wouldnt mind putting a rilfle in my hands and shipping me off to afghanistan. but no son, you most definately cannot have that beer (when not driving of course, I dont have any issue with the zero tolerance rules). Thats a different discussion for a different day though... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darsky Posted November 18, 2008 Report Share Posted November 18, 2008 rammed them from behind at 60km an hour?? THAT could have been disasterous.Great thing everyone is OK ! How's the car......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
solopaddler Posted November 18, 2008 Report Share Posted November 18, 2008 rammed them from behind at 60km an hour?? THAT could have been disasterous.Great thing everyone is OK ! How's the car......... Yes my entire family could've been wiped out. I still can't believe no one was hurt. A passenger in the vehicle in front of Joanne was hurt, not sure how bad yet but she was taken to hospital. The car sustained major damage to both front and rear. The hood was also pushed up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forrest Posted November 18, 2008 Report Share Posted November 18, 2008 About the zero drinking allowed thing: CBC Radio had a bit on this: Graduating from the restricted licenses (G series) coincides with the graduating to legal drinking. Inexperienced with legal alcohol + legal restriction free driving = accident prone. forrest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sonny Posted November 18, 2008 Report Share Posted November 18, 2008 i agre tj...even though you might agree with the law they are tying to pass,,,you have to think to yourself"where does it stop",,,little by little your fredoms are taken away untill you finally realize it's too late! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cram Posted November 18, 2008 Report Share Posted November 18, 2008 no problem with zero tolerance for boozing and driving. Also no prob for those who are suspended for booze. Banning multiple passengers is RIDICULOUS. Seriously -- is this not a free country? I fear for what's next. On that note, while i dont' mind the cell phone law.....how many here know its apparently now law? I heard it was proposed.....did not hear it was passed, but have been told twice by my cell phone company (when going in to buy a charger) that it is now law. I yhave asked a number of friends and all but one had no idea it was passed. Is it passed? And if so, doesn't our government have some obligation to tell us before laying down the law (points and fine)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kemper Posted November 18, 2008 Report Share Posted November 18, 2008 Yep, its passed. Happened a couple tuesdays ago I believe. as for how it is being enforced, im not sure but so far have not heard of anyone getting busted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigfish1965 Posted November 18, 2008 Report Share Posted November 18, 2008 Well...I don't know what to think. I sure think that younger drivers should have a lower BAL allowance...like maybe 0.5 or 0.3, but wouldn't even mouthwash or certain preparations of beef make you blow 0.01??? As far as passengers...is the government saying there should be two teens in a car instead of one and double the number of cars on the road with teen drivers?? Logic falls right off there.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kemper Posted November 18, 2008 Report Share Posted November 18, 2008 Well...I don't know what to think. I sure think that younger drivers should have a lower BAL allowance...like maybe 0.5 or 0.3, but wouldn't even mouthwash or certain preparations of beef make you blow 0.01???As far as passengers...is the government saying there should be two teens in a car instead of one and double the number of cars on the road with teen drivers?? Logic falls right off there.... Thats because saying logic and government in the same sentence returns the following alert. "Error on page" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OhioFisherman Posted November 18, 2008 Report Share Posted November 18, 2008 The young driver and passengers thing got passed here in Ohio a couple of years ago. Pushed in part by a couple that lost their daughter I believe in an accident with a car load of kids. I understand their loss, not the law though. 6 miles or so to the high school, they don`t provide busing, and my daughter couldn`t give the kids next door a ride? Better monitoring of what the kids are doing may have been a better law? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greencoachdog Posted November 18, 2008 Report Share Posted November 18, 2008 (edited) My goodness! Why are drunk driving laws so harsh? I actually like those drunk driving laws... 1 beer and get behind the wheel, what's the difference between one and two?... two and three?... three and a 2/4? If you're going to drink, plant yourself for the evening or have a sober designated driver!!! As far as not smoking in your own house with company.... make the company go stand outside while you burn one, a couple of times of that and you won't have to worry about those pesky non-smokers coming over and bugging you! Edited November 18, 2008 by GCD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BUSTER Posted November 18, 2008 Report Share Posted November 18, 2008 we let them pass the ridiculous street racing thing(its speeding if your alone?) and now they want the cell phone while driving thing, no smoking in your car with your kids? as many have being saying its not the laws that are being made but inch by inch were letting them take our rghts away, your right TJ before long we wond be able to smoke in your own house if you have company over and like irishfield said its all good untill you get a ticket for reading your fish finder while operating a boat or letting your 20 year old son have 1 beer then drive the boat? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
outllaw Posted November 18, 2008 Report Share Posted November 18, 2008 the inmates are running the insane asylum. or should i re-phrase this. our goverment is in bed with insurance lawyers.. we live in an over litigated country, any arguments???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
holdfast Posted November 18, 2008 Report Share Posted November 18, 2008 Nope Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJQ Posted November 18, 2008 Author Report Share Posted November 18, 2008 I can go along with the no alcohol... but to me limiting the passengers is ridiculous... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now