PDA

View Full Version : New Proposed Canadian Driving Laws (Ontario)


haiggy
Nov 18, 2008, 12:45 PM
http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5gtt0M9L2Muz6WPdEHNhKahaYbSyw

TORONTO — Proposed Ontario legislation to limit the driving privileges of people under age 22 is experiencing backlash from young drivers before the bill is even tabled.

Premier Dalton McGuinty said Tuesday the "modest restrictions" will include a zero blood-alcohol limit for all Ontario drivers aged 21 and under and escalating sanctions for young drivers who speed, starting with a 30-day licence suspension.

Drivers between 16 and 19 will also be limited to having only one teenage passenger in the vehicle, which McGuinty conceded will mean three 19-year-old adults could not go to a movie - or church - in the same car.

Seems pretty ridiculous to me. You have to be 20 to drive more than one teenager? I can understand the alcohol limits and everything, but ONE teenager?

It'll increase emissions -- more cars will have to go to the same place, thus reducing car pooling and increasing pollution

It'll use more gas, be more expensive

What about designated drivers? It could increase drunk driving!

What about people living in rural Ontario? How would they manage?

... Just simply ridiculous in my opinion. Sure, more safety precautions can be taken but this is a step in the wrong direction in terms of driving passengers....

Anyone have thoughts? (Regardless of where you're from! :))

dvince2
Nov 18, 2008, 01:04 PM
I remember in my local paper (The london free press), they ran a story about how young people make the roads unsafe, and how they shouldn't be allowed on the road until 18.
2 pages later, there was an article about how to keep seniors on the road longer, like "applying blue tape at major speed limits (50km/h, 80km/h) so they actually know how fast they're going", and how people should accept that seniors typically drive below the speed limit and may or may not be aware if whats going on around them.

Yup... those d@mn teenagers and their rock and roll....

dvince2
Nov 18, 2008, 01:08 PM
That being said, I agree with the 0 bac. But that doesn't just have to apply to teenagers, that should be across the board.

And that age should not be 19. At 18 you can gamble, smoke, and buy pron. At 19 you can drink. You wouldn't be able to fully drive until 20! I drive and carpool to school (University) every day for the last 3 years. I'm 21. Under this new proposed law, that would have been illegal for 2 of the last 3 years.

JG271
Nov 18, 2008, 01:57 PM
I don't agree with the 0 blood alcohol. Alcohol stays in your system for quite a while, and this might be unfair to people who have had a drink the night before and gone driving the next day, even if they've only had a small amount of alcohol.

I think they should have fines to begin with for speeding, then a 30 day ban. These measures seem unfair to young drivers and overly authoritarian in style.

Want to make people drive better? Make the test harder imo, don't put everyone in the same category by introducing across the board bans for young people.

Anyway. I think some of these things will be largely ignored by the police, i don't know about ontario but i counldn't see people getting arrested for having more than one teenage passenger:p

r1ch4rd
Nov 18, 2008, 02:50 PM
I agree with it up to the point of not letting lots of people in the car. I would also raise the alcohol level just a tiny bit. Anything that can be done to make the roads safer (for yourself and other drivers) is bound to be a good thing and, if you can do it, reducing speeding and drink driving is an easy way to do that.

Vivid.Inferno
Nov 18, 2008, 06:27 PM
there goes my ability to car pool to college.

I don't have a problem with the blood alcohol level, but the rest is a bit ridiculous. It means they would have the change all the conditions with the g1, g2, g classes.

haiggy
Nov 18, 2008, 06:40 PM
there goes my ability to car pool to college.

I don't have a problem with the blood alcohol level, but the rest is a bit ridiculous. It means they would have the change all the conditions with the g1, g2, g classes.

Yeah I know, it just doesn't make sense to me to make a change like this. Alcohol - okay, that's justified. Transporting teenagers? Not so much.

iJohnHenry
Nov 18, 2008, 06:43 PM
The attempt, however poorly formed, is to try to stop the "joy-ride" mentality of multiple youths in the car.

The car is a transportation device, not a party room. Some kids have trouble making that distinction.

And the others suffer, as a result.

iShater
Nov 18, 2008, 06:47 PM
Yeah I know, it just doesn't make sense to me to make a change like this. Alcohol - okay, that's justified. Transporting teenagers? Not so much.

Actually I recall reading in the past (so I don't have any current links) that the more teenagers in the car the more dangerous it is. Distraction to the driver, peer pressure, etc.

I have to admit from watching how high-school kids drive sometimes, you can tell there are more than a couple when they are being idiots. That being said, there should be a way for upstanding citizens like yourselves to be able to carpool. :D

Rodimus Prime
Nov 18, 2008, 06:57 PM
it would be fine with some modifications.

First off the limit on number of teenagers in the car should be reduced to age 18 (no more than 1 teenage passenger.)

I am going to assume the drinking age is 21 like in the US but then change the Zero bac is fine and should be raised a little for ones of legal age. Reason I think the bac is fine because I know in the US you can not drink any ways under 21 so you should never have any in there to begin with.

My brother got a DUI when he was 20 because he has a like a .01 but because of he was under age he got slap with a 90 day lost of he DL and a nasty fine. If I got pulled over and blew the same thing I would of not of even gotten a warning.

Now the .00 bac is crazy because like some one said it stays in the system a little while and one drink is not going to mess you up really. Driving while tired is worse.


Also please remember it takes about 5 years of driving experience before some one is even up to average. It takes that long to just automate a vast majority of the driving and using the limited brain power to process the problems. I remember when I first started driving it was information over load being in the driver seat having to keep track of everything. Now it is more about filtering out down to the things that require my attention.

Also it takes time to gain the experience on how to do calculated risk like when to pull out into traffic. Can I make this lane change. Judging the speed of cars knowing if you can make that move and so on.

No one really can argue with what I wrote because if you think about when you drive you really are only looking for things that could be a problem and filtering out everything else. It just takes YEARS to get to that point.

Remember ALL TEENAGE drivers are crappy driver. They do not have the experience to be a good driver and until they do they are crappy drivers.

haiggy
Nov 18, 2008, 06:57 PM
Actually I recall reading in the past (so I don't have any current links) that the more teenagers in the car the more dangerous it is. Distraction to the driver, peer pressure, etc.

I have to admit from watching how high-school kids drive sometimes, you can tell there are more than a couple when they are being idiots. That being said, there should be a way for upstanding citizens like yourselves to be able to carpool. :D

Yeah exactly. I realize that it only takes one (well I guess in this case more than just one :D) to ruin it for everyone else but really, it is a means of transportation. I too have read that the more in the car the more of a distraction there is but really, that is all dependent on the person driving the car and how they respond to more in the car and peer pressure, etc.

If anything, more strict laws need to be in place for when they are caught. Eg. If a person is caught speeding and driving carelessly with more teenagers in the car, they would be charged differently than if they were alone. This would cause them to be smarter and less affected by peer pressure while driving because they know there's a chance their wallets will have to pay for it! Maybe that might be setting up a double standard but I don't know, makes the most sense to me instead of straight up changing the laws based on AGE. Either way people shouldn't be speeding, so they really have no excuse. The reason for being charged more when more are in the car should be because they are putting more people's lives in danger.

haiggy
Nov 18, 2008, 06:58 PM
it would be fine with some modifications.

I am going to assume the drinking age is 21 like in the US but then change the Zero bac is fine and should be raised a little for ones of legal age. Reason I think the bac is fine because I know in the US you can not drink any ways under 21 so you should never have any in there to begin with.


The drinking age in Ontario is 19.

And I'd also like to point out that not ALL teenage drivers are bad. It's just ones that like to speed and are careless (cellphone, eating, makeup, changing, all the other random crap people do). I agree that there are LOTS and LOTS of bad ones, but there are some good ones. Depends on the person and their maturity. Experience does help, I agree, but I don't think 5 years is necessary to be looking out for things rather than focusing on what you're doing.

iShater
Nov 18, 2008, 07:01 PM
They need to just raise the eligibility age limit to 18 years. By then I would expect people to be less stupid.

*await the flames*

Rodimus Prime
Nov 18, 2008, 07:01 PM
The drinking age in Ontario is 19.

what is legally drunk. In most places in the US is is .08 (which I think is to high and should be lowered) but if you even blow a .01 they can give you a DUI. .08 is a DWI

Rodimus Prime
Nov 18, 2008, 07:01 PM
They need to just raise the eligibility age limit to 18 years. By then I would expect people to be less stupid.

*await the flames*

you still have the lack of driving experience problem. Like I pointed out about that takes about 5 years.

haiggy
Nov 18, 2008, 07:02 PM
what is legally drunk. In most places in the US is is .08 (which I think is to high and should be lowered) but if you even blow a .01 they can give you a DUI. .08 is a DWI

It is 0.08 as well, but you will still get a DUI for lower than that. 0.08 is the maximum. I'm not sure what the lowest is so that they can't charge you.

Rodimus Prime
Nov 18, 2008, 07:04 PM
It is 0.08 as well, but you will still get a DUI for lower than that. 0.08 is the maximum. I'm not sure what the lowest is so that they can't charge you.

DUI is if you blow anything at all. It allows them to charge you with something if you do not meet LEGELLY drunked and still driving like you are.

It should be lowered. I think .06 or .05. Drunk driving laws need to be a lot harder.

iShater
Nov 18, 2008, 07:04 PM
you still have the lack of driving experience problem. Like I pointed out about that takes about 5 years.

You are correct, but I think most of these seem like maturity issues vs. experience. IMHO.

iJohnHenry
Nov 18, 2008, 07:06 PM
Sorry, but .08 is the test, for adult drivers. Under just causes a warning, and no permanent record.

ANY reading, at all, under a restricted licence, will cause a youth to loose the privilege to drive.

Legolamb
Nov 18, 2008, 07:13 PM
John Hopkins study http://www.jhsph.edu/publichealthnews/press_releases/PR_2000/teen_drivers.html
Risk of Crash Fatalities to Teen Drivers Increases With Number of Passengers

And one problem with cell phones is that it takes more cognitive resources to process telephone calls (even hand free ones) because we communicate through subtle body cues that have to be inferred when we're not F2F (sorry, don't have the study handy)

The alcohol problem is tied to so many accidents in Quebec, and there is so little real deterrent, that it's a joke.

It's not just the teenage brain that's the problem; it's a matter of being novice drivers.

haiggy
Nov 18, 2008, 09:17 PM
How about other issues which I just read from a Facebook group:

2. the government is saying that teens are the ones that are more prone to accidents. well since you can only have one person in the car with you, that means that there will be more teens driving. again, way to go ontario government!

3. anyone going even 10 over the speed limit looses their licence for 30 days... anyone who is 20 and out of highschool with a full time job or going to college just got their lives RUINED because of 10km over the speed limit... thats ridiculous


I heard my dad saying driving more than one family member is okay though. But still....

teflon
Nov 23, 2008, 06:18 PM
First of all, the alcohol limit is ridiculous. You don't need to drink to get alcohol in your system, you could just eat a candy with liquor center or food cooked with some wine. A lot of dessert also contain a little bit of alcohol. They can have the 19 and under have a lower alcohol limit, but absolutely none is stupid. The teenage limit should be lowered to 18 and under. Not only are you an adult if you're over 18, there are more instances where you will need to carpool (university, jobs etc).

mkrishnan
Nov 23, 2008, 06:51 PM
How about other issues which I just read from a Facebook group:

For those going to college, is not having a car really ruining their lives? I mean, yes, I can understand that, when I was an engineer working in Detroit, I basically could not get anything done without my car. But when I was in college, I only had my car 2 out of 4 years, and in grad school, while I had a car, I rarely needed it. Are there that many driving commuters to universities in Ontario, or don't most of you live within either walking or public transit of your universities at least during the school term?

Also it's not like the law lacks jurisprudence. People are able to not speed. If you don't speed, you don't suffer the consequences.

I sympathize, don't get me wrong. I think the big problem with these kind of laws is that nothing is done to promote alternatives to driving and make them more accessible. So you're left between a rock and a hard place.

The carpooling issue, I do understand, although I do believe there's fairly good data on the idea that multiple young people in one car disproportionately increases accident risks.

ChrisA
Nov 23, 2008, 08:27 PM
Sounds like the law here in California. The alcohol blood limit for those under 21 here is zero. If you are 16 there can only be one other minor in the car. There are some other restriction for those between 16 and 18.

Yes you can get above zero by just using mouth wash. "Zero" is defined to be "zero with some room for error". The machines are not 100% accurate so .005% or whatever would be considered zero. The law seems to work OK here in California and it's been that way for years.

The idea is to reduce the risk during the first few years where drivers are learning.

dvince2
Nov 23, 2008, 09:13 PM
Are there that many driving commuters to universities in Ontario, or don't most of you live within either walking or public transit of your universities at least during the school term?

I drive 22.4 km (14 mi) one way to school 4 days a week, and 16 km one way to work the rest.

Mr. lax
Nov 24, 2008, 12:09 AM
This is ridiculous, almost every person at my high-school car pools to get to work. (Like 3 or more teens per vehicle) That would be crazy and the busing systems would have serious problems. I think that this is nuts. :eek:

Iscariot
Nov 24, 2008, 01:11 AM
Agree with the first two, but the third one seems over the top.

CalBoy
Nov 24, 2008, 01:31 AM
They need to just raise the eligibility age limit to 18 years. By then I would expect people to be less stupid.

*await the flames*

Totally agree.

Teenagers are not the most responsible individuals, and handing them a 3,000lb killing machine doesn't seem like a good idea, especially when they have phones going off and music that can be heard across 3 lanes of traffic (ok, so I'm exaggerating, but the point is largely valid).

Plus raising the driving age to 18 would get rid of a lot of the machoism and chauvinism that is prevalent in high schools.

On top of all that, if the kids have to take public transit, it will force cities to invest more in that and get them used to the idea that cars are not practical for everything.
you still have the lack of driving experience problem. Like I pointed out about that takes about 5 years.

You can allow them to have an extended permit period (say 2 years).

Plus, teenager fatalities aren't all caused by a lack of experience. In many cases, it's teenage distractions (buds in the car, girls in another car, etc) and general teenage arrogance that cause a lot of accidents.
Agree with the first two, but the third one seems over the top.

To me, they all seem like bandages being thrown on a tumor.

The problem is that teenagers feel entitled to be able to drive while not wanting to be responsible enough to have that privilege. I really don't blame teenagers, since they're just hardwired that way. Instead, we should end this ridiculous notion that everyone 16 and up is somehow entitled to drive (and even though we all say it's a privilege, none of us seem to view it that way in application).

Vivid.Inferno
Nov 24, 2008, 01:08 PM
Totally agree.

Teenagers are not the most responsible individuals, and handing them a 3,000lb killing machine doesn't seem like a good idea, especially when they have phones going off and music that can be heard across 3 lanes of traffic (ok, so I'm exaggerating, but the point is largely valid).

Plus raising the driving age to 18 would get rid of a lot of the machoism and chauvinism that is prevalent in high schools.

On top of all that, if the kids have to take public transit, it will force cities to invest more in that and get them used to the idea that cars are not practical for everything.


You can allow them to have an extended permit period (say 2 years).

Plus, teenager fatalities aren't all caused by a lack of experience. In many cases, it's teenage distractions (buds in the car, girls in another car, etc) and general teenage arrogance that cause a lot of accidents.


To me, they all seem like bandages being thrown on a tumor.

The problem is that teenagers feel entitled to be able to drive while not wanting to be responsible enough to have that privilege. I really don't blame teenagers, since they're just hardwired that way. Instead, we should end this ridiculous notion that everyone 16 and up is somehow entitled to drive (and even though we all say it's a privilege, none of us seem to view it that way in application).

That's stereotyping don't you think? I've always been a responsible driver, cell phone off, or with a bluetooth, and radio turned down. I can't argue with raising the age to 18, i don't see a problem with that. It's just most of your statements about teenagers are stereotypes.

I need a car. I drive 84km (52 miles) every day to get to my classes (that's round trip). There is no public transit for me to take, as I live in a small town.

ChrisA
Nov 24, 2008, 02:00 PM
Only part of the problem is that the drivers are young. The other part is that they are new drivers. This would apply to older people learning to drive. I've seen it in Florida. People in New York live their entire life up to age 65 then retire and move south and then at age 65 learn to drive. These people are as bad is 16 year olds and just like then have a hugely disproportionate share of accidents.

If it were up to me I'd apply those rules to the first two years anyone had a driver's license so it would apply to those between 65 and 67 as well is those 16-18

mkrishnan
Nov 24, 2008, 02:11 PM
If it were up to me I'd apply those rules to the first two years anyone had a driver's license so it would apply to those between 65 and 67 as well is those 16-18

Statistically, the accident rate doesn't really fall off until more like the mid 20's, AFAIK even for drivers who obtain drivers' licenses as young as possible (that is, rates of accidents and MVA mortality are boosted from about 16 to about 24). That would seem to contradict your theory to some extent.

Also, many states (now this is the US, not Canada) are enacting regulations intended to ensure that older motorists are safe -- increased frequency of mandatory testing, including on-road testing or simulator testing as part of mandatory testing, etc. AFAIK, there's no real evidence that older drivers (whether they spent their younger life driving or not) get safer after a couple of years of driving more frequently. I've never seen data to support that idea.

CalBoy
Nov 24, 2008, 09:53 PM
That's stereotyping don't you think?

No, I'd call it statistical significance. ;) :p

Let me blunt: teenagers are bad drivers because of two reasons: 1) they're new drivers, and 2) they're teenagers.

As mkrishnan says, statistics keep proving that teenagers as a cohort are more dangerous drivers regardless of when they get their license.

It's just most of your statements about teenagers are stereotypes.

And sadly I'm not wrong. High school car ownership is largely a measure of machoism. Even if practicality and sheer expense stare a teenager in the face, they will insist on having a car. When they do finally secure their wheels, they of course want to go cruising with friends, and for the opposite sex.

Sure there are a few responsible ones out there, but that's like saying there are some grizzly bears that won't pounce; would you take the risk?

I need a car. I drive 84km (52 miles) every day to get to my classes (that's round trip). There is no public transit for me to take, as I live in a small town.

Why do you live so far from school? I don't mean to be a bit harsh, but perhaps it is the car that has taken you hostage, making you willing to exert yourself by driving long distances everyday. Without the car you would have surely moved closer to campus no?