That's BS. The current system was fine as it is. 6 demerit points are all that the teens get nowadays.
This is more overprotective BS. The alcohol thing I understand, but one ticket and you're out is WAYYYY to harsh.
to me seems like this province is gettin harsher & harsher....this is some bogus driving law
whats next?!
I certainly see where Mulcahy is coming from ... had such a law been in place in the past his son might still be alive - riding the bus maybe, but alive ... it's obviously not going to be a life-time ban on driving, so depending on what's involved I think it could be a good idea.
The stats are clear - teens kill themselves in car wrecks to a much greater degree than any other demographic ... think of it as tough love.
ZTWsquared,Nov 17 2008, 06:00 PM Wrote:I certainly see where Mulcahy is coming from ... had such a law been in place in the past his son might still be alive - riding the bus maybe, but alive ... it's obviously not going to be a life-time ban on driving, so depending on what's involved I think it could be a good idea.
The stats are clear - teens kill themselves in car wrecks to a much greater degree than any other demographic ... think of it as tough love.
[right][snapback]276668[/snapback][/right]
While the idea is noble, I fear this is yet another example of "nanny stateism" where we expect the government to do the job of looking after the young people because the parents can't (or in some cases simply don't care to) parent.
Every time I see a young driver in an accident with a high powered car I ask myself "
Why did the parents let them have that car in the first place?" Hell I was a
victim of a 19 year old punk in daddy's new Audi who thought he could blow a red light w/o consequences <_<
Parents need to parent, government needs to govern and when we let the government into the role of parent, we have failed as a society IMO.
NefCanuck
so wait his son was drinking and got behind the wheel, after 31 drinks? good lord thats his own stupidity why punish everyone else? i don't see the point in restricting the age to 21 its not like it makes any difference whether you're 21 or 16 if you have a brain inside your head one would think before getting behind the wheel.
besides all that aside - 31 drinks puts your blood alcohol level way over 0.08 or whatever it is, it doesn't matter what age he is, it was illegal in the first place.
NefCanuck,Nov 17 2008, 10:36 PM Wrote:Parents need to parent, government needs to govern and when we let the government into the role of parent, we have failed as a society IMO.[right][snapback]276678[/snapback][/right]
The problem is that society/government took away the parent's ability to parent, so now they feel the need to make rules to protect everyone from themselves.
Now it almost illegal to punish your kid for anything; you can't hit your kids (not that I condone child abuse but I do believe in some forms of corporal punishment when deserved), the law is impotent at punishing children, children can sue their parents, etc.etc.etc.
Society brought this all upon itself.
OAC_Sparky,Nov 18 2008, 04:00 AM Wrote:Special interest groups and lobbyists brought this all upon society.
[right][snapback]276690[/snapback][/right]
Edited for clarity.
While I think the new law goes too far for new drivers, something more needed to be done. As it stands right now, there is still too high of a reoccuring risk as far as new drivers and drinking goes.
It's sad, really. In the news, I can't count the number of times that young/new drivers and impaired charges are mentioned.
But, what REALLY needs to be addressed (as I sit here and wait for the R-bomb to be dropped) is the overabundance of new drivers (notice I didn't say young) in major urban Canadian centres that are being churned through at all licensing levels. It's in the news "down there" and elsewhere, repeatedly. Some of the worst ones are the ones that stick most clearly in my mind - minivans overloaded beyond seatbelt capacity, dumptrucks blowing lights, etc. How many accidents due to inclement weather each year in Toronto alone because those drivers have never seen snow?
When I was taught to drive, my dad took me into an empty, very large parking lot with his company (self-employed, mind you) E-150 van. Not only did I start practicing the very basics, I also learned skid control in the wet, spin/skid control in the snow, reversing with and without rear windows and how to manipulate a larger vehicle effectively - at 16.
What the hell are these new-to-Canada drivers (and indeed, most new drivers of all ages) being taught? If my elevated-cost yet perfect insurance record is any indication - NOTHING GOOD. A bare few good ones go through Young Drivers or one of the other nationally known schools. The rest skim the Driver's Handbook and scrape their way through the driver's exams. Or, better yet, they bribe their way through.
Those are the people that get me a shot in the arm from the g/f - both in NB and while travelling - because I'm constantly bitching about their lack of skill and my having to avoid them / make extra allowances because they can't control their Honda / Ford / GM-issue cruise missile effectively. Bitches.
/end rant
I agree with the new law.
From the time I got my G2 to my G I got 3 speeding tickets. If that law was in affect when I was driving I would of thought twice about speeding and being a idiot. I've matured and I've learn that speeding is stupid. The new drivers will think twice about speeding.
And you know what I regret speeding...It's costing me about 3,500$ a year in insurance for a 1995 Honda Civic.
focusonthis_88,Nov 18 2008, 10:13 AM Wrote:I agree with the new law.ÃÂ
From the time I got my G2 to my G I got 3 speeding tickets.ÃÂ If that law was in affect when I was driving I would of thought twice about speeding and being a idiot.ÃÂ I've matured and I've learn that speeding is stupid.ÃÂ The new drivers will think twice about speeding.
And you know what I regret speeding...It's costing me about 3,500$ a year in insurance for a 1995 Honda Civic.
[right][snapback]276694[/snapback][/right]
I hear what everyone is saying about nannie-state and all ... but there is another way to look at this ... once a kid starts driving the opportunity for parents to effect their judgement is limited - whatever they taught their kids earlier in their life is the values they take to the street with them ... they can be responsible, reckless or anything in between - unless the parent is in the car with them, it's all on the kid's shoulders.
In that respect I think the new law actually puts the burden for personal responsibility more on the kid ... seems they need a stronger incentive to drive responsibly than other drivers ... the kids who otherwise would drive responsibly won't really be affected by the law ... the kids who are not so inclined, now have a greater incentive to do the right thing. The alternative IMO is raising the age at which you can drive.
I do agree however that it is far too easy in this country / province to get a license in the first place ... especially when you consider that recently it was discovered that many so-called driving instructors themselves were s***ty drivers.
And so to some extent I am a little cynical about this new law in terms of its intent ... if the province was really determined to make our roads safer they would institute a huge reform in our training and licensing.
alright, well being as i am one of the younger members i feel really f***ed now after reading that article. main point is, zero tolerance to speeding and having more then one teenager in the car. first off if they are going to change how they patrol speeding, then maybe they should follow suit with everyone, i see more middle aged men and women speeding on the roads then i do teenagers. i do see a lot of both but adult definately out number. as for the amount of people aloud in the car, this is the most bogus piece of crap i have ever seen in my life. it was bad enough when i had a G2 and only aloud 1 person in the first 6 months and 3 after the first 6 months between 12-6am. but a ban on more then one passenger? mite as well go out and get a smart car now.
and the fact that there is a total ban on alcohol consumption? like come on people, how many of us go out for dinner or for wings and have 1-2 beers/drinks? we all know that one or two is fine, and within the current laws, unless of course you get wasted off 2 like my little sister does. i dont get why everyone thinks they need to play mommy and daddy for youth drivers. thats what drivers ed is for and thats why there is a graduated license system, to teach you how to drive first with an adult, with an instructor and then out on your own.
/end rant
I just read the article and I do not disagree with it at all. I think this is a step in the right direction for making our roads safe for everyone. Now if the cops weren't all tied up with murders and spent more time patroling for bad drivers we would all be better off.
GFXjamie,Nov 18 2008, 10:53 AM Wrote:and the fact that there is a total ban on alcohol consumption? like come on people, how many of us go out for dinner or for wings and have 1-2 beers/drinks? we all know that one or two is fine, and within the current laws, unless of course you get wasted off 2 like my little sister does. i dont get why everyone thinks they need to play mommy and daddy for youth drivers. thats what drivers ed is for and thats why there is a graduated license system, to teach you how to drive first with an adult, with an instructor and then out on your own.
/end rant
[right][snapback]276700[/snapback][/right]
Sorry but I had to chime in here, please don't take this as a personal attack it isn't, but I for the life of me cannot fathom why people seem to think it is their right to consume alcohol and then operate a motor vehicle before the alcohol has a chance to be processed through your system.
Study after study has shown clearly that having
any alcohol in your system affects your judgement and reflexes. When you are piloting a machine that can kill you and innocent people around you don't you think it is in your own self interest to be at 100% capacity to do it?
In case of new drivers (and young drivers especially) you have the deadly cocktail of lack of experience/judgement combined with never having consumed alcohol before and not knowing what your body will do because of it.
What would you do if you found out only after you hurt somebody after having "just one" that it left you in such a bad way that you hurt somebody or worse killed them?
Oops doesn't quite work now does it?
NefCanuck
An interesting point is made regarding driver's ed. It is not legally required to take a driver's education course. It does serve to take some time off your mandatory G1 restriction period, but it is also purely optional. It's the same thing for defensive driving and other supplementary courses - they lower your insurance premiums when they are administered by provincially-recognized training centres, but they are not legally required.
It's interesting to see that some here would welcome the advent of mandatory winter tires for all vehicles. Would they in turn welcome mandatory new driver training to exit G2 restrictions?
I firmly believe that if you have more than ONE alcoholic drink of any kind, you should NOT drive to leave an event, especially if you have been there less than 3-4 hours. In the event of that one drink, the time elapsed after said drink should be 2-3 hours.
It's very simple. As Daniel noted it takes time to metabolize and neutralize the alcohol entering your bloodstream. Food delays the absorption but it doesn't negate any amount of alcohol entering your system - it just prolongs the absorption.
Sorry fellas, but speaking as a guy that has lost family to drunken, intoxicated morons, I can't help but stand behind these new laws.
If I'm out for supper and I have a beer (horribly rare), I eat large and I wait as long as possible before leaving. I'll also drink a decent amount of water to keep myself hydrated and to dilute the effects. For that matter, I really don't drink when I'm out and I'm the driver - it's that simple. I'm repsonsible for the lives of those who are with me in the truck and I don't diminsh the value of their lives by drinking and driving.
Get home safe and alive and leave as many alive as you came with. It's that simple. And I'm not kidding about the mandatory driver education, either.
NOS2Go4Me,Nov 18 2008, 01:26 PM Wrote:It's interesting to see that some here would welcome the advent of mandatory winter tires for all vehicles. Would they in turn welcome mandatory new driver training to exit G2 restrictions?
[right][snapback]276708[/snapback][/right]
For sure, and I would go even further with it. I wouldnt just include the drivers training I've received...I've learned so much more from Auto X'ing and lapping than I did in any course offered.
I would still preach the right tire for the right environement though. :lol:
I'm ok with the laws, but thats because they dont affect me. :lol:
Alcohol affrects everybody differently, I KNOW I can have a couple at dinner and there will be zero affect on my ability to drive. I dont care what any of you say, but Im not affected by 2 beers at dinner.
Now 2 pints...Im going to have to wait before hopping in my car...3 pints...well..I find a ride (or cab) and move onto my 4th. :lol:
Flofocus,Nov 18 2008, 01:10 PM Wrote:I'm ok with the laws, but thats because they dont affect me. :lol:
Alcohol affrects everybody differently, I KNOW I can have a couple at dinner and there will be zero affect on my ability to drive. I dont care what any of you say, but Im not affected by 2 beers at dinner.
Now 2 pints...Im going to have to wait before hopping in my car...3 pints...well..I find a ride (or cab) and move onto my 4th. :lol:
[right][snapback]276711[/snapback][/right]
i'm all behind this post :P
Actually...after reading this a little more, some of this is BS...
They want to introduce a 30 day suspenion for anybody caught speeding...yeah, 5-10 km over will result in a 30 day suspension, which will in turn cause your insurance rates to go up, like crazy may I add. A regular speeding ticket of 5-10 km over doesnt even cause you to lose points, yet with this law, you'd be fawked in the ass (Hard, no lube) because the insurance company will just see the word suspension and then dollar signs. Like they need anymore of our money :rolleyes:
As for the drinking part, just make it across the freakin board. why is it ok for adults to be within the limits? When I was 21, there was plenty of 'adults' I could drink under the table. :lol:
When I was that age, my dad made me my sisters fawkin taxi. Whever she and her freinds wanted to go somewhere and my father didnt want top drive, the answer was 'ask your brother'....and she had hot freinds. I couldnt say no. Witht his law how are the older bro's supposed to pick up the sisters hot freinds? Bulls***.
Stupid rules don't make things safer, better driver training makes things safer
Flofocus,Nov 18 2008, 05:09 PM Wrote:Actually...after reading this a little more, some of this is BS...
They want to introduce a 30 day suspenion for anybody caught speeding...yeah, 5-10 km over will result in a 30 day suspension, which will in turn cause your insurance rates to go up, like crazy may I add. A regular speeding ticket of 5-10 km over doesnt even cause you to lose points, yet with this law, you'd be fawked in the ass (Hard, no lube) because the insurance company will just see the word suspension and then dollar signs. Like they need anymore of our money :rolleyes:
As for the drinking part, just make it across the freakin board. why is it ok for adults to be within the limits? When I was 21, there was plenty of 'adults' I could drink under the table. :lol:
When I was that age, my dad made me my sisters fawkin taxi. Whever she and her freinds wanted to go somewhere and my father didnt want top drive, the answer was 'ask your brother'....and she had hot freinds. I couldnt say no. Witht his law how are the older bro's supposed to pick up the sisters hot freinds? Bulls***.
Stupid rules don't make things safer, better driver training makes things safer
[right][snapback]276734[/snapback][/right]
You can't legislate intelligence, good sense, responsibility, good judgment, or good driving skills, ... so the only options the legislators have is to legislate
behaviour modification that at least approximates those things.
I agree with the better driving training - it's been my position ever since my highschool driver ed that included water-soaked skidpad training, emergency maneouvers and threshold braking, among other things ... and let me tell you ... in a 1968 Dodge Monaco with skinny tires, no ABS, and a torque-monster 318 - all of those things were really hairy - and lessons I learned for life.