“Zero Tolerance For 1st 5 Years Of Driving...”

I got a kick out of last nights paper. Our local Police Inspector was going on about how great these new laws will be. I went to school with this inspector. At just 17 years old, he cruised the streets in an all black, big-block Nova with a modified 396cu.in. engine (a real street-sweeper!) and no graduated licensing of course.

How could he POSSIBLY have survived without today's draconian laws to protect him?

I can't resist the urge to put pen to paper much longer!...

Our local Police Inspector was going on about how great these new laws will be. I went to school with this inspector. At just 17 years old, he cruised the streets in an all black, big-block Nova with a modified 396cu.in. engine (a real street-sweeper!) and no graduated licensing of course.

He obviously "forgot where he came from." One drunk driving crash, granted a tragic one, and now the whole system is declared "broke." We've got a provincial government that has a limited (read: no) ability to think and uses emotion and panic almost exclusively.

Was it Cicero who said "The more laws, the less justice"?

Yes, it was. Cicero also said "He only employs his passion who can make no use of his reason." Think that applies here?

Radar Identified wrote:Cicero also said "He only employs his passion who can make no use of his reason." Think that applies here?

With regard to Queen's Park? Does it ever!

You know, maybe they should ban parents from buying souped-up cars for their kids. Maybe they should hold parents accountable when they don't take the keys away from their kids when they drive like Mulcahy's son. Reasonable? Not really, but to a certain extent that'd make more sense than these new laws.

Radar Identified wrote:You know, maybe they should ban parents from buying souped-up cars for their kids. Maybe they should hold parents accountable when they don't take the keys away from their kids when they drive like Mulcahy's son. Reasonable? Not really, but to a certain extent that'd make more sense than these new laws.

No, it is simply easier to tax the living lights out of the offender instead of having a functional family talk about driving. And the insurance companies make more money.

Radar Identified wrote:You know, maybe they should ban parents from buying souped-up cars for their kids.

It may be worthwhile to investigate the effectiveness of limiting the hp of one's vehicle based on driving experience regardless of age. I don't foresee any major issues as it should more or less cover most sports cars and some luxury vehicles without penalizing those that need trucks, for example.

It may be worthwhile to investigate the effectiveness of limiting the hp of one's vehicle based on driving experience regardless of age.

Personally I think the laws were fine just the way they are, but you raise an interesting point, maybe a revision to graduated licensing?

It would've been better if the kid's car had been taken away when he showed such irresponsibility, but by his father. He could've stopped it, but didn't. Now all young/inexperienced drivers are going to pay. At least the media is starting to blast the government for it now.

Germany has a four year driver education course as part of their regular school cirriculum, or at least it used to. That is why more than half of the Autobahn can have no posted speed limit but it has the lowest collision rate of any major road network in the world. It takes a long time to get a driver's licence there, but it's part of your school work. They get considerably more freedom with their driving than we do because of it. If the government really wanted to prevent future crashes like the one that started this thread, they'd look at such a process. But they won't. Too much thinking involved.

Radar Identified wrote: That is why more than half of the Autobahn can have no posted speed limit but it has the lowest collision rate of any major road network in the world.

I belive most (if not all) of Autobahn has the speed limit of "No less than (something)". The speed limit is also adjusted via overhead displays depending on weather, traffic conditions, and there are different speeds for each lane.

Radar Identified wrote: At least the media is starting to blast the government for it now.

They should visit our site. People seem to have brought up all the proper points media has conveniently ignored.

Radar Identified wrote:It would've been better if the kid's car had been taken away when he showed such irresponsibility, but by his father. He could've stopped it, but didn't. Now all young/inexperienced drivers are going to pay.

Exactly my point just above. Only raises one question - does the guy work for an insurance company? Because your insurance rate goes up throught the roof when you check the magic "has you license been suspended/revoked in the past 5 years" box.

Radar Identified wrote:

Germany has a four year driver education course as part of their regular school cirriculum, or at least it used to. That is why more than half of the Autobahn can have no posted speed limit but it has the lowest collision rate of any major road network in the world. It takes a long time to get a driver's licence there, but it's part of your school work. They get considerably more freedom with their driving than we do because of it. If the government really wanted to prevent future crashes like the one that started this thread, they'd look at such a process. But they won't. Too much thinking involved.

BINGO!!!

McGuinty finally realized that teens have a voice (it's called Facebook). Now I hope he learns just how powerful they can be come election day.

The Dalton Gang and the YELLOW journalism have seen the light!

I love this and had to post it

hwybear wrote:This is too complicated. No need to re-invent the wheel.

Just make it simple...We already have the following conditions:

G1 = zero alcohol

G2 - zero alcohol

Just add that a "G" driver must be a minimum of 19yrs of age.

G1/G2 already have lower demerit point levels, which multiple tickets will take care of a suspension for demerit points.

Wait a minute! Aren't you not supposed to be drinking until you turn 19, with or without a license?

racer wrote:

hwybear wrote:This is too complicated. No need to re-invent the wheel.

Just make it simple...We already have the following conditions:

G1 = zero alcohol

G2 - zero alcohol

Just add that a "G" driver must be a minimum of 19yrs of age.

G1/G2 already have lower demerit point levels, which multiple tickets will take care of a suspension for demerit points.

Wait a minute! Aren't you not supposed to be drinking until you turn 19, with or without a license?

Yes, but for example, you obtain a G licence (no alcohol condition) and you can be 18. Stop the driver, but can still pass Approved Screening Device test...therfore legally allowed to drive....and can issue a ticket for "under age consumption".

Bel: I like that one.

So we make it simple, if you are under 19 no drinky. Although, I still don't agree with age being a defining legal requirement. Numbers mean jack because we all know the boys at work who care about nothing but themselves. Not really the most mature people on the planet but they help to choose your leaders.......

I belive most (if not all) of Autobahn has the speed limit of "No less than (something)". The speed limit is also adjusted via overhead displays depending on weather, traffic conditions, and there are different speeds for each lane.

Some of it does, yes. The Berlin Ring had variable maximum and minimum speeds, as I recall. There is a requirement in the "no speed limit" areas to be able to stop your vehicle within your line of sight. The German government recommends a speed of 130 km/h. I felt safer on the German Autobahn than anywhere else I've driven. No left lane hogs, no "Toronto lane changes," no dangerous tailgating, no merging onto a high-speed expressway at 30 km/h, speed's at your discretion and you knew exactly what to expect from everyone else on the road. Germany may not have everything right but they know how to drive.

Only raises one question - does the guy work for an insurance company?

Makes you wonder. It's about the only semi-logical (if very poor) reason that he didn't take his son's car that I can think of, anyway.

Bel: Nice. Got a kick out of that one.