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

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?

Bookm wrote:we should be THANKED for instilling in our children that it is NOT OK to drink yourself stupid and fly down the road.

Unfortunately, this government has chosen to follow. This shouldn't be surprising; speeding is the root of all evil. According to the Liberals, it is the cause of stunt racing deaths, drinking related deaths, parachuting deaths...

This guy is a poor parent, one that has too much money and no shame in disgusting plugs!

Another Great Bill by our elected officials, for which laws are already in place.

The kid had two speeding tickets and was later killed drinking and driving. If he had lost his licences, the chances are he would still have driven as it doesn't sound like he had much respect for laws.

Some people think their is a "legal limit" of .08. They are incorrect. There is no such think as a legal limit. You can be charged for impaired operation if you blow even .01, if your ability to operator the vehicle is impaired by booze or a drug.

Therefore, there is already a zero tolerance ... for everyone.

Care and control laws are bizarre, too. If you have the keys on you and are near your car, or sitting in the drivers seat you can be charged.

The court claims that even if you are in your car to sleep it off before driving you can be charged because you could change your mind and decide to drive.

This is retarded.

If you are drinking at home and your car is in the driveway and your keys are in your house or pocket, you too could decide to drive to the store for smokes or pop or whatever. Therefore, everyone everywhere who owns a car, owns keys to the car, and who is drinking, is breaking the law.

So the new law also prohibits a teenage driver from having more than one other teenager in the car. This is pathetic. A 19 year old can vote and fight in wars, but he cannot have more than one other teenager in his car. Ha!

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.

WARNING: THIS POST IS NOT POLITICALLY CORRECT AND IN NO WAY REPRESENTS THOSE WHO RUN THIS WEBSITE.

Most, 95%, of the people I know don't even think about drinking and driving. It is a learned behavior, thrill seeking...what have you. And I agree with Bookm, too many rural families will be hurt by this. And why are we, the public, having to change every time something tragic happens?? Guess what, people make poor decisions everyday, car accidents happen everyday, and yes people die everyday. We have the safest roads in North America here in Ontario and yet is someone chips a nail while driving we need a new law. I think we should just put in a cellular internet camera in every car. Then we can record every single stupid thing we do and the nice man in the blue uniform can hand me 20 tickets when I get home. There problem solved, nobody will be driving and the death rate will drop to zero, wait Grampa just had a heart attack getting into his car and now there's a law about eating bacon and eggs for breakfast and getting into your car without going for a stress test...................Rant Off.

Now, I am just waiting for 'bear to come to my house and give me a ticket for speaking my mind........

Reflections wrote: Then we can record every single stupid thing we do and the nice man in the blue uniform can hand me 20 tickets when I get home.

... job security out the window.....Canada Post will be tasked with delivering the tickets! Then they will have to sort them at each house into the "english" and "french" mail box

as I've said before about this deal

how much effort and money would Mr. Mulcahy have put forth towards this Bill if his dumb kid had lived, but was charged with 2 counts of DUI causing death???

I'll give ya the answer.....SFA is what he'd have put forth

nope....the SalesSuperstar woulda funded the most incredible legal team that money could buy... to keep his boy outta the clink....and he'd have been way more interested in things like civils rights etc....rather than dreaming up new laws

the fact that McGuinty even gave this sleazeball salesman 5 minutes is beyond me.....the fact that he's now proposing a Bill on this guy's ill-thought quest is beyond retarded

I hope every kid from 18-21 votes this next election.....it's blantant discrimination punishing an entire demographic based on the actions of one spoiled idiot rich kid

I guess that spells the end the "designated driver"!!

It also spells the end of "car pooling" to work (that's right McGuinty, many teenagers WORK and pay taxes)

It also now puts multiple teenagers in multiple cars when traveling to a common destinations. I bet dollars to donuts we'll see worse behavior when kids are in multiple cars, than all piled in to one.

Being an admitted...umm... ENTHUSIASTIC driver, I can tell you with all honesty I never drove fast when I had passengers. And the more passengers I had, the calmer I drove.

This government is out of touch with reality. I'd bet if a kid was wearing a hat when he crashed, they'd outlaw hats too!!

I feel terrible for Mr. Mulcahy, having lost his child. It is an unimaginable grief for someone to bury a son or daughter. Mr. Mulcahy turned to the government and said "if the government had only banned drivers who do this stuff, he'd be alive." Of course we've now become known as "Bantario" so McGuinty was all over it.

Mulcahy was horrified at how his son and his friends talked of speeding and racing. So he bought him a 340 horsepower Audi S4. He was asked why he did so. He just said his son kept pressuring him, so he caved. He knew that his son had multiple tickets, for offences which he believed that his son should have lost his licence for... BUT Mr. Mulcahy didn't take away his keys. THAT would have kept his son alive. Mulcahy was paying for his son's car and probably insurance. Sometimes you have to love your child enough to say "NO." Did he?

The legislation that was in place was fair enough. This was totally unnecessary, but not surprising.

its about time.....

its been too long since the liberals passed another .....baffling... (for a choice of better words) regulation to the highway traffic act!! a few months went by where i actually forgot we have a premier. not glad to see hes back!

PetitionGuy wrote:as I've said before about this deal

how much effort and money would Mr. Mulcahy have put forth towards this Bill if his dumb kid had lived, but was charged with 2 counts of DUI causing death???

I'll give ya the answer.....SFA is what he'd have put forth

nope....the SalesSuperstar woulda funded the most incredible legal team that money could buy... to keep his boy outta the clink....and he'd have been way more interested in things like civils rights etc....rather than dreaming up new laws

the fact that McGuinty even gave this sleazeball salesman 5 minutes is beyond me.....the fact that he's now proposing a Bill on this guy's ill-thought quest is beyond retarded

I hope every kid from 18-21 votes this next election.....it's blantant discrimination punishing an entire demographic based on the actions of one spoiled idiot rich kid

honeslty I have been, for ever since I could vote, what saddens me is that the majority of people vote for him. everytime I see him come on TV I get ready to roll me eyes. But there are alot of people out there that take what he says for face value, and throw everything else he has stated out the window. Bookm you illustrate that point well in fact you are also dead on. Im so confused, doest he advocate for solutions like DD and car pooling. his whole government in a farce, (federal liberals count in the farce statement)

20 years old+Audi S4+340HP+A wee few wobbly pops= 1 dead driver, 1 dead passenger. I think the rest of us "poor" people know that one already.

A buddy of mine had a done up Camero, 400+ HP, went like snot. Didn't have a single drink when he was driving. Lets see, thats what we call, wait....for....it.......REPSONSI-F*****-BILITY. They're now selling it at Queens Park. "Yes ladies and gentlemen, yours for only a "small" party "donation", you too can bring your own personal laws into effect....blah,blah,blah.

Lets everyone here get a fund going. We can use this fund for fun stuff, like I don't know, influencing pollitions into making laws that help keep our kids in line so we don't have to raise them ourselves.

It just gives the cops another free excuse to stop drivers for no reason. How will a cop know how old the driver and passengers are without stopping the car to ask?

If the driver is not a novice driver the passengers have no obligation to identify themselves.

If a driver is 18 or 19-years old and no longer a novice driver, now their passengers will be required to produce ID to prove they are not teenagers.

Police request for novice drivers passengers identification

57.1.1 (1) A police officer or officer appointed for carrying out the provisions of this Act may request that a passenger in a motor vehicle driven by a novice driver identify himself or herself if the officer suspects that the novice driver is contravening a regulation made under section 57.1 and the passenger of whom the request is made shall give the officer his or her correct name and address. 2004, c. 22, s. 3.

Additional information

(2) The officer may also request additional prescribed information from a passenger of whom he or she requests identification under subsection (1) and the passenger of whom the request is made shall give the officer the requested information. 2004, c. 22, s. 3.

Regulations

(3) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations prescribing additional information that a police officer or officer appointed for carrying out the provisions of this Act may request and that a passenger is required to give under subsection (2).