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

Radar Identified wrote:

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.

Last time I checked, adding a "Speeding 50+" to the online insurance rate calculator doubled the premium from its base. Adding 2 of them tripled it. There is, quite apparently, a good reason for it. Why could Tim Mulcahy not see that?

Too busy working out the deal for his kids Ferrari..................

Why could Tim Mulcahy not see that?

I dunno. Tyler Mulcahy's insurance should've been astronomical based on his age and traffic convictions, so it's not like he could've hid it from his dad. Tim Mulcahy didn't have the guts to stand up to his son, for whatever reason it may have been...

UPDATE: Transportation Minister Jim Bradley has announced that he will withdraw the portion restricting the number of passengers that he had proposed. They mused about it but now they've officially decided to withdraw that part.

Jim Bradley Can go and @#$% himself, along with McGuinty, Father Mulcahy and the Grand Stats Master!

I hope those young adults run them right out of town!!!!

If any regular poster finds my new signature offensive, please PM me and I will remove it ASAP!

Radar Identified wrote:UPDATE: Transportation Minister Jim Bradley has announced that he will withdraw the portion restricting the number of passengers that he had proposed...

That's a start, now drop the rest of it as well and I can get back to focusing my anger on Bill 203!!

One speeding ticket = lose license (and job in many instances). Come ON!! This regime has made nervous wrecks of thousands of new drivers. Is that really a safe way to drive? Scared S**tless!? I'd rather my kids pay more attention to what's in front of them on the road than what digit some plastic needle is pointing to a good foot or two below their ideal forward view.

This law makes me want to puke... Im 20 years old, have had my g licence for aprox three years or so because I did not take drivers ed, so g1 16-17 g2 17-18 g 181920... now Im no angel, I will admit to having had a beer and driven when I was 18.... but other than underage laws it was not illeagle. But your going to tell me, that after three years of driving, And two years of legaly being allowed to have 2 beer in 2 hours and blow well below the limit... that now all of a sudden im a menace to the population? Blow it out your other end government.... The day I get that ticket, will be a day the officer will never forget let me tell you that...

The law says if im not mistaken, the law says 21 and under, That means untill you are legaly concidered 22, This law applies....

This country is more concearned with young people having a life, than murders...

Murders kill people and get parole in 7 years, A young person gets a driving offence, and is screwed for 5 years in the case of a ticket and 6 years in the case of an accident..

Why not just kill some one?! you get treated better!

PS. What is the bill number for this, I cannot find anything on the subject...Lots of news articals on what the bill entails, but nothing on what the bill is called or the bill number.

PrincessKyle wrote:This country is more concearned with young people having a life, than murders...

Murders kill people and get parole in 7 years, A young person gets a driving offence, and is screwed for 5 years in the case of a ticket and 6 years in the case of an accident..

Why not just kill some one?! you get treated better!

And the gun registry was a good idea(*cough*). I'm not going to bash the kids, but those three years aren't that much, yet. I know you wanted to hear that but there is a disproportionate number of accidents involving new drivers, we can't hide those stats.

Now, here is what you would like to hear. Give a real road test to drivers, young and old, new and seasoned say every three, four years. We'll give special consideration to them there police officers, 5 years. Now we can hand out insurance premiums based on ability and number of KM driven....wait that makes sense so the gov't would never go for it.....carry on.

PrincessKyle wrote:

This country is more concearned with young people having a life, than murders...

Murders kill people and get parole in 7 years, A young person gets a driving offence, and is screwed for 5 years in the case of a ticket and 6 years in the case of an accident..

Why not just kill some one?! you get treated better!

I hear what you are saying.

Step back and consider this for a moment......I completed 12yrs of work this past January. I have been to 0 (zero) murders. I forget how many fatalies I have been to (20+). I would not want to begin with how many injury collisions I have been to, NOR the amount that involve alcohol.

I would never deny that alcohol is a LARGE factor in many accidents, and that drinking and driving is very unsafe, Not to mention stupid. My only argument here is that its only one demographic effected...

This about it logically, People who get into alcohol related accidents are either over the legal limit, Or they would have blowen a warning causing a smart officer to give a 12 hour...

People who break laws, will break the law no matter what the law says, Becuase its not like they cared to begin with. This new law just makes me a criminal for having one beer.

Im Italian, My family drinks wine at 10 am. So now Im a criminal because my nona and I have a nice drink of wine on the patio in the summer time?

I will say again, All this law does is make young adults look more and more like criminals, instead of people who are just trying to make a life for them selves. The law should be changed to this

Under 19 regardless of license class is zero tolerance. 19+ Normal legal limit.

Ive started a petition to try to change it. Or at least to have the politics hear out our side of the situation before just blindly changing the laws. Please sign regardless of age, every signature helps.

Because ive already gotten many people bashing me for condoning drinking and driving, I want to make it 10000000% clear....

I DO NOT CONDONE drinking and driving, I just want a fair, and properly written law.

Reflections wrote:Now, here is what you would like to hear. Give a real road test to drivers, young and old, new and seasoned say every three, four years. We'll give special consideration to them there police officers, 5 years. Now we can hand out insurance premiums based on ability and number of KM driven....wait that makes sense so the gov't would never go for it.....carry on.

Would rather see re-testing & higher standards put in place than anything else. Some people get really good at driving; others learn, barely pass their driving test, then continue to get worse, bumping and crashing into things constantly without realizing that they are inspirations for public transit, so they continue to drive. (Like Michael from CWD2.) Subsequent re-testing might get some of them, who are disasters waiting to happen, off the road.

The gov't should think of the benefits: Fewer collisions, so less time drivers spend in traffic (saves gas, among other thing), less money spent on investigations (big $$$), people don't spend time in the hospital (lowers health care costs), people don't get into collisions so they don't have to miss work due to injury (improved productivity), also easier to guarantee delivery of goods on time & budget due to fewer crashes.

Makes a lot of sense on an economic basis alone, and we're not even talking about the human toll. However.... you said it best "makes sense so the gov't would never go for it."

Ontario already had the lowest rate of drunk driving in NA. While the death of Tyler Mulcahy was a very public event, the rate of drinking and driving among young adults these days is actually very low. The difference between a 50-year-old with a BAC of 0.04 and a 20-year-old with a BAC of 0.01 is the 20-year-old is more sober, but he's the one who will lose his license. The only thing I can say is that if they made driver licensing & testing harder, maybe since people would have to work much harder to earn it and keep it, they'd be more likely to drive safely, and also know how they're supposed to drive. (Hand-in-hand with that, less likely to drink and drive.) If licenses are practically given out in a Crackerjack Box, there's a little more tendency to be cavalier when exercising its privileges, I think.

RI for president!

That's the problem of allowing the MADD cows to dictate our policy. Even their founder left'em because they shifted their focus from responsibility to prohibition. Eventually they'll remember that if nobody drives, there won't be any drunk drivers, and the sheeple will follow them.

Those who made the point about the fact that laws shouldn't be changed just because the occasional idiot breaks them are correct.

I'm also in favour of proper education, with an emphasis on proper mindset and driving habits. 4 years in high school sounds about right to me in addition to proper public safety campaigns.

BAD: This is bad because we say so.

BETTER: Doing 140 on a country road in the rain is bad because water is a lubricant, which reduces your traction, increases your stopping distance to the point where you will crash into anything that comes up.

GOOD: The driver who stopped, gave himself enough space to make an evasive manoeuvre and was scanning the mirrors, so he didn't get rear-ended by the driver behind him.

Focus on education instead of threats!

Education is best, but it's a long term plan and makes sense - political suicide.

Stricter punishments to existing laws have the potential to bring more immediate results, but are less than ideal when looking at the big picture. It brings little education on the issue, just that "This is really bad, m'kay?". We're also just punishing cases where the offence has already happened. I actually don't have a big problem with these stricter punishments, as they apply to those who have committed the offence. People shouldn't be allowed to break laws because they are ignorant of the issue, or decide that it is "not a big deal."

Then there are the 'nanny' laws like this one, that try to punish before the offence has happened. Kind of a mix in between education and stricter punishments. I don't really like these laws, and that includes speeding laws, even though I respect the speed limits and follow them. It takes away the need for us to be responsible on our own. Education is key, and once we have that, we can increase punishments for those who willingly choose to put others at risk.