[Chad]

Attention all students, if you are 21 or under you are now (effective Aug 1st) by law not allowed to drink and drive even with a G license.

The no-booze law, which comes into force on Aug. 1, can result in driving bans and hefty fines and applies even if drivers have a full licence.

Currently, Ontario drivers with a G1 or G2 beginner's licence must maintain a zero blood alcohol level. However, motorists with a G licence aren't penalized unless they're found to have a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) in the warning rage, 0.5 to 0.8. This now changes if you are 21 or under and must now maintain a zero level.

For more information:
http://www.thespec.com/article/814755

This is absolutely ridiculous, If they have a full G license why should the rules be any different based on their age. A 40 year old with a G could just as easily hurt someone as a 20 year old with a G license... They can be just as irresponsible as a younger person.
Really, a person can easily have a drink with dinner, and drive home fine... I know I can, but that's illegal for me? Even though I have been driving since I was 16 and drinking for over 3 years now... (I have a G2)...
These laws about the drinking and driving are getting ridiculous in my opinion... the people killing people are not the ones who have had 1 drink and driven home... it's still the morons drinking 10 beers and trying to drive home, who were way over the .08 limit to begin with.

We should be able to sue the government for discrimination....

So what? The instant someone turns 22 they become less likely to just go joyride after drinking like 20 beers?

BS.

Completely pointless law. Yes, there are a ton of people aged 19-21 who get involved in drunk driving accidents, but I'd be willing to bet that if you look at the 19-21 population and the 22+ population that got into drunk driving accidents, there will be little to no difference between the proportion driving below 0.08 and the proportion with over 0.08 BAC.

If people were going to drive above the legal BAC limit before this law, they're still going to do it now. I don't believe there will be any reduction in the number of drunk driving accidents as the result of this law.

I was told by 2013 the aim is to abolish ALL alcohol levels for ALL age groups. I don't think its so much an age discrimination here as it is a starting point.

Originally Posted by dmzz

I was told by 2013 the aim is to abolish ALL alcohol levels for ALL age groups. I don't think its so much an age discrimination here as it is a starting point.

Yea true. I agree, teen's and young adults are rash drivers, so eliminating alcohol will never be a bad move.

....Not true. I drive A LOT... (I'm talking 50,000+kms in under a year) and most of the bad drivers I've encountered have been clearly older than 21... The people cutting me off, or swerving into my lane, or all over the road, not signalling...are older people just as much if not more so than looking as though they could be 21 or younger.

Originally Posted by Charbs

....Not true. I drive A LOT... (I'm talking 50,000+kms in under a year) and most of the bad drivers I've encountered have been clearly older than 21... The people cutting me off, or swerving into my lane, or all over the road, not signalling...are older people just as much if not more so than looking as though they could be 21 or younger.

Theres a difference between "BAD" drivers and "DRUNK" drivers.

Originally Posted by blackdragon

Theres a difference between "BAD" drivers and "DRUNK" drivers.

Oh yeah, I know that... but my comment was in response to saying that younger drivers are rash drivers...

I maintain a general disdain for cars in general - for various reasons.
Subways and GO Transit, please.
Since I don't drive this law doesn't personally impact me, but I'm glad that something is getting people talking about drunk driving and being more aware.

Originally Posted by goodnews.inc

I maintain a general disdain for cars in general - for various reasons.
Subways and GO Transit, please.
Since I don't drive this law doesn't personally impact me, but I'm glad that something is getting people talking about drunk driving and being more aware.

Cars are more useful in Toronto than public transportation. If Toronto really wants public transportation to be successful then they have to do a major overhaul of their current system. It's very outdated.

I think that a zero alcohol tolerance is stupid and infringes freedom. I understand heavy drinking is very dangerous but I don't think it's good enough to ban alcohol from drivers completely.

I want to know how many of those fatal crashes of people 19-21 were caused by legal alcohol levels. Even if they were, I think it would be better to lower the legal alcohol limit instead of reducing it to 0.

anyone who drinks knows that you come off feeling exactly the same after one drink, which is imo why this law is stupid; but the fact is older drivers do have more experience, they've just been behind the wheel longer (in MOST cases before anyone jumps on that) making them less likely to make stupid decisions when driving, that doesn't make this law right but ppl saying older drivers are just as bad are wrong, their better in most cases.

I'd like to take the "bear it out approach" when it comes to this one:

time passed:1 year age:20

1) so i have a license but no car of my own, living near campus this puts me in a position where i wont have to drive

time passed 1 year age:21
2)again the same

fall of 2012 age:21
3) have my hear set on doing co-op and will probably need a car, by this time however they have either i) abolished the law
ii)lowered the age; if that is not the case I will just have to bear it out for the 2-3 months of not having a drink w/ friends after work (rum and coke; hold the rum plz )

who knows i may not even be placed in Ontario

so its not that bad, for me anyways.

I don't disagree that public transport, in any form, requires a great deal of updates, better maintenance and better accessibility (a simple example is GO buses not running on Saturdays from Square One to Mac, despite Saturday exams and res kids who may want to return back to campus on a Saturday) - I just feel it would be much better than a million or so cars, and all the accidents (caused by drunk driving or not) that we regularly experience.

MAGLEV systems seem fantastic but they're quite pricey and I can see funding being a problem as well as the numerous technical hurdles that engineers might have to cross to create them.

I think you guys are being a bit too down about this law, it has some very real benefits!

Examples:
-Reducing the number of young people driving is a great way to reduce the amount of carbon emissions.
-If teens can't drive, we won't have to worry about them loitering around buildings- or at least buildings that are outside of walking distance!
-The safety benefits (those young people may not be impaired, but they are still operating a heavy piece of machinery at high speeds. Less cars will mean less accidents).
-Helps politicians by giving them a new, exciting accomplishment to talk about while looking for votes/campaign contributions.
-Provides a new market for public transportation services.

Sure, it might not be as good as preventing people 21 and under from driving all together, but its a start. Maybe after a few years of this new law, once its been found that the number of accidents is still higher than we like, we can think about making real progress like that.