Originally Posted by Marlowe

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.

Um...for some of your "examples", it's not like they're not allowed to drive; they just can't drink before driving. Younger people won't necessarily drive less; they'd just need to be more responsible drivers, which is the point. I don't think the environmental impact is that significant, not at this point anyway.

Originally Posted by goodnews.inc

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 don't find that the trains or buses need upgrading in terms of technology. I mean upgrading their service, as well as the capacity. At this point in time, it would be physically impossible to remove even a hundred thousand cars off the streets and fit all the passengers into public transportation. The fact that the TTC has such low capacity means that they have to continually raise fares to support their current system.

Originally Posted by Marlowe

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.

There are some benefits to this, but clearly the provincial government has gone about this the wrong way. This clearly shows discrimination and you can't say that it's just a step towards eliminating alcohol completely for all driver ages. The cellphone ban was implemented to all ages at all times. They could have done the same thing in this case but they have not which clearly shows that there is discrimination.

Alright, please ignore my poorly implemented attempt at satire.

However, I don't really see any benefits to preventing drivers from driving if their BAC indicates that they aren't impaired- regardless of age.

On the news they said that 33% of all accidents involving impaired driving are caused by people aged 21 and under. That means that the other 67% of impaired accidents are caused by the people aged 22+. 67% is clearly greater than 33% so why are they not implementing this law for everybody? Such a stupid law

Originally Posted by jhan523

I don't find that the trains or buses need upgrading in terms of technology. I mean upgrading their service, as well as the capacity. At this point in time, it would be physically impossible to remove even a hundred thousand cars off the streets and fit all the passengers into public transportation. The fact that the TTC has such low capacity means that they have to continually raise fares to support their current system.

Isn't there some sort of "Transit City" project being planned for Toronto right now? It's kind of funny... the transit system was actually far better over 100 years ago. Street cars went literally everywhere. But then of course, the gas/car companies paid the city to remove all of that since you know, having a car is such an advantage for the majority of the population

.... sucks that dumbasses seem to always be the ones making the decisions about things like this.

Aside from that, Toronto is such a pain in the ass to get around right now. It seems like every single busy street is under construction. I ride a bicycle, and the narrowing of the streets due to large construction vehicles + a ridonculous number of cars (I swear more people drive when it's hot) results at me being raged at by drivers frequently. :(

Originally Posted by JL37

On the news they said that 33% of all accidents involving impaired driving are caused by people aged 21 and under. That means that the other 67% of impaired accidents are caused by the people aged 22+. 67% is clearly greater than 33% so why are they not implementing this law for everybody? Such a stupid law

And how many drivers are there between age 16 - 21,as opposed to 22 - end of life ?

If 33% of all accidents are caused by such a disproportionately small group, then they are far more dangerous. This isn't very complicated - you have to scale your percentages to the sample size.

Personally, I have no sympathy for you ass holes who try to justify drunk driving. Woe is you, you'll have to drink water before you get in a car. Give me a break.

Originally Posted by JL37

On the news they said that 33% of all accidents involving impaired driving are caused by people aged 21 and under. That means that the other 67% of impaired accidents are caused by the people aged 22+. 67% is clearly greater than 33% so why are they not implementing this law for everybody? Such a stupid law

Because 21 and under only covers people of 6 different years of age (16 through 21).

22 and over (lets assume most people stop driving at 80) covers 58 different years of age.

Assuming that each age contributes the same number of accidents (which they don't... but lets assume for simplicity sake), each year 16 to 21 causes 6.6% of accidents, and each between 22 and 80 cause 1.13% of accidents.

Therefore, you're roughly 6 times more likely to have an accident if you're 21 and under.

Sure it's not perfect, but it makes sense to me :p.

Originally Posted by Ownaginatios

Because 21 and under only covers people of 6 different years of age (16 through 21).

22 and over (lets assume most people stop driving at 80) covers 58 different years of age.

Assuming that each age contributes the same number of accidents (which they don't... but lets assume for simplicity sake), each year 16 to 21 causes 6.6% of accidents, and each between 22 and 80 cause 1.13% of accidents.

Therefore, you're roughly 6 times more likely to have an accident if you're 21 and under.

Sure it's not perfect, but it makes sense to me :p.

But.. the debate still remains.. how many of those accidents were caused by someone who had 1 drink.. vs. someone who was over the original 0.08 (or 0.05 now) limit?

You know whats interesting: Statistics show that sober drivers are more likely to get into accidents than drunk drivers. So why not just drive drunk?
When someone told me this, it boggled my mind. lol

This law is a crappy start towards a good idea. The fact that they are trying to have a zero tolerance policy is good. The fact that young drivers are being singled out is just bs. There are just too many examples and statistics that show it is not only young people who drive under the influence. I think that what should be enforced is a 0.03 or 0.05 legal BAC limit for every single driver, regardless of class or age. This allows for 1 drink to dinner for example, but any more than that and you're done. If anyone's even trying to use the argument about transit, open your eyes. This province (and the city of Toronto) are simply not built for proper public transit, the system is terrible. I just can't wait for the next provincial election, the liberal government is going to get slaughtered.

Originally Posted by Buszaj

I just can't wait for the next provincial election, the liberal government is going to get slaughtered.

I hope you're right, but people said that about Mike Harris' Tories in the 90s too, after all the health care and education cuts. Instead, he got re-elected to a majority government.

Originally Posted by Ownaginatios

Isn't there some sort of "Transit City" project being planned for Toronto right now? It's kind of funny... the transit system was actually far better over 100 years ago. Street cars went literally everywhere. But then of course, the gas/car companies paid the city to remove all of that since you know, having a car is such an advantage for the majority of the population

.... sucks that dumbasses seem to always be the ones making the decisions about things like this.

Aside from that, Toronto is such a pain in the ass to get around right now. It seems like every single busy street is under construction. I ride a bicycle, and the narrowing of the streets due to large construction vehicles + a ridonculous number of cars (I swear more people drive when it's hot) results at me being raged at by drivers frequently. :(

The funding for Transit City was pulled by McGuinty...I guess you haven't seen the signs on the TTC that say SAVE TRANSIT CITY?

Originally Posted by lorend

The funding for Transit City was pulled by McGuinty...I guess you haven't seen the signs on the TTC that say SAVE TRANSIT CITY?

Yep, I've seen those. I remember that there were plans to build a street car lane on Jane, Don Mills and another street. I also remember plans for building a light rail transit system that follows the highways, splitting the two parts of the highway with the transit system in the middle.

Those just disappeared.

Hm, young people being singled-out for a larger societal problem? Sounds familiar.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=594WLzzb3JI

Goes to show that a small group of dumba$$es can ruin things for everyone else.

meh doesnt effect me much as if I know im going to drink (even just one) I leave my keys at home anyway. But I see how unfair it is, so many older people are less responsible but god forbid they get a law saying they can't drink until their 40. I want to find out how they decide the age. If it were me I'd say that you cant have alcohol in your system until your 21 years, 7 months, 23 days, 6 hours, 23 minutes, and 45 seconds old.