New Ontario Laws for Young Drivers

[Highlander60]

:threat: Well like many things everyone has an opinion and there is no perfect solution. The more legislation there is the more work for police to keep track of, and stupid people will always find new ways of being stupid. If only common sense could be legislated we would not be forced to keep coming up with new rules and less freedom.

 

[ARMY_101]

I don't think you are following me here. This is not about your (or anyone's) perception of "fairness". It is about safety. Is a 20-year-old parent's freedom to take 2 or 3 children with them on a trip to the grocery store more important than the safety of said children?

It's definitely about safety.  I agree that they're a distraction, but if they're a distraction why do we only have to limit it to young drivers?  Does it not seem stereotypical to say that all drivers under 21 would be unable to handle these distractions, but finally at 21 they're able to?  What about those with 5 years experience by 21, but the brand new driver who only gets her licence at 20?

People have lost a lot of freedoms over the years in the name of safety. Our government now insists on bike helmets, seatbelts, booster seats under age 9, no BAC over 0.8, etc., etc. Isn't saving lives more important than individual freedoms? I certainly think so, and I wouldn't want to go back in time to when things were different. People will say "we didn't have such-and-such law when I was a kid and we all turned out fine". No, "we" did not. People died. People got injured. That is why the laws were created and enforced.

As a parent, it disturbs me that some folks are more concerned about themselves and what they might lose out on by not having the 'right' to have a drink before driving or not having the 'right' to have a carload of friends in their vehicle when my child is one of the millions that are travelling the same roads with those drivers. My child is being put at risk every day. That is what I think about when I hear these protests against new safety regulations. Why is your freedom to cart your friends around more important than the lives of the innocent people you may harm or kill? Can you not suck it up for a couple of years and put some effort into becoming a responsible driver rather than worrying about 'me, me, me'?

And those limitations of freedoms have been "demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society".  Driving with a BAC less than 0.08 applies to all people, it doesn't say "all women must have less than a 0.05 BAC; all men must have less than a 0.1 BAC".  That would create an unfair bias and segregate people based on their gender, and not how well they can handle alcohol.  I'm all for this law being able to reduce the number of fatalities on the road and prevent people from drinking and driving, but why does it only have to apply to people under 21?

What ever happened to "every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability"?

Let us not forget, after all, that driving is a privilege, not a right. Sometimes, "we" forget that, dont' we?

Just because it's a privilege doesn't mean it can be unfairly regulated.  Driving is a privilege but we can't say no ____________ (insert religion/gender/age/race/etc.) are allowed to drive.

 

[Michael OLeary]

I'm all for this law being able to reduce the number of fatalities on the road and prevent people from drinking and driving, but why does it only have to apply to people under 21?

What ever happened to "every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability"?

Does this mean you also argue against drivers over 80 having to be retested?

 

[ARMY_101]

I believe so, because if anyone at any age does something seriously against driving laws or rules of the road they should be retested, regardless of their age.  But I'm sure you have a response ready for either answer

 

[Celticgirl]

What ever happened to "every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability"?

The age restrictions for drinking alcohol, gambling, smoking, and voting are okay with you, though? That's age-based discrimination, is it not?

What about the medical restrictions of the military and police forces here in Canada? If I am mentally or physically disabled, I cannot apply. If I am too young or too old, I cannot apply. Discrimination?

Just because it's a privilege doesn't mean it can be unfairly regulated.  Driving is a privilege but we can't say no ____________ (insert religion/gender/age/race/etc.) are allowed to drive.

Oh, but we do. We say no drivers under the age of 16. I guess all the 15-year-olds are being discriminated against.

Listen, I remember what it was like to be of an age where I couldn't do all the things older people could do, like legally drink beer or buy a lotto ticket, but I accepted this as being part of a functional society. You will get older, you will gain more experience, and you will become part of the group that has fewer restrictions someday.

 

[George Wallace]

Ah yes!  Growing up and moving out of Mom and Dad's.  Paying Rent.  Making Car Payments.  Paying Insurance.  Paying for Hydro, Water, Cable/Satellite, Telephone.......sigh!  Shopping for food.  Finding a job.  Sigh!  Those were the days, eh!

 

[Celticgirl]

Ah yes!  Growing up and moving out of Mom and Dad's.  Paying Rent.  Making Car Payments.  Paying Insurance.  Paying for Hydro, Water, Cable/Satellite, Telephone.......sigh!  Shopping for food.  Finding a job.  Sigh!  Those were the days, eh!

Privilege has its price.

 

[Michael OLeary]

I believe so, because if anyone at any age does something seriously against driving laws or rules of the road they should be retested, regardless of their age.  But I'm sure you have a response ready for either answer

So, we should just wait until each person has a serious accident before we try to exercise control over whether or not that individual should be driving?

Why have driver's tests at all then, we'll just wait until they screwup and deal with it then.

 

[ARMY_101]

So, we should just wait until each person has a serious accident before we try to exercise control over whether or not that individual should be driving?

Why have driver's tests at all then, we'll just wait until they screwup and deal with it then.

The person at 80 has at least been qualified with their licence and been driving for several years.  The retesting after an accident would be to ensure they are still capable of driving, which would be different from just trusting a person to be a good enough driver, then testing them once they have an accident.

 

[Michael OLeary]

The person at 80 has at least been qualified with their licence and been driving for several years.  The retesting after an accident would be to ensure they are still capable of driving, which would be different from just trusting a person to be a good enough driver, then testing them once they have an accident.

Hmmm, we've tried trusting young drivers to be good enough drivers.  Unfortunately, accident statistics prove that many of them have failed at it, and this has resulted in the government enacting new regulations  Why can't more new drivers just perform better in order to to avoid restrictions on their age group?  So many many teenage drivers don't care enough to be good drivers, and they have invited these new restrictions upon their peers. 

 

[George Wallace]

Hmmm, we've tried trusting young drivers to be good enough drivers.  Unfortunately, accident statistics prove that many of them have failed at it, and this has resulted in the government enacting new regulations  Why can't more new drivers just perform better in order to to avoid restrictions on their age group?  So many many teenage drivers don't care enough to be good drivers, and they have invited these new restrictions upon their peers. 

.....And as a result, higher Insurance rates for younger drivers. 

Go figure.

 

[Shamrock]

The Google is weak with me tonight.

I have found statistics on collision fatalities and injuries in Ontario by age group, but I can't find anything similar for citations by age and a breakdown of licensed drivers.

Edit: Found it.

 

[George Wallace]

So those statistics show persons between 18 and 24 averaging over 1000, and those 25 and over averaging around 900.

 

[GAP]

Interesting....watching Canada's Worst Driver....distracted driver's exercise....a teenage driver's chances increase by 100% for each teenage passenger present.......

 

[George Wallace]

.........................., but I can't find anything similar for citations by age and a breakdown of licensed drivers.

Edit: Found it.

Those numbers indicate a large "influx" of drivers from outside of Ontario in the over 25 years of age ranges.

 

[Shamrock]

A mish-mashed synthesis:

	16-19	20-24	25-34	35-44	45-54	55-64	65+
% of Pop	5.1%	8.3%	17.7%	21.8%	19.95%	13.8%	13.3%
Fatality	31 (0.00069%)	50 (0.00069%)	66 (0.00042%)	69 (0.00036%)	54 (0.00031%)	43 (0.00036%)	65+ (0.00056%)
Injury	3077 (0.69%)	4972 (0.68%)	8,612 (0.55%)	9,292 (0.49%)	7,323 (0.42%)	4,376 (0.36%)	3455 (0.3%)
Suspensions	556 (0.13%)	1787 (0.25%)	1114 (0.0072%)	468 (0.0024%)	201 (0.0011%)	74 (0.0006%)	17 (0.0001%)

Edit:
1.  George, I don't think it reliably reports a large out-of-province influx but rather just a large increase.  If it is the case that these represent new in-province drivers starting at the age of 24, then there may be credence to the age-ist bastards.

2.  This data is from descriptive stats only and no true inferences should be made from it.  It does not differentiate repeat offenders or non-reported incidents.

3.  This took a bunch of work, and I still can't find the traffic violations by age.

 

[Michael OLeary]

How about this breakdown from those stats pages.  I have only looked at driver stats because death/inhury sats for passengers does not identify the drivers' ages.


16-19 age group
5.11 % of drivers
8.22 % of driver fatalities

20-24 age group
8.3 % of drivers
13.26 % of driver fatalities

25-34 age group
17.77 % of drivers
17.51 % of driver fatalities

35-44 age group
21.83 % of drivers
18.3 % of driver fatalities

45-54 age group
19.95 % of drivers
14.32 % of driver fatalities

55-64 age group
13.77 % of drivers
11.41 % of driver fatalities

65+ age group
13.26 % of drivers
19.98 % of driver fatalities

The 16-19 and 20-24 age groups are well over-represented in driver death stats.  Hopefully the current restrictions will improve driver capabilities across the younger age group and also have a follow-on effect on the next group's statistics too.

 

[Burrows]

I have already written to my MPP on this subject and hope to receive a reply indicating he will not support these changes.

One issue I have is that I was taught by a licensed driving instructor to always go with the flow of traffic.  By cracking down on the speed laws, it becomes illegal for me to keep up with said flow if it happens to be driving faster than the speed limit.  By not going with the flow I am more likely to be involved in a collision.  Of course,  I'll have to die before anyone can change it back.

 

[George Wallace]

A mish-mashed synthesis:

	16-19	20-24	25-34	35-44	45-54	55-64	65+
% of Pop	5.1%	8.3%	17.7%	21.8%	19.95%	13.8%	13.3%
Fatality	31 (0.00069%)	50 (0.00069%)	66 (0.00042%)	69 (0.00036%)	54 (0.00031%)	43 (0.00036%)	65+ (0.00056%)
Injury	3077 (0.69%)	4972 (0.68%)	8,612 (0.55%)	9,292 (0.49%)	7,323 (0.42%)	4,376 (0.36%)	3455 (0.3%)
Suspensions	556 (0.13%)	1787 (0.25%)	1114 (0.0072%)	468 (0.0024%)	201 (0.0011%)	74 (0.0006%)	17 (0.0001%)

Edit:
1.  George, I don't think it reliably reports a large out-of-province influx but rather just a large increase.  If it is the case that these represent new in-province drivers starting at the age of 24, then there may be credence to the age-ist bastards.

Table 2.17: Driver Population by Age Groups, 1988-2005
  Age Groups 
Year          16-19          20-24          25-34            35-44            45-54            55-64              65+            Total
1988      310,764      643,691      1,588,516      1,353,841      898,103        714,266      608,931      6,118,112
1989      323,109      631,470      1,634,187      1,409,053      931,991        720,788      639,826      6,290,424
1990      322,542      629,478      1,666,474      1,467,699      964,925        728,380      669,385      6,448,883
1991      319,584      627,931      1,673,502      1,501,765      1,018,365      736,652      696,432      6,574,231
1992      314,685      623,707      1,665,433      1,528,726      1,082,883      745,759      727,568      6,688,761
1993      326,389      621,934      1,655,573      1,566,083      1,136,365      758,840      758,244      6,823,428
1994      358,817      622,704      1,645,962      1,611,972      1,190,442      770,882      783,181      6,983,960
1995      360,847      614,094      1,621,989      1,659,749      1,240,072      782,871      806,396      7,086,018
1996      361,571      612,060      1,608,567      1,717,050      1,297,289      805,486      856,144      7,258,167
1997      394,512      624,532      1,611,708      1,789,110      1,360,555      837,606      919,584      7,537,607
1998      412,589      634,053      1,593,744      1,845,474      1,415,258      872,426      954,212      7,727,756
1999      426,643      642,808      1,576,673      1,895,323      1,475,588      907,235      994,044      7,918,314
2000      438,170      659,331      1,582,207      1,935,150      1,540,499      939,838      1,026,179      8,121,374
2001      449,853      671,424      1,580,758      1,946,713      1,577,920      990,745      1,049,203      8,266,616
2002      458,627      686,561      1,580,837      1,945,944      1,612,219      1,053,877    1,075,439      8,413,504
2003      457,049      704,720      1,575,345      1,940,896      1,653,604      1,105,726    1,104,215      8,541,555
2004      453,157      719,861      1,567,346      1,929,418      1,698,350      1,157,824    1,129,641      8,655,597 
2005      447,954      727,529      1,557,476      1,912,898      1,748,335      1,206,374    1,161,644      8,762,210 



I was looking roughly at where the 16-19 year olds of 1988 roughly moved along to 2005.

 

[helpup]

People have lost a lot of freedoms over the years in the name of safety. Our government now insists on bike helmets, seatbelts, booster seats under age 9, no BAC over 0.8, etc., etc. Isn't saving lives more important than individual freedoms? I certainly think so, and I wouldn't want to go back in time to when things were different. People will say "we didn't have such-and-such law when I was a kid and we all turned out fine". No, "we" did not. People died. People got injured. That is why the laws were created and enforced.

As a parent, it disturbs me that some folks are more concerned about themselves and what they might lose out on by not having the 'right' to have a drink before driving or not having the 'right' to have a carload of friends in their vehicle when my child is one of the millions that are travelling the same roads with those drivers. My child is being put at risk every day. That is what I think about when I hear these protests against new safety regulations. Why is your freedom to cart your friends around more important than the lives of the innocent people you may harm or kill? Can you not suck it up for a couple of years and put some effort into becoming a responsible driver rather than worrying about 'me, me, me'?

Let us not forget, after all, that driving is a privilege, not a right. Sometimes, "we" forget that, dint' we?

Your right driving is a privilege, not a right.  And your even more right by saying that people have lost a lot of "rights" over the years.  It is debatable if seatbelts, boosterseats etc are rights though. 

However I have to point that there is one fact that is guaranteed when your born...... You will Die.  As to saving a life to protect individual freedoms, that unfortunately is a very slippery slope that leads to people being chipped and eroded of their own responsibility to make sound choices.  That in turn makes them less able or willing to make those choices.  Why should they the Government will make them for them.  A end result is a continuing loss of responsibility being fostered on making your own choices, for yourself or your family.  As you pointed out we have rules <LAWS> now that were not there not that long ago and your view is they are a good thing.  I will even state that allot of them out there are good rules, and ones I follow.  But there is a mindset in people and politicians that they can legislate stupidity away.  And in the end even if they realize they cant a politician will make a calculated move that goes like this. " hey there is not much I can do for most things here but I have to be seen as doing something, lets see what can I do that will look good, change little and can be pointed out as I am doing good things in power."

But where does it stop, if you take the mindset that if a law saves even one life it is worth it.  Yet it makes me wonder that by preventing people from making sound choices and learning by them you are setting them up for a point later in life that they will fail drastically in something due to lack of experience or decision making abilities and die or kill someone as a result. 

Laws by there very nature are made made constructs that are designed to allow a society to function, they can have and will change over time.  but in the last decade and more we have seen a increase in preventative laws, that do in my opinion take away from society.  There are other mechanisms in place or should be in place to address issues of needless deaths and I will be the first to say that the age group targeted has a distinct disadvantage with not making mistakes or needing experience. 

In the end as I have stated I am not a fan of nanny laws and this to me is one of them