New Ontario Laws for Young Drivers

[CountDC]

I'm just curious as to how far you carry this sentiment?  How about your military qualifications?  How about your Civie Job qualifications?  Would we require that to be the norm for marriages too?  Just wondering how far this could be stretched.

don't see the conection but my military qualifications are tested on a regular basis and I get a report every year - called a PER, unless you do really bad and get an early "report" called verbal, written, C&P, compulsory release. If you have a 416's you have to do the written test to to have a new 404 issued everytime it expires, used to require a valid Defensive Drivers course too (allowed mine to expire so don't know the current standards). Don't have a civvie job but when I did many years ago we were tested everyday - pass the test or get fired. Marriage - the only test for that is day to day life - fail it and you get a divorce.

 

[CountDC]

On a more serious side, mandatory retesting every five years would be more of a burden on the resources of the Provincial Government and Tax Payer than anything else. 

You pay for your own test, use your own vehicle.

It would also be an additional burden on the individual to take time off work, as well as an added expense deduction from their personal income. 

priviledges cost - you know it is an expense you will have so save for it - you have 5 years to do it, $1 a month covers more than the current cost of a road test here. Double the cost to cover any additional expense plus increases and it is still only $2 a month. Can't afford it - perhaps it is time to trade the car for bicycle.

Where would we get the large number of Examiners on short notice?  Would "unqualified" or "incapable (polite word for incompetent/immoral/corrupt/etc.)" Examiners result in even more "poor" drivers being licenced and on the roads? 

I would guess the same place they got the current examiners.  What short notice?  Doesn't take an extremely long time to train testers so plan it for a year, maybe two at the most,  down the road. Wouldn't be any more poor drivers than the current system puts out there. Yes there will will always be the "incapable" but I believe those to be in the minority thus the testing will at least keep people on their toes and pickup some that shouldn't be out there.

I also believe that when someone has a change in medical condition that may prevent them from being a safe driver doctors should be required to report them.

 

[helpup]

Read the arguments and there are allot of valid points that I do agree with.  But I am not nor will I ever be a fan of legislating or creating Laws to get rid of a problem.  We live in a nanny society as it is and there seems to be no end in sight to well intentioned Govt legislating away at problems.  Especially when they do it so it appears they are making "real" change in our lives that will improve our quality of life.  Even though most of the time it is just on a subject that will cause the least amount of real life change or mean the less in the grand schemes of running the province or country.

Now having said that we are already encountering problems in the military with people on G1 and being able to drive. Or they loose Civi licence for one of these new law infractions and there goes their 404's.  It is already happening for anyone Drinking and driving under the new stringent rules. ( I am against drinking and driving on anything more then a beer or two over, say a dinner) Since they are checking more we have more DUI's in this area, Fine lose your spot on tour, lose your 404's big fines all around.  Scramble to find replacement drivers ( these guys are generally young 18-25 range who are still learning about how decisions are going to affect their jobs)  Now add into the mix no carpooling, and the other host of rules that they can breach and the number of lost 404's will increase by a huge number.

Yet very rarely( if at all) does anyone drink and drive with military vehicles.  It is just not done any more or all that often in the past.  We have had continual bun fights with MSE for drivers not having a full G and being able to drive Staff car/ Duty Van.  Even if they have had the complete Driver Wheel Course. 

I can see it now in Pet we will have the MP's pulling over a full car finding the young driver is a G1 entering base with 3 other people to get to work and he will lose his licence.  Car pooling is suppose to be a good thing to get more cars off the road and we want to allow those restrictions?  Not all kids have cars and there frankly are many who should not have them but they will use Friends to get to and from where they want or need to go now that will be viewed as illegal?

I am under the firm belief that if you try to legislate away the problems of young drivers you will increase the time it will take for them to become responsible adults driving or not.  Drivers Ed is a good program, making them pay for the increased cost of accidents in their demographics is a good call. Give them incentives to be better drivers rather then try and legislate stupidity.

 

[Celticgirl]

Give them incentives to be better drivers rather then try and legislate stupidity.

What would an example of such an incentive be?

 

[CountDC]

in the military case I would think keeping your 404s and place on tour would be the incentive. 

 

[helpup]

Good question, there are many approaches they can take.  Try the monetary one for example.  Much like they are now trying for the not smoking.  Offer a cash or tax benefit to any driver who after getting his G1 licence can go 3-5 years with out a speeding ticket, alcohol infringement, or in other words spotless driving record.  I think the cost of that would actually be cheaper then all the accident claims.

Or work with the insurance industry to create a graduated cost amount for insurance.  each 1 or 2 that you drive with a clean record your rates go down and the Govt will kick in as well to make it a bit more affordable.  Set some limits on it and advertise the heck out of it.  

People are, in general, very much into awards based incentives.  They work much better then warning's, fines and the like.  

You would be getting your desired results (safer drivers) with out the need to make new laws or increase the restrictions on current ones.  

Add to that take age out of it and include any new driver.

 

[Celticgirl]

Helpup, I think you have some great ideas there re: incentives. However, I don't know if I can agree with you that these things will create "better" drivers. I think that in order to do that, people need more than just money in their back pockets.

Defensive Driving is a wonderful program. I know because I took it not once, but twice - once shortly after getting my license at my father's insistence, and again when I lost points from a speeding ticket 8 years later. What I have learned in DD has probably prevented me from being involved in half a dozen accidents because I knew how to avoid them.

Another thing that I think works well with the graduated licensing system in NS is the fact that new drivers (not just young drivers, any new drivers in the first 2 years of getting licensed) cannot drive between the hours of midnight and 5 a.m. Statistics show that more accidents occur during those hours than any other time(s), and therefore, having a minimum of 2 years of driving experience under your belt gives you the know-how to respond to situations in the wee hours that you might not have as a new driver.

Dropping the BAC to zero and keeping passengers to a maximum of one are great strategies as well because these are things that could distract or impair your abilities to make good decisions on the road if you are not a seasoned driver. That's not to say that drinking and driving is okay for experienced drivers, but they at least have put in enough time on the road and therefore, the expectation is that they are able to cope a little better than a new driver with a small amount of alcohol in their bloodstreams and/or 2 or more passengers in their vehicles.

Let's face it: Two things make "better" drivers - knowledge and experience. Money might be an incentive to be more cautious, but if you don't know what you are doing out there, all the monetary rewards in the world won't save you...or the rest of us from you.

 

[ARMY_101]

Perhaps you could then combine monetary incentives with knowledge?  What if, on top of the current initiative behind licencing (take a driving course and you can test for your G2 four months earlier), they also added in a defensive driving program?  You pay for the defensive driving course, and if completed you'll receive money from the government/insurance company for this added knowledge.  Is that viable in reducing accidents?

 

[karl28]

ARMY_101 

              I believe there is a program with some insurance companies that if you have something like young drivers of Canada they give you a discount towards your insurance at least that is what mine did for me way back when I was 18 .


          My only other concern with this new law is what happens to a young couple that are going grocery shopping with there kids and both are under the age limit that restricts how many people can be in the car ?

 

[CountDC]

Perhaps you could then combine monetary incentives with knowledge?  What if, on top of the current initiative behind licencing (take a driving course and you can test for your G2 four months earlier), they also added in a defensive driving program?  You pay for the defensive driving course, and if completed you'll receive money from the government/insurance company for this added knowledge.  Is that viable in reducing accidents?

According to at least some insurance companies it is viable - some already offer discounts if you have a current defensive driving course. Get your licence through a driving school such as Young Drivers and some insurance companies will charge you the rates of a driver with 3 years experience.

 

[Celticgirl]

My only other concern with this new law is what happens to a young couple that are going grocery shopping with there kids and both are under the age limit that restricts how many people can be in the car ?

Simple - Put an age restriction on having children.  ;D


(just kidding)

 

[CountDC]

Simple - Put an age restriction on having children.  ;D


(just kidding)

I Agree - not kidding. The young couple under 19 should put a restriction on the number of kids they have.

As the question is for a young underage couple with kids the solution is that one of them goes shopping, maybe with one child,  while the other stays home and babysits.

 

[helpup]

DDC, Drivers Ed and the rest are part of the package that all drivers should be doing, add it to an incentive program ( What I mentioned as an example ) and you will have the incentive added to people for being better drivers.  I agree with a graduated licence per see, but I think with this new legislation we are going about it the wrong way and becoming more of a nanny state. People get better at driving ( and pretty well everything) with experience.  They need to get that experience.  Cell phone bans, driving during the daylight between certain hours, passenger restrictions, the list goes on.  They are all valid points that should be pointed out and practiced by all.  Yet we as a people are saying we need laws to bring us to this level?.....  Bring back accountability, you get in a accident by doing something stupid there is enough laws on the books to have you punished both criminally and financially through insurance premiums. Those are the style of laws that LEO's do not go out of their way to enforce for man power, common sense reasons.  These are the LAW's that will give some parents the backbone to say to their kids nope you cant do that it is against the law.  But my point is we should not need a law to get accountability back into our lives.

 

[helpup]

I Agree - not kidding. The young couple under 19 should put a restriction on the number of kids they have.

As the question is for a young underage couple with kids the solution is that one of them goes shopping, maybe with one child,  while the other stays home and babysits.

Actually I recall reading that families would be exempt from the limit on passengers. i.e it is OK for Mom/Dad to drive their 3.5 kids but not to carpool other kids.

 

[CountDC]

Actually I recall reading that families would be exempt from the limit on passengers. i.e it is OK for Mom/Dad to drive their 3.5 kids but not to carpool other kids.

3.5 kids at 19! - Send them to a birth control clinic instead of worrying about their driving. Wait - .5 - what happened to the other half??

I read a report that there was an exemption for siblings too so looks like the family car pool is safe.

now just have to get the pesky neighbour kids that are always bumming rides taken care.

 

[ARMY_101]

I agree on the issue of any person becoming parents before 19 or 20 (even that's young), but I don't see it as being fair to say they have to limit the number of children they have in order to drive.  If they want to screw their lives up at 17 with three trophy kids, by all means do it, but it's unnecessary to limit how many people they can drive.

 

[Celticgirl]

I agree on the issue of any person becoming parents before 19 or 20 (even that's young), but I don't see it as being fair to say they have to limit the number of children they have in order to drive.  If they want to screw their lives up at 17 with three trophy kids, by all means do it, but it's unnecessary to limit how many people they can drive.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and take a guess that you don't have any kids.   Children are a HUGE distraction in a vehicle. The more kids you have in the vehicle, the greater the distraction.

I think it's more than fair to limit the number of children in your vehicle if you are inexperienced. I only have the one child and had already been driving for 12 years when I had her, and it was still a challenge some days to keep my mind on what I was doing behind the wheel! 

I think you are assuming that kids will behave like little adults in a vehicle. You forget that there will be times they'll be screaming/crying/puking/whatever, and you want to be able to maintain your composure at those times. A young parent + an inexperienced driver + 2 or more frazzled munchkins = disaster on the road. I don't care if that appears to be a politically incorrect sentiment or not. That is reality.

 

[CountDC]

I agree on the issue of any person becoming parents before 19 or 20 (even that's young), but I don't see it as being fair to say they have to limit the number of children they have in order to drive.  If they want to screw their lives up at 17 with three trophy kids, by all means do it, but it's unnecessary to limit how many people they can drive.

tempting.

I'll stick to the driving part - as others have already posted the stats show otherwise.  Stats show that teenagers with several of their teen buddies in the car are more prone to drive in a hazardous manner and have an accident thus the restriction in number of passengers. If the young couple chose to "screw their lives up at 17 with three trophy kids" then why should we believe they are responsible enough to drive safely? I'll go with keeping them restricted simply to protect the kids. I've known people that fit this mold and they should not have kids or be driving.

 

[ARMY_101]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and take a guess that you don't have any kids.   Children are a HUGE distraction in a vehicle. The more kids you have in the vehicle, the greater the distraction.

And I agree with them being a distraction.  It however seems unfair to force parents to limit the number of children they carry at one time.  As a parent, is it always feasible to only bring one child and leave the other (or however many others) behind?  Could you always find someone to watch the other child while the other is out with you?

tempting.

I'll stick to the driving part - as others have already posted the stats show otherwise.  Stats show that teenagers with several of their teen buddies in the car are more prone to drive in a hazardous manner and have an accident thus the restriction in number of passengers. If the young couple chose to "screw their lives up at 17 with three trophy kids" then why should we believe they are responsible enough to drive safely? I'll go with keeping them restricted simply to protect the kids. I've known people that fit this mold and they should not have kids or be driving.

Because that seems to be discrimination by taking something into account that has nothing to do with someone's driving.  We don't take licences away from people who have been convicted of theft, why should we base a teenager's licence on their poor sleeping around choices?

 

[Celticgirl]

And I agree with them being a distraction.  It however seems unfair to force parents to limit the number of children they carry at one time.  As a parent, is it always feasible to only bring one child and leave the other (or however many others) behind?  Could you always find someone to watch the other child while the other is out with you?

Because that seems to be discrimination by taking something into account that has nothing to do with someone's driving.  We don't take licences away from people who have been convicted of theft, why should we base a teenager's licence on their poor sleeping around choices?

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?

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, dont' we?