I suppose it's also possible that a series of other things affected these rates too. I know my 1988 VW Golf is nowhere near as safe as a brand new 2008 Golf (think how much safer that '88 Golf is compared to a ten year old car of the time). How much of the statistics could be representative of that sheer change in automotive safety and new laws requiring air bags, ABS etc etc? It's a question none of us has the answer to. Likewise, I don't think anyone can say for certain that Graduated Licensing has had that big of an impact. Has it had one? Certainly.
Now, is a driving with a Zero BAC a good idea? Absolutely. Should we outlaw drinking whilst driving for everyone? To prevent accidents related to drinking and driving - we absolutely should.
Smoking kills people. We should ban it outright.
Drinking... ditto. Ban that too.
Obviously we can't do all that (well we COULD I suppose) so instead we design our laws around maximizing personal choice and public safety. Or at least we should.
The problem I have with this suggestion from Ontario is the sheer pointlessness of it. By 21 most drivers are likely still in Graduated licensing and are unable to drink and drive anyhow. Looking at the previous stats (licensed drivers by age) the significant MINORITY of drivers would be those who have completed the Graduated licensing program by 21. So now Timmy (a good random name) who has fully FIVE years of driving experience is now 21 years old. He can't have a beer at Fred's Grey Cup party but Sam, the 22 year old who just finished graduated licensing and has two years of experience (or whatever it would be in Ontario) can. It just doesn't make sense in my mind.
Now how about this odd scenario. Timmy is from Ontario but his 19 year old lab partner Jenny at York University is from Alberta. She has no restrictions on BAC on her license. Is she subject to the Ontario law even though she holds an Alberta license? Of course she is. Does she know that? Does it really matter? What about the thousands of young tourists who cross the border from the US for a weekend piss up in Canada? Guaranteed they don't know. So suddenly we are doing what exactly? Suspending licenses from out of province? Impossible. Impounding cars? Also sketchy, especially for our Southern Friends who have something called "property rights".
I'm just thinking out loud about the myriad ramifications of passing an age based law, rather than a law that rightfully should be applied to the appropriate area of provincial jurisdiction - the drivers license. Every province administers different rules for drivers. Ditto for alcohol. To mix the two outside the auspicies of the Criminal Code is a slippery slope IMO.
Imagine this. In BC you can't buy cigarettes unless you are over 19 (thats easy to imagine), now imagine the province bans smoking while driving for people under 21 since it is a proven distraction. Ridiculous? Yes. Is it actually dangerous? Absolutely, they are SMOKING and DRIVING - two things more or less guaranteed to kill you.
All this just to say that I don't think the goal - reducing deaths and injuries on the road by 19, 20 and 21 year old drunk drivers - is accomplished in any enforceable, reasonable way by the new restriction. The easiest and most legally correct solution is simply to extend the Zero BAC period on Graduated Licenses. This is also by far the cheapest way to administer this change and avoids the endless ream of paperwork that would be found requesting license suspensions from other jurisdictions - only to have those requests flatly denied.
That took too long... my apologies to all.
