Sandy:”Young Drivers Law” not workable in rural ON
Posted on 18 November 2008 by Sandy
While no one wants to see young people die on Canada’s roads, and improvements could certainly be made to Ontario’s Highway Traffic Act, the McGuinty government’s proposed “Young Drivers Law,” as written, is not workable in rural areas. I suspect, in fact, that the law was written by people who live in Toronto and/or surrounding GTA.
As this CTV article explains, one of the main problems in this proposed package is a section that stipulates there cannot be more than two young people aged 16-19 in a car driven by one of them. That is just not workable in smaller cities and rural areas — an unnecessary burden that is clearly going to fall to parents.
Many high school students, for example, are involved in after-school sports, band or drama programs and car pools are the only way they can get home. Then, there is the issue of Christmas shopping, going to a movie or church outing — which will also fall to parents since the law means three young people cannot go anywhere together.
The bottom line is that this proposed legislation will do nothing about the real problems, underage drinking and speed. That can happen to two youth just as easily as four or five. Moreover, there is an even greater danger in rural areas — and that is the young people who will have to walk in the dark along rural roads because there were already two teens in their drive home. And, remember, at this time of year in our climate, it is already dark at 5pm.
In any event, one hopes that the McGuinty government has the courage to look outside of the City of Toronto and GTA and realize that car pooling is a necessary mode of transportation in all those communities where there are no street cars or buses — particularly between rural communities – and then make amendements to this legislation.
C/P at Crux-of-the-Matter where an interesting discussion going on. Check it out.
Popularity: 12% [?]
November 18th, 2008 at 6:40 pm
Agreed.
November 18th, 2008 at 9:44 pm
I agree Sandy, but as with all things there are many dimensions to this issue.
In B.C. We identify who is driving the vehicle.
Learners have an “L” sticker on the back of the vehicle, once the driver has passed on to the next stage, They have a”N” sticker.
“N” drivers are restricted to two passengers i believe, and cannot drive past midnight.
I dont think there is an age restriction. I think that to get past the “N” stage, the driver must pass a competency test.
I dont know the stats, but i believe that drinking is not the biggest problem. Lack of judgement is.
I had one grandchild trained by a professional drivers training school, passed with flying colors, but had never been on the highway at speed. That to me is one of the problems that needs to be looked at.
November 18th, 2008 at 11:00 pm
The “L” and “N” stickers are meaningless here. I don’t care what kind of sticker you have on your car, I care how competent you can drive. Some people can drive competently in five minutes, while others take their entire lives. Driving has nothing to do with experience, graduated licensing programs, tests, government programs, or whether you can make hand signals our your window, or answer a question on a road test about what to do if you see a deer in front of your car.
No, a good driver is the one who takes driving “seriously”. All the time. From the moment you get into the car to the moment you get out. I am a good, competent driver because of that. But I haven’t improved one bit in driving from the first time I entered a vehicle. There was no learning curve. I took it seriously then, as I do now.
See the problem is the mindset. Kids kill kids because they’re stupid, young, impressionable, and want to go fast, talk to their friends, or ignore the rules of the road. WHAM! You’re dead. So everybody else gets stickers on their cars and graduated licensing because some kids couldn’t take it seriously.
It is all [ALL] a state of mind. Drive with a clear state of mind, and you will never get in an accident [failing unavoidable ones].
November 19th, 2008 at 12:42 am
In a phone conversation with Dalton McGuinty, Tim Mulcahy remarked that ‘with these new laws, Ontario will have the safest roads in the world.’ But if you are between the ages of 16 and 21, they will also be among the most restrictive.
My friend, CSR expert storyteller Billie Mintz, an innovator in new media production is currently filming an investigative documentary that scrutinizes the distribution of the responsible drinking message. He wants to hear what you think about McGuinty’s proposed new laws? Sound off here on the Toronto Chat Forums.
The Message in a Bottle is a 12 part web video series which examines the responsibility everyone shares regarding the advertising, sales, purchase and consumption of alcohol.
The world is changing; Ontario is becoming a safer place, but are we sacrificing freedom for safety?
November 19th, 2008 at 12:47 am
Raphael, i think we are in agreement.
I once had a thought that what we need is a big sign on the car that says: BRAIN DEAD DRIVER
It would not be restricted to the young.
At least we would then know to beware.
November 19th, 2008 at 11:44 am
What this is, is more of the same by this government. We should be used to it by now.
You know what I mean.
Impress everyone with a press conference and photo op. to make an annoucement, or to introduce a new initiative….talk it up, make everyone feel good to see the gov’t hard at work.
As to specifics, such as cost, logistics, and how it’s going to look in real time, in real communities in the province? Don’t worry the gov’t is on the job and will fill in the blanks later.
Meanwhile don’t worry be happy.
How many times have we watched THIS movie?
November 19th, 2008 at 1:03 pm
Well blame Toronto for this law as well. Kids in rural areas aren’t much different from city kids. What’s the solution then?
November 19th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
Larry, I only blamed Toronto centric thinking because there is public transit in Toronto and will not be as big a problem.
“What’s the solution then?
It may seem old fashioned, but the solution is about individual and parental responsibility. No matter what our age, we shouldn’t drink and drive. We should keep the speed limit and drive carefully. And, parents should know where their kids are.
There will always be mistakes and, unfortunately, accidents. The moment any of us get in a car, we are at risk. In fact, the minute any of us walk across the street, we are at risk.
Governments can’t save us from every risk. That is impossible. The “social contract” we have with government essentially protects us where it can but allows freedom of choice and movement. Just like parents have to do with their children.
That is the essence of life and what makes it so precious.
There is a term, usually saved for when young boys and men die early in life — it’s called misadventure. We all make choices and sometimes they are the wrong ones.
December 8th, 2008 at 5:27 pm
I agree with Sandy. It is the parents who have to control how the vehicle is used. When kids want to come home from University how are they to share a ride?? And now that there is no grade 13 they will be going away to school at the age of 17 or 18. When out for the evening the DD could only take one impaired teen with them on the ride home. How are the other impaired teens going to get home?? The government can’t be big brother all the time.