# Ontario: Drivers under 21 facing 'zero tolerance' on alcohol consumption



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

CTV Toronto - Young drivers subject to new licence rules - CTV News.

_Drivers under the age of 21 will soon no longer be allowed to have consumed a drop of alcohol before they get behind the wheel.

Under provincial legislation which takes effect on Aug. 1, drivers 21 years old and younger will be subject to zero alcohol tolerance – regardless of whether they have a G1 or G2-classified licence.

"This is about protecting young people, protecting people who drive on our roads," said Transportation Minister Kathleen Wynne.

... Any driver 21 or under who is found to have violated the law will receive a 24-hour roadside suspension, a fine of up to $500 and a 30-day licence suspension._

This should have been the law eons ago; glad to see it finally got passed.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Yow! How long do you have to leave before driving to register zero alcohol consumption? Skip the wine gums!


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

You're basically being forced into having a designated driver who isn't going to drink to come out with you and your friends. More or less. Or, make use of public transit (taxis, etc.) and leave the car at home. It may appear harsh, but I think this is necessary to prevent more chaos on our highways caused by impaired drivers.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Lars said:


> You're basically being forced into having a designated driver who isn't going to drink to come out with you and your friends. More or less. Or, make use of public transit (taxis, etc.) and leave the car at home. It may appear harsh, but I think this is necessary to prevent more chaos on our highways caused by impaired drivers.


I strongly agree, Lars.


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

So you have dinner without wine, but unknown to you, the steak was fried in wine or you have a piece of rum cake. You go home and get caught for drinking. 

It sounds great, but I think zero tolerance is going a bit too far. I think you need to allow for a few drops of alcohol. 

Isn't the legal requirement now below 0.08? I'd say lower that to below 0.02 for those under 21.


----------



## hayesk (Mar 5, 2000)

I think this is a bit much. How many accidents today are caused by young driver well within the current legal blood-alcohol limit? And of those, how many are actually due to the alcohol.

I fear this is just another smokescreen to hide the fact that we don't have proper driver training in this country.
- Why aren't kids taught winter driving techniques?
- Why aren't kids taught how to get out of skids, and other dangerous situations?
- Why do Ontario driving examiners tell you do drive a manual transmission car the wrong way?
- Why are the tests so easy to pass?


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

hayesk said:


> I think this is a bit much. How many accidents today are caused by young driver well within the current legal blood-alcohol limit? And of those, how many are actually due to the alcohol.


It's another line to discourage young drivers from drinking and driving in the first place - then and in the future after they're 21 years of age. It may help in discouraging impaired driving and encourage safe driving practices from a young age.



hayesk said:


> I fear this is just another smokescreen to hide the fact that we don't have proper driver training in this country.
> - Why aren't kids taught winter driving techniques?
> - Why aren't kids taught how to get out of skids, and other dangerous situations?
> - Why do Ontario driving examiners tell you do drive a manual transmission car the wrong way?
> - Why are the tests so easy to pass?


I don't really see the relevance; impaired driving is a different playing field from 'proper driving skills.' I consider myself a good driver - but impair my system and that can change very quickly, whether it's just a slight impairment or totally hammered.


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

Kosh said:


> So you have dinner without wine, but unknown to you, the steak was fried in wine or you have a piece of rum cake. You go home and get caught for drinking.


Good point. I don't know the answer, so I'll ask around: How long would that stay in your system, typically, if you had a steak fried in wine?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

A friend had an ignition interlock device installed after an impaired driving charge. It detects traces of alcohol over .03. He set it off once by blowing too soon after using mouthwash. He also once ate an overripe banana for lunch and then blew and failed. Apparently many foods contain traces of alcohol which is why this law is so unfair to young drivers.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

Kosh said:


> So you have dinner without wine, but unknown to you, the steak was fried in wine or you have a piece of rum cake. You go home and get caught for drinking.





Lars said:


> Good point. I don't know the answer, so I'll ask around: How long would that stay in your system, typically, if you had a steak fried in wine?


Not "good point". The alcohol is burned off (or at least vapourized) in the frying. All you get is the taste - you don't get any alcohol.


----------



## chasMac (Jul 29, 2008)

SINC said:


> A friend had an ignition interlock device installed after an impaired driving charge. It detects traces of alcohol over .03. He set it off once by blowing too soon after using mouthwash.


I've read that mouthwash would indeed set off a breathalyzer. And a little advice, avoid eating poppy-seed cake prior to a job-interview with a company that employs drug-testing. Trust me on that one.


----------



## keebler27 (Jan 5, 2007)

Lars said:


> You're basically being forced into having a designated driver who isn't going to drink to come out with you and your friends. More or less. Or, make use of public transit (taxis, etc.) and leave the car at home. It may appear harsh, but I think this is necessary to prevent more chaos on our highways caused by impaired drivers.


exactly.

i'm of the opinion it should be zero tolerance for ALL drivers.

here's why: i'm vertically challenged. most kids under 21 (heck, some 12 year olds) are taller than me and probably weigh more.

Just b/c I've driven twice as long as they have, does that make my driving ability 'better' after consuming the same amount of alchohol?

I highly doubt it.

Plus, as Lars says, there is still drunk driving chaos on our highways and streets. It truly astounds me that ppl continue to do this and that ppl are still dying from the stupidity.

I just don't get it.

personally, i rarely drink, but by no means do I abstain. When I do go out, i literally drink water if i'm driving (I hate pop so it's an easy choice).


----------



## cap10subtext (Oct 13, 2005)

SINC said:


> A friend had an ignition interlock device installed after an impaired driving charge. It detects traces of alcohol over .03. He set it off once by blowing too soon after using mouthwash. He also once ate an overripe banana for lunch and then blew and failed. Apparently many foods contain traces of alcohol which is why this law is so unfair to young drivers.


Yes, but let's put this in perspective. That machine is a simple pass-fail mechanism based on a breath sample (which is known to give false positives based on the presence of alcohol in the esophagus - even the police know this). So yes, your friend, who has been given a machine to regulate his behaviour has to err on the side of caution. They should have warned him about it when they gave him the machine. But an impaired driving charge itself goes beyond that. 

You have to blow, otherwise "refusing to blow" is a charge in and of itself. But if you've eaten an overripe banana or used mouthwash, you will probably show less than 0.01 when they confirm the Breathalyzer test with a blood alcohol test and it would be easy to get the case thrown out. In fact unless you were driving dangerously, you will likely not be charged.

If a driver is charged, they have to appear in court and plead their case. If alcohol were to "magically" appear in a drivers bloodstream through the ingestion of food (not counting liquor chocolates, wine gums, rum cakes, etc... because those have real liquor and are therefore intoxicating) I'm not certain it would be a difficult case to prove. There are lawyers who seem to be able to get repeat offenders off the hook, I'm sure they'd make a cake walk of "driving under the influence of an overripe banana".

So is this an acceptable risk in order to dramatically reduce the number of impaired drivers on the road? I think so, my only concern is whether the zero tolerance policy will lead to an abuse of authority.

I believe they should first be lowering the legal limit, not necessarily making zero tolerance. That alone would already make most people I know think twice about even having one or two drinks before getting behind the wheel. If the lowered limit doesn't help matters, then go zero tolerance.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

god.

we're turning into a province of ninnys.


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

rgray said:


> Not "good point". The alcohol is burned off (or at least vapourized) in the frying. All you get is the taste - you don't get any alcohol.


Like I said - I don't know how that works. Thanks for clearing that up.


----------



## hayesk (Mar 5, 2000)

rgray said:


> Not "good point". The alcohol is burned off (or at least vapourized) in the frying. All you get is the taste - you don't get any alcohol.


Don't count on it. It depends on how long you cook the alcohol.
Does alcohol burn off in cooking?


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

It feels like a bunch of controversial legislation is being dropped in order to push the G20 and HST issues out of our collective consciences.


----------



## keebler27 (Jan 5, 2007)

i-rui said:


> god.
> 
> we're turning into a province of ninnys.


can you explain further? just curious - do you mean ninnys for introducing a law that might prevent drinking and driving?

or ninnys for not applying it sooner and/or more widespread?


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

keebler27 said:


> can you explain further? just curious - do you mean ninnys for introducing a law that might prevent drinking and driving?
> 
> or ninnys for not applying it sooner and/or more widespread?


ninnys in that we have become so scared to have lost all sense of reason to go as far as a zero tolerance law as a solution.

we have decided that there is a legal limit of .008 while driving. we have decided the legal age to drink is 19. if there is a problem with either of those 2 laws (which i don't think there is) then change THOSE laws. not invent new ones.

there will always be irresponsible people. we could have prohibition and people would still drink & drive. at some point we have to realize that laws have to be reasonable because they're applied to the entire population. the second we start changing the law to target the odd asshole out there we're doing everyone a disservice.


----------



## keebler27 (Jan 5, 2007)

i-rui said:


> ninnys in that we have become so scared to have lost all sense of reason to go as far as a zero tolerance law as a solution.
> 
> we have decided that there is a legal limit of .008 while driving. we have decided the legal age to drink is 19. if there is a problem with either of those 2 laws (which i don't think there is) then change THOSE laws. not invent new ones.
> 
> there will always be irresponsible people. we could have prohibition and people would still drink & drive. at some point we have to realize that laws have to be reasonable because they're applied to the entire population. the second we start changing the law to target the odd asshole out there we're doing everyone a disservice.


good pts. they should change the existing laws.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

keebler27 said:


> they should change the existing laws.


no, i think the existing laws are fine.

people keep thinking that drunk driving will only stop when the laws become tougher, but the laws & penalties keep getting tougher, yet people are still driving under the influence.

there's always a segment of the population that will disregard the law. it's like the death penalty in the states, proponents argue it will be decrease murders, but statistics show it doesn't. 

the only people a zero tolerance alcohol law will deter are people who are actually responsible and stop at one or two drinks. the people that are the problem won't care about a zero tolerance law and drink & drive regardless.

we should be making reasonable laws. the idea that a grown man can't have a single beer and still drive is silly.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

▲ 

+1 and the best post in the thread. I never get behind the wheel if I have had more than two drinks in a two hour period. Anything less is so moderate it does not affect one's ability to drive.


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

I'm with SINC on this one. This law is absolutely ridicuous. Proponents who say that it will deter people from drinking fail to consider that it may encourage people who would have only had one drink and remained the DD for the night to simply drink more because they have already broken the law. The race to the bottom in legality has its limits where it becomes counter productive.


----------



## explosion (Jul 16, 2010)

I think this is stupid. Nobody wants drunk kids on the road but there is a difference between drunk and having a drink. In the last 10 years our government has really taken a lot of enjoyment form the average Joe. Can't smoke anywhere, can't drink anything, cost of owning vehicles has doubled, has it made any improvements at all. Since one drink doesn't affect anyone why are we forbidding and punishing single drink drivers.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

i-rui said:


> the only people a zero tolerance alcohol law will deter are people who are actually responsible and stop at one or two drinks. the people that are the problem won't care about a zero tolerance law and drink & drive regardless.
> 
> we should be making reasonable laws. the idea that a grown man can't have a single beer and still drive is silly.


^^^THAT^^^

Typical nanny state mentality. I heard, this law also prohibits anyone under 21 to have alcohol in their possession while driving. So, a 20yr old can't drive the car to the cottage if there's a case of beer in the trunk?


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

kps said:


> I heard, this law also prohibits anyone under 21 to have alcohol in their possession while driving. So, a 20yr old can't drive the car to the cottage if there's a case of beer in the trunk?


I don't think this is true - unless you can provide evidence that says it is.

*Proponents who say that it will deter people from drinking fail to consider that it may encourage people who would have only had one drink and remained the DD for the night to simply drink more because they have already broken the law.*

Perhaps, but not as likely - having one drink and not being impaired is a LOT different from having 6 drinks and being completely impaired. I have strong doubts many people will be going, "Well, I'm not impaired now, but since I had one drink and I'm under 22, I can't drive anyhow, so I'll have another 7 and THEN drive home." The occasional moron might, but I doubt this mentality will affect most people due to this law. But then again, the moron that would act on that mentality is likely the same person that is willing to drive impaired regardless of this law being in effect or not.

*people keep thinking that drunk driving will only stop when the laws become tougher, but the laws & penalties keep getting tougher, yet people are still driving under the influence.*

It likely deters plenty of people - not everyone, I agree, but it would definitely deter me personally, and I'm sure many other people. No matter what law or punishments exist - I agree - there will be a percentage of people that will break said law no matter what. But that doesn't make the law any less reasonable.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

Lars said:


> It likely deters plenty of people - not everyone, I agree, but it would definitely deter me personally, and I'm sure many other people. No matter what law or punishments exist - I agree - there will be a percentage of people that will break said law no matter what. But that doesn't make the law any less reasonable.


so without a zero tolerance law you're going to drive around drunk all the time?


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

i-rui said:


> so without a zero tolerance law you're going to drive around drunk all the time?


I don't drink nor am I under 22.

For the people affected by this law, it will deter some from drinking at all before knowing they have to drive later - I have no doubts about it. Not all, but some. And I'm not upset about that in the least.

Some individuals will break every law in existence - it doesn't mean the laws shouldn't be in place.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

Lars said:


> Some individuals will break every law in existence - it doesn't mean the laws shouldn't be in place.


of course not. but we already have a reasonable .008 law in place. 

to go to zero tolerance (by it's very definition that not one iota of alcohol will be tolerated) is unreasonable. that's the point.


----------



## hhk (May 31, 2006)

Let's just keep piling on new laws so that personal responsibility gets thrown out the window and we simply comply with legislation to control our behaviour. 

It's all kneejerk and politically motivated.

Let's see, what law can we pass that will be popular amoung the voting, law-and-order demographic? I know - let's stick it to the kids again. Hell, they don't vote anyways.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

hhk said:


> Let's just keep piling on new laws so that personal responsibility gets thrown out the window and we simply comply with legislation to control our behaviour.
> 
> It's all kneejerk and politically motivated.
> 
> Let's see, what law can we pass that will be popular amoung the voting, law-and-order demographic? I know - let's stick it to the kids again. Hell, they don't vote anyways.


The answer seem pretty simple to this, does it not?

They should vote. If you are old enough to drink, you are old enough to vote.

If you don't vote then all the whining about bad legislation is just that - whining.


----------



## Amiga2000HD (Jan 23, 2007)

Why target young people only? I don't understand: why it should be ok for my 60 year old dad to drive home from a wedding and blow into the dead band between .05 and .08 when he got RIDE checked but not a 20 year old?


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

hhk said:


> It's all kneejerk and politically motivated.
> 
> Let's see, what law can we pass that will be popular amoung the voting, law-and-order demographic?


Bingo!

Much the same as many infractions which were already covered under existing legislation (eg. cell phone use) or laws that govern effect rather than cause (eg. seat belts) or laws that were created to address a particular area with no knowledge of that area (eg. motorcycle helmet laws).


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

Why not just leave the zero tolerance for drivers still in the graduated licensing program (I didn't get my full drivers license until days before i turned 25, so zero tolerance until then!) in conjunction with the .05 laws that apply to everybody? Perhaps they should lower it to .04 even.


----------



## hhk (May 31, 2006)

FeXL said:


> Bingo!
> 
> Much the same as many infractions which were already covered under existing legislation (eg. cell phone use) or laws that govern effect rather than cause (eg. seat belts) or laws that were created to address a particular area with no knowledge of that area (eg. motorcycle helmet laws).


Just off the top of my head - Bicycle helmet law...firearms registration...boating license...fishing license...cellphone law...seat belt law...anti-racing legislation. All of them of dubious benefit. Legislation piled upon legislation. 

"Hey kids! We're lawmakers. Let's make some laws!"


----------



## ertman (Jan 15, 2008)

Whats the big deal?

I thought that under a G1 and G2 there is already a Zero tolerance. Its just going to affect those under 21 with a full G license won't it?

I remember making a joke when I got my full G. I said something along the lines of, "Woohoo... now I can legally drink and drive", but then again I don't drink.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

hhk said:


> Just off the top of my head - Bicycle helmet law...firearms registration...boating license...fishing license...cellphone law...seat belt law...anti-racing legislation. All of them of dubious benefit. Legislation piled upon legislation.
> 
> "Hey kids! We're lawmakers. Let's make some laws!"


Exactly.

There outta be a law against these SOB's...


----------



## Lichen Software (Jul 23, 2004)

*A few thoughts*

I have a couple of problems with this legislation:

1. At 18 you can vote and are an adult as far as criminal proceedings go. It is kind of suck and blow to say "Ya, you're an adult, but we can't trust you to be an adult." It should be one rule for all adults. 

2. I seems yet another way of trying to sneek a forced longer childhood. Historically, age 13 is the age of apprenticeship. This is when you were adult enough to learn a, at that time, professional career, entering journeyman status 7 years later. Then it was school till 16, then you need a grade 12 to be the least bit useful, now it is a bachelor's degree and childhood goes to 24 or so. Maybe by 30 they have left their parent's house. 

"You're not really an adult, we' were just kidding when we told you that you were.". What goes cap in hand with this is if you are not really an adult, you obviously need someone else to tell you what to do. And the circle continues.


----------



## RicktheChemist (Jul 18, 2001)

.


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

hhk said:


> Just off the top of my head - Bicycle helmet law...firearms registration...boating license...fishing license...cellphone law...seat belt law...anti-racing legislation. All of them of dubious benefit. Legislation piled upon legislation.
> 
> 
> > So essentially, what you're implying, is strip all of our laws, have a lawless country, because in end, no one obeys the laws anyhow? How are the laws you listed above dubious?
> ...


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

RicktheChemist said:


> A dim witted 50 year old is just as stupid as a 21 year old in my mind after a few drinks...


True.

But this is why the law is targeting young drivers: (Quote from The Star): _Statistics show people aged 19 to 21 are nearly 1.5 times more likely than older drivers to be involved in fatal crashes and injuries as a result of drinking and driving._


----------



## hhk (May 31, 2006)

Lars said:


> True.
> 
> But this is why the law is targeting young drivers: (Quote from The Star): _Statistics show people aged 19 to 21 are nearly 1.5 times more likely than older drivers to be involved in fatal crashes and injuries as a result of drinking and driving._


There are lies, damned lies and statistics.

What the hell is an "older" driver? And they are comparing a 3 year age span to what? Did the study show that people aged 19-21 drive a lot more than people aged 60?


----------



## RicktheChemist (Jul 18, 2001)

.


----------



## RicktheChemist (Jul 18, 2001)

.


----------



## hhk (May 31, 2006)

Lars said:


> hhk said:
> 
> 
> > Just off the top of my head - Bicycle helmet law...firearms registration...boating license...fishing license...cellphone law...seat belt law...anti-racing legislation. All of them of dubious benefit. Legislation piled upon legislation.
> ...


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

hhk said:


> There are lies, damned lies and statistics.
> 
> What the hell is an "older" driver? And they are comparing a 3 year age span to what? Did the study show that people aged 19-21 drive a lot more than people aged 60?


agree 100%. The idea of comparing a 3 year span against EVERYONE older and trying to pass it off as some scientific data is ludicrous. The drivers over 40 years old will drive down the stats for everyone older than the age of 21.

I'm sure you could take the 22-24 year olds and their numbers would be comparable to the 19-21 year olds. ditto for 25-27, probably even 28-29.


----------



## hayesk (Mar 5, 2000)

hhk said:


> There are lies, damned lies and statistics.
> 
> What the hell is an "older" driver? And they are comparing a 3 year age span to what? Did the study show that people aged 19-21 drive a lot more than people aged 60?


Not to mention the statistics involve young drivers with a blood alcholol level of more than .08, already above the legal limit. Where are the statistics of accidents caused by young drivers having only one drink?


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

I just hate zero tolerances. Period. They don't allow for any extenuating circumstances.

Ex. Schools zero tolerances on peanut butter (and peanut products?), soda pop, fighting and/or bullying, etc.


----------



## Nanami (Jul 29, 2010)

I believe this is a wonderful idea. I must admit I'm only 15 myself but I must say do not under-estimate me because of my age alone. Moving on, as someone who is in a family that sees a lot of drunks I get very nervous around my relatives. 

I don't like the concept of drinking and personally I think cigarettes, alcohol, and other drugs should just be banned except for in medical procedures and prescription drugs. Alas the government would never do that because of the amount of money they make off of taxes. Anyways although I do not directly have anyone that was killed by a drunk driver I do get very nervous and cautious quite easily because I'm very observant and I have way to much free time (so I spend it researching stuff such as this). The problem with today's youth (myself included) is that we lack many qualities and values. We like to rebel, we think we know everything, we can be show-offs, we like a challenge, and we just don't care about a lot of things that are considered quite important. I'm not saying I don't have these traits but I think its pathetic at how low we have fallen. 

This 0 tolerance law is suppose to stop people from drinking and show them that there is a consequence for actions and disobeying the law. Although many of you have already said that you either agree or disagree to this law I agree wholeheartedly but I still think its too light. I would far rather see everyone being stuck under this law because although alcohol has its benefits it has a lot of draw backs and I don't believe the benefits are worth the down side. The intoxicating affect of alcohol vastly impairs the minds of both new drivers and old; no one can escape that. But I do believe that because of idiots who decided to say 'screw the laws I'm doing it anyways' and got either themselves or others killed that we have been pressing on this issue maybe a little too lightly. For those who don't drink and drive responsibly as it is this law doesn't really concern them, in fact it protects them. For those who drink and thinking of drink that's who it really affects. In its own way it is also trying to get people not to drink in order to reinforce the concept that nothing good will come of it if you decide to get on the road. And since that's all I can think of at the moment I have but one last thing to say, this is a good idea.


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

hhk said:


> And I guess what you're saying is let's live in a fascist police state where every move is watched and governed by "the authorities". Sorry, I don't follow your logic.


I love how when an individual disagrees with a law, they automatically claim we live in a fascist police state. Boy, does that get old fast. How about all the G20 haters who also compared Toronto to a police state? That point apparently never, ever gets old or too tiresome to repeat over and over and over some more. Believe what you like - it's your right, after all. Our society would be in a far more, deep ended mess if we just did away with legislation and law simply because a small percentage of us refuse to obey said law(s).



Kosh said:


> Ex. Schools zero tolerances on peanut butter (and peanut products?), soda pop, fighting and/or bullying, etc.


I don't think a zero tolerance on bullying is going too far by any stretch of the imagination...

But that's just my opinion.


----------



## ertman (Jan 15, 2008)

Lars said:


> I don't think a zero tolerance on bullying is going too far by any stretch of the imagination...


Well I agree and don't agree. While I do agree that bullying should not be condoned in any form and action must and always be taken, I do think that much of the zero tolerance policies do not allow for some one to change their behaviour, as bullying under zero-tolerance would lead to automatic expulsion.


----------



## hhk (May 31, 2006)

Lars said:


> I love how when an individual disagrees with a law, they automatically claim we live in a fascist police state. Boy, does that get old fast. How about all the G20 haters who also compared Toronto to a police state? That point apparently never, ever gets old or too tiresome to repeat over and over and over some more. Believe what you like - it's your right, after all. Our society would be in a far more, deep ended mess if we just did away with legislation and law simply because a small percentage of us refuse to obey said law(s).
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I guess I was too subtle. You were doing the exact same thing in the opposite direction. Because I disagree with some laws, you assume that I'm automatically after a lawless states. I was simply turning it around on you.

The problem with zero tolerance policies is that it puts too much power in the hands of the authority figure. Let's say two kids are pushing each other at recess. A teacher sees this and thinks "zero tolerance on bullying". Kicks them both out. Absolute, to the letter application of any law or rule is rarely good.


----------



## xxcopper (Jul 31, 2010)

*0 Tolerance < 21 years?*

Love how they take mathematical liberties by phrasing a historical stat as, "1.5 times _more likely to_...", or the claim that they're targeting those "under 21". Since you're not off the hook 'til your 22nd B-Day, why isn't it "Under 22"?
Setting aside issues of alcohol tolerance, which is to say the point at which an individual starts to demonstrate outward indicia of impairment, this is a conversation confined to blood alcohol concentration. A 12 oz bottle of beer at 5% by volume, a 1 oz shot of spirtits at 40%, and a 5 oz glass of wine at 12 % will represent to the average individual 25mgs of alcohol per 100 ml of blood. While clearly a 350-pound linebacker will take longer to register that than a 90-pound cheerleader, the focus here is simply that zero means zero. So given that the average individual eliminates alcohol at roughly 15mgs % per hour, 2 hours should be ample time for anyone to become alcohol free again after that single serving.
My objection is simply to the magic wand implication of the 22nd birthday. Since, In my 2-3000 member client list of impaired drivers, less than 10 are younger than 25, and less than 20 are over 60, I have to think their sights are a little off-target.
Not losing sight of the point that the fatalities discussed involve INEXPERIENCED drivers _aggravated_ by alcohol, why are there no efforts on the horizon toward raising minimum standards of drivers' *skill*? Taking away a bad driver's cell phone makes him a good driver? Oh right! The lunatics from MADD are involved. Only the squeaky wheels get oiled after all, and besides, "Mothers against BAD Drivers" makes for a completely unmarketable acronym.
One of these days I'm gonna become really opinionated and come out of my shell.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

xxcopper said:


> ...why are there no efforts on the horizon toward raising minimum standards of drivers' *skill*?


Because that's not a politically expedient solution that can be fixed by a simple pen stroke. Much the same as many of the garbage laws that have been listed on this same thread...


----------



## Davis (Mar 28, 2010)

I'm 18 and theirs always a DD when we drink. In all honesty kids nowadays arn't all stupid, we know the rules and abide by them when we can. Other then the alcohol part haha.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

The concept that 1 beer will turn an under 21 driver into a lunatic is pure BS. 

The problem is the 3rd or the 4th... as is true of any age. If you want to drop the impaired level from .08 to .06 I would perhaps be more sympathetic.

Trouble is while 2 hours will clear the bloodstream to close to zero there will be some residual that does take longer to metabolize. Ultimately this is along the lines of Calgary's red light cameras. Theoretically a good idea but the 2.9 second amber lights have turned that law from a safety initiative into a cash cow. I see a similar result here with young drivers paying the price.

This law is designed to create cops with God Syndrome. Way too many of those already.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

Cops with "god syndromes" take no pleasure in scooping dead bodies off the road, I assure you.

The police/municipality have hard data—clearly (for me at least) nipping this problem in the bud is conditioning as well as a deterrent. Something that will carry on through young drivers throughout their lives.

Am I the only one who sees the irony here? Some of the people here are completely against the use of recreational drugs (like pot) yet make excuses for a "safe" amount of drinking a depressant… that it is somehow a better than smoking a joint? Particularly to an age group where binge drinking on a regular basis is commonplace.

People are playing with a fuzzy logic that does not apply to all people: age, sex or capacity to metabolize alcohol. Muddying an aggressive drinking and driving law with provisos and caveats does nothing but dilute the core message: Drinking and driving puts people at risk. Creating a program to instil that message is a good idea, IMO, especially when people are at an impressionable age.

Why not err on the side of caution? Or is that too bleeding heart?


----------



## MACenstein'sMonster (Aug 21, 2008)

So basically what this law means is that a lot of Ontarioians will be moving here.

Great. Another housing boom.

It was just getting peaceful again.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

MACenstein'sMonster said:


> So basically what this law means is that a lot of Ontarioians will be moving here.


ha, i'm not sure about that.

what the law means is they're going to punish people for drunk driving, even though they're nowhere near drunk.

how anyone can think that charging innocent people with a crime makes a good & just law is beyond me.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

MannyP Design said:


> ...Why not err on the side of caution? Or is that too bleeding heart?


Been covered several times here. Consumption of alcohol is not the only thing that will leave trace amounts of alcohol in the bloodstream. 

Pity the poor young man that gets busted on his way to pick up his date because he swirled some mouth wash before heading out. Yep that alcohol in the mouthwash can and will be absorbed directly even though he does spit most of it out. This will no doubt help make a few boat payments for the lawyers as that young man struggles to prove his innocence. But generally such laws have nothing to do with public safety and everything to do with creating business for lawyers.


----------



## projz (Jun 3, 2010)

In a sense I'm glad, too many of my friends have been involved in accidents or stupid things because of alcohol. Sure it ruins it for me after I have a beer or two and some chicken wings when I go out, but I guess they're just trying to keep everyone safe.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

projz said:


> but I guess they're just trying to keep everyone safe.


a lot of downright WRONG has been done under the guise of "keeping everyone safe".

Look no further than the G20 mess. Anyone who thought that arresting and detaining over a 1000 peaceful protesters who broke no law was somehow justifiable doesn't have a clue about what "justice" means.

"the road to hell is paved with good intentions".

i don't doubt that MADD and the other backers of this law mean the best, but ANY law that punishes people when they haven't even done anything wrong is ludicrous and makes a mockery of the system of laws that govern us.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

i-rui said:


> a lot of downright WRONG has been done under the guise of "keeping everyone safe".
> 
> Look no further than the G20 mess. Anyone who thought that arresting and detaining over a 1000 peaceful protesters who broke no law was somehow justifiable doesn't have a clue about what "justice" means.
> 
> ...


Very well. Let's stop altogether and allow people to do as they wish.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

I did a lot of very stupid things, some of those involving alcohol, when I was a young adult. Fortunately I didn't take up driving until a bit later. Turning 19 doesn't magically transform someone from being a child into an adult. It takes time and experience and varies depending on the person. Hopefully the person doesn't do something in the meantime that causes their own death or someone else's. I'm lucky that I didn't. There are likely many young adults who have their heads screwed on right even when they are younger than 19, -- I know a few like that.

That said, I don't see how this law, based on a person's age is fair. I support tougher drinking and driving rules and I think if there are extra sanctions they should be incorporated into the graduated licensing rules. I think that the lowering of alcohol limit to .05, as we've done in BC is a good idea. I'm not sure how this particular law will make those who are transitioning into adults feel anything but discriminated against.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

MannyP Design said:


> Very well. Let's stop altogether and allow people to do as they wish.


what an absolutely silly response. 

how anyone could have read what i wrote as some kind of endorsement for anarchy is beyond me. It quite clearly spells out the need for laws that punishes the guilty and not the innocent.

If the legal limit is .08 (and actually the warm zone is .05 in ontario) then punishing people for .01 is wrong.


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

i-rui said:


> Look no further than the G20 mess. Anyone who thought that arresting and detaining over a 1000 peaceful protesters who broke no law was somehow justifiable doesn't have a clue about what "justice" means.


If anything, they were far too lax with regards to the G20 protesters. They should have moved in much sooner, and with significantly more force.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

I'm guessing in Winnipeg you saw very limited coverage of what actually happened at the G20. Most people are terribly misinformed about the numerous charter of rights violations the police committed.

I don't want to branch out into a tangent in this thread, because it's a separate issue, but i brought up the G20 incident because i think it illustrates the point that we can not enforce the law by punishing innocent people. it's counter to the Law's intention.

Even under the guise of public safety, the second you cross over and start persecuting people who have not done any wrong, and have not broken the law, you've destroyed the very basic principle of justice.


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

i-rui said:


> I'm guessing in Winnipeg you saw very limited coverage of what actually happened at the G20.


I saw it, LOTS of it. They should have moved in swiftly, and delivered some serious street justice on those idiots. The next round of people dumb enough to come around with their "peaceful protests" should have gotten double.


----------



## explosion (Jul 16, 2010)

bsenka said:


> i-rui said:
> 
> 
> > I'm guessing in Winnipeg you saw very limited coverage of what actually happened at the G20. /QUOTE]
> ...


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

bsenka said:


> I saw it, LOTS of it. They should have moved in swiftly, and delivered some serious street justice on those idiots. The next round of people dumb enough to come around with their "peaceful protests" should have gotten double.


I wouldn't have had a problem with police arresting violent protesters. But unfortunately the police were nowhere to be found as they traveled up Yonge st for an hour & a half (not exactly a back alley) and did their damage.

I do have a problem with police arresting over a 1000 peaceful protesters exercising their rights given to us by the charter (clearly after the original violence by the idiots). 

The first doesn't have any real connection to the second. It's like saying a black person stole something from the eaton centre so the police have the right arrest every black person for a 10 block radius. They don't. Not by any REAL & legitimate law in our country.


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

explosion said:


> You didn't see it. It wasn't shown on TV. Especially not in weinerpeg.


There was 24 hr live coverage on several channels. There was almost nothing else on. Sorry you missed it.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

i-rui said:


> what an absolutely silly response.
> 
> how anyone could have read what i wrote as some kind of endorsement for anarchy is beyond me. It quite clearly spells out the need for laws that punishes the guilty and not the innocent.
> 
> If the legal limit is .08 (and actually the warm zone is .05 in ontario) then punishing people for .01 is wrong.


A silly response to a silly post. Why not take it a step further and make references to the gestapo while you're at it.

The law changes all the time—some become more lenient or more strict—and it is all dependant on the issues of that time.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

bsenka said:


> I saw it, LOTS of it. They should have moved in swiftly, and delivered some serious street justice on those idiots. The next round of people dumb enough to come around with their "peaceful protests" should have gotten double.


"Street justice". Now there's a disgusting term. I hope Mr. bsenka or anyone he knows never has to meet any street justice personally.


----------



## explosion (Jul 16, 2010)

bsenka said:


> There was 24 hr live coverage on several channels. There was almost nothing else on. Sorry you missed it.



You didn't see it. It wasn't on TV. No sense arguing about it, I was there and you were in winerpeg, you saw a water down censored version. 

What I saw in person and what I saw on TV were totally different, even though I wasn't apart of the protest I felt cheated by the media when I saw the news.


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

explosion said:


> You didn't see it. It wasn't on TV.


Sure it was, constantly.

Unless you were in my house watching it with me to be able to know what I saw, you're the one who has no position to claim what I did and didn't see.

If anything, we got more coverage of it that you did. The western stations all piled on to provide as much "look at how terrible of a place Toronto is" coverage.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> "Street justice". Now there's a disgusting term. I hope Mr. bsenka or anyone he knows never has to meet any street justice personally.


'Street justice,' if you want to call it that, was set aside in favour of letting a select group of egocentric hooligans have their way with some store fronts and cop cars while the police themselves stood idly by.... it was by design so as to justify the expense of the security forces descending on Toronto for the event. Those cop cars and store fronts were sacrificed.


----------



## explosion (Jul 16, 2010)

bsenka said:


> Sure it was, constantly.
> 
> Unless you were in my house watching it with me to be able to know what I saw, you're the one who has no position to claim what I did and didn't see.
> 
> If anything, we got more coverage of it that you did. The western stations all piled on to provide as much "look at how terrible of a place Toronto is" coverage.



Do you central folks ever get off the compound. You actually want to argue about something that I witnessed while you sat at home thousands of miles away and think you watched it along with me. It wasn't recorded and even it was the media doesn't play that stuff, it would result in a second riot the next day.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

MannyP Design said:


> A silly response to a silly post. Why not take it a step further and make references to the gestapo while you're at it.


Actually if i was to have called you a "gestapo" then i would've been doing the same thing you did with your response (taking my point and overshooting it by a mile). it's a shame the irony was lost on you.



MannyP Design said:


> The law changes all the time—some become more lenient or more strict—and it is all dependant on the issues of that time.


Of course the law changes all the time. And it's the duty of all reasonable people to take note and make sure the law is in the service of JUSTICE not just the "theme of the day".


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

explosion said:


> You didn't see it. It wasn't on TV. No sense arguing about it, I was there and you were in winerpeg, you saw a water down censored version.
> 
> What I saw in person and what I saw on TV were totally different, even though I wasn't apart of the protest I felt cheated by the media when I saw the news.


Agree. What the mainstream media showed was out of context and disproportionate. The same events on saturday over and over, while the police overreaction after got minimal coverage. Alternative new sources did a much better job.



Max said:


> 'Street justice,' if you want to call it that, was set aside in favour of letting a select group of egocentric hooligans have their way with some store fronts and cop cars while the police themselves stood idly by.... it was by design so as to justify the expense of the security forces descending on Toronto for the event. Those cop cars and store fronts were sacrificed.


another agree +1. The star ran an article prior to the G20 called the "miami model" that described the gameplan security forces go by for these type of events, and everything played out exactly how the police wanted to on the saturday, there by allowing them to dupe the public into believing all protesters were some kind of threat.


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

explosion said:


> Do you central folks ever get off the compound. You actually want to argue about something that I witnessed while you sat at home thousands of miles away and think you watched it along with me.


Ever watch a sporting event on TV? Notice how much you actually MISS by being there instead of watching the broadcast?

My view was a lot better than yours. You were in one spot, while I had the advantage of many cameras shooting from many locations. There is no chance that you saw even a fraction of what I saw during the live broadcasts.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

i-rui said:


> Actually if i was to have called you a "gestapo" then i would've been doing the same thing you did with your response (taking my point and overshooting it by a mile). it's a shame the irony was lost on you.
> 
> Of course the law changes all the time. And it's the duty of all reasonable people to take note and make sure the law is in the service of JUSTICE not just the "theme of the day".


You're absolutely right. How stupid of me. Why would anybody suddenly address ANYTHING just because it becomes more apparent (or frequent) at that particular time—especially something of detriment? :lmao:


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

I'm not entirely convinced that this law is the right one, but I completely buy into the idea that teen/young adult drivers and alcohol are a much more dangerous mix than adult drivers and alcohol. And I'll bet there are far more detailed insurance industry and police statistics behind that idea than you'll find in any newspaper report.

The teen years are when most of us learn to drive, and also when most of us learn to drink. And part of learning is deliberately or inadvertently taking risks -- it's how you learn to be a careful adult. (I don't know about you, but in my 40s I take far fewer stupid risks than I did back then, and can probably drive better with .08 under my belt than I drove as a sober teen, and I'll bet many of us can say the same.)

Everybody no doubt agrees that youthful risk-taking in driving and drinking can be dangerous on their own, and that combining them is something we just don't want on our roads. Not just to protect people from themselves, but to protect others.

So what to do? If the evidence is compelling that impaired young-adult drivers are grossly over-represented in accident statistics, and equally compelling that the status quo isn't working to reduce those numbers, then something should probably be done.

I'm not sure what that is, honestly. But now that Ontario is going to try zero-tolerance, I'll be very curious to see how it works out.


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

iMatt said:


> I'm not entirely convinced that this law is the right one, but I completely buy into the idea that teen/young adult drivers and alcohol are a much more dangerous mix than adult drivers and alcohol. And I'll bet there are far more detailed insurance industry and police statistics behind that idea than you'll find in any newspaper report.
> 
> The teen years are when most of us learn to drive, and also when most of us learn to drink. And part of learning is deliberately or inadvertently taking risks -- it's how you learn to be a careful adult. (I don't know about you, but in my 40s I take far fewer stupid risks than I did back then, and can probably drive better with .08 under my belt than I drove as a sober teen, and I'll bet many of us can say the same.)
> 
> ...


+1; what he said.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

*BTW the title should read 21 and younger*


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

MannyP Design said:


> You're absolutely right. How stupid of me. Why would anybody suddenly address ANYTHING just because it becomes more apparent (or frequent) at that particular time—especially something of detriment? :lmao:


what is this law exactly deterring?

young adults NOT being impaired? young adults being UNDER the legal limit?

That's not addressing anything. It's punishing people for a "future crime" that may (or may not) happen. If you can't grasp the idea that punishing innocent people for a crime they didn't commit is fundamentally counter to any sense of justice then you're beyond help.


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

i-rui said:


> what is this law exactly deterring?
> 
> young adults NOT being impaired? young adults being UNDER the legal limit?
> 
> That's not addressing anything. It's punishing people for a "future crime" that may (or may not) happen. If you can't grasp the idea that punishing innocent people for a crime they didn't commit is fundamentally counter to any sense of justice then you're beyond help.


I agree that the law shouldn't punish innocent people for something they didn't do, but disagree that this law is an instance of that.

We already have all kinds of age-based restrictions (driving, voting, drinking, gambling, marriage, sex, buying tobacco...) that either limit or prohibit certain things that are (at least partly) legal for people over a certain age. 

I don't see how this new one -- no drinking and driving whatsoever before a certain age -- is fundamentally different from no smoking, drinking, driving, voting, lovemaking, marriage, gambling, etc. before a certain age.

None of which is to say that the new law gets everything right or will be enforceable, or have the desired effect. But a punishment for future crime? Not seeing it. It's a prohibition of a certain activity, just like numerous other laws. Some are just, some are unjust; since the activity in question is particularly dangerous, I'm having trouble filing this one under "unjust".


----------



## hayesk (Mar 5, 2000)

iMatt said:


> I'm not entirely convinced that this law is the right one, but I completely buy into the idea that teen/young adult drivers and alcohol are a much more dangerous mix than adult drivers and alcohol. And I'll bet there are far more detailed insurance industry and police statistics behind that idea than you'll find in any newspaper report.


There's no question that drivers and alcohol don't mix - after a certain point. But didn't we come up with .08 blood alcohol level as the limit - i.e. dangerous above that limit, not dangerous below.

My question is still this: where is the evidence that young drivers with a BAL below .08 are more dangerous than older drivers with a BAL below .08?


----------



## explosion (Jul 16, 2010)

bsenka said:


> Ever watch a sporting event on TV? Notice how much you actually MISS by being there instead of watching the broadcast?
> 
> My view was a lot better than yours. You were in one spot, while I had the advantage of many cameras shooting from many locations. There is no chance that you saw even a fraction of what I saw during the live broadcasts.



Truly flawed intellect here. You are comparing a sports event played on few thousand square feet by 12 people to an event with tens of thousands of people played out over 40 city blocks. Something is wrong with your mind when you think that such an even could have be recored, let alone played back unedited on your TV set, live too. Don't you have any math skills to even realize that is impossible.

Tens of thousands of people would require hundreds or thousands of cameras and angles, then about 4000 hours of editing, then about 11 months of straight playback.. yeah and you saw it all, same day as well right.

more ice please


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

iMatt said:


> We already have all kinds of age-based restrictions (driving, voting, drinking, gambling, marriage, sex, buying tobacco...) that either limit or prohibit certain things that are (at least partly) legal for people over a certain age.
> 
> I don't see how this new one -- no drinking and driving whatsoever before a certain age -- is fundamentally different from no smoking, drinking, driving, voting, lovemaking, marriage, gambling, etc. before a certain age.


It's clearly different because there are ALREADY age restrictions which those young people have already MET. If they're 19 they can drink. If they're 19 and have their license they can drive. (they can also vote, serve in the military etc...etc...)

We have set the age of majority as 18/19 in Canada. That is what we consider an "adult". Will everyone who reaches that age be responsible? of course not. but i'm sure there's many 19 year olds who will be MORE responsible than some 40 year olds. The Benchmark we've set is 19 for drinking. If there's a problem with that (which i don't think there is) then we should change THAT age. Not pile on laws on top of laws. 



iMatt said:


> But a punishment for future crime? Not seeing it. It's a prohibition of a certain activity, just like numerous other laws. Some are just, some are unjust; since the activity in question is particularly dangerous, I'm having trouble filing this one under "unjust".


Being significantly under the legal limit is not a "dangerous activity". That is the fault in this law. We are being bamboozled to believe that if a person under 21 with a BAL of .01 gets behind the wheel he'll turn into a killing machine. that is a lie. that is unreasonable. that goes against the minimum common sense that should be expected from our laws.

A young adult might not even drink a drop of alcohol and still blow positive under a zero tolerance law from other factors (mouthwash, cooking wine in a meal, fermented fruit).

And it's not like a license suspension is a light slap in the wrist. It'll cost several hundred's of dollars simply to tow and impound the car, more hundreds getting the license back, and then THOUSANDS over the next 6 years on that persons insurance. Do you really think that is a fair and just punishment for someone blowing .01? For someone not anywhere near being impaired?

What this is about is the absence of reason in the face of fear. Do you think MADD will stop pushing for a zero tolerance law at 21 year olds? They'll push this law for all ages. Then will you support it? Or are you tolerant of this law only as long as it's under 40 and doesn't affect you?


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

i-rui said:


> It's clearly different because there are ALREADY age restrictions which those young people have already MET. If they're 19 they can drink. If they're 19 and have their license they can drive. (they can also vote, serve in the military etc...etc...)
> 
> We have set the age of majority as 18/19 in Canada. That is what we consider an "adult". Will everyone who reaches that age be responsible? of course not. but i'm sure there's many 19 year olds who will be MORE responsible than some 40 year olds. The Benchmark we've set is 19 for drinking. If there's a problem with that (which i don't think there is) then we should change THAT age. Not pile on laws on top of laws.


I don't think combining two age-related factors into another one makes a fundamental difference. Getting behind the wheel after drinking is also defined as a single activity, for which there's an allowable legal threshold for anyone who has a driver's license and who is of legal drinking age. Now, in Ontario, there's a new age limit defined for that activity.



> Being significantly under the legal limit is not a "dangerous activity". That is the fault in this law. We are being bamboozled to believe that if a person under 21 with a BAL of .01 gets behind the wheel he'll turn into a killing machine. that is a lie. that is unreasonable. that goes against the minimum common sense that should be expected from our laws.
> 
> A young adult might not even drink a drop of alcohol and still blow positive under a zero tolerance law from other factors (mouthwash, cooking wine in a meal, fermented fruit).
> 
> ...


Here I find you far more persuasive, at least to the extent that zero may not be a reasonable threshold. (And by implication that impairment, not measurable blood alcohol, should be the criterion for stopping a driver... but that's a whole other can of worms, since blood alcohol is easily measured on the spot, unlike fatigue, marijuana high, etc.) 

But is the general concept of a different threshold for younger people reasonable? I think it is. 

BTW, I'm undecided as to whether I support this law. I can see the motivation for it, I am curious to see how it will play out, but I clearly said I'm not convinced that it is the right solution to the problem it aims to address.

Hopefully there will be some common sense applied on the ground.


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

hayesk said:


> My question is still this: where is the evidence that young drivers with a BAL below .08 are more dangerous than older drivers with a BAL below .08?


A quick search turns up the following, for one example:

Young Drivers & Alcohol



> Young people are over-represented in driving accidents involving alcohol. In a recent year, people aged 16 to 24 were involved in 28 percent of all alcohol-related driving accidents, although they make up only 14% of the U.S. population. 1 Young people are also over-represented in drinking driver injuries and deaths. 2 *Even when their blood alcohol contents (BACs) are not high, young drinkers are involved in driving accidents at higher rates than older drivers with similar BACs.* 3


The footnote 3 reference is here: Drinking and Driving - Alcohol Alert No. 31-1996


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

> Young people are over-represented in driving accidents involving alcohol. In a recent year, people aged 16 to 24 were involved in 28 percent of all alcohol-related driving accidents, although they make up only 14% of the U.S. population. 1 Young people are also over-represented in drinking driver injuries and deaths. 2 *Even when their blood alcohol contents (BACs) are not high, young drinkers are involved in driving accidents at higher rates than older drivers with similar BACs.* 3


Since young divers are similar overly involved in all accident categories the stat is irrelevant beyond partially explaining the gouge rates young drivers pay for insurance.


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

I'd like to know the real reason why people are so up in arms about restricting alcohol to zero in young people - if nothing else, it discourages drinking and driving, even if you're not impaired to the point of being a very serious danger on the highway. It can influence how young drivers think at a young age, for the better, and I simply can't see the fault in this. In fact, when CTV interviewed a number of young people in the GTA (some under 22, some over) about this new law, they were very much in support of said restrictions. (Obviously there are people who do not support this new law as well - look at ehMac members for a good example.)

So - if you disagree with the law, is it because you just don't see its validity, or is it because you think it's unfair based on the fact that if you're 22 or older, the law (this specific law) no longer applies to you?

There were also reports where MADD reported a drop in drinking and driving fatalities in other provinces where a similar law targeting young drivers with zero tolerance alcohol restrictions are already in place, and quite frankly speaking, any law, regulation or restriction in place that reduces the number of DUI-related fatalities will be strongly supported, personally speaking.

Young people are, or tend to be, more rebellious (especially when it comes to driving) than older people (some people never grow up, but generally speaking here...), which is another reason, I believe, this law is specifically targeting the under 22 group of people.

The bottom line is that any law that either reduces or discourages impaired driving is very much welcomed, and if we can convince even just a few more people at a young age not to drive after you've had anything to drink, then that in and of itself WILL make a difference. If you learn this at a young age, it will hopefully shape you to ensure you don't stupidly drink and drive after you turn 22 in the future.

If this law helps reduce the number of injuries/death due to impaired drivers in any given year in this province, I welcome it.


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

And contrary to eMacMan's ongoing hatred for law enforcement and everything it stands for, this law was not incorporated to instil "God Syndrome" based police officers - and neither was the 50 over law. Police officers don't make the laws - they enforce them.

It really is about keeping our streets safe, and really not about giving police officers huge levels of authority to tow cars left, right and centre. If you're a reckless dangerous driver, you deserve to be yanked off the streets.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Lars said:


> .... If you're a reckless dangerous driver, you deserve to be yanked off the streets.


Yep and I am sure that current laws are more than adequate to do the job. 

If zero tolerance is such a great idea it should apply to all drivers of all ages not to a select group.

I am well over 21, do not drink, do not live in Ontario and even so oppose this law on every level. If you want to see where such foolishness can lead just look at some of the regulations being enforced over in Great Britain.

EDIT: I have a great deal of respect for law enforcement officers that handle their jobs competently. OTH I have no use for the Sgt. Peppers and the Taser Tommies that our current system seems to be breeding in ever greater numbers. These individuals are thugs who have been bleesd with a badge.

A few weeks ago a neighbour had one visiting RCMP officer tell him that he had to have a permit to buy and set off fireworks in our little community. When informed that no such regulation was on the books here, the idiot officier threatened to tase said neighbour.

What it comes down to is that our police forces, like everyone else, have to earn our respect. If failing to do so they resort to fear tactics, that is a red flag that something is rotten right to the core.


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

eMacMan said:


> Yep and I am sure that current laws are more than adequate to do the job.


Perhaps, but some times current laws do not send a strong enough message, and thus additional deterrence is required. Take the 50 over law, for example. Before this law was enacted, drivers nailed 50 over the law received a hefty fine, a hefty number of demerit points, but were otherwise free to continue on their way. This, unfortunately, did not deter some excessive speeders, and thus when a law was enacted that now had 50 over offenders vehicle's impounded and their license suspended on the side of the road, it definitely deterred additional otherwise would be offenders of said law. 

It didn't deter everyone, of course, because there will always be people who will break any law regardless of the consequences, but this does not mean the law is ineffective or serves no purpose. I know some decent individuals who used to be the occasional 50 over offenders, but now no longer do because of the severe consequences brought upon you if caught - so the laws do work, even if not on absolutely _everyone_.

And as per 'rotten' police officers, I do admit some do exist. No question. But we don't paint entire police services with the same tainted brush because the occasional officer doesn't do their job properly.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

eMacMan said:


> Since young divers are similar overly involved in all accident categories the stat is irrelevant beyond partially explaining the gouge rates young drivers pay for insurance.


Agree 100%. Any stat that doesn't show a comparable and comparative stat to judge it is meaningless. As is comparing 16-24 year old drivers vs EVERY other older driver (where the 40+ drivers will drive down the statistic as they are less likely to be involved in a social scene where people drink). I'd be interested to see the 25-33 year old stats and see how many accidents involving alcohol they were involved in. My guess is there wouldn't be that big of a difference.



Lars said:


> I'd like to know the real reason why people are so up in arms about restricting alcohol to zero in young people


I think i've already covered my views. I think it is fundamentally wrong. And just to clarify i'm well over 21 and the law doesn't apply to me.



Lars said:


> Police officers don't make the laws - they enforce them.


This actually brings out another issue i have with the law that hasn't been touched on yet in this thread. The police are only PART of our legal system. They enforce the law, but the full process involves the option of the accused to go to trial and have his case heard in front of a judge.

With this law it's a roadside suspension. The accused has already been punished and is responsible for towing and impound fees, as well license re-registration fees, and then a further jump in insurance rates. All before ever having a trial. That is 100% wrong.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

Lars said:


> And as per 'rotten' police officers, I do admit some do exist. No question. But we don't paint entire police services with the same tainted brush because the occasional officer doesn't do their job properly.


yet you're all for painting every young driver as a drunk menace because a few drink and drive?


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Formulating my opinion while reading through this thread, I believe this law is an unfair application by lumping those in with a group because they happen to be under 22.

The stats may well show that those under 22 do more dangerous things per capita, than do 23 to 30 year olds or 30 to 40 years old people. But for those people who are under 22, are level-headed and sensible this is just discrimination based on their age. Society tells them they are adults at 19, yet not doesn't fully trust them to be responsible until they're 23.

I support increased enforcement of drinking and driving, but I don't see this as an answer. Unfair laws don't foster respect of the law. Let's say we could find a stat that said poorer people committed more crimes. I'm not saying such a stat exists, but based on lower education and lower standard of living it could be true. So in this hypothetical case would that justify restricting the liberties all in that group, by say, putting a curfew on them? So the law-abiding poor person would be discriminated against because of the actions of other people that had nothing to do with him. The same thing applies here.

I think this is also unfair as it applies to auto insurance, where those who are young are assumed to be a greater risk because more people in their age group get into accidents. In Ontario, I believe, insurance for young people is very expensive. For the safe and young driver, this is unfair.

I like how we do it in BC with our (gasp!) public auto insurance. When you first get insured you pay the basic rate. If you have an accident which is your fault or receive points on your license because of traffic tickets, you start getting surcharges on that basic rate. If you drive safely with no accidents and no points, every year you get an extra 10% discount, to a max of 40% and a few additional benefits for even longer safe driving. Although not everyone, there are a few young drivers who already have significant discounts and there are a few older drivers who pay double the base rate. This means that those who are causing the problems are paying a greater share and those who have proven that they are safer are paying less, which seems fair to me.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> I like how we do it in BC with our (gasp!) public auto insurance. When you first get insured you pay the basic rate. If you have an accident which is your fault or receive points on your license because of traffic tickets, you start getting surcharges on that basic rate. If you drive safely with no accidents and no points, every year you get an extra 10% discount, to a max of 40% and a few additional benefits for even longer safe driving. Although not everyone, there are a few young drivers who already have significant discounts and there are a few older drivers who pay double the base rate. This means that those who are causing the problems are paying a greater share and those who have proven that they are safer are paying less, which seems fair to me.


Is the base rate the same for an insured in Prince Rupert as it is for someone in Vancouver? If it is, then it doesn't seem fair. If a drunk hits you and you're disabled for life due to injuries sustained, how much will the province settle for? Inquiring minds want to know.


----------



## Gerbill (Jul 1, 2003)

Lars said:


> Good point. I don't know the answer, so I'll ask around: How long would that stay in your system, typically, if you had a steak fried in wine?


When you use wine in cooking, the alcohol evaporates completely, leaving just the taste.


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

eMacMan said:


> Since young divers are similar overly involved in all accident categories the stat is irrelevant beyond partially explaining the gouge rates young drivers pay for insurance.


Not to mention that young drivers are over represented on the road to begin with. They just drive around for hours for no reason. With more hours and kms on the road they'd obviously be over represented in whatever you chose to track, good or bad.

I'd like to see a breakdown of age groups for "accidents per city km driven" or something like that. I'll bet a dollar that the OLDER someone is, the higher that number would be. It's the cotton tops that you see parking by braille, not the kids.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

bsenka said:


> I'd like to see a breakdown of age groups for "accidents per city km driven" or something like that. I'll bet a dollar that the OLDER someone is, the higher that number would be. It's the cotton tops that you see parking by braille, not the kids.


Your you-know-what is blowin' smoke.

At 66 years of age, I can drive rings around any 18-year-old you care to put up against me.

I've driven over a million MILES, not kms, in my day and I stay current by taking refresher courses through the Alberta Motor Association.

I take a 22,000 pound vehicle towing a 3,400 pound 4 x 4 all over this continent and the very worst drivers I encounter are young folks.

They are the jerks with their big mufflers on Japanese rice burners making way too much noise cutting in front of me and then braking at a traffic light, expecting me to rein in a dozen tons of rig while they play their stereos so loud with bass that rattles my windows when they go by me it's not even funny.

They are so busy jerking around with their buddies inside the car, they have zero control or attention.

God help any senior in their pathway.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Gerbill said:


> When you use wine in cooking, the alcohol evaporates completely, leaving just the taste.


Only true if the brew simmers for an adequate period of time This depends entirely on when the alcohol is added and how long it simmers.


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

SINC said:


> At 66 years of age, I can drive rings around any 18-year-old you care to put up against me..


It's the penchant for driving in rings rather than straight down the road that concerns me.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Comes the challenge

Alcohol ban for young drivers faces Charter challenge - thestar.com


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

Gerbill said:


> When you use wine in cooking, the alcohol evaporates completely, leaving just the taste.


I'm sorry, but this simply isn't true.

I was editor of a trade newspaper dealing with "recovery issues" and we hired a lab to test this very question: how much alcohol is left after cooking or "flambe-ing" foods?

The bottom line: a lot.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

SINC said:


> They are the jerks with their big mufflers on Japanese rice burners making way too much noise cutting in front of me and then braking at a traffic light, expecting me to rein in a dozen tons of rig while they play their stereos so loud with bass that rattles my windows when they go by me it's not even funny.
> 
> They are so busy jerking around with their buddies inside the car, they have zero control or attention.
> 
> God help any senior in their pathway.


Let's be fair: both you and bsenska are mindlessly generalising here.

Aggressive (a-hole) drivers come in all age ranges, and they are by far the biggest threat on the road. Yes, younger drivers often fall into a-hole category, but my three most recent near-wrecks were entirely the fault of clearly over-30 people with texting, drinking or alpha-male issues.

I've seen plenty of good young drivers, and I've seen plenty of careless young people who think they're immortal. 

"Cotton tops" <adds that to his personal dictionary> can be horrifically bad drivers as well, though I have to admit they are usually SO bad that you can easily get around them. 

Many years ago some drunken Gators fan with one of those (combined) 25,000lb RVs ran me and a huge number of other drivers off the road careening (literally, that is the word to describe it -- that RV was swaying like CRAZY!) down the highway at over 100mph to get to his stupid f'ing football game. Let's just say he wasn't a young person. 

But in my own experience most older drivers tend to be careful. You might want to test people over a certain age a bit more often, and I think most provinces do that anyway, but beyond that the stats make the case that most older drivers are good drivers.

Reflexes slow down with age, that's a fact. You can still be a good driver with somewhat slower reflexes than a young person has -- that's ALSO a fact.

Bottom line: if law enforcement would heavily target AGGRESSIVE drivers, regardless of age, I suspect the intent of this would achieve a better result than a law specifically targetting young drivers only.


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

eMacMan said:


> Since young divers are similar overly involved in all accident categories the stat is irrelevant beyond partially explaining the gouge rates young drivers pay for insurance.


So they're over-represented in all categories, including the one (DUI) responsible for somewhere around a third of all road fatalities, therefore it makes no sense to try to do something about DUI in young drivers?

While I do see some logic there (and again, am NOT saying I believe this law will have the intended effect), if you break it down from "overrepresented in all categories" to "similarly overrepresented in DUI" (I'll take your word for it here), you wind up with a large, dangerous category called "young + DUI" that may very well be worthy of special attention. 

It's still overrepresentation, after all, and a more pressing matter than many other infractions and/or accident causes. (Many of which are presumably addressed by graduated licensing as it stands.)

That said, even if young + impaired drivers are worth special attention, I also completely agree with Chas_M's point that targeting aggression on the road is probably the single most important thing the police could do. But I don't think that's mutually exclusive with other areas of enforcement.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

The problem is the presumption of guilt, the punishment applied on the spot, leaving the innocent with a very big bill to prove their innocence. Worse once their innocence has been established there is no quick way they can recover the cost of fines, fees and lawyers, as provincial governments tend to pass bills shielding themselves from lawsuits.

This is the very definition of bad legislation and should be dumped forthwith.

I do agree that aggressive drivers of ALL ages should be targeted. Good use for all those Air Bears which cost the taxpayers $1000s/hour.


----------



## macintosh doctor (Mar 23, 2009)

eMacMan said:


> The problem is the presumption of guilt, the punishment applied on the spot, leaving the innocent with a very big bill to prove their innocence. Worse once their innocence has been established there is no quick way they can recover the cost of fines, fees and lawyers, as provincial governments tend to pass bills shielding themselves from lawsuits.
> 
> This is the very definition of bad legislation and should be dumped forthwith.
> 
> I do agree that aggressive drivers of ALL ages should be targeted. Good use for all those Air Bears which cost the taxpayers $1000s/hour.


I kinda agree with the law in sense that you should not harm others with your stupidity..

but I do agree that the law is being like judge dred ( Stalone movie.. ) - guilty until innocent... 

Long story short if you want to be stupid then do not drive very simple..
do not drink or get high when you want to drive..
if you can afford to drink and do drugs you can afford the $30 cab ride... very simple.


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

i-rui said:


> yet you're all for painting every young driver as a drunk menace because a few drink and drive?


On the contrary. I'm still a young driver (25; started driving at 19). I think this law discourages drinking and driving and teaches people at a young age, like I've stated before, about the dangers of DWI and hopefully dictates future behaviour as a result. (For the better.)


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

macintosh doctor said:


> long story short if you want to be stupid then do not drive very simple..
> Do not drink or get high when you want to drive..
> If you can afford to drink and do drugs you can afford the $30 cab ride... Very simple.


+1; ..


----------



## hayesk (Mar 5, 2000)

macintosh doctor said:


> Long story short if you want to be stupid then do not drive very simple..
> do not drink or get high when you want to drive..
> if you can afford to drink and do drugs you can afford the $30 cab ride... very simple.


I disagree. We're talking about absolutely no BAC - that means no drinking at all. That means a beer at lunch will give you a tiny BAC. A beer costs far less than $30.

And if your claiming that even one drink is too many, then lets ban drinking and driving for all ages.

This law seems to be a roundabout way of getting young people to think about driving responsibly. Why not just be more direct about it? Drinking is only one factor.


----------



## explosion (Jul 16, 2010)

Lars said:


> On the contrary. I'm still a young driver (25; started driving at 19). I think this law discourages drinking and driving and teaches people at a young age, like I've stated before, about the dangers of DWI and hopefully dictates future behaviour as a result. (For the better.)



I don't think it teaches anything. Some people don't start drinking long after that age. The province is out of ways to milk more money from innocent people so now they are going after you for things that aren't illegal or harmful.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Been a very long time since I went to a church service or I would have thought of this sooner.

I have visions of the TOPS laying in ambush outside of Catholic or Anglican churches ready to pounce on the unwitting 19 year old that dares to partake of a small sip of communion wine then tries to drive home. 

And the Christmas fruitcake busts, my God the carnage.


----------



## hhk (May 31, 2006)

eMacMan said:


> Been a very long time since I went to a church service or I would have thought of this sooner.
> 
> I have visions of the TOPS laying in ambush outside of Catholic or Anglican churches ready to pounce on the unwitting 19 year old that dares to partake of a small sip of communion wine then tries to drive home.
> 
> And the Christmas fruitcake busts, my God the carnage.


Check out this list from a Halal site:


Thanks for asking question. The only type of alcohol used in foods is ethyl alcohol but in personal care products ethyl alcohol and also denatured alcohol is used. In very few cases Isopropyle (Halal) is used on food manufacturing equipments or some time used in very rare ingredients as a processing aid or hidden ingredient. Sugar alcohols which are not ethyl alcohol used as humectants or as replacing the sugar such as sorbitol or mannitol. Sugar alcohols are used extensively in foods. Acetyl alcohol, stearyl alcohol, Lanolin alcohol etc are again not ethyl alcohol but they are fatty waxes made from either animal or vegetable fat, they are only used in personal care products because they are not allowed in foods.

Here is the use of alcohol in foods and personal care products:

Foods:

1. Alcohol as an ingredient is used in few products but not in all or alcohol is used in processing of some ingredients:

a. In all McDonald's buns in Canada.

b. Vanilla Extract minumum 35% alcohol in USA and Canada

c. Beverage Four contains 4% alcohol

d. Naturally Brewed Soy Sauce up to 3% alcohol

e. ***** up to 2% alcohol

f. Vanilla flavors contain alcohol

g. Confectionary Glaze or Resinous's glaze is a coating on candy or sprinkle. Confectioner's glazes are alcohol solutions of various type of food grade Shellac. The alcohol is evaporated during application.

h. Shellac is the secretion of Coccus lacca insects deposited on tree in India. Some Shellac are made by alcohol.

i. Nucleotide in baby infant formula is obtained from cells of brewer yeast which is grown on alcohol.

j. Autolyzed Yeast Extract or Yeast Extract is either made from baker yeast which is Halal but used in few food products because it will not provide meaty flavor. But Autolyzed Yeast Extract or Yeast Extract is also obtained from brewer yeast which is used to make bear, alcohol pentrate into yeast cells, after drying they use in food products which provide meaty flavor.

k. Conagra' s Healthy Choice Ice Cream is made with alcohol.

l. Many Cheesecakes are made with real liquor.

m. Tuna casserol made with wine and supplied in different London's hotel restaurants.

n. Dijan Mustard is made with wine.

o. Alcohol present in non stick cooking oil sparay as an ingredient such as Pam's
nonstick cooking spray.

p. FREAKY ICE'S DESERT & ICE CREAM PRODUCTS IN UK, CONTAINING ALCOHOLIC LOLLIES ARE HARAM, SUCH AS:, WHISKY & COLA, RUM & COLA, RUM & COLA .

q. Carr's New Roasty Vegetable Crackers UD a kosher certified cracker is made with pure ALCOHOL/ETHONAL and listed as an ingredient.

r. Left over wine or beer or alcohol in Alcohol Free Beverages.

s. Left over wine, wine flavor, wine color in red or white wine vinegar.

t. Torula yeast is grown either on alcohol or on sugar cane, the one which grown on sugar cane is Halal.

u. Cooking wine is used in many dishes at the restuarants. Grilled fish may use some time cooking wine.

v. Beer Batters fish contains actual beer in its batter.

w. Halal fish is also fried in same oil and same freyer where beer battered fish fried. Becarefull about Fish N Chips in UK.

2. Alcohol is used as a hidden or processing aid ingredient in:

a. Natural or artificial flavor may or may not contain alcohol as a solvent, Krispy Kreme Donuts, Dunkun Donuts, Red Bull, Ritz Crackers in USA/Canada, Butterfinger, 7up, Cream of Wheat, Dr. Pepper, Stoneyfield fruit yogurts, Lucozade and Ribena soft drink, Rubicon Fruit Drink, Ice Cream products contain alcohol.

b. Any Extract may use alcohol as a extracting solvent such as spice extract.


Personal Care Products:

A. Ethyl alcohol is used as hidden or processing aid ingredient in:

1. Flavor: Alcohol may be use as a solvent or carrier in the flavor of toothpastes and other products. Halls Lozenges contain alcohol in flavors, Children Claritin, Chlor Trimeton and Children NY Quil, cough syrups, fluid fever relieving,
Vicks, Product: NY Quil Cough are contain alcohol.


2. Perfumes: Alcohol may be used a solvent or carrier in perfumes in personal care products such as bar soap, shampoo, conditioners, Deodorants. Head On and Active contains alcohol.

2. Specially Denatured Alcohol is used as an ingredient only in personal care products. A specific property of ethanol, its usefulness as a beverage, is removed". The ethanol molecule is not denatured in the sense that its chemical structure is altered. SD alcohol is made from real ethyl alcohol from any source by adding poison chemicals such as acetone, methonal to destroy the intoxication quality of ethyl alcohol. It is consider as Halal because it does not have intoxication quality. This is used only in personal care products.

3. Fatty waxy alcohol are not actual ethyl alcohol and they are only used in personal care products. They are made from either animal or vegetable fat. They are Cetyl alcohol, stearyl alcohol, Lanolin alcohol from sheep wool fat without slaughtering the sheep(Halal), Butyl alcohol.


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

hhk said:


> Check out this list from a Halal site:


In other words, it's very, very difficult to have a 100% alcohol-free diet.

So one wonders: if you eat a little kefir, or a piece of cake with vanilla extract in the icing, is that really enough to cause a breathalyzer to register above zero?

Or do these nearly ubiquitous alcohol products and byproducts enter the average person's system in such tiny doses that they rarely if ever cause the blood alcohol level to reach a level measurable outside a lab? 

I don't doubt that a very recent dose of mouthwash might fool the machine even if not swallowed, but have serious doubts about most of these other items. Beer batter? OK, sure, avoid for religious reasons, but can a dinner of fish and chips really set off a breathalyzer? Colour me skeptical.


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

I think people are blowing this way out of proportion when it comes to alcohol in food and this new law. Police officers aren't going to be breathalyzing every under 22 year old individual they encounter. I don't think some people have any real concept how officers check for alcohol impairment. If an officer conducts a traffic stop on your vehicle, or stops you at a R.I.D.E. checkpoint, they're going to ask if you've had something to drink - if you say no, and aren't showing any signs of impairment or giving the officer a reason to think you're lying, they're likely going to wave you on. (Unless you're coming from the Downtown Entertainment District...). If you say yes, however, then they will ask how old you are and take it from there.

This whole fear of being arrested on impairment because your meal had a drop of alcohol in it is bordering on bizarre.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Lars said:


> ...This whole fear of being arrested on impairment because your meal had a drop of alcohol in it is bordering on bizarre.


Twenty years ago I might have agreed with you. Since then we have had a Calgary cop tasing a heart surgery patient coming out of anesthesia. We have also had Sgt. Pepper and Taser Tommy.

Since police forces look for the same personalities in their recruits that go into making a school yard bully, there will be bad apples in barrel. This is a bad law, tests are always getting more sensitive and guilty until proven otherwise is the sort of law that Hitler, Stalin and Bush drooled over.

The only possible purpose of such a law is to prosecute/persecute someone that has not done anything that could be called an offense. Current laws are more than adequate to deal with dangerous and aggressive driving. Enforce what is there rather than adding this kind of POS legislation into the mix.

Another thought here. I would be willing to bet that calibration of road side sobriety equipment concentrates entirely on the ranges that are considered impaired or close to impaired. Since the various authorities would like impaired charges to stick I would guess that the calibration in those ranges is extremely accurate. I would also suspect that such devices were not intended to give accurate readings in the almost zero range and false positives are at least possible if not likely. A good cop given discretion could and probably would ignore such a reading. Zero tolerance does not give him that option at least without risking some sort of sanction or suspension.


----------



## Chickinpic (Sep 12, 2010)

*I need clarification, anyone know?*

This new legislation states drivers 21 and under must have 0 BAC. Does this mean those under 21 or those under 22 including 21? The legislation is really not clear.
If you are 21 and a day, you are over 21? I'm confused? This may become a legal issue for some. I have contacted the police to ask, and they aren't even clear on this. They are looking it up for me.


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

Chickinpic said:


> This new legislation states drivers 21 and under must have 0 BAC. Does this mean those under 21 or those under 22 including 21? The legislation is really not clear.
> If you are 21 and a day, you are over 21? I'm confused? This may become a legal issue for some. I have contacted the police to ask, and they aren't even clear on this. They are looking it up for me.


It's pretty clear - if you're 21 or younger, it must zero. That means you must be 22 or older to not be affected by this law.


----------

