Tougher on young drivers?!?! what did we do?

The article reads as follows:

Tougher rules ahead for young drivers TheStar.com - Ontario - Tougher rules ahead for young drivers

November 17, 2008

Brett Popplewell
Staff Reporter

The Ontario government is expected to introduce tough new legislation tomorrow that will further restrict the privileges of young drivers.

The move comes after a long lobbying campaign, led by Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) and Tim Mulcahy, the father of one of the three young people killed in a drunk-driving accident in Muskoka on July 3.

New measures affecting young new drivers are expected to include:

• A total ban on alcohol consumption
• A ban on more than one teenage passenger
• Zero tolerance for speeders – one ticket and they're off the road.

"We've been advocating this for a long time," said Carolyn Swinson, Toronto spokeswoman for MADD.

"Manitoba has already brought that in – it's already zero blood alcohol for drivers up to the age of 21 and for the first five years for new drivers.

"We've been asking Ontario to follow suit for a while."

In Ontario's current graduated licensing system – introduced in 1994 – young drivers can obtain a full driver's licence after just two years of driving experience, making it legal for them to drive after having a drink, and placing them on the standard demerit point system for speeding and other moving infractions.

Mulcahy began echoing MADD's calls for action shortly after his son's death when he learned that his son had a history of speeding and that alcohol had been a factor in his deadly car crash.

On July 3, Tyler Mulcahy, 20, his girlfriend Nastasia Inez Elzinga, 19, and friends Kourosh Totonchian, 19, and Cory Mintz, 20, spent the afternoon drinking 31 drinks over a three-hour period at a restaurant in Port Carling.

They left that evening in Mulcahy's Audi, but they never made it home.

Tyler Mulcahy was driving when he crashed the car into the Joseph River.

Only Elzinga escaped the sinking car with her life.

His son's death launched Mulcahy on a crusade to change the laws that bind young drivers in the province, to stop other youth from following his son's fatal journey.

First he began a petition for a revamping of the laws.

Then he began taking out full-page ads in the Star and other local newspapers that urged the province to revoke the licences of those under the age of 21 should they be caught speeding or driving with any alcohol in their system.

"Dear Mr. McGuinty, my son is dead," the ads began.

"It is not your fault, but you can make a difference and reduce future suffering."

It was enough to earn him a private meeting with the premier and, according to a note posted to his blog last Thursday, the drive produced results.

"Mr. McGuinty called me this morning and told me that both laws are being introduced into the legislature on Tuesday," Mulcahy wrote last week.

"I could not believe my ears and wept with Mr. McGuinty on the phone. If these bills are passed, Ontario will be the safest jurisdiction for young drivers in the world."

A spokesperson for the ministry of transportation could not be reached for comment.

Mulcahy wasn't available for comment yesterday, but in August he told the Star: "I'd like Tyler's accident to make a difference.

"I really feel there needs to be zero tolerance for alcohol up to the age of 21. Once someone takes one drink, it's easy to take two, three, four or 10 because we stop thinking," he added.

"I feel that speeding is at least as much of an issue as drinking and driving. If there was a zero tolerance for speeding and the licence was revoked for one speeding incident, then word would quickly get around that you can't speed and (keep) your licence.

"I want the law changed immediately so that I don't have to worry as much when my daughters are out partying and driving around in vehicles."

So this is what us kids have in store for us. I think I'm going to tackle the so-called reasoning behind this, then the three main enforcements the legislation proposes.

"...MADD's calls for action..." Ahh, MADD. Now, as far as I'm concerned, MADD has done some great things for us. They're really helped boost awareness of a serious issue, and in turn has made driving a bit safer through the production of new bills, such as the one outlined above. but the new amendments seem to be coming from a group that should be titled 'Mothers against driving. Period.' I mean, these don't really have anything to do with drinking and driving... I'll get back to this.

As for the death of the three young adults, I remember hearing about that, and even learning about it when MADD came and campaigned at my school. It was tragic, and of course, something I wish never happened. However, I believe it's roll in this legislation is mislead and somewhat out of place. I will involve these causes into my arguments below.

" A total ban on alcohol consumption [until the age of 21]"
OK, this is completely understandable. I mean, people shouldn't be drinking and driving AT ALL, so a higher age limit would be perfectly fine. I know many kids my age who wouldn't drive after drinking, simply because it's a risk we've been taught is not worth taking. MADD probably had some influence in this one, and good for them! the Tyler Mulcahy death probably had some influence as well, seeing how everyone in the car was under 21, and since they had all been drinking, there was no designated driver who was sober. Had this law been in place, and had they have been good citizens and abide by the law, they would still be alive.

This being said, I'm sure that, after 31-yes, THIRTY ONE-drinks between the five of them, none of them were in any condition to remember, let alone follow this law, had it of been in place. Also, there was no designated driver. There wouldn't have been the need for one since they were all over the age of 19, and thus COULD drink, yet I believe in this case, the whole 'drinking responsibly' idea kind of slipped by them.


" Zero tolerance for speeders – one ticket and they're off the road."

I'm assuming this means that..your license is revoked for some time, and you must do something in the form of pardoning yourself, thus returning your license to you (the specifics I'm unsure of). I believe this is a reasonable law. I mean, there is no need to go faster than the proposed speed. The problem lies not in the law, but in the FRICKIN' SPEED LIMITS!!! I've been driving for 9 months now, and I know that there are some pretty ridiculousl speed limits out there. For instance, 40km/h on Bayview just south of Elgin Mills. Furthermore, the police that catch you do not stake out on roads with sensible speed limits, of course not! They catch you in places where the speed limit is obviously too low!

Finally, when police officers are out catching people speeding (to give out tickets), they are usually hiding. Therefore, they have the luxury of choosing who they give tickets to, in addition to the fact that they cannot catch everybody. So, as a driver, I find it unfair that a police officer indirectly has the option of choosing who's license to revoke, because essentially, that is what he/she is doing.

As for MADD, I see no relevance to drunk driving..if you're in an accident and you were drinking and driving, speed will probably be a factor. However, this is not because you directly chose to ignore speed signs, it's because you're drunk! and bring under the influence is probably what caused you to ignore the speed limit. therefore, you are missing a crucial factor in the chain of causes, which is being under the Influence.

I remember when there was a drunk driving accident up near Lake Wilcox, and I came across a petition to have speed bumps installed However, I do not believe that speed bumps would affect the driver's speed, it would merely be an inconvenience to the sober people who are conscious enough to slow down due to them.

As for the influence of the death of the four adults, I think it is key to remember that, between the five of them, they had thirty one drinks between them. That's roughly six per person. And, assuming average weight, that's six times the legal limit. That's a lot of alcohol. I don't believe that, with that much alcohol in me, or anyone for that matter, a speed limit sign would even register in my mind, if I were to be driving. Again, speed probably was a factor, but not because the driver was disobeying the speed limit, it was probably because the driver was drunk. So , in reality, If I'm caught speeding, for whatever reason, My license will be revoked because a police officer just happened to choose me, and because of a law, that quite frankly has nothing to do with the strictness of speeding laws, and is based somewhat on an incident which has nothing to do with speeding as a primary cause.

If you're caught drinking and driving, you're license is revoked for at least a year, and you quite possibly will go to jail. I'm pretty sure that how fast you were going at the time would be the least of your worries. but now, the speed you were going is a BIG worry, EVEN FOR SOBER PEOPLE! I believe that the example at hand and the leglislaiton in which it is being applied are too irrelevant to be deemed justified.

Enough of this one.



"A ban on more than one teenage passenger [under 19 within the car until the age of 21]"

This one I don't like so much. First of all, I can kind of see where they're coming from. Teenagers succumb to peer pressure like trees succumb to chainsaws. But I believe that this is an example of a small group of irresponsible people ruining a privelage for the larger, more responsible majority. If a person can't say no to their buddy's stupid request while at the wheel, there's a good chance that they shouldn't be driving at all. These people should be screened out before they get their license, so they're not on the road at all. I know that's asking a lot, but so is this ban.

Now, lets have a look at the con side.

CARPOOLING?!??! ANYONE?!?!?
Yeah, I carpool places with my friends. As a matter of fact rarely are the less than 2 teenagers in a car. That's because, as a teenager, we can't afford our own car, our parents don't want to drive us ( or not when a friend can just as easily), we can't afford the gas for the two cars, and the list goes on.

These areas seem slightly irrelevant, but I like how the 404 just recently opened a carpool lane, and now there is a ban on...essentially what could be called carpooling!

I'm not even going to try and relate MADD's involvement in this, because it's really late at night.

The other death did involve carpooling, but you must remember that it was DRUNKEN carpooling. Safety-wise, groups [two or more] of drunk people should never get together, especially in a car! at night! while driving!


In conclusion, I believe that this Legislation is as been inaccurately considered to get to this point, and the known influences are somewhat misunderstood and irrelevant. I believe that these proposals are based on a small minority of unsafe drivers, causing the rest of the relevant population to suffer. Finally, I'm praying that this bill doesn't get passed.

'for now,

-Myles Tan

P.S. please remember this blog is opinionated, and therefore perspective plays a large roll in this. If i have any false information, please let me know, I hate to be making claims on false facts. I'd love to hear anyone else's opinion. I did not mean to offend anyone in the writing of this article. If I did, please let me know, and accept my apology.