|
New ban! Starting Aug 1, 21 and under cannot have ANY alcohol in blood while driving! (pg. 8)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| jad |
Personally, this law is slightly unfair in my opinion.. as I'm 21 and can still drive pretty well after a beer or two.. sometimes better :P However, it's understandable that this law has been implemented, considering the amount of alcohol related deaths attributed to this age group. There are problems associated with this law, such as people over the age of 21 not being prepared to drive after a couple of drinks once they can legally do so.. At the end of the day, I still believe this new law is better for our common good.
Think of it this way, the legal drinking age is 19, which gives teenagers 3 years to learn how to handle their alcohol responsibly before they're able to have a drinks before driving.. seems like a logical buffer period. If you also take into account that a large proportion of people receive their G2 or G licenses only a few years prior to being able to drive after having a few drinks, then this buffer period makes more sense. It's fair for responsible drivers to be able to maintain a low BAC level, but the truth is certain irresponsible individuals need time to learn from stringent laws.
As cut throat as this law may be, it still teaches those under the age age of 22 to drive responsibly, and prepares them to respect their right to having a couple of drinks once they're old enough. Plus, it's always better to be safe than sorry. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by jad
Personally, this law is slightly unfair in my opinion.. as I'm 21 and can still drive pretty well after a beer or two.. sometimes better :P However, it's understandable that this law has been implemented, considering the amount of alcohol related deaths attributed to this age group. There are problems associated with this law, such as people over the age of 21 not being prepared to drive after a couple of drinks once they can legally do so.. At the end of the day, I still believe this new law is better for our common good.
Think of it this way, the legal drinking age is 19, which gives teenagers 3 years to learn how to handle their alcohol responsibly before they're able to have a drinks before driving.. seems like a logical buffer period. If you also take into account that a large proportion of people receive their G2 or G licenses only a few years prior to being able to drive after having a few drinks, then this buffer period makes more sense. It's fair for responsible drivers to be able to maintain a low BAC level, but the truth is certain irresponsible individuals need time to learn from stringent laws.
As cut throat as this law may be, it still teaches those under the age age of 22 to drive responsibly, and prepares them to respect their right to having a couple of drinks once they're old enough. Plus, it's always better to be safe than sorry. |
So lets delay maturity so we can translate the statistics over a slightly older demographic instead.
Why not just lock everyone up in a cage until they are 25 and then set them loose on the world. Then everyone will automatically be mature and will know better! :rolleyes: |
|
|
| -g- |
| quote: | Originally posted by jad
However, it's understandable that this law has been implemented, considering the amount of alcohol related deaths attributed to this age group. |
Which would be what number, precisely?
I for one have had quite enough hyperbole in this thread. People making generalized statements that are either outright lies or - at best - lazy and false assumptions. May i ask that if anyone from this point on would like to throw out assertions regarding verifiable fact, that they actually go to the trouble of verifying these facts.
Back to the point - the 19-21 age group actually consistently records fewer alcohol related deaths and injuries, both as a raw score and as a percentage, here in Ontario, compared to those 21-35.
(Here's just one source attesting to this fact, but there are others, Might i suggest, oh, say, Statscan, as a reasonable starting point.
Source: http://www.tc.gc.ca/media/documents...11759e_2000.pdf)
Anything asserting to the contrary is selling something.
It's lazy, and it does nothing but look foolish.
| quote: | Originally posted by jad
Think of it this way, the legal drinking age is 19, which gives teenagers 3 years to learn how to handle their alcohol responsibly before they're able to have a drinks before driving.. seems like a logical buffer period. |
No, think of it this way - since the driving age is 16, people already have 3 years of driving experience to prep them for responsibility before they can legally drink at 19.
Since we know in fact that this age group gets in fewer alcohol related accidents anyway, when we put things this way, sure does sound reasonable, doesn't it? |
|
|
| jad |
Hey -g-. Thanks for the info. I see what you're saying, but I think you're missing part of the point I'm trying to make. After skimming through the report you've attached, I was able to see that the 16-19 age group does in fact account for a lower proportion of alcohol related accidents compared to 20-25 age group. You must note that I clearly didn't state that age group with the highest proportion of alcohol related accidents is 19-21 (a range which is not included in your example).. It's still apparent that they're attributed to a significant proportion of those cases.
There are multiple ways of interpreting the data provided, and your view is equally valid in its own manner. One way of interpreting this data is to say that 16-19 age group makes up for a slightly smaller fraction of all alcohol related crashes (13.1%) than the 20-25 age group (17.7% - part of this percentage includes people under the age of 22). This data is from table 3-1.
Evidently, there's a positive correlation between the number of alcohol related accidents and an increase in age (until the of 35). This brings me to my initial point. By not allowing younger drivers (21 and under) to drink and drive, it teaches them to be more responsible once they are allowed to do so. They're given a longer period of time, in which they can learn to understand the importance of not driving under the influence. So hopefully this will lead to less alcohol related accidents in the future, which I believe will happen (in Ontario). |
|
|
| jad |
Also..
I've been in the car with friends my age who seem to drive sloppily after a couple of beers. Other friends of mine seem to handle driving after a drink or two much better. It all depends on one's tolerance at the end of the day.. that's something that differs greatly from one driver to another. The point is that sloppy driving might come into play when the driver is faced with a dangerous traffic situation. I don't think it's worth taking that chance, especially when you consider how immature some people under 21 can be. It's a risk that can endanger passengers too. I'm sure plenty of people know how hard it could be to limit yourself to one or two drinks when you're the designated driver. Limiting yourself in this case comes with learnt responsibilities.
Hey it sucks that I have to keep a 0% blood alcohol level.. but I still agree with the new law. Personal experiences, and stories I've heard or read about bring me to this point of view. |
|
|
| r5a |
| pretty ing stupid law if you ask me |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by jad
Also..
I've been in the car with friends my age who seem to drive sloppily after a couple of beers. Other friends of mine seem to handle driving after a drink or two much better. It all depends on one's tolerance at the end of the day.. that's something that differs greatly from one driver to another. The point is that sloppy driving might come into play when the driver is faced with a dangerous traffic situation. I don't think it's worth taking that chance, especially when you consider how immature some people under 21 can be. It's a risk that can endanger passengers too. I'm sure plenty of people know how hard it could be to limit yourself to one or two drinks when you're the designated driver. Limiting yourself in this case comes with learnt responsibilities.
Hey it sucks that I have to keep a 0% blood alcohol level.. but I still agree with the new law. Personal experiences, and stories I've heard or read about bring me to this point of view. |
ive seen a lot of immature 30 year olds and 40 year olds. And you are right, alcohol tolerance is a personal matter. So how is one to find out what that tolerance is if we dont let them?
Treating a person like a child usually results in them acting like one. |
|
|
| -g- |
| quote: | Originally posted by jad
Hey -g-. Thanks for the info. I see what you're saying, but I think you're missing part of the point I'm trying to make. After skimming through the report you've attached, I was able to see that the 16-19 age group does in fact account for a lower proportion of alcohol related accidents compared to 20-25 age group. You must note that I clearly didn't state that age group with the highest proportion of alcohol related accidents is 19-21 (a range which is not included in your example).. It's still apparent that they're attributed to a significant proportion of those cases.
|
your wording implied a greater number of proportion of alcohol-related deaths or injuries in the 16-19 age group. if not, why bring it up at all?
what is apparent is that they do NOT form a significant proportion of those cases at all, and that you didn't bother to look into the matter yourself prior to the insinuation.
next time, look it up and THEN form an opinion - it will go over alot better. |
|
|
| jad |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
ive seen a lot of immature 30 year olds and 40 year olds. And you are right, alcohol tolerance is a personal matter. So how is one to find out what that tolerance is if we dont let them?
Treating a person like a child usually results in them acting like one. |
Very true.. but I don't think they'll compare to some of the kids I've seen at the Brunswick House a few weeks ago lol.
Allow them to buy and consume alcohol when they're 19. That's enough time for them to see how much booze they can handle. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by jad
Very true.. but I don't think they'll compare to some of the kids I've seen at the Brunswick House a few weeks ago lol.
Allow them to buy and consume alcohol when they're 19. That's enough time for them to see how much booze they can handle. |
Why is it that a 22-23 year old american acts very similar to a 19 year old canadian?
Could it have something to do with delayed maturity thanks to the 21 and up law?
Hmmmmmm
Real maturity comes from trial and error more than anything else. |
|
|
| Magnetonium |
Has anyone actually wondered WHY Ontario government passed this law?
http://www.thespec.com/News/article/818143
| quote: |
The Transportation Ministry says 235 drivers in the [under 21] age bracket died in impaired driving crashes over the past 10 years.
|
|
|
|
|
|
