Zero-alcohol limit for drivers 21 and under

[SVT_Power]

Young drivers in Ontario will be subject to some of the toughest age restrictions on drinking and driving in the country starting Sunday.

Under the new rules, drivers aged 21 and under cannot consume any alcohol before getting behind the wheel.

?My hope is that this legislation will contribute to a reality where adults in the future will not drink and drive at all,? Transportation Minister Kathleen Wynne said at a news conference Monday.

In 2008 the Ontario government backed off from a larger set of proposed restrictions on young drivers, including a change that would have limited the number of teen passengers in a teen-driven car, after a Facebook campaign stirred public outrage.

The tough-on-youth driving legislation was strongly encouraged by Tim Mulcahy, whose son Tyler was killed in a July 2008 car crash after he and friends spent the afternoon eating and drinking at a restaurant in Port Carling.

Tyler and two of his friends died when his Audi veered into a river. His girlfriend Nastasia Inez Elzinga, then 19, survived after she managed to swim to shore. Tyler, 20, was in danger of losing his driver?s licence for several traffic charges at the time.

After his son was killed, Mulcahy took out full-page newspaper ads urging Premier Dalton McGuinty to tighten rules for young drivers.

Many say his personal crusade was instrumental in getting the zero tolerance legislation. Reached on holiday, Mulcahy said he didn?t want to comment on the changes for personal reasons.

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.

Under the legislation, drivers 21 and under found to have alcohol in their systems will face an immediate 24-hour licence suspension at roadside, a fine of up to $500 and a 30-day licence suspension.

New drivers of all ages will also be subject to zero tolerance until they get their G2 licence, which can take upwards of two years to acquire.

?There will be people that are unhappy with this, including some people in my own household, but we know this is the right legislation,? said Andrew Murie, chief executive officer of Mothers Against Drunk Driving.

He said he expects the new rules will result in a 15 to 25 per cent decrease in impaired driving deaths of young people.

Ontario is the fourth province to implement zero tolerance legislation for young and new drivers, after Manitoba, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick.

Some say the changes unfairly target young people.

?We believe that all drivers in the G1, G2, M1 and M2 class of licence should face the same sanctions regardless of age,? Ontario Safety League president Brian Patterson said. ?It?s a step forward and it?s going to save lives, [but] at the end of the day I think it should apply to everyone.?

That sentiment was echoed by young drivers at the Advanced Motoring Bureau driving school at Danforth and Broadview Aves. ?I think they should keep an eye on people older than 21, too,? said Joe Zambri, 18.

Classmate Jon Bentley, 16, agreed drinking and driving isn?t a big problem among his peer group. ?If the legal drinking age is 19, then why increase this to 21??

The changes also include a measure the ministry hopes will alter the behaviour of first-time drunk-driving offenders.

Under current laws, a person convicted of impaired driving must serve a driver?s licence suspension of at least a year. However, research has shown that many drivers with a suspended licence continue to drive. Under the new law, first-time offenders will be eligible for a reduced suspension if they agree to an ignition interlock installed in their vehicle. The device is a breathalyzer attached to the vehicle?s dashboard that prevents the person from driving unless they blow under a set limit. Offenders must pay for the lock themselves.

[SVT_Power]

This is stupid. I had my full license before I was 18. When I turned 19, I could legally drink and drive if my BAC was under 0.08%. Then they reduced it to a discretionary 0.05%, where the officer could use their own discretion whether to charge the driver with DUI if they blew between 0.05%-0.08%. Now I halfway through 20, and I can't drive with ANY alcohol in my system until I'm 22. What kind of bullshit is this.

[Rupert]

Ha!

[Submariner]

I'm pretty sure that's how it is in Taxachusetts...

[ifcar]

I'm pretty sure that's how it is in Taxachusetts...

The difference is that the legal drinking age is 21 in the U.S., so the laws here (Maryland has it too, I assume it's widespread) are against underage drinking and driving, not restricting someone who's allowed to drink from having any alcohol before getting behind the wheel.

[hotrodalex]

At least in Kentucky, under 21 can have a 0.02% BAC even though it's illegal to drink in the first place. You can actually drink but can't have over a 0.00%?

[Raza]

That's ridiculous.  You're legal to drink, but not drive when it's legal for others?  I could see a tougher penalty for DUI under 21, but why zero tolerance?  Also, a realistic reading of 0.00 is nearly impossible.  I probably wouldn't blow 0.00 right now, and I haven't had a drink since last night.  I think I had a mint earlier, and used mouthwash this morning, though. 

[Cookie Monster]

Well, that's stupid.

Sounds like that dad of the kid who killed himself is just trying to push this on others when in reality his kid sounds like a terrible driver.

[omicron]

Fundamentally the same thing happens here, too - no alcohol permitted until you're on your full licence. In any case, I'd be less worried about the $500 fine and more about the insurance company who would whip coverage away from you in three seconds if they heard there was alcohol in your bloodstream at the time of any incident.

[VTEC_Inside]

That's ridiculous.  You're legal to drink, but not drive when it's legal for others?  I could see a tougher penalty for DUI under 21, but why zero tolerance?  Also, a realistic reading of 0.00 is nearly impossible.  I probably wouldn't blow 0.00 right now, and I haven't had a drink since last night.  I think I had a mint earlier, and used mouthwash this morning, though. 

That's a point I brought up on another forum as well.

Try explaining to the roadside noob cop that you had a teaspoon of cough syrup before you left the house.

Too many things can cause a small measurement of BAC besides alcohol IMO.

[bing_oh]

That's a point I brought up on another forum as well.

Try explaining to the roadside noob cop that you had a teaspoon of cough syrup before you left the house.

Too many things can cause a small measurement of BAC besides alcohol IMO.

You can't explain it to a "noob cop" on the roadside because you're wrong. BAC machines have a tolerance of .003-.005, depending on the machine, meaning that such readings are the same as a .000. Mouth alcohol is not an issue because of a mandatory waiting period before taking a BAC test specifically put in place to make sure that there's no mouth alcohol present, meaning that a mint or mouthwash will not cause a BAC reading. And, the body's alcohol elimination process will get rid of such small amounts in extremely short periods of time...you'd literally need to be chugging bottles of cough syrup to get a BAC reading.

So, your and Raza's opinions are incorrect.

[hotrodalex]

You can't explain it to a "noob cop" on the roadside because you're wrong. BAC machines have a tolerance of .003-.005, depending on the machine, meaning that such readings are the same as a .000. Mouth alcohol is not an issue because of a mandatory waiting period before taking a BAC test specifically put in place to make sure that there's no mouth alcohol present, meaning that a mint or mouthwash will not cause a BAC reading. And, the body's alcohol elimination process will get rid of such small amounts in extremely short periods of time...you'd literally need to be chugging bottles of cough syrup to get a BAC reading.

So, your and Raza's opinions are incorrect.

But most places at least have a 0.02 limit. 0.00 is rather ridiculous IMO, especially when it's legal for the driver to drink.

[Raza]

You can't explain it to a "noob cop" on the roadside because you're wrong. BAC machines have a tolerance of .003-.005, depending on the machine, meaning that such readings are the same as a .000. Mouth alcohol is not an issue because of a mandatory waiting period before taking a BAC test specifically put in place to make sure that there's no mouth alcohol present, meaning that a mint or mouthwash will not cause a BAC reading. And, the body's alcohol elimination process will get rid of such small amounts in extremely short periods of time...you'd literally need to be chugging bottles of cough syrup to get a BAC reading.

So, your and Raza's opinions are incorrect.

What's the waiting period, dick?

[bing_oh]

But most places at least have a 0.02 limit. 0.00 is rather ridiculous IMO, especially when it's legal for the driver to drink.

The .000 tolerance is a Canadian thing. They do things their own way north of the boarder. To my knowledge, everywhere in the US has a .02 level, and only for those people who cannot legally drink (under 21).

My point was to very directly rebut an uneducated misconception about BAC levels and everyday products like mouthwash, mints, or cough syrup. The fact is, even with a no-tolerance (.000) BAC level, such products will not cause false positives.

[bing_oh]

What's the waiting period, dick?

I'd answer that question if you weren't being an asshole, Raza.

[Cookie Monster]

[Pancor]

I don't know many kids that'll go to a party and have one beer, so this law is almost redundant, isn't it?

Also, I love this quote:

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.

Lol!

[Submariner]

The difference is that the legal drinking age is 21 in the U.S., so the laws here (Maryland has it too, I assume it's widespread) are against underage drinking and driving, not restricting someone who's allowed to drink from having any alcohol before getting behind the wheel.

Good point.

[bing_oh]

You're the one that started being a cock about it, fuckface.

Nothing like a little mature discussion, huh Raza? If you consider being called wrong on something that you're obviously misinformed about "being a cock," then you should probably get used to it. Maybe you should realize that you're not always right and some people might know more about things than you do. You might learn something.

[Raza]

Nothing like a little mature discussion, huh Raza? If you consider being called wrong on something that you're obviously misinformed about "being a cock," then you should probably get used to it. Maybe you should realize that you're not always right and some people might know more about things than you do. You might learn something.

I can be wrong, and anyone who is right is welcome to correct me.  He or she just doesn't have to be a dick about it, which, judging by your tone, you clearly were. 

And you're one to lecture about humility.

[VTEC_Inside]

You can't explain it to a "noob cop" on the roadside because you're wrong. BAC machines have a tolerance of .003-.005, depending on the machine, meaning that such readings are the same as a .000. Mouth alcohol is not an issue because of a mandatory waiting period before taking a BAC test specifically put in place to make sure that there's no mouth alcohol present, meaning that a mint or mouthwash will not cause a BAC reading. And, the body's alcohol elimination process will get rid of such small amounts in extremely short periods of time...you'd literally need to be chugging bottles of cough syrup to get a BAC reading.

So, your and Raza's opinions are incorrect.

Alright, I stand corrected.

BUT, has this ever been tested that you are aware of? Is it conclusive?

If that's the case then I guess we have nothing to worry about. My primary concern was something like cough syrup causing even a 0.01% reading and causing a living hell for the person involved.

[Tave]

I can be wrong, and anyone who is right is welcome to correct me.  He or she just doesn't have to be a dick about it, which, judging by your tone, you clearly were. 

His tone sounded very clinical, measured, and fact-oriented to me. What did you find dickish about it?

[bing_oh]

Alright, I stand corrected.

BUT, has this ever been tested that you are aware of? Is it conclusive?

If that's the case then I guess we have nothing to worry about. My primary concern was something like cough syrup causing even a 0.01% reading and causing a living hell for the person involved.

The standards for BAC testing have been in place for years...alot longer than I've been a cop. The machines used for BAC testing are highly reliable and must comply with both state health regulations (which, at least in Ohio, govern BAC testing equipment) as well as stand up to court/judicial scruitny.

That's to say that potetinal outside factors (like mouthwash or cough syrup) have long been factored into BAC testing. The procedures that we follow for BAC testing in LE are specifically designed for accuracy and a fair test for the person taking the test. If they weren't, those tests would have been called into serious question looooong ago in a court of law.

Oh, BTW, if you're testing a .01 on cough syrup, you need to go into rehab! I think you probably meant .001...which, as I explained, is within tolerance for any BAC machine and would never fly as basis for criminal charges.

[Raza]

His tone sounded very clinical, measured, and fact-oriented to me. What did you find dickish about it?

Maybe I overreacted. 

Bing, I apologize if I read your tone incorrectly. 

[goldenlover1101]

Tensions ride high sometimes here. I think this law is crap as stated by others. If it is legal for you to drink then it should be the same BAC as every other person in the country without age discrimination.

[dazzleman]

I think this law overreaches.

[TurboDan]

We're creating far too many gray areas within the law these days. I'm thinking much of it has to do with civil matters of liability extending into the criminal code - ie., if someone is technically DUI, civil judgments can be easier to achieve. That's what happens when we elect lawyers to public office.

The whole, "well, he's a month older than me and he's not legally drunk, but I am" thing doesn't sit well with me. Pick a limit and stick with it - for everyone. You're either drunk/impaired or you're not. A 20 year old at .08 is no more drunk than a 21 year old at .08.

[Rupert]

We're creating far too many gray areas within the law these days. I'm thinking much of it has to do with civil matters of liability extending into the criminal code - ie., if someone is technically DUI, civil judgments can be easier to achieve. That's what happens when we elect lawyers to public office.

The whole, "well, he's a month older than me and he's not legally drunk, but I am" thing doesn't sit well with me. Pick a limit and stick with it - for everyone. You're either drunk/impaired or you're not. A 20 year old at .08 is no more drunk than a 21 year old at .08.

Would you prefer farmers?

[SVT_Power]

I had an issue with the 0.05% discretionary limit when it came around, but I've heard nothing but good calls by officers from people around me so it can't be that bad. Every time it's "please park your car over there and call a cab". Or at least from what I heard.

But this is just ridiculous.

[SVT_Power]

Now that I think about it, I just had a couple of drinks before driving home. In 4 days, I won't be able to do that.