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.
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.
Ha!
I'm pretty sure that's how it is in Taxachusetts...
Quote from: Submariner on July 27, 2010, 05:54:03 AM
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.
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%? :lol:
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: Raza on July 27, 2010, 11:32:25 AM
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.
Quote from: VTEC_Inside on July 27, 2010, 12:29:42 PMThat'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.
Quote from: bing_oh on July 27, 2010, 02:46:50 PM
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.
Quote from: bing_oh on July 27, 2010, 02:46:50 PM
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?
Quote from: hotrodalex on July 27, 2010, 02:59:25 PMBut 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.
Quote from: Raza on July 27, 2010, 03:03:14 PMWhat's the waiting period, dick?
I'd answer that question if you weren't being an asshole, Raza.
:facepalm:
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:
QuoteStatistics 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!
Quote from: ifcar on July 27, 2010, 06:11:18 AM
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.
Quote from: Raza on July 27, 2010, 03:28:02 PMYou're the one that started being a cock about it, fuckface.
Nothing like a little mature discussion, huh Raza? :rolleyes: 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.
Quote from: bing_oh on July 27, 2010, 06:17:03 PM
Nothing like a little mature discussion, huh Raza? :rolleyes: 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.
Quote from: bing_oh on July 27, 2010, 02:46:50 PM
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.
Quote from: Raza link=topic=22608.msg1368476#msg1368476 date=1280277968
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?
Quote from: VTEC_Inside on July 27, 2010, 06:46:19 PMAlright, 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.
Quote from: Tave on July 27, 2010, 06:55:23 PM
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.
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.
I think this law overreaches.
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.
Quote from: TurboDan on July 28, 2010, 12:26:03 AM
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? ;)
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.
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. :wtf:
Quote from: SVT_Power on July 28, 2010, 01:08:20 AM
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. :wtf:
Yes you will... :mask:
But I'm not sure dazzle will be as impressed with a DUI so you better step on it if your see :pullover:
:lol:
:lol:
You're right, James.
What if the DUI followed an epic chase across county lines, that ended with SVT jumping a river?
Can you say "police state"? Julian Fantino is a fascist.
Quote from: dsred on July 28, 2010, 06:43:26 PM
Can you say "police state"? Julian Fantino is a fascist.
Can't say I care much for Fantino. Big ego, big mouth; couldn't stand that Cam Woolley was appreciated by the public and tried to belittle him. Upon retirement he no doubt will slither into some primordial morass and reemerge as a politician; his true calling. As for Bill Blair, he's a good cop imo. First good chief they've had in Toronto for a long time.
Cam Wolley is no better. He comes across as a brainwashed Barney Fife.
sorry to all you drinkers but I believe a 0% alcohol + driving should be enacted for all ages. for obvious reasons.
Quote from: AutobahnSHO on July 28, 2010, 07:11:36 PM
sorry to all you drinkers but I believe a 0% alcohol + driving should be enacted for all ages. for obvious reasons.
So you can't even have a nice glass of wine with your meal and then drive home? That's a bit extreme.
Quote from: thecarnut on July 28, 2010, 07:13:17 PM
So you can't even have a nice glass of wine with your meal and then drive home? That's a bit extreme.
He doesn't drink.
Quote from: FoMoJo on July 28, 2010, 07:01:57 PM
Can't say I care much for Fantino. Big ego, big mouth; couldn't stand that Cam Woolley was appreciated by the public and tried to belittle him. Upon retirement he no doubt will slither into some primordial morass and reemerge as a politician; his true calling. As for Bill Blair, he's a good cop imo. First good chief they've had in Toronto for a long time.
Bill Blair. I have to admit he's done a decent job of keeping Toronto under control even with the recent (over the last few years) increase in gang and gun related violence. But where he lost all confidence from me is when he was addressing the media after the G20 mess about the 5m law that apparently was never in effect. When media started asking him questions, he just simply smirked and left. What's that supposed to mean? "I'm a giant douchebag and I'll impose whatever I want to impose on the city as long as Dalton Mcqueerty says I can"?
Quote from: AutobahnSHO on July 28, 2010, 07:11:36 PM
sorry to all you drinkers but I believe a 0% alcohol + driving should be enacted for all ages. for obvious reasons.
Even when a single drink doesn't really affect anything?
A single drink has an affect on most people, but the affect is small enough that it doesn't impair driving enough that driving is unsafe.
Quote from: AutobahnSHO on July 28, 2010, 07:11:36 PM
sorry to all you drinkers but I believe a 0% alcohol + driving should be enacted for all ages. for obvious reasons.
Agreed, but I don't think it can be age discriminate if it is legal to drink.
Alright, since Raza apologized, I'll answer his question...
Quote from: Raza on July 27, 2010, 03:03:14 PMWhat's the waiting period?
There's a mandatory 20 minute observation period before a breath test to guarantee that any residual mouth alcohol is gone. During that 20 minutes, you have to be observed by the testing officer and you're not permitted to have anything in your mouth (including things like tongue piercings or dentures). Alcohol in the mouth should be gone within 10 minutes, but we're required to do 20 to be totally fair.
Quote from: bing_oh on July 29, 2010, 06:39:00 AM
(including things like tongue piercings or dentures).
Damn, that would suck if it were a new piercing.
Quote from: bing_oh on July 29, 2010, 06:39:00 AM
Alright, since Raza apologized, I'll answer his question...
There's a mandatory 20 minute observation period before a breath test to guarantee that any residual mouth alcohol is gone. During that 20 minutes, you have to be observed by the testing officer and you're not permitted to have anything in your mouth (including things like tongue piercings or dentures). Alcohol in the mouth should be gone within 10 minutes, but we're required to do 20 to be totally fair.
So you're still inconvenienced for at least 20 minutes if you test a false positive. That sucks.
Quote from: BimmerM3 on July 29, 2010, 08:31:45 AM
Damn, that would suck if it were a new piercing.
I avoid this issue cleverly by not getting my tongue pierced.
Quote from: bing_oh on July 29, 2010, 06:39:00 AM
Alright, since Raza apologized, I'll answer his question...
There's a mandatory 20 minute observation period before a breath test to guarantee that any residual mouth alcohol is gone. During that 20 minutes, you have to be observed by the testing officer and you're not permitted to have anything in your mouth (including things like tongue piercings or dentures). Alcohol in the mouth should be gone within 10 minutes, but we're required to do 20 to be totally fair.
What, did someone invent a tongue ring that absorbs alcohol from your blood? :lol:
Quote from: Raza on July 29, 2010, 10:38:23 AM
So you're still inconvenienced for at least 20 minutes if you test a false positive. That sucks.
Let's be honest. If a traffic stop gets to the point where you were identified as being potentially intoxicated, failed a field sobriety test and are waiting for a breath test to confirm, is there really ANY chance that it was a "false positive?"
Yes, and that's why there is the breath test. Duh.
Quote from: hotrodalex on July 29, 2010, 12:48:19 PM
What, did someone invent a tongue ring that absorbs alcohol from your blood? :lol:
I think he meant that a tongue ring had the (extremely rare) potential to give a false positive because you use rubbing alcohol to clean the ring, but that's just my wild-ass speculation.
Quote from: Tave on July 30, 2010, 12:29:13 AM
I think he meant that a tongue ring had the (extremely rare) potential to give a false positive because you use rubbing alcohol to clean the ring, but that's just my wild-ass speculation.
I took it as removing all variables in the test. Same as why they make you wait; they want a controlled test.
Quote from: Tave on July 30, 2010, 12:29:13 AMI think he meant that a tongue ring had the (extremely rare) potential to give a false positive because you use rubbing alcohol to clean the ring, but that's just my wild-ass speculation.
Actually, no.
Quote from: Minpin on July 30, 2010, 12:34:58 AMI took it as removing all variables in the test. Same as why they make you wait; they want a controlled test.
This is a much better explanation of why things like piercings have to be removed from the mouth. It's basically to remove any possible variable that might later bring into question the test in court. Basically, it's to remove the possible argument that "pockets" of alcohol were trapped under mouth obstructions like piercings or dentures (as rare as such an occurance would actually be) and made the test unnaturally high.
Quote from: TurboDan on July 29, 2010, 04:08:07 PMLet's be honest. If a traffic stop gets to the point where you were identified as being potentially intoxicated, failed a field sobriety test and are waiting for a breath test to confirm, is there really ANY chance that it was a "false positive?"
Possible? Yes. Likely? No.
While there probably aren't many experienced LEO's out there who haven't had a "low test" or a "squeaker" (ie, someone who tests under the .08 limit after giving PC for an arrest during field tests), it's actually a pretty rare occurance. Not to mention that (in most if not all states) it's a different violation to test over certan BAC limits than it is to be impaired. You don't need to have a BAC test to be charged with and convicted of DUI...the officer only has to prove impairment.
I'm pretty anti drinking & driving. This is a little silly given that you can drink legally anyway. For a DUI, I think the punishment (in the US at least) is far too weak. A night in jail and a slap on the wrist doesn't cut it.
What also doesn't cut it is when someone has 8 DUIs and they still have the right to drive and on their 9th DUI, they end up killing someone. Only in the US.
Yeah, two DUIs in most of Europe would probably have your license. FOREVER.
I should have a couple of drinks and then drive home just before midnight tonight.
And make sure you're going 40+ km/hr over ths speed limit when you do it, Eddie...:devil:
Quote from: dazzleman on July 31, 2010, 08:21:42 PM
And make sure you're going 40+ km/hr over ths speed limit when you do it, Eddie...:devil:
40 km/h over? I don't go that slow. 40 mph over is more like it.
I ended up having a couple of beers and a couple of shots tonight before driving home. But it was over the span of like 2-3 hrs and it was with dinner. It was really close to home and I've never ever seen a checkpoint anywhere near my place so I did it. My mom was also with me and she didn't say I couldn't drive.
But either way it was before midnight.
Well I guess as of 16 minutes ago, I can't have any alcohol in my system while driving.
2 "kids" nabbed already this weekend...
This law seems discriminatory to me. Laws like this undermine respect for the law in general, IMO.
Quote from: VTEC_Inside on August 03, 2010, 11:32:29 AM
2 "kids" nabbed already this weekend...
Were the actually drunk or did they only have a 0.02% or something?
Quote from: hotrodalex on August 03, 2010, 02:42:23 PM
Were the actually drunk or did they only have a 0.02% or something?
Article is typically vague. It also appears that SURPRISE!, the headline was misleading. One of them was 22...
http://www.torontosun.com/news/torontoandgta/2010/08/01/14894796.html
The problem with a 0.000 rating like they have in some countries is that you are technically drunk if you drink a glass of apple juice.
Quote from: Galaxy on August 13, 2010, 12:52:28 PMThe problem with a 0.000 rating like they have in some countries is that you are technically drunk if you drink a glass of apple juice.
Apple juice has an alcohol content now? Huh. I'll have to check the apple juice labels for alcohol percentages next time I'm at the grocery store...
Quote from: bing_oh on August 13, 2010, 10:19:53 PM
Apple juice has an alcohol content now? Huh. I'll have to check the apple juice labels for alcohol percentages next time I'm at the grocery store...
My guess is he's referring to the juice fermenting in your stomach. No idea if it will pop on a BAC thingy though.
It's the same principle as the (proven) poppy seed bagel and drug tests.
Quote from: Minpin on August 13, 2010, 11:14:57 PMMy guess is he's referring to the juice fermenting in your stomach. No idea if it will pop on a BAC thingy though.
And I can't imagine apple juice being in your stomach undigested for long enough for it to ferment. I dunno how you guys' bodies work, but I'm pretty sure consumed liquids go through mine relatively fast. :huh: Sounds like another BS myth to me.
Quote from: bing_oh on August 13, 2010, 10:19:53 PM
Apple juice has an alcohol content now? Huh. I'll have to check the apple juice labels for alcohol percentages next time I'm at the grocery store...
That is because it is under the threshhold where it
needs to be declared. That goes for all fruits, fruit juices.
Apple juice typically has between 0.1 - 0.15% alcohol. In other words you need to drink around 25L of apple juice to equal 1 bottle of beer. So it is not a practical problem, because you can't drink enough to register on the breathalyzer, however it is simply funny because you are above the absolute zero level. It is suspected, but not proven, that fruits, and fruit juices may cause a dry alcoholic to relapse.
Btw, alcohol free beer typically contains around 0.5% alcohol.