That is what the province of Ontario would have you think when it introduced new legislation last week to tighten the rules for young drivers in an effort to better improve the safety of our roads and highways. You can read about the story in various newspapers such as The Toronto Star and The Globe and Mail. Before I dive into my take on this issue, I must be clear that I am against drinking and driving for ALL ages and also believe that government should be active in drawing up social policy such as this. Essentially, the new legislation, Bill 126, as proposed would require that every novice driver and young driver (under age 22) not have any alcohol in his/her blood while driving. If these rules are broken, a heafty minimum fine of $60 will be imposed and a 30 day licence suspension as well.
But, is the government really interested in decreasing drinking and driving on our roads? I would argue that the government is not doing enough and should impose a rule requiring that no alcohol be in ANY driver's blood, regardless of age. By not doing this, the government is simply picking on young drivers and not addressing drunk driving in all age groups. As it stands, any G licensed driver can have a blood alcohol content of 0.08%. According to the SmartServe alcoholic beverage service training program, I could consume 5 drinks in an hour and still be under the legal limit. Would I do this and then drive? Absolutely not.I would argue that the provincial government is trying to make political hay out of a tragedy that occurred this past summer and to save money. How is this plausible? I read comments made by Minister of Transport Jim Bradley. After introducing the bill in the Ontario Legislature, he states that "motor vehicle collisions in Ontario still add up to about $18 billion annually in health care and social costs." So forget about saving lives and making Ontario a better place to live; passing this bill will save money!! Before these statements, the Minister said that Ontario has the safest roads in Canada.
So, is the government going too far? I think the comments made by fellow MPPs regarding Bradley's comments have some substance. John O'Toole of the Progressive Conservatives calls McGuinty out on making political hay by saying, "I would say that this seems like a bit of a photo op in some respects." Gilles Bisson, MPP for the New Democratic Party says what people need to hear: "we can't legislate everything. There comes a point where individuals have to take responsibility."
If the government can't legislate everything, then what should be done?
Two things that can be done better:
1) putting more police officers on patrol is a great idea. It will create jobs and catch more drunk drivers and those driving while suspended under strong legislation that we currently have.
2) update the driver training curriculum. I remember when I took driver training we used this old textbook entitled Road Worthy published in 1985. The tests that we wrote were photocopies of old multiple choice tests that were written with a typewriter. Folks of Ontario will likely recall the Annual Report (2007) of the Auditor General of Ontario pointing out the lackadaisical approach to regulating beginner driver education in Ontario.
What implications will this new law have for students at Nipissing University and elsewhere? If you have a G2 licence, you would not be able to carry more than one passenger under the age of 19 in your vehicle all day and all night. This means that you would not be able to carpool with teenaged friends to and from school, sports events, the movies, or even on trips home during study weeks and other holidays. The licensing period would also be increased; it will take you 3 years to get a G licence instead of 20 months. Students can enter university as young as 17 upon graduation from high school (one of my first year roommates was 17) and this legislation will affect them.
The Ontario government can be doing a good job only if it focuses on fixing things that aren't broken.
