Young Drivers Targeted In Ontario....

[The Cobra]

Cobra...try this little senario....

A young married couple celebrates their anniversary by sharing a glass of wine after their baby is put to bed.

The father drives down to the corner store to fetch a carton of milk; he's quickly pulled over, his licence suspended immediately for 24 hours and a subsequent 30 days and fined $500. He's now a criminal. He has a criminal record with all the trappings and a DUI conviction to follow him the rest of his life. His insurance rates will double or triple for years to come. His crime -- being under the age of 22.

The new Ontario legislation for drinking restrictions on young and new motorists coming into effect Sunday, is an excellent example of how tight a grip the lobby groups have on our provincial government, and just how inept the Liberal "leadership" is.

I use the term leadership sparingly because it is not the Liberals leading policy decisions in this province anymore, it's lobby groups. Lobby groups, particularly MADD, answer to no one.

They are not responsible nor held liable for their statistics and projected numbers they seem to pull from a hat. The fine, caring, well intentioned ladies that started this fine organization (MADD) must not even recognize the organization they founded with the idea that drunk drivers like the ones that killed their children should be kept off the road permanently. MADD became a political toy as it grew, insurance companies funded MADD with everything they could---MADD became so large it became a political entity of it`s own. It has a huge voice in politics and no politician seeking office would ever think of crossing them. MADD pays huge sums of money to the political process to get what they want----MADD is funded by the insurance companies----therefore the insurance companies are paying our politicians to change the driving laws in favour of the insurance co. charging more & more in rates to young drivers that once found guilty will be paying for years. Madd is now the lobby and the voice of the insurance companies no matter how loud or confusing you try to smoke screen the issue. Insurance companies had the foresight to see a good thing in MADD---so they bought them---pure and simple.

And the provincial legislator, slowly working towards becoming the first province to make leaving your home illegal, cannot be happier but to accept whatever these lobby groups feed them as gold.

Using the provincial government, lobby groups have successfully oppressed an entire age group of Ontarians whose only mistake, or weakness, was lacking the cohesiveness and formidability that a group of highly experienced and vocal lobbyists possess.

There is no difference between a 19- and 60-year-old or a 21- and 30-year-old in Ontario. They are both of voting age in Ontario, they can both die for their country and therefore, theoretically, if Dalton wasn't in power, able to shape legislation and policy through voting.

Consequently, all ages should be answerable to the same laws regardless of babysitter Dalton's rules.

This is a perfect lesson for young adults who refuse or don't vote -- if you don't make the decision, someone else will !!!! JMO.


Cobra....to be fair here, I took a small piece of this article from an opinion published in the Windsor Star today.



This is the third and last article I will write on this issue---haven`t had a whole lot of feedback but the information is there for all to see------it`s up to you now. Followup isn`t hard nor time consuming---find out how your MPP supported the issue and let him/her know you are pulling your vote from them if they continue to be "bought off" by the insurance moguls that run Canada and United States. DO something!!! or fall into their apathetic trap and don`t complain.

[easily confused]

Just another reason to stay the hell away from Ontario, and if you are already stuck here, get the hell out, if you can afford it. This new law is discriminatory, at best, and should end up being challenged in the courts. There are good drivers and bad drivers in all age brackets and while we are on the subject of impaired driving maybe a law should be passed stating that any "lawmaker" (politician) caught for impaired driving should lose driving privileges for life. If anyone should know better is the conniving thugs in Toronto called MPP's. As an aside note, we can all live in bliss knowing that come next election time, the all knowing voters in Toronto will gladly sent that moron McGuilty back to govern for another term. Between Queen's Park and the hapless Leaf's the only thing left to laugh at, in Ontario, is Toronto.

[The Cobra]

Hey easily---and thanx for the response. Only trouble of going to court on the matter is that one would have to challenge the "law" in a class action civil suit so he/she could have a jury and set a precident. Otherwise we are going to the courts to get a law changed by politicians who were paid off by the insurance co. to make the law in the first place-----not much chance there. Pretty well has to be done privately to set a precident thereby putting some poor schmuck at hell`s door, footing the legal bill for his fight against city hall. Only way I see is that some millionaires kid gets busted and he goes to court challenging the legality of the law. Let`s not forget the judges are lawyers too, don`t want a ruling from the high priest of the court----gotta want a jury of piers on this one if you want it changed. JMO

[Slammer]

I could easily comment...but since I'm not a Canadian resident...I will refrain.

Besides...you said it all.

[easily confused]

You may be right, Cobra, but I can only hope that someone, somewhere, challenges this law based on age discrimination which is a clear violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedom. Regardless of how powerful the almighty Diltbert McGuilty thinks he is, he and his minions have no right to pass laws that bypass the Charter. With any luck this will drive the younger voters to toss that idiot and co. out on their collective asses in the next election

[easily confused]

I could easily comment...but since I'm not a Canadian resident...I will refrain.

Besides...you said it all.

Don't shy, Slammer, everyone is welcome to an opinion. It is the one thing that is never wrong. Others may not agree with it, but it is still not wrong

[hammer10]

Hey easily---and thanx for the response. Only trouble of going to court on the matter is that one would have to challenge the "law" in a class action civil suit so he/she could have a jury and set a precident. Otherwise we are going to the courts to get a law changed by politicians who were paid off by the insurance co. to make the law in the first place-----not much chance there. Pretty well has to be done privately to set a precident thereby putting some poor schmuck at hell`s door, footing the legal bill for his fight against city hall. Only way I see is that some millionaires kid gets busted and he goes to court challenging the legality of the law. Let`s not forget the judges are lawyers too, don`t want a ruling from the high priest of the court----gotta want a jury of piers on this one if you want it changed. JMO

Care to prove that statement?
Insurance companies do not work in conjuction with the Government hence why rates vary from one company to the next. Otherwise rates would be regulated and alot higher.
Before you even ask, my spouse is in the business so yes I know what I'm talking about and am not going to pursue this.
The only thing they have infringed upon is possibly the Charter of Rights based on the fact that you can vote @18 and buy liquor/beer @ 19 hence possibly having a case. Military personal are adults @18 and have all privies. So bottom line is when are you actually considered an adult?

[The Cobra]

Care to prove that statement?
Insurance companies do not work in conjuction with the Government hence why rates vary from one company to the next. Otherwise rates would be regulated and alot higher.
Before you even ask, my spouse is in the business so yes I know what I'm talking about and am not going to pursue this.
The only thing they have infringed upon is possibly the Charter of Rights based on the fact that you can vote @18 and buy liquor/beer @ 19 hence possibly having a case. Military personal are adults @18 and have all privies. So bottom line is when are you actually considered an adult?

When??---it seems you become an adult when it`s convenient---for them.

As far as the "---Payoffs"---never in a million years would I or anyone else prove it, many have tried. The payoff is the lobby---lobby is legal bribery and that is what I`m referring to ( I mentioned it in another post). You are 100% right in that insurance companies don`t work in conjunction with the government----on paper, so they do it thru the lobby, gov`t may be the 4th man down but they are the end man down. Someone in the industry surely would acknowledge that or would they??.
Thanx for the input hammer

[langolier2408]

Don't see any problem with the law....you drink you drive you should loose your privilege to drive...it should be expanded to all ages.

[easily confused]

Don't see any problem with the law....you drink you drive you should loose your privilege to drive...it should be expanded to all ages.

Absolutely agree, but you cannot target just one age group. I have seen people in all age groups driving drunk including people in law enforcement and I feel that everyone must be treated the same. This a clear case of age discrimination

[The Cobra]

Absolutely agree, but you cannot target just one age group. I have seen people in all age groups driving drunk including people in law enforcement and I feel that everyone must be treated the same. This a clear case of age discrimination

Right---make a law and make everyone liable to the same rules whatever they may be.
Discrimination is the right call on how it will tackled in court I`m thinking.

[The Cobra]

Don't see any problem with the law....you drink you drive you should loose your privilege to drive...it should be expanded to all ages.

The only problem that I see with the new law---is that it targets a certain age group. An age group that can vote & die for our country but can`t get the same rights as a 23 yr old would have. Make a law and make it across the board---if you drink, don`t drive period !! and you`re right expand it to all ages.

[langolier2408]

Absolutely agree, but you cannot target just one age group. I have seen people in all age groups driving drunk including people in law enforcement and I feel that everyone must be treated the same. This a clear case of age discrimination

I disagree you can target specific groups....the stats show that this age group are the worse offenders and the most lethal....as for the calls that this won't hold up in court, think again this is not the first such law in Canada other provinces have done it...just because Ontario did it it makes national news...it is no different in mandatory re-testing of drivers after a certain age and the revocation of their licenses as they become incapacitated as they age...if fewer young people would stop drinking and driving then they wouldn't have to target this age group...and just so no one makes a comment I believe that it should have been made for all ages...this is nothing but a good start.

[Slammer]

I disagree you can target specific groups....the stats show that this age group are the worse offenders and the most lethal....as for the calls that this won't hold up in court, think again this is not the first such law in Canada other provinces have done it...just because Ontario did it it makes national news...it is no different in mandatory re-testing of drivers after a certain age and the revocation of their licenses as they become incapacitated as they age...if fewer young people would stop drinking and driving then they wouldn't have to target this age group...and just so no one makes a comment I believe that it should have been made for all ages...this is nothing but a good start.

Those may well be the facts, that I won't dispute because to me it's relatively immaterial...BECAUSE...

...you open up a Pandora's Box. If it's OK to target groups here...where do you draw the line?

I can cite specific examples but I choose not to get that deep into this. But my personal belief is you're crossing over a dangerous line here by allowing this sort of thing.

JMO

[easily confused]

While you may, and I say "may" be correct when you say that this age group are the worst offenders, I still say that this is a law that is fundamentally flawed. If you are in agreement with this law,...

[langolier2408]

Your user name is appropriate....first you mentioned that you have read numerous times about the stats that I make reference to yet you still emphasize "may"...curious how many times do you need to...

[easily confused]

Curious langolier, that you are apparently more than willing to believe all of the stats. Please remember stats can, & are made to say whatever group pushing wants them to say. In almost 58 years (41...

[langolier2408]

You make quite a few assumptions in your comments, none that you are able to tangible follow up on...one being your comment that I blindly follow stats....which I don't, however even if you were to...

[tacochuck]

There's no dispute by rational people that young drivers are far more inexperienced and dangerous on the roads today than us 50 and above... <br />
<br />
Driving under the influence is a dangerous act whether...

[BHill]

The only sensible solution to this is 0 tolerance.:stop:

And no I am not an abstainer by any means.:rolleyes:

[Shepp]

You make quite a few assumptions in your comments, none that you are able to tangible follow up on...one being your comment that I blindly follow stats....which I don't, however even if you were to discount or reduce the stats somewhat the reflection is still the same that proportionally more younger drivers are reckless in their driving and when you add alcohol to the mix it's a disaster waiting to happen. Again I would re-iterate that your knowledge and personal experience of known drunk drivers can not be a true statistical sampling of the overall population...perhaps you just hang with the wrong crowd therefore you know more persons predisposed to abhorrent behavior.
Ouch! How unfortunate. You were actually making some good points there for a while lang until this......"perhaps you just hang with the wrong crowd therefore you know more persons predisposed to abhorrent behavior". The suggestion that someones OPINION is based on the assumption that perhaps they might be associated in some way with those of an undesirable nature is nothing short of a desperate attempt to get your message across. Debate is all about an exchange of perspectives, there is no winner, no loser. Too bad, it was a good read up to this point. Shame on you. Cheers.

[langolier2408]

Ouch! How unfortunate. You were actually making some good points there for a while lang until this......"perhaps you just hang with the wrong crowd therefore you know more persons predisposed to abhorrent behavior". The suggestion that someones OPINION is based on the assumption that perhaps they might be associated in some way with those of an undesirable nature is nothing short of a desperate attempt to get your message across. Debate is all about an exchange of perspectives, there is no winner, no loser. Too bad, it was a good read up to this point. Shame on you. Cheers.

I'm sorry that you feel that I wasn't respecting his/her opinion, I do, however he/she had stated several times that in their own experience they have seen older persons drink and drive...I responded several times that his/her sampling couldn't be a true statistical sampling of the general population...the point in the last comment was to try and bring home that concept and to show that his/her own experience is possibly skewed to some extent.
Debate is welcome and even enjoyed...it becomes more difficult however when someone uses the same argument that you have already commented on and you think that they are not getting the point.

[Shepp]

I'm sorry that you feel that I wasn't respecting his/her opinion, I do, however he/she had stated several times that in their own experience they have seen older persons drink and drive...I responded several times that his/her sampling couldn't be a true statistical sampling of the general population...the point in the last comment was to try and bring home that concept and to show that his/her own experience is possibly skewed to some extent.
Debate is welcome and even enjoyed...it becomes more difficult however when someone uses the same argument that you have already commented on and you think that they are not getting the point.

Good try bro, but it ain't workin'. Please refer to post 16. That was your post wasn't it'? Check out the first line and tell me if you see anything disrespectful in nature. If you don't, well DUH! But the last paragraph of this quote is the clincher. Clearly an opinionated individual who holds the opinion that unless someone shares the same point of view, they're clearly not gettin" it. Don't make for good debate bro. Oh, and yes, I'm totally against drinking and driving no matter what the age group. Cheers.

[dasher108]

Road Warrior BABY!
Every man woman and child for themselves!!!

- I dunno why I just said that -

[Shepp]

Road Warrior BABY!
Every man woman and child for themselves!!!

- I dunno why I just said that -
Me neither but it sure sounds good given the circumstances. Cheers.

[langolier2408]

Good try bro, but it ain't workin'. Please refer to post 16. That was your post wasn't it'? Check out the first line and tell me if you see anything disrespectful in nature. If you don't, well DUH! But the last paragraph of this quote is the clincher. Clearly an opinionated individual who holds the opinion that unless someone shares the same point of view, they're clearly not gettin" it. Don't make for good debate bro. Oh, and yes, I'm totally against drinking and driving no matter what the age group. Cheers.

It is what it is and if you or anyone else doesn't like what I have to say or how I say it then I couldn't give a crap....I was not trying to stifle debate just doing it my own way and again if you don't like it then that's your problem.