Zero tolerance law for young drivers makes zero sense

I truly doubt this stupid law will stop iressponsible immature teenagers like Mulcahy to stop driving. His father should have invested his money where it would have counted. EDUCATION..

This province elected moron - he is comming with stupid things just to divert attention from financial scams ne is doing behind the scene - put him on desert and in short time there will be no more sand left. He turned this province into police country. I can not wait until election - I do not think that liberal morons can say the same. Even if you are trying to contact MPP they do not respond, so is time to boot them out.

This isn't news to me, I heard about this many months ago. Maybe Mr. Menzies should listen to the news more often. I also think that it won't hurt anyone to not drink before driving. My life and the life of people I care about is much more important than having an alcoholic drink.

While I have no problem with police cracking down on drunk drivers ( how many times do we see in the news a person arrested for their 5 or 6th drunk driving charge) this one goes a little too far. Would it not make more sense if oh I don't know let me take a stab here but the legal drinking age is 19, but you are driving and had a beer but you are 17 nad you got pulled over hmm lets see what should we do oh how about well being charged for underage drinking for one and I think the punisment should be severe drivers license revoked and you have to start from square one again. That means take the driving course again and you got to go throught the whole graduated license process once again and good luck getting insurance. But all that being said one beer or one glass of wine or spirit at 19 does not make sense to charge these drivers.

Zero tolerance law for young drivers makes 100% sense - as a matter of fact it should be instituted to ALL drivers, not just young ones. No, I am not against drinking, I am just against drinking and driving. Spare me the responsible young driver that had only one beer speech. I worked as a nurse in ER for few years and trust me, once you are on the gurney or your loved one is one the gurney because of a drunk driver you don't care if the driver was young or not - it is a tragedy. So next time before you try to attack a law that tries to save lives from being destroyed, sit in a wheelchair for 10 minutes and try to get to the bathroom. That should open your eyes! Cheers!

I respect all those that have expressed their feelings on drunk driving. However, I feel as though the Government is taking full advantage of a situation that should be dealt with differently.
How many times have we seen Governement officials caught drinking and driving. Yet, somehow they are always dismissed. Tell me where is the justice in that?

Oh my god. Boo hoo.

This law should be for everyone, especially after reading this article. That is sad and pathetic that someone is so mad over a law that makes sense.

Here in BC, we have a graduated licensing program. You need your L, then an N, then you get your full license. The process takes 3 years minimum, could take longer, and during that time, ZERO tolerance.

Sure, 1 drink might be fine, but 1 drink usually leads to 2, and 3. Then you're still driving.

im not sure what it costs to do your g2 test now, but with this law in place, there is now ZERO need to have a G2 class. Lets just go from G1 to G without gauging teens for the extra fee! nevermind, we live in ontario, we just take charges and pay without worry...

The mere fact that the big shot's son died with two friends in an accident cause by drinking, should convince Menzies that the law is necessary. We, as a collective, are totally inmature, have no sense of respect for even the simplest rules: When was the last time you saw someone actually make full stop at a stop sign? After all, it says stop, not maybe, not if you feel like it, just stop. Why can't you understand a simple rule? Because of the fact that the population tires to get away with as much as they can, all the time, the state has to step in and tell stupids what to do. Those who can't understand this simple thing, and that seems to be a vast number of stupids, worry me a lot for two reasons: 1- They reproduce. 2- They vote.

Never in my life have I seen a young person 'just have one' glass of wine or one beer. When was the last time you lived on a College campus? I saw two accidents right outside my townhouse last year, and both drivers were under the influence (one, a co-worker of mine was seriously injured). I don't think the reasonable young drivers who do practice restraint will have much difficulty accepting this new law, and maybe it will actually do something about those who don't respect other people's safety on the roads. Maybe if young people are educated about zero telerance, they won't grow up to be like that 26 yr old who killed all those kids driving on a municipal road in Hanmer.

I don't see what the big deal is anyway. There are so many bad drivers already and Ontario needs strong laws to protect its citizens. I am so tired of people who need to drink alcohol in order to have a good time dictating who should be allowed to drive with alcohol in their system. There should be zero tolerance for alcohol while driving period. When I drink I always have a responsible person drive me home. We take turns to ensure fairness. Look at all the charges for racing and drunk driving lately, so many people under the age of 30. The law should be strengthened to include this age group as well. I wonder if David Menzies has children because this article seems to lack that perspective.

Rebecca, George and Allan have correctly responded to David Menzies pointless diatribe! You only need to read the accident reports on Monday mornings to realize that young drinking drivers are responsible for killing their friends and innocent victims, in exorbitant numbers. This Zero Tolerance policy makes complete sense! Kudos to the McGinty government, finally, for legislation that makes sense, to keep young drivers and the motoring public from being accident statistics.

Even being in BC I heard about this quite some time back. Menzies start listening. And maybe you don't care, because you drive in one of those gas guzzling F350's or something which makes you feel immortal, but lot of us drive in Corolla's, Civics and when drunk people drive like nuts around us in those big SUV's, it's not funny. Why should I suffer because of ur drinking habits.
Also maybe you don't read/hear/watch news every day. If you did, you'll notice that almost everyday we hear about a death, accident which involved alcohol. Yes maybe because of someone being affluent this came into action, but atleast they cared for other people after what happened to them.

Personally, it should be applied to every driver across the country.

Should be zero tolerance for all drivers!

There should be zero tolerance for all.No one should drink and drive at all.No one can change time or bring back a life.

I think it should be 0 for all ages. To many people drink and drive it's sad, I agree what one person said about if you are caught with a DUI you should lose your licenses on the spot and have to restart at your G1 pay the $125 or whatever it is, drive with a person with 4 years Exp for a year, then do your G2 test then Final G road test. for those that might say well what if this person doesn't have a person he can drive with? Well he should have thought of that before he had that drink.

I'd just like to say that after just finishing university in Toronto, this law is quite welcome in my mind and I believe the age should be increased to 25. At colleges and universities across this country it is a fad to drive drunk and I can tell you that the competance level of students in post-secondary education is far below what it was just 10 years ago, not to mention the fact that the maturity level peaks around the same as that of high school students. As for the graduated license system, it should take longer to reach you full G and there should be stipulation upon vehicle horsepower and the number of engine cylinders dependant on which level of license you have. Learners do not have the experience or the ability to control a vehicle with more than 4 cylinders and 200 hp (ever noticed that all of those driving school cars are cheap little four-bangers?). A learner needs to learn to drive before he/she can learn to control the power of a larger and heavier engine, this is especially true in large metropolises where you see 18 year olds driving daddy's BMW/Mercedes/Jaguar/etc while weaving in and out of traffic trying to look cool for their buddies. Beleive me, it's not cool and they are barely in control of the vehicle. The biggest thing that Ontario needs though is not a bunch of whinny losers complaining about the premeir they elected (and if you didn't vote you have absolutely NO say in the matter so stop complaining), it needs responsible adults and parents who can teach their kids the value of a dollar and teh value of lives that are not their own.

I've heard that fruit juice can contain small amounts of alcohol through natural fermentation, and that the amount is enough to register as a non-zero blood alcohol level. Can anyone verify this?

We still see people of ALL ages behind the wheel of a car after drinking. This problem is clearly not limited to young drivers!!! I had two family members killed by drunks who were over 21, so I don't see why the 16-21 age group is being targeted. And, no, I'm not 16-21, nor do I have a family member in that category.
If this law passes, then the legal drinking age better go up too, otherwise it's going to be dismal failure. 19 year olds are going to drink. Period. And what about products such as medicines, that contain alcohol? If a kid blows a positive alcohol test after taking cough syrup, then what?? How does he prove he didn't "drink"?
I say, ZERO tolerance across the board, if that's they way this idiot McGuinty wants to play. The first time someone is found to be "drunk" driving, IMMEDIATELY suspend the licence AND impound the damned vehicle until they are either convicted or acquitted. (Make it as difficult as possible for them to drive with a suspended licence!) Convicted drunks should have their licences revoked for a minimum of two years, with ignition-interlock MANDATORY for a further three if they desire to drive again. Hell, paint a big red "A" on the side of their vehicle for the next 5 years after their first conviction (tongue in cheek, here!) Second convictions, no matter how long it's been since the first, should result in never being allowed to drive again. Ever. No more of this "third and fourth conviction" crap. It should be obvious by conviction #2 that someone is a repeat offender. Duh.

Mr. David Menzies...you have absoluetly no idea what you are talking about. Your article is a complete waste of time and space. First off this is a great law and second don't think for a minute it has anything to do with one wealthy kid's family. The number of 16-21 deaths of young people in this country due to drinking/driving is just unacceptable. period. I hope this law becomes National very very soon. There is absolutely no reason why anyone 16-21 should have a drink and risk getting behind the wheel of a car. If you talk to any family who had a love one get arrested, charge or die from drunk driving you will understand very clearly why this is a good law. And trust me there are a lot of them. The number of people this will effect are plenty and thats a good thing, if this law can save even ONE life, then it has become a great law.....oh and sorry for the hardship for those 16-21 year olds out there, best thing to do if you want to consume some beers or wine, get a DD.