Zero Alcohol

[skidooer]

WHere are the facts to back this law up!

It is a good question though. Science does show that this age group does prefer to stay up later than their elders. Studies have also shown that sleep deprived driving is more dangerous than drinking and driving. Is there any evidence that the increase in accidents in this age group is in any way alcohol related? I am really just curious, it is proving difficult to find any real information on this topic.

[SlowTouringGuy]

this is not only a good law,it is a great law,,,,,,,

If it is a great law, why does it only apply to those of a certain age? What makes a driver capable of safely maneuvering a vehicle with a BAC greater than zero on their 21st birthday? I am all for making the roads safer. If <0.05 BAC is still honest to goodness unsafe, make it illegal for everyone.

think of the law as targeting a very important group of people,the future,an age group that is plaqued with high statistics for accidents,,,us,not so much,,,

WHere are the facts to back this law up!

No facts/statistics at hand to back this statement but, based casual (unscientific) observation I believe that, if we are going to target a group for this law, it should be targeted at Males from age 40 to 60. I believe they are much more prone to drink and drive than the youth of today.

[Faceman]

Whomever made the comment about "functioning while intoxicated" was bang on. Whether it be alcohol, drugs,mental or physical , the older we get the better we learn to "cope". Me...I just go to bed.

[Wildman]

I've got a good 1 for u. Open your trail guides, count the # of adds/sponsors of the guide. Now add the total # of adds that say Fully Licensed,LLBO and LCBO. now divide the # of adds by the # of adds that contain the previous phrases. What is the percentage? Now tell me if you like bigots, hypocrites and 2 faced pricks. You look me in the eye and tell me it is morally correct to have a zero alcohol policy and take money for advertising from a business that serves alcohol. How hard is it to find common sense?

[SlowTouringGuy]

I've got a good 1 for u. Open your trail guides, count the # of adds/sponsors of the guide. Now add the total # of adds that say Fully Licensed,LLBO and LCBO. now divide the # of adds by the # of adds that contain the previous phrases. What is the percentage? Now tell me if you like bigots, hypocrites and 2 faced pricks. You look me in the eye and tell me it is morally correct to have a zero alcohol policy and take money for advertising from a business that serves alcohol. How hard is it to find common sense?

Or..... take the ads from the licensed hotels ('cause we're going to "hope" they're parking the sleds) but not from the restaurants.

So the recent years have seen a Zero Tolerence, Don't Drink and Ride push by the OFSC in order to help change the public perception of sledders, appease the insurance company, and support the family riding appeal. They also issued a press release in support of the new law. But, when it comes to revenue, it's ok to have a Pub on the Map.

Interesting debate, Wildman; very interesting indeed.

[02Sled]

I've got a good 1 for u. Open your trail guides, count the # of adds/sponsors of the guide. Now add the total # of adds that say Fully Licensed,LLBO and LCBO. now divide the # of adds by the # of adds that contain the previous phrases. What is the percentage? Now tell me if you like bigots, hypocrites and 2 faced pricks. You look me in the eye and tell me it is morally correct to have a zero alcohol policy and take money for advertising from a business that serves alcohol. How hard is it to find common sense?

Or..... take the ads from the licensed hotels ('cause we're going to "hope" they're parking the sleds) but not from the restaurants.

So the recent years have seen a Zero Tolerence, Don't Drink and Ride push by the OFSC in order to help change the public perception of sledders, appease the insurance company, and support the family riding appeal. They also issued a press release in support of the new law. But, when it comes to revenue, it's ok to have a Pub on the Map.

Interesting debate, Wildman; very interesting indeed.

In this theme we challenge the intrusion of control by the government on our lives. Now the suggestion comes forward that we choose to restrict who we allow to advertise. I have no objections to someone having a drink. It is just when they choose to drink. These licenced establishments that advertise on our trail maps are not just accessable by sled. We always try to support those who support us. At the end of the day when we are looking for dinner we will often look to the trail map for advertisers. They are also accessable by road. We then have a DD. I will always object to the sledder who has a liquid lunch and then gets on the sled. It's enough that endangers his well being but I really care about his ability to injure me. I have had enough close calls from yahoos screaming around blind corners or racing over the crests of hills to become air borne without adding alcohol to the equation. Who knows maybe some of these yahoos (polite term) had been drinking. I just don't want to end up in the hospital or dead because somebody believes they can have a liquid lunch but are still in control enough to drive their sled.

[UsedtoSkidoo]

I've got a good 1 for u. Open your trail guides, count the # of adds/sponsors of the guide. Now add the total # of adds that say Fully Licensed,LLBO and LCBO. now divide the # of adds by the # of adds that contain the previous phrases. What is the percentage? Now tell me if you like bigots, hypocrites and 2 faced pricks. You look me in the eye and tell me it is morally correct to have a zero alcohol policy and take money for advertising from a business that serves alcohol. How hard is it to find common sense?

Or..... take the ads from the licensed hotels ('cause we're going to "hope" they're parking the sleds) but not from the restaurants.

So the recent years have seen a Zero Tolerence, Don't Drink and Ride push by the OFSC in order to help change the public perception of sledders, appease the insurance company, and support the family riding appeal. They also issued a press release in support of the new law. But, when it comes to revenue, it's ok to have a Pub on the Map.

Interesting debate, Wildman; very interesting indeed.

Good point Wildman!

What I dont get is how the OFSC could come out and issue a press release without a vote on it by the AGM?

[kyzer]

It all comes down to each person being responsible for their own actions. If you know you can't go to a bar or restraunt without getting hammered or buzzed then don't go. If you do get buzzed or hammered you better park your sled, car, boat and find another way home. The government has taken away alot of our rights because of the irresponsible person. Make the penalities more severe. Don't target groups...Are government has gone to far !!!!!!!!!!

[Wildman]

In this theme we challenge the intrusion of control by the government on our lives. Now the suggestion comes forward that we choose to restrict who we allow to advertise. I have no objections to someone having a drink. It is just when they choose to drink. These licenced establishments that advertise on our trail maps are not just accessable by sled. We always try to support those who support us. At the end of the day when we are looking for dinner we will often look to the trail map for advertisers. They are also accessable by road. We then have a DD. I will always object to the sledder who has a liquid lunch and then gets on the sled. It's enough that endangers his well being but I really care about his ability to injure me. I have had enough close calls from yahoos screaming around blind corners or racing over the crests of hills to become air borne without adding alcohol to the equation. Who knows maybe some of these yahoos (polite term) had been drinking. I just don't want to end up in the hospital or dead because somebody believes they can have a liquid lunch but are still in control enough to drive their sled.

WOW, that went clear over your head didn't it. You got it all backwards, I don't have a problem with who advertises and and sponsors our trail guides. I am saying the OFSC says it is alright to allow sponsors to have content in their add, advertising the sale of alcohol, but the OFSC says we have a zero tolerance to alcohol consumption. They want to have their cake and eat it too. I totally disagree with the zero tolerance as a whole, after all, you are legally allowed .07% blood/alcohol content. That is not zero. The law is the law, you follow it or you take the chance of being charged. I just think the OFSC makes to much of the whole thing, because if someone wants to consume alcohol, they don't care about what the OFSC says, they care about what the cop is gonna say. Plain and simple, it is a waste of money on signs and propaganda, as well as a waste of someones time. We all know the law.

[skidooer]

you are legally allowed .07% blood/alcohol content.

Legally speaking, if you exceed 0.08% BAC, you are automatically considered an impaired driver. However, you can be charged with impaired driving regardless of your BAC. You do bring up an interesting point about consistency. Kind of like a strip joint placing ads in a church bulletin.

[SlowTouringGuy]

you are legally allowed .07% blood/alcohol content.

Hate to be overly pedantic, but it is a bit of a misnomer to say you are legally allowed a certain amount of alcohol in your bloodstream...........

As do I, but who or what hates to be overly pendantic?

[02Sled]

you are legally allowed .07% blood/alcohol content.

Legally speaking, if you exceed 0.08% BAC, you are automatically considered an impaired driver. However, you can be charged with impaired driving regardless of your BAC. You do bring up an interesting point about consistency. Kind of like a strip joint placing ads in a church bulletin.

Actually the law is currently .05 is an automatic suspension of your licence from 3 to 30 days. Impaired boating or sledding takes away the drivers licence for the car.

[02Sled]

It all comes down to each person being responsible for their own actions. If you know you can't go to a bar or restraunt without getting hammered or buzzed then don't go. If you do get buzzed or hammered you better park your sled, car, boat and find another way home. The government has taken away alot of our rights because of the irresponsible person. Make the penalities more severe. Don't target groups...Are government has gone to far !!!!!!!!!!

You are making the assumption that everyone can think that clearly. There are a lot of stupid people out there. A prime example related to me by a friend who works for the OPP. A driver is pulled over and is extremely intoxicated. He is charged and told that he has to report to the police station for finger printing.

He wanders into the police station... obviously intoxicated... he gets finger printed and is released to go home. The desk sargeant watches him wobble out the door expecting he has someone waiting for him but then thinks... no he wouldn't would he... they step outside to see him climbing into his car to drive home. They catch up with him just as he gets onto the street. His alcohol level is twice the legal limit.

Do you really think this idiot would avoid going in the bar and then park his sled and find another way home? He didn't even have enough sense to not drive to the police station for finger printing sober. There are too many of them and the rest of us need protection from these fools.

As for the new law... I agree it is targeting an age group. For that I disagree. I believe it should be applied equally to all new drivers regardless of age.

[skidooer]

Actually the law is currently .05

No. Impaired driving is federal law which defines the limit as 0.08. You are referring to provincial law, which is not enforced as impaired driving. It is true that there will be consequences at the 0.05 level, but the impaired driving laws, of which we were discussing, have not changed.

Thanks for noting it though; maybe not everyone is aware of the changes.

[Canuck]

This law actually applies until you reach age 22. For some reason, many thought that the restriction stopped on the 21st birthday. It actually continues until your 22nd birthday.

All drivers 21 years of age and younger must have a zero blood alcohol level when they get behind the wheel .....

Not trying to beat this topic to death - it's just that many examples in the thread were ('if you're 20, aren't you mature enough?..'). Apparently, the threshold is 22.

[skidooer]

Not trying to beat this topic to death - it's just that many examples in the thread were ('if you're 20, aren't you mature enough?..'). Apparently, the threshold is 22.

It is surprising that they did not set the threshold to be 25. Insurance companies have determined that that is the age where one reaches their peak driving ability.

[kyzer]

If a guy walks into the Police station hammered and tries to drive off then maybe the guy should loose his car and maybe his licence for the next 10 years. With the sale of his car and others we could afford to hire more Police. With retards like that, you could make it zero alcohol for everybody but I bet he will still be driving. How do you protect people from guys like that? Making everyone suffer is not the solution. This story is a prime example of what's wrong with are laws. Because this guy is too stupid and can't think clearly the government will drop the amount of blood alcohol allowed in everyones systems. This guy will pay a fine, loose his licence for maybe a year or 2, and maybe do it all over again. Punish the offenders not the responsible person.

[Wildbill]

If a guy walks into the Police station hammered and tries to drive off then maybe the guy should loose his car and maybe his licence for the next 10 years. With the sale of his car and others we could afford to hire more Police. With retards like that, you could make it zero alcohol for everybody but I bet he will still be driving. How do you protect people from guys like that? Making everyone suffer is not the solution. This story is a prime example of what's wrong with are laws. Because this guy is too stupid and can't think clearly the government will drop the amount of blood alcohol allowed in everyones systems. This guy will pay a fine, loose his licence for maybe a year or 2, and maybe do it all over again. Punish the offenders not the responsible person.

Instead of making unrealistically tough laws just enforcing the ones that we have should work .

Maybe set up prison factories and make some of the crap that they are making in china so that we could actually make a profit off of the prisoners .

[cehyoopers]

If a guy walks into the Police station hammered and tries to drive off then maybe the guy should loose his car and maybe his licence for the next 10 years. With the sale of his car and others we could afford to hire more Police. With retards like that, you could make it zero alcohol for everybody but I bet he will still be driving. How do you protect people from guys like that? Making everyone suffer is not the solution. This story is a prime example of what's wrong with are laws. Because this guy is too stupid and can't think clearly the government will drop the amount of blood alcohol allowed in everyones systems. This guy will pay a fine, loose his licence for maybe a year or 2, and maybe do it all over again. Punish the offenders not the responsible person.

Instead of making unrealistically tough laws just enforcing the ones that we have should work .

Maybe set up prison factories and make some of the crap that they are making in china so that we could actually make a profit off of the prisoners .

sounds like somebodys boat is gonna be late,,,,,

[rainX]

I've got a good 1 for u. Open your trail guides, count the # of adds/sponsors of the guide. Now add the total # of adds that say Fully Licensed,LLBO and LCBO. now divide the # of adds by the # of adds that contain the previous phrases. What is the percentage? Now tell me if you like bigots, hypocrites and 2 faced pricks. You look me in the eye and tell me it is morally correct to have a zero alcohol policy and take money for advertising from a business that serves alcohol. How hard is it to find common sense?

Or..... take the ads from the licensed hotels ('cause we're going to "hope" they're parking the sleds) but not from the restaurants.

So the recent years have seen a Zero Tolerence, Don't Drink and Ride push by the OFSC in order to help change the public perception of sledders, appease the insurance company, and support the family riding appeal. They also issued a press release in support of the new law. But, when it comes to revenue, it's ok to have a Pub on the Map.

Interesting debate, Wildman; very interesting indeed.

Dude - check the OFSC publishing guideline. It is not OK.

[SlowTouringGuy]

I've got a good 1 for u. Open your trail guides, count the # of adds/sponsors of the guide. Now add the total # of adds that say Fully Licensed,LLBO and LCBO. now divide the # of adds by the # of adds that contain the previous phrases. What is the percentage? Now tell me if you like bigots, hypocrites and 2 faced pricks. You look me in the eye and tell me it is morally correct to have a zero alcohol policy and take money for advertising from a business that serves alcohol. How hard is it to find common sense?

Or..... take the ads from the licensed hotels ('cause we're going to "hope" they're parking the sleds) but not from the restaurants.

So the recent years have seen a Zero Tolerence, Don't Drink and Ride push by the OFSC in order to help change the public perception of sledders, appease the insurance company, and support the family riding appeal. They also issued a press release in support of the new law. But, when it comes to revenue, it's ok to have a Pub on the Map.

Interesting debate, Wildman; very interesting indeed.

Dude - check the OFSC publishing guideline. It is not OK.

It might be a good idea to post them for everyone to see........

[yamahas]

I just turned 19 this summer and no joke about 2 weeks later I'm not aloud to have a beer at 2 in the afternoon and drive home at 8 or 9 in the evening because there would still be alcohol in my system. I have to say that there are less people under the age of 21 drinking and driving then people over the age of 21. That is just from personal experience and people I see walking out of bars and into their cars.

I don't agree with this law simply because of the focus on the age but I am against getting drunk and driving. Having one beer won't affect a kid under the age of 21 or 22 more or less than a middle aged man in my opinion.

[Wildbill]

I just turned 19 this summer and no joke about 2 weeks later I'm not aloud to have a beer at 2 in the afternoon and drive home at 8 or 9 in the evening because there would still be alcohol in my system. I have to say that there are less people under the age of 21 drinking and driving then people over the age of 21. That is just from personal experience and people I see walking out of bars and into their cars.

I don't agree with this law simply because of the focus on the age but I am against getting drunk and driving. Having one beer won't affect a kid under the age of 21 or 22 more or less than a middle aged man in my opinion.

At 19 you can vote. Remember this when the provincial election comes.

The restriction of your rights and freedoms is brought to you by the same folks that were not going to raise taxes.

Lies and mistruths from team Mcgunity

[cehyoopers]

I just turned 19 this summer and no joke about 2 weeks later I'm not aloud to have a beer at 2 in the afternoon and drive home at 8 or 9 in the evening because there would still be alcohol in my system. I have to say that there are less people under the age of 21 drinking and driving then people over the age of 21. That is just from personal experience and people I see walking out of bars and into their cars.

I don't agree with this law simply because of the focus on the age but I am against getting drunk and driving. Having one beer won't affect a kid under the age of 21 or 22 more or less than a middle aged man in my opinion.

that means laws work.When you are say,50,there will be even less drinking by the younger group and your group as well.I take a moment to remember all the people I knew that died at the hands of a drunk driver,,,,when I myself was drinking and driving,,,,and the people before that.It takes a generation or 2,but the change does come.I salute you for being responsible at your age,but from exp the law is a good thing.Forget the booze till you put the sled away for the day,,,,,my generation fought hard to not give in but age has made some of us wiser,,,,and a lot of us were lucky,,,,myself at the top of that list.

no responsible or irresponsible government will ever back down on the drinking and driving campaign,,,,there is to much innocent blood spilt there now,,,,everywhere,,,not just here.

[sledjunk]

I just turned 19 this summer and no joke about 2 weeks later I'm not aloud to have a beer at 2 in the afternoon and drive home at 8 or 9 in the evening because there would still be alcohol in my system. I have to say that there are less people under the age of 21 drinking and driving then people over the age of 21. That is just from personal experience and people I see walking out of bars and into their cars.

I don't agree with this law simply because of the focus on the age but I am against getting drunk and driving. Having one beer won't affect a kid under the age of 21 or 22 more or less than a middle aged man in my opinion.

that means laws work.When you are say,50,there will be even less drinking by the younger group and your group as well.I take a moment to remember all the people I knew that died at the hands of a drunk driver,,,,when I myself was drinking and driving,,,,and the people before that.It takes a generation or 2,but the change does come.I salute you for being responsible at your age,but from exp the law is a good thing.Forget the booze till you put the sled away for the day,,,,,my generation fought hard to not give in but age has made some of us wiser,,,,and a lot of us were lucky,,,,myself at the top of that list.

no responsible or irresponsible government will ever back down on the drinking and driving campaign,,,,there is to much innocent blood spilt there now,,,,everywhere,,,not just here.

So then have Zero Tolerance for EVERYONE!!! Oh wait, people that are over 22 probably are starting to make money, therefore buy more and pricier alcohol from LCBO (= $$$$$$$ in taxes) and have political clout.  No let's just pick on the 'defenseless' younger people.

Laws don't change attitudes!  Societal norms and acceptance are what change attitudes.  Drinking and driving was acceptable in the past but the attitudes have already changed, for the most part.  But because a couple ofprivileged decided that they were above the law and killed themselves, our knee-jerk politicians caved to the lobbying (financial and political clout) of a rich father who felt that he could stop others from dying.

You can't ban stupidity!