View Full Version : Nanny McGuinty strikes again
Easy Drifter
24th July 2010, 18:10
Premier Dalton (Nanny) McGuinty has made it illegal for anyone under the age of 21 to have a drink and drive. No debate in Parliament. He just did it.
The legal drinking age in Ont. is 19.
At one time it was 21 and then lowered to 18. Some time ago it was raised to 19.
How soon before he unilatterly raises the age to 21 or 25 to even drink?
Amazingly during the World Cup bars were able to open at 10 am. As soon as it was over back to 11am.
So everyone over 21 is allowed to drink and drive in Canada as they please?
Here nobody is allowed to drink and drive (over 0.05% level anyways).
Easy Drifter
24th July 2010, 21:03
No. .05 is the Nanny imposed without debate limit. 24 hr licence suspension on the spot. If no one in car is legally able to drive car is towed. How people get home etc. is their problem. Usually to impound yard in tow truck and then call a taxi. Cops normally will not leave you standing by the road but they could. As this limit was Nanny imposed charges cannot be laid. That takes an act approved by the Parliament of Ont.
.08 is limit as imposed by legislation and passed by the Parliament. Same result as above except charges are laid and can lead to jail time and/or a hefty fine. You are hauled off to the police station to be booked.
Brown, Jon Brow
24th July 2010, 21:10
Easy solution to this. Just don't drink and drive.
I remember that in the US, you can't rent a car if you're under 24 (at least from Hertz). That's strange considering that in some states of the US you can get a driver's license at the age of 16 (here in Finland it's 18).
Jag_Warrior
24th July 2010, 23:11
It sounds like things are done differently in Canada. I'm not sure I understand how something can be illegal if the person mandating it doesn't have the power to pass laws. Just so I'm clear, this measure means that a person can have their car towed (and impounded?) if they're driving and they're found with any detectable amount of alcohol in their system, but they can't be arrested?
Jag_Warrior
24th July 2010, 23:24
I remember that in the US, you can't rent a car if you're under 24 (at least from Hertz). That's strange considering that in some states of the US you can get a driver's license at the age of 16 (here in Finland it's 18).
Yeah, but that's not a law. Just the policy of one car rental agency. Each agency can set its own policies. It's been a long time ago, but I rented cars to get home from school when I was 18 (1st year students weren't allowed to have cars/motorcycles on campus). But I had to have a credit card to do it. A friend of mine rented car from a different agency (also at 18) and he didn't have a credit card. So he had to place a $300 deposit that they held until he turned it in and they inspected it. These days, I'd say it would be pretty hard to find an agency anywhere that would rent you a car if you didn't have a credit card. Some agencies you can get a car at 18, some at 21 and it sounds like Hertz (some locations or all?) may be 24. I'm sure none would rent to a 16 year old, because you can't enter into a legally binding contract until you reach the age of majority (18).
Easy Drifter
25th July 2010, 00:05
Not all of Canada, just Ont.
McGuinty's Govt. introduced 'Eco Fees' (not a tax as that requires approval in the Ont. Legislature) on thousands of items on July 1, with no real notice. It was the same day the 8% Ont. sales tax was 'harmonized' with the Federal GST. That meant 100's more items were hit with an additional 8% tax that Ont. sales tax had not been applicable to. That was rammed through the Legislature despite opposition from the other two parties.
However the Eco fee did not require legislature. It was so screwed up several major Companies refused to collect it. Different retailers were charging different amounts on the same item! It has been suspended for 90 days while they rethink it. Even that is screwed up as retailers paid the distributors the fee and distributors paid manufacturers. So companies are out thousands of dollars with no recourse.
Next election Nov. 2011
Yeah, but that's not a law. Just the policy of one car rental agency. Each agency can set its own policies.
So a government nanny is bad and a corporate nanny is OK?
Some agencies you can get a car at 18, some at 21 and it sounds like Hertz (some locations or all?) may be 24.
At least in New York City and Los Angeles.
ShiftingGears
25th July 2010, 11:28
So a government nanny is bad and a corporate nanny is OK?
You can choose your corporate nanny...
You can choose your corporate nanny...
In democratic countries you can choose your government nanny too. Vote, and if that doesn't help, see if some other government is willing to have you and emigrate.
Alexamateo
25th July 2010, 15:20
In democratic countries you can choose your government nanny too. Vote, and if that doesn't help, see if some other government is willing to have you and emigrate.
Are you really that obtuse? Walking 5 minutes to the next counter and paying a few dollars more to the other company (who has higher insurance rates because they allow under 25's to rent) versus the years process of voting and law-making and the multi-year huge expense process of emigration.
Also if Hertz decides they have made a bad decision, they can change it in a day whereas if a government makes a bad decision, it literally takes an act of congress to change it.
In the long run, the aggregate of decisions of individual businessmen,
exercising individual judgment in a free economy, even if often mistaken,
is less likely to do harm than the centralised decisions of a government,
and certainly the harm is likely to be counteracted faster.
anthonyvop
25th July 2010, 15:57
So a government nanny is bad and a corporate nanny is OK?
Yes.
A government nanny FORCES you to comply! You have no choice.
Yes.
A government nanny FORCES you to comply! You have no choice.
You can go to another country. If you don't pay your bill, private companies can try to force you to pay too.
Rollo
25th July 2010, 21:29
No. .05 is the Nanny imposed without debate limit. 24 hr licence suspension on the spot. If no one in car is legally able to drive car is towed. How people get home etc. is their problem. Usually to impound yard in tow truck and then call a taxi. Cops normally will not leave you standing by the road but they could. As this limit was Nanny imposed charges cannot be laid. That takes an act approved by the Parliament of Ont.
.08 is limit as imposed by legislation and passed by the Parliament. Same result as above except charges are laid and can lead to jail time and/or a hefty fine. You are hauled off to the police station to be booked.
In New South Wales the standing limit is 0.05 and 0.02 for drivers under 25. For Provisional Licence holders there is a zero limit.
http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/rulesregulations/penalties/serioustrafficoffences/alcoholanddrugs.html?rrlid=drugsandalcohol
I'm willing to bet that Ontario is more urbanised than New South Wales but due to more lax alcohol laws probably has a higher death rate per 100 million miles travelled.
OK, so you want people to have more freedom to do as they wish, but when some other poor sod gets wiped out my someone "in control" of a motor vehicle, as a direct result of their decision, then what's the point?
Jag_Warrior
26th July 2010, 00:10
From reading Easy's comments, I took it that he was more bothered by the manner in which the measure was imposed, rather than the measure itself. Correct me if I'm wrong (as I don't totally understand the Canadian legal system), but it doesn't sound like a driver who violates this "law" can even be arrested or taken to jail. All they can really do is snag the car, is that correct or not?
We have a similar law here that affects drivers 18 and under (I believe)... since the legal drinking age is 21, it might be that. I'm really not sure. But anyway, drivers under a certain age can be cited (and arrested) if they are found to have a detectable level of alcohol in their system. The car can be impounded on the spot and their license is also seized/suspended on the spot. But that's a "real" law that was passed by our legislature. A law that's not really a (fully enforceable) law is sort of a foreign concept to me. So I'm still struggling to understand this.
Easy Drifter
26th July 2010, 03:30
Jag is correct. It was the way it was imposed without actual legislation or any debate in the Provincial Legislature.
I do not really disagree with the limits although I personally think .08 is more realistic.
We all know that almost everyone drinks before they are of legal age, if they are going to drink at all.
I was drinking when I was 16 and the legal age was 21 then.
However I did not drink and drive then. Like no booze when driving.
I also know I have driven when I had far too much to drink but that was later.
Now I am very careful about how much I consume when I know I am going to drive.
I am older and maybe smarter (maybe not) but years ago it was far more acceptable to drink and drive. No safer then just more accepted as long as you didn't have an accident.
I never did.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.2 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.