Okay, coming from a 16 year old's view...i know ALLLOOOT of kids who drive, adn alot of kids who love to get drunk. The one thing we all share in common is our passion for cars, and our hatrid for the bus. Now, if the "1 passenger" law is in effect, kids will not be able to arrange a designated-driver system, and drunk kids will be stranded. Now, you're not exactly the smartest person when you're drunk, especialy at 16-18sih, so you may decide to DRIVE yourself home! Now, what's more dangerous, driving home with a designated driver, or having no other choice (well, who wants to spend MONEY on the bus when you got a car, specially when you're drunk and can get jumped on the way home) and drive.
Now, the drunk driver rate is going to INCREASE. What's more dangerous, driving when you're DRUNK off your ***, or driving with some other people? No one shows off any more anyways, that's the first 2 months of getting your licence, then it goes away.
EDIT: I fully agree with the 1 year learner's period, though...i can drive by them and laugh, bwahahaaha

 

I think its a good idea.......

 

lil kids should not drink, and if they do they should take the bus or get their mommy or daddy to pick them up.. its all about personal choice, there are so many solutions to this.

take europe for instance, there is no legal age there, so even 13 year olds can drink. You have to be 18 to drive... I wonder do these people take the bus that stops running at 10PM? hell no, they ride their bike, or they walk home, or they get their moms and dads 2 pick em up.

 

I thought the legal age for drinking was 19?? LOL

Why can't either the buddy or the driver be the designated driver?

How about a cab?

Honestly though, WTF are the parents?

 

yep, what about a cab?? .. good point grant

 

Jimbo, you would have a valid point IF the legal drinking age was lower than it is. When the government proposes laws, they do NOT factor in speculation and "what-ifs" into their decision-making processes. Laws are created in conjuction with other laws; its a harmonious, interrelated system. Thus your argument is irrelevant: you are criticizing one law by negating another. The moment we start assuming that the rules governing society will be broken, we might as well live in anarchy.

Statistically, newer drivers are worse today than they were 5 years ago. Laws need to be stiffer in every way regarding this. Just my $0.02 .

 

I am not for underage drinking.
I am for the current laws set in that make it more difficult for a young person to get their license.
Insurance rates are too high and the vast majority of accidents are caused by drivers with a lack of experience.
In ten years we will see some good driving and comparably lower premiums.

If you feel the need to drink at the age of sixteen - stay home.
Don't blame the system when your lack of proper driving experience gets in the way of your underage drinking habits.

Before you attempt to flame me, keep in mind this is my opinion and we are all entitled to them - and you asked.

 

i dont kow about the drinkin thing your talking about but i dont agree with the one passanger rule cause it just makes it a more drivers rule. and i know tht when you get more cars together your gonna just be racin around with each other, i know cause me and my frineds do it still. not street racing but we drive worse when we are alll in our own cars then all in one.
i dont agree with lots of tihngs the government does. i also think that kids should be taught on cars that they plan on driving. one of the biggest reasons i dont thin a 16 yr old kid needs a camaro is because he probably couldnt handle it at first learning how to drive on a kia or a civic. there is a huge difference.

 

I say all these laws are stupid & they are no doubt, I've yet to see any good come from the stupid "N", young drivers do crazy things to show the world that even with the "N" they can outdrive a regular. I had my 93 LT1 when i was 18 & I never crashed, I raced but I never drank & drove, who cares if kids drink & drive let them be, problem is you can't stop them with laws only more law inforcement, & the government don't want to do that. I say just make it harder to buy alcahol & you'll be fine.

 

You all bring up good points, so props to you all!
However
A kid that spends his money on overpriced government-run liquor store booze has no money left for a taxi, anyways. Plus i've had ALOT of friends that as soon as they get off the bus, they get a pipe to their head and their stuff stolen. The liquor store system is a JOKE anyways, 9 out of 10 liquor stores i can walk in and buy liquor without being IDed, 7 out of 10 my buddy that looks like he's TWELVE can do!!
When I have more people in the car i'm more cautious anyways because the car takes longer to stop, longer to accelerate, cant corner as well, etc. Who the hell do i need to impress ? They all know my car's cool already
Screw this new law

 

I say if they think they are adult enough to drink, prosecute them in adult court and throw them into adult jail with an adult sentence. By drinking underage, kids should forfeit their protection under the young offenders act for any other illegal crime they commit.

If ANYONE is willing to drink and drive and put others at risk, they should have the book thrown at them regardless if they are underage.

 

Time to get a job then. There is no reason why a 15-18 year old can't earn 200-500 per month while going to school. And splitting a taxi 3 or 4 ways makes it affordable. All it takes is a little hard work and sacrifice if you want to indulge.

Also, liquor is quite cheap here. Try buying alcohol in big cities in the US or in resort locations - it puts a hurting on the wallet.

 

you can always hire a taxi and then just stop at someone's house you don't know and run into a park or something

 

I'm sure you would if one of them killed a family member.

I do agree with you that the "N" and "L" law has not proved as fruitful as initially anticipated, but few prototypes do. We are talking about two completely separate issues here - the first being the new driving regulations and the second being underage drinking. For some odd reason, Jimbo is intertwining them. His justification for this is that the the government should "know" that kids will drink regardless of their age, and therefore there shouldn't be a stricter driving law. That's such BS.

When ICBC imposed higher insurance premiums on my age/risk bracket, I did not exclaim "well I pay too much in speeding tickets already, so I shouldn't have to pay more in insurance". What a load of $hit.

If new drivers did NOT drink and drive, speed, etc. at the rate they do now, we wouldn't require these laws. This "problem" with new drivers isn't a fabricated government plot to indirectly screw the public for some unforeseen reason...it is real and needs to be dealt with.

"...I can't afford a taxi because I'm an underage drinker that is also a new driver..." How stupid does that sound???

 

First of, I had my Camaro when I was 16 and I've been just fine, so thank you very much. (and no, mommy didn't buy it, she just bought the tranny )

As for the proposed regulations, I can see where they're comming from, less people in a car during an accident means less people getting hurt/killed. However, they're missing the point that there is going to be MORE car on the road, hence MORE chances of accdients. I think it's just another way for ICBC to make more money. More car insured, more accidents, you get the idea.