McGuinty admits mistake in new driver restrictions

Premier Dalton McGuinty explains his decision to remove a restriction on how many passengers young drivers can transport in their vehicles. Paul Bliss reports.

A A | Print |

| Comments (34) | Add Comment

ctvtoronto.ca

Date: Tuesday Dec. 9, 2008 12:23 PM ET

Premier Dalton McGuinty said "every once in a while, you step in it" in explaining his government's decision to back off limiting teenage drivers with a G2 graduated licence to just one other teen in their vehicle.

Speaking to reporters at Queen's Park on Tuesday, McGuinty said he couldn't get away from criticism of the move, be it on walks or trips to the grocery store.

He joked that one sign his government had gone too far is when his own children -- now in their 20s -- started picketing his house.

On Monday, Transportation Minister Jim Bradley told the legislature that the government would withdraw the measure, which applied to drivers 19 and under.

The legislation had triggered a massive backlash, with about 150,000 people joining an online protest group in about two weeks. Politicians reported being inundated with complaints.

Bradley said the opposition was particularly strong in rural and northern Ontario, where public transit is scarce.

The opposition parties still have objections to parts of the legislation, namely a provision that imposed a zero blood-alcohol limit for Ontario drivers under age 21.

They call that discriminatory.

The legislation also includes automatic licence suspensions for young drivers who speed.

With files from CTV Toronto's Paul Bliss

Please Add Comments( )

EMG
said
0 0

What a breath of fresh air to hear a politician admit to a mistake. It's too bad that this is such an isolated occurrence that it makes the news.

Al
said
0 0

I think it was a great idea given the number of teenagers killed in high speed auto accidents, but if he can't enforce it on his own kids, how does he expect it to be enforced on others.

The widowmaker
said
0 0

Why what's the mistake. I personally thought it was a good idea. People need to remember that driving is a privalige. It's better to teach then at a younger age to be respectful when driving, and not act like a butthead because their friends are with them.

Patrick
said
0 0

Who wants to clean his shoes? Any offers? Nice choice of words Dalton. LOL

Another prime example of why McGuinty needs to be ousted. Too bad Toronto decides for all of Ontario who gets in.
I can understand the reasoning behind the proposed restriction, but give me a break - don't our police forces have enough to do without trying to enforce that law as well? Sheeeeesh

Larry NL
said
0 0

Just think of all the other mistakes Dalton hasn't admitted to. They are just too numerous to mention.
However, the new rail system from Windsor to Quebec city is a good idea.

Gail (Hamilton)
said
0 0

Thank goodness the young people spoke out when they felt they were losing a freedom and wouldn't put up with it. This was a stupid attempt by the government at parenting control.

Youth in Ontario
said
0 0

"Oops, I'm gonna lose votes!"

I'm glad he backed down, but would it really have happened if 150000 youth hadn't stood up?

John Murray
said
0 0

BC has had restricted licences for years.
From the ICBC web page
Novice stage restrictions (for first 2 years of having a license )
carry only one passenger
You are limited to one passenger unless you have a supervisor 25 years or older with a valid Class 1 - 5 driver's licence. This restriction does not apply to immediate family members: mother, father, sister, brother, child, spouse, grandparent; including step and foster relationships.
Its worked here for years.

Stevo
said
0 0

Awesome! Stupidity triumphs over safety once again. How long before another car full of 18 year olds plows into a train and 6 more die. Congratulations!

The widowmaker is 100% correct.

Responsive to the public: Excellent, Dalton.
said
0 0

That's why the voters reject the hard-line ideologues of the right wing parties.

Jimmy from ON
said
0 0

For every one person against the teenage driving restriction, there are likely three in favour of it. The problem is, human nature dictates that we rarely make noise unless we're complaining. We have encouraged teens to have a sense of entitlement these days, and McGuilty's backtracking on this issue will only solidify that mindset.

Laura
said
0 0

I think something needs to be done in regards to tougher laws on young drivers... A lot of them drive the roads is if they are invincible...
I also wish that people would petition together like this on much more important issues affecting this country!

Phil
said
0 0

The measure was worthy of discussion at least, so cheers for making people talk about it. Now lets take on the insurance industry...

Defensive old drivers who could drive more than 75% of the speed limit if their life depended on it do not deserve to pay less insurance.

liz ottawa
said
0 0

I am not sure the youth protesting would have spurred him, more their parents. everyone knows the 18-24 show the worst voter turnout of all age groups.

would that McGuinty admitted that health tax was a mistake (and an out and out lie since he said he would not raise taxes), though he never will.

I could have seen this being a problem for kids going out with their friends and picking one of them to be the DD, this would have prevented that. my daughter doesnt really go out drinking but even going out with a few of her friends to a movie would have been a problem.

peterj
said
0 0

Finally, a bit of common sense. Just run the Province like you were elected to do and stay out of peoples personal lives.

BR
said
0 0

A difficult issue to tackle
I understand the concern.
There other issues such as encouraging car pooling available transport.

Aliza
said
0 0

I think it's too bad that they backed down. This was evidence-based legislation-- a rarity, where fashion trumps research most of the time. And zero tolerance for alcohol and drugs, no use of phones while driving etc should apply to everyone. So the newbie drivers don't like it? At least they'll be alive at the time of the next election to vote for a different premier.

Bob in Toronto
said
0 0

Actually, what it appears there backing down on is a restriction that would actually lead to MORE teenage drivers in rural area's.
I'm from a small town where there is no public transit and the school bus service was shoddy at best (like when you live 2 blocks outside of the zone...you don't get a ride.) So I can see why PARENTS and students (in this case) would be upset by this. In smaller towns (especially if you live outside of the town) you NEED to drive. You're right, it is a privilege...but SCHOOL isn't. It's kinda mandatory for a while. And that's where the problem lies. For decades students have been able to drive themselves into school, with others from the area so they ALL don't have to drive in. This part of the legislation would basically have made them all have to drive into school. That is if they had no other means.

Now...I could see there being a two-part restriction on this. If it has to do with school, it's fine, if it doesn't, it's not. It would be very hard to enforce...but it's possible. The other items in the bill, other than the alcohol restriction (which I also feel is discriminatory based on age, but nonetheless a good idea) I agree with.

Sharon H.
said
0 0

It is a mistake to Mr. McGuinty to back off from these changes. It was a step in the right direction to protect these teenagers. I am still hoping this changes come to NB as many teenager this past year have died as a result of reckless driving, usually involving having other teens in the car. Their lives are more important their "perceived" rights.

Fayclis in On-SCARIO
said
0 0

Now if only McQuinty will admit he made a mistake also with the Dog Owner's Liability Act by allowing discrimination and profiling based on LOOKS and not on temperment or disposition. I would like the see the over 4000 puppies and dogs piled up in front of his office. Had they only listened to the credible professionals at the debates that "mess" could have been avoided also.

Xana in Muskoka
said
0 0

While it is nice to see a politician listen to those who he affects with his policy decisions, I have to ask the question why is he so deaf to the cries of families dealing with AUTISM? Maybe if his 20 year old kids who picketed his house on the issue of G2 driver privilege had autism, he would listen on this issue as well. For example: $150M is the current IBI budget with 1100 children currently receiving IBI funding/service and 1400 children are currently sitting on the lengthy waitlist. If you divide the $150M by 2500 children (which is the total of the waitlist and currently funded/serviced children), you would get $60,000 per child per year. This would fund a 30 hour 1:1 IBI program for each child. So I ask, why is there a waitlist and why are children being cut-off and why won't McGuinty listen to the families who are most affected by this particular policy? Anyone know where I can get a hold of his kids? I have a "cause" for them to join.

PB - Toronto
said
0 0

I have heard that kids run this country with their "I can do what i want when I want" attitude.

Now I believe it. I was taught that driving was a priviledge now it somehow became a "right". Im scared where this society is going with everyones "rights".

Pinger from Winchester
said
0 0

All politicians must learn in this society of immediate gratification and ultra poltical correctness to think "smarter" rather than "harder". Government's have managed to rid Canada of an era of "lawn darts" and banana seat mustang bikes and steel framed mini-bikes and three wheel ATV's and kids riding snowmobiles and must have weapons safety courses and mandatory boat courses. And in spite of all this progression the gun registry still exists? Come on MP's let's end this money gulping whirlpool once and for all.

Ali
said
0 0

I could see this legislation working in larger cities with transit systems available but let's face it, in rural communities, it would have caused real problems. For example, teenagers would have been unable to carpool to high school.

Sherry
said
0 0

Folks ... remember there is a farming community out there and the kids just can't hop on the streetcar to get to school and work. Rural kids need to have more than themselves together in a car. Please .. remember that Ontario is not just Toronto. The rural communities feed you lot so be nice to us.

Wes
said
0 0

I think I didn't want to lose 150 000 votes for the next elections..lol

Dale Wilson - Edmonton
said
0 0

When will politicians learn from examples like these? When you make a mistake, admit it. It worked for Ralph Klein for years and it will work for the Ontario premier. Canadians don't expect politicians to be perfect, far from it. What they expect is elected officials that admit when they are wrong and take corrective action. How come they never seem to get this?

Scott O'Brien - Ottawa
said
0 0

Sure, he admits he made a mistake on one mundane issue. What about all of your other screw-ups Dalton? How about admitting to them?

What a maroon!

Dean
said
0 0

More laws only create more criminals. Lets try to enforce laws that have been around forever, instead of dreaming up new ones. This "only if it saves one person" mentality has to stop, or soon we won't be free people, we'll be controlled people.

Doug BC
said
0 0

Lots of "spin" to a question that really has no right,or wrong answer.
Both of the options come with positive and negative consequences.
I'm not fan of McGuinty,but to suggest that he should live or die on an issue like this,or that a political ideology is responsible for the policy,is ridiculous to the extreme.
The idea is to find ways to save the lives of young people.The very fact that it is painted as tainted with the stain of political ideology should be offensive to all people.No nmatter what party,or how effctive they think this might finally be.
In actual fact,no one will know for several years.We have these rules in BC.But I think the jury is still out on whether or not they will remain successful,or practical.
If we're going to run everyone into the ground when they try something new,we will end up with leaders who will never try anything new,or make any decisions.
Shame on anyone,or any party for thinking this should be a partisan issue.
We all want safer drivers and suffer when these young people die.THAT is the issue.

Phill
said
0 0

If we have been promoting car pooling for environmental reasons, then
It's a good idea that the restriction was lifted. Driver responsibility falls on the driver , or in the case of a teen, responsible parents to educate their child. What about the rural areas where teens share a car? Treat teens like adults, give them expectations and serious repercussions.

Richard, Manitoba
said
0 0

Right on! Too many times teen drivers have had to risk their driving privilege to get their impaired friends back home, because it was the right thing to do.

Ryan
said
0 0

I think the point of this to remember is that it alienated young drivers, when in fact the clarification should have been for NEW drivers. I've been driving for 20+ years now, and I will still see middle-aged drivers weaving recklessly through traffic.

Though I must say he did have something with the zero-tolerance for alcohol - only wish that could have been extended to the entire population rather than a small segment.

Matthew
said
0 0

It really is unfortunate that an inconvenience to some is held in higher standing than human life.
As a high school teacher I see kids driving recklessly, with other kids egging them on, all the time.
When in groups, teenagers, especially males, tend to show off to females and males alike.
Driving is a privilege ... not a right.