I blogged before about how it's inappropriate to have these restrictions be age-based instead of experience-based, especially since the people in question are legally adults.
But today it just occurred to me to think about it from the opposite perspective:
If I, being 29 years old with no 21st-century driving experience, quickly cram in a few driving lessons with one of those driving schools that takes you up to a tiny rural town to do the G2 and manage to pass that test since there's no traffic around to freak me out, I can drive with a small amount of alcohol in my blood. (I think it's 0.05, but I'm not certain because I'm not in the market for any drinking and driving.)
But why should I be allowed to do that? What purpose does it serve? Why, when they were updating the legislation, didn't they make it illegal for me to drive with alcohol in my blood too? How is society better off if I'm allowed to drive with a small amount of alcohol in my blood than if I'm allowed to drive with no alcohol in my blood?
The ostensible reason for this age restriction:
Statistics show people aged 19 to 21 are nearly 1.5 times more likely than older drivers to be involved in fatal crashes and injuries as a result of drinking and driving.
So because I'm statistically less likely to be harmed as a result of the undesirable behaviour, I'm allowed to engage in the undesirable behaviour? Based on that logic, I should be allowed to have guns and drugs.
(Also, people aged 19 to 21 are more likely than older drivers to be involved? So they're counting drivers and passengers aged 19 to 21, but only drivers who are older than that? Really? I wouldn't be surprised to learn that statistically the set of drivers and passengers overall is 1.5 times as large as the set of drivers only.)
When all this started, Dalton McGuinty said:
"Perhaps the most precious thing we have in society is our children, and that includes our older children,"
"We owe it to our kids to take the kinds of measures that ensure that they will grow up safe and sound and secure, and if that means a modest restriction on their freedoms until they reach the age of 22, then as a dad, I'm more than prepared to do that."
Oh, I see. You're "more than prepared" to place "a modest restriction on their freedom", but don't even consider in passing extending this to a modest restriction on your own freedom, not even to add credibility to and eliminate the greatest flaws in your legislation.
I said it two years ago and I'll say it again: I'm glad he's not my father.
3 comments:
This makes me sick. I think your life and my life are as important as any child's life.
Cross-referendce the terrible tragedy when a woman described as a mother or grandmother is killed. If you or are are killed, not so bad.
Well, a parent probably has more people depending on them, although it's their responsibility to make suitable arrangements when they first acquire dependents.
Statistically and overall, a parent or grandparent probably has more people who love them than I do, but that's no basis for legislation.
I, personally, am probably marginally more important now than I was when I was under 21. If I get hit by a bus tomorrow, my client isn't going to be able to release the report I'm working on for the already-announced publication date, and there's one or two students who won't get internships this year. But, again, that's no basis for legislation. It's incumbent upon my employer to have a contingency plan in case one of their translators gets hit by a bus.
You're right, but I think identifying women as mothers and grandmothers is more about valuing women primarily for their reproductive capabilities. Men are generally ID'd by their paid work, women by the fruit of their wombs.
Post a Comment