Do you know what will solve the problem of teen drunk-driving? Beyond forced judgment-transplants, me neither. But I can pretty well guess that a new bill introduced by the Liberal government in the Ontario legislature isn’t really going to make a scrap of difference. Then again, my son didn’t die in a drunk-driving accident, thus giving me the moral authority to blame everyone but my son and promote legislation that will have little to no impact on the actual cause of my son’s death — teenage stupidity.
Confused? That’s because I’m a terrible writer using awkwardly vague examples. Let’s see if the Globe and Mail can do any better:
Psychology has identified five stages of grief: Denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance. But Tim Mulcahy knows a sixth: Action.
The father of four became a father of three one July morning last summer, after the Audi S3 driven by his 20-year-old son, Tyler, plunged into Lake Joseph.
Speed and alcohol are believed to have contributed to the accident.
Like many family members of the victims of tragedy, Mr. Mulcahy soon sought to lend meaning to his son’s death. He started a petition and published a letter to Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty seeking to tighten the laws that regulate young drivers.
Mr. Mulcahy is unusual in that his efforts were successful. Yesterday, Ontario’s Transport Minister, Jim Bradley, introduced a bill that places tougher restrictions on them.
Flanked by the family of a young friend of Tyler’s who was also killed in the accident, Mr. Mulcahy sat stiffly in the legislature gallery, wringing his hands with anticipation, while Mr. Bradley took the floor.
The new measures would affect drivers 21 and younger, enforcing tougher demerit point penalties, requiring a zero blood alcohol concentration, and limiting the number of young passengers they can carry.
“I’m really happy, hopeful” Mr. Mulcahy said in an interview from his Hogg’s Hollow home shortly before heading over to Queen’s Park. Seated on a stiff grey couch in a sparsely decorated corner of his sprawling home, the entrepreneur and CEO of two companies said a confluence of factors, including timing, connections and a widely circulated petition with more than 7,000 signatures came together to bring the revisions to the legislature.
Wow, thanks, Mr. Mulcahy. However, I think you missed something in your pet legislation. If only it included something that would make driving while intoxicated illegal. Oh, wait, hold on. What’s this “Criminal Code” thing that’s lying around?:
253(1) Every one commits an offence who operates a motor vehicle or vessel or operates or assists in the operation of an aircraft or of railway equipment or has the care or control of a motor vehicle, vessel, aircraft or railway equipment, whether it is in motion or not,
(a) while the person’s ability to operate the vehicle, vessel, aircraft or railway equipment is impaired by alcohol or a drug; or
(b) having consumed alcohol in such a quantity that the concentration in the person’s blood exceeds eighty milligrams of alcohol in one hundred millilitres of blood.
That legislation worked like a charm, didn’t it?:
On July 3, Tyler Mulcahy, 20, his girlfriend Nastasia Inez Elzinga, 19, and friends Kourosh Totonchian, 19, and Cory Mintz, 20, spent the afternoon drinking 31 drinks over a three-hour period at a restaurant in Port Carling.
They left that evening in Mulcahy’s Audi, but they never made it home.
Tyler Mulcahy was driving when he crashed the car into the Joseph River.
Only Elzinga escaped the sinking car with her life.
Huh. Maybe if there was legislation that made speeding illegal, that would help. To be clear, the four of them drove to a bar, drank approximately eight drinks each over a three-hour period, and then drove home on rural roads at a high rate of speed. Tyler Mulcahy knowingly broke the law and put his own life and the life of his friends at risk. If he had been caught by the police before he crashed, he would have faced severe legal repercussions for his DUI and traffic violations. Yet somehow this is about everyone and everything else except for Tyler Mulcahy, his flauting of the law, and his incredibly poor judgment. I’m sure that Mr. Mulcahy would have made completely opposite decisions on July 3, 2008 if faced with increased demerit points and a possible license suspension. Although the threats of jail and the loss of his own life and the lives of his friends didn’t work, maybe this time it would have stuck.
Christ almighty. I look forward to further strokes of redundancy from our nanny-state overlords. Now, can someone help me off this soapbox?
Attachments: