Yesterday the BC Court of Appeal dismissed a challenge to the Province’s 2010 impaired-driving law. The law, designed to reduce alcohol-related collisions, was introduced on September 20, 2010, and mandated automatic and immediate penalties such as licence and vehicle seizures, driving bans, and fines for people who receive “warn” or “fail” readings on roadside breathalyzer tests or who refuse to provide a sample.
The successful defence of this law may now clear the way for similar policing approaches to other road safety and public health problems.
The implementation of the 2010 law represented a significant shift in strategy: instead of pursuing criminal prosecution, police adopted a pragmatic approach intended to increase efficiency with a focus on public health: removal of the hazard, removal of the mechanism by which others are exposed to the risk, and creation of a very public and immediate disincentive to engage in the undesirable behaviour. Offending drivers were taken off the road, their vehicles impounded, and they were left to explain to others why they were unable to drive for a period of time. The Criminal Code of Canada was not used as part of this policing/public health approach. The shift to administrative penalties allowed better efficiency in processing drinking drivers than if offenders were charged under the Criminal Code, since criminal convictions while more severe, had lower certainty of punishment and required police to commit considerable resources to each case. Almost immediately, rates of impaired driving behaviour in BC declined sharply. The BC Justice Minister claims that the law has resulted in a 52% reduction in alcohol-related motor vehicle fatalities, or 190 lives saved.
Looking at the figure above, this public health and road safety good news story begs a question:
Could a similar approach be used to combat distracted driving or excessive speed?
Distracted driving in particular has been receiving steadily increasing media and government attention. The Office of the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles produced a discussion paper five years ago outlining the seriousness of the problem. It is now a factor in more BC road fatalities than impaired driving, and increases in crashes due to driver distraction or inattention are seen worldwide. Drivers’ use of electronic devices are of particular concern. Viewed in light of BC’s current penalties for impaired driving, the penalties for improper use of electronic devices appear dated and weak (and the penalties below reflect new laws that came into effect in January 2010).
Penalties for impaired driving, BC, 2014:
|Warn (BAC 0.05 - < 0.08)||- Driver’s licence seizure;
- 3-day driving prohibition (for first time caught in the warn range);
- 7-day driving prohibition (for second time caught in the warn range within five years);
- 30-day driving prohibition (for third time caught in the warn range within five years)
|Fail (0.08+)||- Driver’s licence seizure;
- 'Notice of Prohibition' starting immediately – removing driving privileges for 90 days
Penalties for distracted driving, BC, 2014
|The use of an electronic device that is not allowed for in legislation but that does not involve texting, e-mailing or dialing, e.g., talking on a hand held cell phone.||- $167 fine
- no penalty points
|The use of an electronic device for communicating with another person or another device by e- mail or other text based message, e.g., texting, e-mailing or dialing.||- $167 fine; and
- 3 penalty points
Distracted driving puts vulnerable road users disproportionately at risk, just at a time when planners and environmental and health advocates are working to get people to use active transportation to increase physical activity and improve the communities in which we live. Safety concerns are already among the biggest issues cited for people considering active transportation options; further heightened concerns due to increases in distracted driving could negatively affect the population health benefits gained by the wider adoption of active transportation choices if people are less willing to expose themselves to the risk presented by distracted drivers—a risk that is largely beyond their control, and one against which they have little or no protection. Cyclists and pedestrians have good reason to be concerned about their vulnerability in the presence of distracted motor vehicle drivers:
“Driver distraction is impacting vulnerable road users who have the least amount of protection in the event of a crash: pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists. These three groups of road users suffer from visibility issues, other driver processing issues and a general lack of crash protection – in other words they are physically smaller and may not have good lighting systems; their presence is not mentally processed by drivers to the degree that vehicles are; and they have little or no protection in the event of a crash, i.e., no protection from a vehicle crumple zone, a seat belt or an air bag. Because of these factors, vulnerable road users are more susceptible to vehicle drivers that may be distracted. Driver distraction delays reaction time and when reaction time is delayed, even for a few seconds, the consequences can be dramatic and can make the difference between life and death in the event of a crash.”
Distracted driving is presenting a new challenge for efforts to create healthy, sustainable communities. Perhaps it’s time to take a cue from the success of BC’s impaired driving laws and look at how to get ahead of the growing problem of distracted driving on BC’s roads.