In the News

Is Canada really ‘tough on drunk drivers’?
The Lawyers Weekly
June 26, 2009

The Canada Safety Council recently released a report emphasizing that the penalties under Canada’s .08 percent bloodalcohol concentration (BAC) laws are among the “toughest” in the world. Because of this perceived toughness, some in the alcohol industry, political sphere and the media have argued against introducing a lower federal BAC limit. However “tough” laws do not equal effective laws.

If they did, Canada would not have one of the highest rates of alcohol-related traffic deaths among the developed democracies, even though most have higher rates of per capita alcohol consumption. For example, while Germans consumed 64 percent more alcohol per capita than Canadians, a 2001 Transport Canada study reported that only 11 percent of Germany’s fatallyinjured drivers were legally impaired, as defined by a BAC of .05 percent or higher. In contrast, 32 percent of Canada’s fatallyinjured drivers were reported to be legally impaired, as defined by having a BAC above .08 percent.

Impaired driving remains the single largest criminal cause of death in Canada, with impairment- related crashes claiming more than twice as many lives in 2006 as all types of homicide combined. Morever, impaired driving takes a disproportionate toll among young Canadians. Sixteen to 25-year-olds constituted only 13.2 percent of the 2006 population, but 33.4 percent of Canada’s alcohol-related traff ic deaths. Despite the progress made in the 1980s and 1990s, we cannot be complacent. The number and percentage of impairment-related crash deaths and injuries are rising and now exceed 1999 levels.

Canada’s poor record was acknowledged in two recent Transport Canada studies. One study specifically noted that the existing short-term provincial roadside licence suspensions were “a wholly inadequate response to the risks associated with BACs [greater than or equal to] .05 percent.” It also concluded that impaired driving was one of the traffic safety areas in which “performance [was] most disappointing.”

The current .08 percent BAC limit allows individuals to drive after consuming large quantities of alcohol. Given that most police will not lay a criminal charge unless a driver’s BAC readings are at least .10 percent, an average 200-pound man can drink over six bottles of regular-strength beer (12 oz. at 5 percent alcohol) in two hours, on an empty stomach, and drive with little fear of criminal sanction. The current .08 percent laws convey the wrong and dangerous message that it is safe to drink and drive unless you are visibly and severely impaired.

Laboratory, driving simulator, and closed-access roadway studies over the last f ive decades have established that even small amounts of alcohol adversely affect driving skills and performance. As early as 1960, the British Medical Association concluded that a .05 percent BAC is the highest level “that can be accepted as entirely consistent with the safety of other road users.”

This helps to explain why most countries make it an offence to drive with a BAC of .05 percent or higher. Virtually every jurisdiction that has reduced its BAC limit has experienced significant and sustained reductions in impaired driving deaths and injuries. This applied whether the lower limit created a criminal or regulatory offence, and whether it applied to the general driving population, young drivers, novice drivers or impaired driving offenders. Lower BAC limits reduce impaired driving among all categories of drivers, including the so-called “hard-core drinking drivers” (i.e. drivers with BACs of .15 percent or higher).

Support for this finding comes from numerous studies in various countries, including Germany, France, Austria, Belgium, Norway, the Netherlands, Sweden, Japan, New Zealand, Canada, the United States and Australia. It is therefore not surprising that almost all leading medical, accident prevention and traffic safety organizations worldwide publicly advocate BAC limits of .05 percent or lower. Similarly, almost every credible review of the research literature on effective impaired driving strategies calls for reducing BAC limits.

The oft-repeated contention that lowering the BAC limit will adversely affect access to justice is not supported by the international experience. The American states that lowered their criminal BAC limits from .10 percent to .08 percent have not reported being overburdened. Nor is there evidence of such problems in Europe or Australia, which have had .05 percent BAC limits for over 20 years. Moreover, even if the concern with access to the courts had merit, why are some people more concerned with court backlogs than with legislation that would signif icantly reduce impaired driving deaths and injuries? Would these same people argue that court management issues should trump the interests of assault and sexual assault victims?

A Criminal Code .05 percent BAC offence, particularly if rigorously enforced and publicized, would significantly reduce alcohol-related traff ic deaths and injuries in Canada. While the rest of the world has introduced effective laws to drive down impaired traff ic deaths, Canada continues its self-congratulatory dithering.

Robert Solomon is a professor at the faculty of law at the University of Western Ontario and national director of legal policy for Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) Canada. Suzie Chiodo is a J.D. Candidate (2011) and a research associate with MADD Canada. Andrew Murie is the CEO of MADD Canada.

 

 

Printer Friendly Layout