In the News

Random drunk test idea a breath of fresh air
By Naomi Lakritz
Calgary Herald
March 17, 2010

It was entirely predictable that when Ottawa suggested it might allow random roadside breathalyzer tests, the knee-jerk reaction would be "OMG! The state is invading our privacy and intruding on our lives yet again!" Well, to that I would have to say, be thankful you have a life into which the state can stick its nose -- in this case. The state is trying to prevent your life from being snuffed out by a drunk driver. There are plenty of things the state should not be doing in people's lives, but this isn't one of them.

Consider a thorough report called Random Breath Testing: A Review of the Evidence, published last July and authored by two lawyers associated with the University of Western Ontario, Robert Solomon and Erika Chamberlain, and law student Suzie Chiodo. Solomon is national director of legal policy for MADD Canada, and Chiodo is a research assistant for MADD. The authors have backed up every point they make in favour of random tests, by citing sources such as the Traffic Injury Research Foundation in Ottawa, whose publication, The Road Safety Monitor 2008, contains the information that "the percentage of Canadians who reported driving after drinking in the past 30 days rose from 14.7 per cent in 2005 to 18.1 per cent (representing over 4 million Canadians) in 2008."

That means, despite all the awareness campaigns, more people are driving drunk. This trend does not appear to be going the way of cigarette smoking, which has seen a paradigm shift across society. Those of us who have been in journalism a while can recall the days when the air in the newsroom was thick with cigarette and cigar smoke, and there were ashtrays on every desk. Nowadays, those few who still smoke are like Napoleon exiled to Elba -- they do it at a prescribed distance from the building, and the farther away, the better. Unfortunately, the same seismic change is not happening with drinking and driving, and that's why something more drastic has to be done. We can't just look at the carnage, shrug, and say: "How about another awareness campaign?" Drivers have had their awareness raised until it's bursting out of the tops of their skulls, and they still act like they're unaware.

The MADD report says: "Impaired driving remains the single largest criminal cause of death in Canada, with impairment-related crashes claiming 1,278 lives in 2006, more than twice as many lives as all types of homicide combined. Moreover, impaired driving took a disproportionate toll among 16 to 25-year-olds, who constituted only 13.2 per cent of the population, but 33.4 per cent of Canada's alcohol-related traffic deaths. Despite increasingly onerous criminal penalties and other federal amendments, progressive provincial legislation, the frequent use of sobriety checkpoints, and countless awareness campaigns, designated driver initiatives and treatment programs, impaired driving has proven a persistent and serious problem in Canada. Indeed, the number and percentage of impairment-related crash deaths and injuries have been rising and in 2006 exceeded 1999 levels. Millions of Canadians continue to drink and drive because they can do so with little fear of being stopped, let alone charged and convicted. Charge and conviction statistics, and survey results, indicate that a person can drive drunk, on average, once a week for more than three years before being charged with an impaired driving offence, and for over six years before ever being convicted. Other survey data suggest that even these low charge and conviction rates may be significantly overstated."

Those who fear creeping nanny statism need to sift this issue through a finer mesh in their thoughts. Nanny statism is when government tries to protect people from themselves. That's where the line needs to be drawn. When government tries to protect public safety, it's doing its job. I suspect that anybody who grumbles about this nasty new Big Brother-ish intrusion into our lives has not lost a loved one to a drunk driver. If they had, they'd want everything possible done to ensure that nobody else ever had to suffer the agony that they had to go through.

The report cites a lot of stats which show that in countries where random testing is in use, the drinking-and-driving numbers have dropped. But really, the best reason for bringing in random testing is not that things have gotten better elsewhere, but rather, that they're getting worse here. Somehow, the message has to seep in, and if the fear of being caught will do the trick, then bring on the breathalyzers. This is one occasion when public safety trumps individual liberty. On Tuesday, Rob Breakenridge wrote on this page that he hopes Canadians "will consider what (roadside breathalyzers) would mean in practice and will tell Ottawa to scrap the idea." My hope is that they'll tell Ottawa the exact opposite.