Issue #267 A Case of Optics & Metrics
Tough new drunk driving legislation in BC leaves little doubt law makers in that province are heading toward zero tolerance. But how comfortable should west coast motorists be with the attendant trial-less “administrative sanctions?”
It’s now a year since Ontario and BC joined the other Canadian provinces—except Alberta, naturally—in banning hand-held cellphone use by drivers. My empirical research tells me Vancouver’s motorists complied for a couple of months, then mostly went back to their old ways, pretty much in line with their risk of getting caught, which, at the moment is negligible. As many drivers have figured out, it’s tough to tell whether you’re on the phone or just resting your head against your hand. If a cop appears, you simply let the phone drop. But overall, driving on the phone has joined a long line of lazy driver transgressions like stop sign offences, illegal lane changes and turning right on a red without stopping that cops habitually ignore.
Provincial statistics show that driver distraction is the number one cause of vehicle crashes. And no crash is ever trivial for a motorcyclist. Studies by the University of Utah and by Virginia Tech have shown that talking on a mobile phone—handheld or not—while driving is at least as dangerous as driving drunk. The U of U study found cellphone users had more crashes than drivers measuring 0.08 per cent blood alcohol content, while the Virginia Tech study measured various alcohol levels and concluded cellphone use to be as dangerous as driving with a 0.08 per cent BAC. Both studies concluded that it was the “cognitive impairment” of holding a remote conversation that caused driver distraction, not holding on to the phone. So banning handhelds doesn’t really help.
Other research supports this. In the US, fatalities attributed to driving while on the phone rose 25 per cent to nearly 6,000 a year between 2005 and 2008, in spite of the fact that many states band handhelds. And a study by the Société de l’assurance automobile du Quebec concluded that “relative risk” of a crash increased between three to six times for drivers making seven or more calls a day.
So why not a total ban on talking on the phone while driving?
This is where sound research and statistics get sideswiped by optics and metrics. No one, including me, would advocate driving drunk, but drunk driving is a motherhood issue—literally, evidenced by the braying from Mothers against Drunk Drivers. And that also means the subject is closed from rational argument. The political optics of introducing more stringent drink-driving legislation can’t be negative, and also serve to deflect attention from other issues. But a total ban on phoning while driving would be a tough sell. That’s bad optics.
So when BC introduced tougher drunk driving regulations in September this year, there was little debate. Now, driving with a blood alcohol content of just 0.05 per cent will net you a roadside suspension, plus a fine, vehicle impound at your expense, and—as BC’s enforcement and insurance interests overlap through the provincial vehicle insurer, ICBC—higher insurance premiums. BC’s Superintendent of Motor Vehicles calls these penalties “administrative sanctions,” because they’re handed out without the benefit of a trial. A review appeal is allowed, but only to the same superintendent, then to a BC Supreme Court review under the Judicial Review Procedures Act. The appeal procedure hasn’t changed, says the superintendent, which is true. But it is now a lot more expensive, and a significant deterrent. (What is it about “administrative sanctions” that make me nervous? Echoes of 1984?)
So now you’ll lose your vehicle and a bunch of money for driving with a BAC that makes you significantly and measurably less dangerous than the hands-free caller in the car behind you. That’s where the metrics come in …
Metrics are things you can measure, like speed and BAC. As long as the devices you use to collect the metrics are reliable and trustworthy, and their results accurate, metrics are difficult to argue against. Modern breathalyzers are considered accurate enough for court evidence, as are modern radar and laser speed detectors. Court cases using evidence from these sources are pretty much open and shut unless there are procedural inconsistencies. Not surprisingly, enforcement agencies like metrics, and there’s little doubt that the stringent new DUI regulations will increase revenues, because not only will the revised limits catch more borderline cases, but the administrative sanctions, costs of appeal, vehicle towing and storage charges, penalties (and offenders’ insurance premiums) have all increased significantly.
It’s also why speed traps are popular. Speeding is easy to prove, and almost everyone speeds to some extent. It’s entrapment, not enforcement, and about as easy as shooting fish in a barrel, so the revenues are significant. But speed isn’t necessarily correlated with the number of crashes, just their severity. Driver distraction is the leading cause of crashes. Which brings us full circle.
Politicians love positive optics. Law enforcement loves metrics. Rather than tackle the issues that would really reduce the number of crashes on the road (better training, regular re-testing, a rational approach to driver distraction), regulators are irresistibly drawn to what makes them look good—and what fills the coffers. Several European jurisdictions are already enforcing a BAC of 0.02 per cent, and some others, like Romania and the Czech Republic have zero tolerance. I wonder which province will be first?
