When emotion trumps judgment and politics clobbers policy, even well-meaning legislation gets skewed. So it is with Alberta's Bill 26 — proposed new drunk-driving regulations — that was rushed through the legislature.
Those objecting to the draconian provisions — instant license suspension and impounding of the vehicle if the driver has a blood alcohol level of .05 (below the Criminal Code threshold) — have been cast by the self-appointed morality police as being soft on drinking drivers.
Roadside convictions
Might it not occur to them that we are more concerned with the overt abrogation of civil liberties and the possibility the bill is unconstitutional? Provinces cannot criminalize an offence — that's Ottawa's privilege. Unfortunately, once this legislation passes, it will require a cast of lawyers willing to take it on and a host of judges as it winds its way through the system at the glacial pace of all such challenges. British Columbia has already started down that path.
New regulations would allow the police, in an officer's own judgment, to seize the driver's license and impound the vehicle if the driver blows .05 on a roadside test. The notion of innocence is tossed out the window. If this bill passes, drivers who aren't middle-aged, white, respectable-looking and driving a newish car should be suitably spooked. Given the history of how police departments too often treat racial minorities and those who don't meet the above criteria, I don't like their chances for mercy.
The Alberta government insists these are just small changes to existing laws. That is flat-out wrong. Currently, the police have the power to impose a 24-hour license suspension. But that's all. That preventative measure is sensible.
New regulations would give the police the power to decide — to convict — a driver blowing between .05 and .08, the threshold at which Criminal Code provisions apply. (Most charges aren't laid unless the driver blows over .08. The logic is this allows for the possibility the hand-held device used at the roadside could be out by a point or so. At .1, there's little argument.)
An appeal to emotions, tearful and heart-breaking stories of loss, whipped up by Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), has far too many people buying into the emotions of the legislation, for who could possibly argue on the side of impaired drivers? That's not the point.
To give the police the power to punish, rather than merely prevent — as 24-hour suspensions do — is a brand-new way of looking at drinking and driving.
We do not need tougher penalties. We already have laws dealing with impaired driving which are suitably tough. Those laws are administered by the courts, not at the side of a road by a police officer. Those who support that kind of swift justice haven't taken the time to look at the statistics.
The stats aren't exactly thrilling reading, but they are informative. Ongoing monitoring reports done by the Traffic Injury Research Foundation of Canada, for the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators, the Standing Committee on Road Safety Research and Policies, and Transport Canada, highlight who are the real dangerous drivers, while proposing measures to educate and inform the public. Such strategies have been adopted by most of the provinces, including Alberta.
Here are some of the statistics, devoid of emotion and politics: Of all drivers killed in road crashes (the studies used 2005 statistics, and little seems to have changed in the past few years) 36 per cent had been drinking. About 85 per cent of those had a blood alcohol count over the legal limit of .08. But the majority of those drivers killed behind the wheel had readings above .16, or twice the legal threshold while 15 per cent blew up to .05. It would seem, statistically, that the real threat on our roads comes from drivers who blow way over the legal limit.
MADD has it wrong
While MADD supporters would have us believe no one who has had a single drink should get behind the wheel, their focus should be on the preventative, not the punitive. Why? Here's a nasty secret nobody ever wants to admit: A person who is too intoxicated to drive is also likely too drunk to decide not to drive. So it's up to those providing the liquor to take steps to prevent the impaired driver from ever getting behind the wheel.
I'm under no illusions that any objections, particularly those raised by the hospitality industry, will have any effect on politicians who would rather be seen to take action — regardless of its assault on civil liberties — than do the hard work of getting tough on repeat offenders and educating the rest of us.
