Scaring teens with the potential negative consequences of using their cell phones while driving doesn’t work, says a recent study. It reveals what does seem to work, why and provides tips in effectively guiding teens into making wiser driving decisions – ultimately contributing to safer roads.

As we learned last time on Legal Action, most Canadians believe that texting and driving pose the greatest risk to our road safety today. A proactive solution to this issue is gleaned from recent research about teen beliefs and their cell phone use, published in the peer-reviewed scientific journal, Accident Analysis and Prevention.

From the Globe and Mail:

“It found the best way to convince teen drivers to stay off the phone while at the wheel is to emphasize the positive effects of that decision rather than highlight the negative outcome of cell phone use while driving.

The results come from the National Young Drivers Survey of more than 5,500 teenagers, part of the Young Driver Research Initiative created by the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and State Farm Insurance. YDRI was established to use scientific research to understand and predict teen driver crashes in hopes of helping prevent them.”

(Find out more about this teen driving program, including the information and tools generated by it, on www.teendriversource.org.)

Survey result synopsis:

1. Teens who don’t use cell phones while driving mentioned positive motivators for abstaining.
2. Teens who frequently use their cell phones while driving cited the negative drawbacks for abstaining.
3. Safety rather than social reasons had a more powerful effect on their behaviour.

Benefits teens shared:

• Being able to pay more attention to their driving
• Less likely to have a crash
• Obeying the law

Drawbacks teens acknowledged:

• Getting lost or forgetting something
• Unable to let people know where they are or when they’ll arrive
• Parents are unable to reach them

Reviewing these valid concerns, here is practical advice for guardians and teachers in how to effectively communicate with teens about this issue:

• Acknowledge the desire to have a cell phone in the car for emergency purposes.
• Convey a clear message that the phone should never be used while driving.
• Empower teens to do the right thing by giving them viable alternatives to talking or texting while driving.
• Teens don’t respond well to messages and restrictions that appear punitive or controlling or that single teens out as a group.

Here are some safe cell phone practices to share with teens (and adults):

• Complete any call or text before starting the car.
• Know directions before starting the car rather than relying on a cell phone call or GPS.
• Check in with friends or parents only after you arrive.
• Pull over to a safe place for urgent calls or have a responsible passenger use the phone.

Please share this article with all those you think would benefit from reading it. We can all do our part to reduce risk and make our roads safer.

Do you think using this positive approach may work better with changing teen behaviour than scare tactics?

In December, police added drugged driving to their holiday checklist. Studies suggest drugged driving is just as prevalent as drunk driving but cops say it’s not as socially unacceptable yet and more funding is needed to train police officers to spot drug impaired driving.

As a follow up to our last post, “Greg’s Law in Effect,” a Toronto Sun article published last month reported another incidence of a citizen being instrumental in raising awareness and lobbying governments for change. Ever since his son died in a fatal car crash in 1999 caused by a driver who was under the influence of marijuana, Gregg Thomson has been devoted to the fight against drugged driving.

Despite advancements made over the years, like more police forces signing on for Drug Recognition Expert (DRE) training, lack of funding in several areas have slowed progress. For instance, the exact number of fatalities caused by drugged driving are currently unknown as budgetary restraints won’t allow for coroners to test for drugs like marijuana, oxycontin, cough syrup and other drugs.

Even though there is a lack of statistical evidence for determining the effects and prevalence of drugged driving in Canada, the Toronto Sun reports:

While several studies indicate that drunk driving has plateaued and drugged driving is on the rise, that may be because more officers are being trained to detect drug-impaired driving.

In 2008, Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse (CCSA) researchers found 10.4% of drivers tested in British Columbia roadside tests were positive for “very recent” drug use, while 8.1% had been drinking. The same test done over a wider area in June 2010 found 9.9% tested positive for alcohol, compared to 7.2% for drugs, says Doug Beirness, CCSA senior research and policy analyst and adviser.

“We’ve been talking about drinking and driving for many, many years and we really haven’t acknowledged the fact that drugs are out there, too. The results of these surveys have certainly shown us that yes, indeed, the prevalence of drugs is just as high as that of alcohol,” Beirness says.

Although it’s always been illegal to drive impaired on drugs, police were unable to test for drugs until Bill C-2 came into effect, as we reported in “Impaired Driving Law Amendments Call for Drug Testing.” Once the law passed, officers with a DRE certificate have the power to do 12-step, standardized tests of suspected drugged drivers, often after drinking has been ruled out. Drivers refusing the test can be charged.

Hundreds of police officers a year are getting DRE training, however, York Regional Police Staff-Sgt. Brad Bulmer says training isn’t coming in fast enough and there are rumours of cuts to the federal funding for certification. Bulmer believes without federal resources, most police agencies will not have enough money for the expensive, intensive, labour-costly courses.

Part of the reason DRE training is so important is because there are no established drug thresholds like the .08 blood-alcohol limit imposed for drinking drivers.

Throwing the long list of illicit, prescription and over-the-counter drugs under one number would be impossible.

In order for blood, urine and saliva samples to hold up in court, they must be supported by the DRE officer’s observations to prove a driver was in fact impaired. After all, some drugs can remain in the system for several days even after the high is gone.

Advocates and experts agree that DRE training is only part of the solution. Youth still think it’s acceptable to drive impaired on drugs, whether illegal, prescribed or over-the-counter so public awareness is key to keeping our roads safe. More studies and funding (as much as drunk driving has received over the last 30 years) are needed to fully combat the issue of drugged driving.

What are your thoughts on this campaign?

Disclaimer: It is illegal for any paralegal to represent anyone for impaired driving, DUI or similar charge without being under the direction of a lawyer. Legal Action will be happy to refer you to trusted lawyers that have met the needs of many of our clients in the past and will help you find the lawyer you need to alleviate the anxiety and pressure associated with drinking and driving offences.

After several years of lobbying the Ontario government, a grieving widow sadly celebrates the latest amendment to the Highway Traffic Act. Under this new traffic law drivers caught with suspended licences face harsher penalties, including immediate vehicle impoundment for seven days.

Passed in 2009, `Greg’s Law’ is in full effect and driving with a suspended licence in Ontario now carries more risk. Among the amendments, repeat offenders face fines of up to $50,000. The new law also gives police the legal right to seize offenders’ vehicles on the side of the road, and impound them for seven days. (Source: CBC News)

Earlier this month the Globe and Mail reported the bittersweet victory of Eleanor McMahon, wife of deceased Ontario Provincial Police Sgt. Greg Stobbart. It was four years ago when her husband was swiped by a dump truck while cycling up a hill in Milton, Ontario. He was off-duty at the time and died shortly after arriving at the hospital.

The driver had five convictions of driving with a suspended licence and had a long list of traffic violations, including one for an accident he was involved in just two months prior. Greg’s Law cuts through the red tape and allows police to immediately impound the vehicles of suspended drivers caught on the road.

From the Globe and Mail:

It takes a public citizen who is dogged and tireless to turn legislation into law, and Ms. McMahon is all those things. She lost a good man not long after finding him, and that would break anyone. But she put herself back together, and now fights to make our roads safer. Society owes a debt to everyone like her who has turned sorrow into action, however small the steps may seem.

And she is not finished. In addition to her advocacy work for bike safety, she is now lobbying for two new pieces of legislation: one requiring drivers to give cyclists a one-metre berth when passing, another that will require paved shoulders.

Proponents for Greg’s Law laud this as a positive move towards safer roads and more legislation created by the public. Critics suggest further amendments to include lesser penalties for those who can prove they were unaware their licence was suspended at the time.

From everyone here at Legal Action, we hope you had a very happy and safe holiday!

In the past month, Ontario’s ministry of transportation has introduced a number of new proposals aimed at curbing car accidents involving young drivers. The proposed changes would severely limit the number of passengers young drivers are allowed to have in the car and would include a zero-tolerance policy on alcohol and speeding.

Under current legislation, young drivers are allowed to have as many passengers as they wish during the daytime and may only have one passenger who is a minor between the hours of midnight and 5 a.m. for the first six months of a G2 license only. With the proposed changes, young drivers would only be allowed to drive one passenger under 19 years of age at all hours. The passenger restriction would not apply to adults or relatives.

The proposed legislation changes would also see very strict penalties for drinking and speeding. The first time a young driver gets a speeding ticket under the proposed changes, he or she would lose his or her license for 30 days and could face impoundment of their car. Similarly, the driver would face a 30 day license suspension the first time he or she blew 0.01 on a breathalyzer. Under current legislation, a driver needs 15 demerit points to have their driving privileges revoked. Subsequent drinking or speeding violations would result in longer suspensions and even permanent suspension of driving privileges.

Many of the proposed changes have come about because of persistent lobbying by grieving parents. Tim Mulcahy is one of those parents. His son, Tyler, was killed after drinking at the Lake Joseph Club and speeding over the Joseph River, losing control of his car and crashing into a guardrail. It was only after his son’s death that Tim Mulcahy learned that his son had many speeding tickets. Tim Mulcahy was convinced that if laws had been in place to revoke his son’s license for speeding and drinking, his son would still be alive today.

Nor surprisingly, the proposed changes to the law have created their fair share of controversy. Many young drivers claim that the proposed rules do not take into consideration the fact that some young drivers are responsible. Others point out that the new rules apply only to drivers between ages 16 and 21. Older drivers who get their licenses for the first time do not face the same restrictions or the same penalties for drinking and speeding, even though presumably their driving inexperience may also lead them to make some of the same mistakes as young drivers. The fact that only young drivers are affected by the suggested changes – and not all new drivers – also has some claiming that the proposed legislative changes are discriminatory.

One thing is for certain: as the new legislation is discussed and debated in the upcoming months, we are in for some fascinating discussions about driving privileges in this province.

Ontario police had yet another busy holiday weekend, as they laid down over 5000 traffic-related charges, including the 150 drivers who saw their vehicles seized under the province’s new street-racing legislation.

From the National Post:

OPP Sgt. Cam Woolley said one of the cars seized was that of a driver from New York who was clocked at 227 kilometers an hour on Highway 407. Woolley reported a 40% drop in fatal high-speed crashes compared to the same time last year — something he attributes to saving the lives of an estimated 80 people.

“If you can put this into perspective, that’s 80 more people that are alive compared to the same time last year, so this isn’t some little fluctuation,” Woolley told 680News.

According to these reports, it would seem that these harsh measures are starting to affect the public’s awareness of street-racing. The OPP certainly need to push these findings, considering the amount of controversy surrounding their speeding dragnets, as our blog has frequently brought up. Given the dramatic drop in fatalities, it seems the stricter aspects of the law are unlikely to be modified, at least in the short-term.

With the dangers of street-racing in mind, have the ends justified the means when it comes to legislation bordering on the unconstitutional? We would love to hear your thoughts in the comments section below.