The most widely read magazine for Canadian lawyers
Issue link: https://digital.canadianlawyermag.com/i/50812
use of cellphones and texting in our legal definition of what constitutes distracted driving. In Saskatchewan, for instance, driving without due care and attention legislation is currently in effect. This gives police officers the legal clout to charge individuals "if they feel the safety of other road users is being compromised due to any type of driver distraction," says govern- ment spokeswoman Kelley Brinkworth. "It is estimated that driver distraction is a contributing factor in about 25 per cent of all collisions in Saskatchewan," she adds. "In 2009, there were close to 17,000 collisions involving a distracted driver in Saskatchewan, resulting in 2,598 injuries and 35 deaths." No province, however, has gone as far as Alberta in defining — or redefining — "distracted." Legislation, expected to come into effect the middle of this year, was spurred by Art Johnston, a former Calgary police officer and current member of the legislative assembly for Calgary-Hays. "My original intent was to have a bill that would eliminate hand-held communica- tion devices," he tells Canadian Lawyer. "In discussion with our transportation people, we determined we needed a more comprehensive bill to cover many of the other distractions drivers are involved in." The list is long. Bill 16, the Traffic Safety (Distracted Driving) Amendment Act, 2010, restricts drivers from using hand- held cellphones, texting, and e-mailing as well as the use of electronic devices like laptop computers, video games, cameras, video entertainment displays, and pro- gramming portable audio players. It also prohibits entering information on GPS units, reading printed materials in the vehicle, and writing, printing, or sketch- ing while driving. Oh, freshening up your lipstick and combing your hair are also verboten. From coast to coast, the impetus behind the new laws is safety. "The dan- gers of distracted driving are real and the evidence speaks for itself: a driver who uses a cellphone is four times more likely to be in a crash than a driver who is focused on the road," says Dhahak. "At highway speed, a driver sending a simple text message travels the length of a foot- ball field without looking at the road." The research makes a case for compelling drivers to keep their eyes on the road and off their cellphones (or anything else). A pivotal study released by psychologists at the University of Utah in 2006 concluded that motorists who talk on hand-held or hands-free cellular phones are as impaired as drunk drivers. In the wake of the study, published in Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, lead author David Strayer said: "Just like you put yourself and other people at risk when you drive drunk, you put yourself and others at risk when you use a cellphone and drive. The level of impairment is very similar." Strayer and his colleagues called for legislation to ban cellphone use while driving. More recent research from the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute drilled down further into the issue by continu- ously observing drivers for more than six million miles of driving. The researchers found that using a cellphone, dialing, for example, posed "a substantial increase" in being involved in an accident. The risk was much less for actually talking on the phone. It was highest for texting. While the research points to the dan- gers of being distracted while driving, it is not proving as strong a case for the effectiveness of legislation to reduce the risk. In fact, research released last year from the Highway Loss Data Institute in Arlington, Va., found no reductions in crashes after hand-held phone bans took effect. Comparing insurance claims for crash damage in four U.S. jurisdictions before and after such bans, the research- ers discovered steady claim rates com- pared with nearby jurisdictions without such bans. "The laws aren't reducing crashes, even though we know that such laws have reduced hand-held phone use, and sev- eral studies have established that phoning while driving increases crash risk," says institute president Adrian Lund. Lund points to factors that might be eroding the effects of hand-held phone bans on crashes. One is that drivers in jurisdictions with such bans may be switching to hands-free phones because no U.S. state currently bans all drivers from using such phones, as is also the case in most Canadian provinces. Research aside, it is clear provincial governments are moving to introduce and amend existing legislation to address what they feel is a real threat to road safe- ty. That same fervour is apparent in new drinking and driving legislation from British Columbia. However, while most lawyers are remaining nonchalant about distracted driving legislation, B.C.'s new laws have invoked ire. Under changes to the province's Motor Vehicle Act, drivers who provide a failing breath sample or Baxter_LT_Splmnt_10.indd 1 www.CANADIAN Lawyermag.com FEBRUA R Y 2011 43 11/17/10 4:30:28 PM