February 14, 2011, marked the one year anniversary for Ontario’s cellphone ban and Toronto police celebrated by cracking down on drivers through their campaign, “Last Call: Whatever You Have to Say Can Wait,” reported CTV.ca. Since January, police say they’ve handed out 1,275 tickets (an average of 41 per day) for $155 fine each.

The Toronto Star reported earlier this month that $46,000 tickets were issued across Ontario within the first year of the provincial ban. The article also cites several studies which support the need for the legislation:

• A Canadian landmark study which found mobile use while driving makes motorists four times more likely to be in a collision.
• In a Utah study, they discovered cellphone users were more impaired in their driving skills than those who were drunk.

Illustrating that all Ontario drivers have been slow to change their behaviour, late last month a TTC bus driver was caught on film texting and driving (source: TorontoSun.com).

In other parts of Ontario, Cornwall Police Chief told the media he hasn’t seen an improvement since the legislation came into effect and in Sudbury, cops issue tickets while directing traffic (source: theglobeandmail.com).

In most cases, change happens over time. Getting a distracted driving ticket is one way to change behaviour, but as we learned in our last post, Study: Most Effective Approach with Teens, Texting & Driving, Ontario drivers can avoid negative reinforcement and embrace responsibility in contributing to safer roads.

What are your thoughts on cellphone bans and, based on the

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?

Last November, Marketwire released a press release on a poll conducted by the Canadian Automobile Association which surveyed 6,000 Canadians about their road safety concerns. While drinking and driving has been the forerunner for over 10 years, these survey results revealed a cultural shift as 85% of respondents feel texting and driving is now the number one road safety issue today.

The poll also showed Canadians have every reason to be concerned about the dangers of texting and driving, “young Canadians, disproportionately those under 30, are texting while driving on a regular basis.” This is despite the fact that seven provinces have banned cell phone use while driving. (We reported the Ontario legislation for a cell phone ban back in 2008.)

From the press release:

“Legislation alone will not solve the issue. Enforcement along with public awareness and education are required, as well as a change in how we as a society view the habit,” said Mr. [Jeff] Walker [CAA Vice-President of Public Relations]. “It is a matter of our society making the practice of texting while driving socially unacceptable.”

As well, the poll found the problem is not a lack of awareness of the laws governing this issue. Canadians of all ages are familiar with laws in their respective regions banning the practice.

Although texting and driving came out on top in this survey, impaired driving is a close second with 83% of the survey respondents citing it as a major threat to their personal safety while on the road.

The press release declared the survey’s accuracy to be within 1.3 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

What’s your greatest road safety concern today?

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.

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!

Following up with our recent post, Study Links Male Teens with ADHD to Traffic Accidents, the Globe and Mail reported a similar study released in February, 2009, with results that imply graduated licence laws actually do work.

The study, conducted by the AAA (American Automobile Association) Foundation of Traffic Safety, compared car crashes connected to teen drivers between 1998 and 2007.

From the Globe and Mail:

“The analysis shows that about one-third of people killed in crashes involving drivers ages 15 to 17 are teen drivers themselves. Nearly two-thirds are passengers, occupants of other vehicles, pedestrians, cyclists and other road users,” it says.

In 2006, a previous analysis of car crashes in the U.S. involving teen drivers found that between 1995 and 2004, crashes involving 15-, 16- and 17-old drivers claimed the lives of 30,917 people, of whom 36.2 per cent were teen drivers and 63.6 per cent were passengers of teen drivers, occupants of other vehicles operated by adult drivers, non-motorists and pedestrians.

This is compared with the more recent analysis of car crashes of 1998 and 2007, where 15-, 16-, and 17-year old drivers killed 28,138 people in the United States. This study concluded that 36.9%  were teen drivers, 63.1% were passengers of teen drivers and 31.4% were occupants of other vehicles operated by adult drivers, non-motorists and pedestrians.

“During the last decade, as states improved their teen licensing systems and AAA has helped parents get more involved, we have seen reductions in teen driver deaths and even larger reductions in the number of other people killed,” Darbelnet [Robert Darbelnet, chief executive officer and president of the American Automobile Association] says. “Clearly, measures put into place to save teen drivers help us all.”

The 51-million-member association is a strong proponent of graduated licensing and says that 49 states fall short of AAA guidelines, which have proven effective in reducing deaths among 16-year-old drivers by 38 per cent.

A report by the Traffic Injury Research Foundation – best practices for graduated licencing in Canada – compared programs in place in this country with those in other jurisdictions. It identified a number of proven components necessary for a multi-staged GDL program including:

• Minimum entry age
• Vision and knowledge testing
• Parental consent under the age of 19
• Minimum duration of 12 months
• Maximum of 24 months before retesting and advancing
• Accompanied by a supervisory driver for a minimum of 50 hours, including 10 at night and 10 in winter conditions
• Professional driver education and training
• Zero BAC (blood alcohol content) – same for the supervisor
• Night restrictions
• Passenger restrictions
• L (learner) sign or plate
• Stiff penalties, suspension and prohibitions for violations of the above.

Inexperienced drivers are most perceptible to distraction is the most pervading reasoning to graduated licensing. The critical relationship between time and distance has yet to be fleshed out in beginner minds, causing them to be especially at risk when closing speeds are outside their parameters of reference.

The AAA, TIRF and other organizations all stress that parental involvement is a key factor in these critical early years at the wheel. Do you believe that graduated licencing allows for a time differentiation where the driver learns enough to avoid crashes? We want to hear from you.

Using Ontario healthcare databases to find correlations, the study found a higher than normal incidence of male teen drivers with disruptive behaviour disorders involved in car collisions. Results also show an association between young male pedestrians with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and traffic accidents.

Donald Redelmeier, lead author of the study and University of Toronto professor, says the results imply a need for stricter licencing requirements for those who are easily distracted due to a medically diagnosed disorder. From the Globe and Mail:

“Taking away peoples’ driver’s licences is not the solution,” Dr. Redelmeier said. “Instead we argue that ADHD ought to be considered just like diabetes and just like epilepsy. Specifically, if you wish to maintain a driver’s licence, you need to see your doctor and show that you are under good control.”

Published in the journal Public Library of Science Medicine, the study allowed researchers to determine that young men with ADHD were at a greater risk for road accidents than the general public. They did this by comparing hospital admissions during April 2002 to March 2009 of young men with ADHD involved in a crash with young men hospitalized for appendicitis.

It should be noted the actual prevalence of traffic accidents involving young men with ADHD could be underestimated, as the study only includes those aware of their disorder and who had access to medical treatment. Many cases of disruptive behaviour disorders go undiagnosed.

The Globe and Mail article points out that the exact causes of the crashes studied may never be known, but that the typical behaviour of those with ADHD suggest they are more susceptible to distractions and are unable to concentrate on one task for extended periods of time. Taken together, the findings from the study identifies a previously unknown potential risk to public road safety.

Dr. Redelmeier said physicians as well as individuals with ADHD and related disorders should be more cognizant of the fact they may be at a greater risk when driving or even crossing the street. It’s important they keep in mind principles of safe driving, such as avoiding excessive speed and minimizing other distractions, such as cellphones, and pay attention when they are crossing streets.

But Dr. Edmunds [an ADHD researcher] suggests there may be no easy solution to the risks outlined in the study. That’s because individuals with disruptive behaviour disorders seem to have trouble remembering to perform tasks that are ingrained in others, such as always checking their blind spot before changing lanes. Similarly, those individuals may not be able to react during an emergency situation the same way as the general population.

More research in this area is necessary before legislation is proposed but the study’s authors say at the very least their results command increased awareness to the risks for male teens with ADHD. At the most, the study concludes its results indicate a certain portion of preventable traffic deaths and disability.

If this study accurately identifies ADHD as a potential driving hazard, how do you think the Canadian government should handle driving and disruptive behaviour disorders?

Out of Toronto’s 28 Toronto pet stores, only 11 sell cats and dogs. If this legislation passes under the current proposal, those pet stores, flea markets and retail shops would be banned from selling cats and dogs. They would have one year to sell their inventory.

Registered humane societies and rescue centres would be exempt from the ban and could charge an adoption fee to ensure people who want to enjoy the pleasures of canine and feline company can still do so.

Ward 20 council candidate Dean Mahler argues a city-wide ban would significantly reduce the startling numbers of unwanted pets, promote humane treatment and help create healthier and happier pets. From the Toronto Star:

“…more than 25,000 dogs and cats were euthanized by Toronto Animal Services between 2002 and 2007. That number alone says to me animals are just too easily picked up and dropped off and thought of as disposable,” Maher said. “Hopefully in the long run, (banning pet shop sales) will reduce unwanted animals.”

Maher also points out that a pet store is an unhealthy environment for pets and may result in dysfunctional behaviour in the future. The unwanted pet cycle is perpetuated when ill-equipped pet store retailers are unable to provide pet owners with proper advise. Owners then become dissatisfied with their purchase or unable to cope with breed specific behavior and health issues.

Backing his proposal is veterinarian, Dr. Kenneth Hill, who says companion animal sales are “fraught with profit-driven cruelty.” In his letter of support he writes that the ban would help reduce the number of puppy and kitten mills that often keep pet stores stocked. (source: Toronto Sun)

From the Toronto Star:

Maher expects his ban will be well-received by Torontonians and feels confident his proposal will be approved by committee to go before city council. He pledges to continue pursuing the issue even if he isn’t elected as city councilor in October.

Although TorontoDogBlog.com supports Maher’s plan, at least one Torontonian opposes the ban. Toronto pet store owner, Ian Butt, says the proposed bylaw punishes responsible retailers. He suggests stricter laws are the answer rather than a total ban.

What do you think about the debate? Could the government regulate pet sales, create a certification program and/or pass laws which prohibit purchasing companion animals raised in mills?

Richmond, BC, is considering a companion animal sales ban on shopping mall pet stores in an effort to diminish the consumer demand fuelling the puppy mill industry. Store owners oppose the ban and say responsible retailers add benefits and credibility to the industry.

Following legislation already passed in two California cities, Richmond’s ban (the first in Canada) would allow adoption from animal shelters and buying from private breeders. Possible amendments to an animal sales ban may include permission for pet stores to offer animal adoption or work in conjunction with local animal shelters.

The supporters of the ban argue that pet stores do not screen owners before purchase and impulsive shopping contributes to the inhumane treatment of animals. From the National Post:

“Mr. Johnston [Richmond City Council member]) points to a CBC documentary, aired last year, that traced puppies sold in Canadian pet stores back to U.S. puppy mills, where dogs are bred in harsh, unsanitary conditions with little regard for health. The Humane Society of the United States has also linked pet supply chains to puppy mills. And the Richmond Animal Protection Society notes a steady stream of surrendered dogs, originally bought from pet stores, whose owners lose interest once their purchases outgrow the cute puppy stage.”

Richmond’s shopping mall pet store owners oppose the ban, saying their responsible business operations discourage impulse shopping. Some say their high prices encourage well-informed consumers. Others say they treat their business as well as they treat their store animals; they offer guarantees, professional advice and their animals are checked by veterinarians.

Pet store owners also argue that a ban may open up an even less regulated black market for puppy sales.

If you’ve been affected by the practices of shopping mall pet stores, please consider using Legal Action to recover any financial hardships you have suffered  in small claims court.

Do you agree with an animal retail ban for shopping mall pet stores in your city or province?

Taki Christopolous was driving home from downtown Toronto when a man pulled up beside him at a stop light, made a rude hand gesture and pulled out a gun. Immediately calling 911 to report the incident, the operator instructed Christopolous to get the license plate number of the instigator’s vehicle.

A high-speed highway chase ensued until Constable Sven Wiggermann pulled over Christopolous and charged him with “chasing” – a violation of Ontario’s stunt driving law. They impounded his BMW and suspended his license for seven days.

Toronto paralegal Philip Alexiu, the defendant’s legal representative, offered an “officially-induced error” defence in an October 2009 trial. From MacLeans.ca:

“He accelerated briefly to try and obtain the plate, and then slowed right back down when he realized the other vehicle was going much too fast,” says his paralegal, Phil Alexiu. “And the only reason he even accelerated was because he was directed by 911 to see if he could obtain the plate.”

While Christopolous maintains he never exceeded 120 km/h, the traffic officer testified the defendant’s BMW weaved between lanes and, at one point, clocked in at 168 km/h.

Toronto Justice of the Peace, Mary Ross Hendriks, ruled in favour of the Crown and said the advice of the 911 operator “was akin to a discussion with an appropriate official, not authorization to engage in high-speed pursuit.”

Christopolous was fined $2,000 and has filed an appeal.

Do you have a traffic ticket to fight? Take legal action with the help of our legal professionals.