CAA Position:
Impaired Driving
Impaired driving continues to be a major threat to the safety of all road users. Three initiatives must remain constant: (1) public education; (2) strong legislation; and (3) strict enforcement at all government levels with no tolerance for impaired driving.
The Details
According to a 1997 Health Canada report, in alcohol-related crashes each year:
- 1,680 people are killed
- 74,000 people are injured
CAA views impaired driving as a serious and preventable crime, and members continue to cite drunk drivers as the greatest threat to road safety.
CAA supports measures under the Criminal Code:
- to deter impaired driving through legislation that heightens the consequences of breaking the law
- to be more effective in preventing repeat impaired driving offences
A jail sentence is typically viewed as the most severe punishment for impaired driving, and it's often used as the ultimate weapon for deterring repeat offenders. But its effectiveness is still in question.
First-time offenders: According to the Traffic Injury Research Foundation (TIRF), evidence indicates shorter jail terms for first-time offenders are effective, where a "taste of punishment" may be sufficient to modify impaired driving behaviour.
Repeat offenders: Although they're more likely to receive jail or prison sentences than first-time offenders, the impact of short-term incarceration on repeat offenders has not been systematically evaluated (they rarely receive brief sentences). Research shows that longer jail sentences produce no significant impact or increase of future collisions and convictions. This suggests that for preventing impaired driving, the severity of punishment is not as important as its certainty and swiftness. Therefore, the effect of short-term sentences on repeat offenders must be examined.
Stricter measures will continue to be applied in response to the public demand for justice, the need to punish repeat offenders, and the need to ensure public safety.
An alternative to jail: Some jurisdictions are experimenting with electronic home monitoring, where an offender is under court order to be at home during specified hours. They may leave the house for pre-approved activities, such as to go to work, to attend a treatment program, or to perform community service. Home confinement is intended to be punitive. Electronically monitored home confinement appears to be a viable, effective, and less costly alternative to incarceration for drunk driving offenders.
There is a need to evaluate the specific impact of electronically monitored home confinement on hardcore offenders.
CAA Members' Opinion
CAA members view impaired drivers as a high threat to road safety. Their opinion has not changed in the last two survey years.
In the 1998 CAA Member Opinion Survey, CAA members responded to the question:
"How supportive are you of each of the following methods aimed at reducing drinking and driving?"
CAA is the voice of the Canadian motorist
CAA continues to encourage police:
- to increase enforcement through the use of random checks for impairment
- to supplement random checks with publicity campaigns to raise the publicly perceived odds of being apprehended
|