DRIVING SCHOOL ASSOCIATION OF ONTARIO INC
ONTARIO MUTUAL INSURANCE ASSOCIATION
ONTARIO MEDICAL
ASSOCIATION
ONTARIO CORONERS' ASSOCIATION
THE ONTARIO FEDERATION OF HOME AND SCHOOL ASSOCIATIONS
CONTENTS
Thursday 16 September 1993
Graduated licensing
Driving School Association of Ontario Inc
John Svensson, president
Central Driving School
Dave McManus, representative
Jaipaul Ramwa
Rodger Peaire
Ontario Mutual Insurance Association
Glen Johnson, president
Ron Perry, member
Doug Little, member
Jeremy Riley
Ontario Medical Association; Ontario Coroners' Association
Dr Rocco Gerace, chair, OMA committee on accidental injuries
Dr Kevin Flynn, Ontario Coroners' Association and member, OMA committee on accidental injuries
Dr Ted Boadway, OMA director of health policy
Ontario Federation of Home and School Associations
Ruth Woodcock, first executive vice-president
Bette Turner, president
Norma McGuire, immediate past president
STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
*Chair / Président: Huget, Bob (Sarnia ND)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Cooper, Mike (Kitchener-Wilmot ND)
*Conway, Sean G. (Renfrew North/-Nord L)
Fawcett, Joan M. (Northumberland L)
Jordan, Leo (Lanark-Renfrew PC)
*Klopp, Paul (Huron ND)
Murdock, Sharon (Sudbury ND)
*Offer, Steven (Mississauga North/-Nord L)
*Turnbull, David (York Mills PC)
Waters, Daniel (Muskoka-Georgian Bay/Muskoka-Baie-Georgienne ND)
*Wilson, Gary (Kingston and The Islands/Kingston et Les Îles ND)
*Wood, Len (Cochrane North/-Nord ND)
*In attendance / présents
Substitutions present / Membres remplaçants présents:
Dadamo, George (Windsor-Sandwich ND) for Mr Waters
Daigeler, Hans (Nepean L) for Mrs Fawcett
Haeck, Christel (St Catharines-Brock ND) for Ms Murdock
Jackson, Cameron (Burlington South/-Sud PC) for Mr Jordan
Lessard, Wayne (Windsor-Walkerville ND) for Mr Huget
Morrow, Mark (Wentworth East/-Est ND) for Mr Wood
Phillips, Gerry (Scarborough-Agincourt L) for Mr Offer
Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes:
Ministry of Transportation:
Dadamo, George, parliamentary assistant to the minister
Hughes, John, director, safety policy branch
Clerk / Greffière: Manikel, Tannis
Staff / Personnel: McNaught, Andrew, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1006 in the St Clair Room, Macdonald Block, Toronto.
GRADUATED LICENSING
The Vice-Chair (Mr Mike Cooper): I'd like to call this committee to order. We'll continue with our proceedings on studying the Ministry of Transportation's graduated licensing.
DRIVING SCHOOL ASSOCIATION OF ONTARIO INC
The Vice-Chair: I'd like to call forward our first presenter, from the Driving School Association of Ontario. Will you please come forward. Good morning. I would just remind you that you're allowed up to a half-hour for your presentation. The committee would appreciate it if you'd keep some time for questions and comments from each of the caucuses. As soon as you're comfortable in your seat, could you please identify yourself for the record and then proceed.
Mr John Svensson: My name is John Svensson. I'm president of the Driving School Association of Ontario. I have brought a few overheads. I think people are in close enough proximity.
The Vice-Chair: We must apologize. We didn't --
Mr Svensson: That's okay. I can hold them up for you.
Ladies and gentlemen, I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to present our views to the standing committee and to congratulate the government on both the process and development of the Ontario model for graduated licensing.
By now, many of the proposals and supporting arguments are no doubt beginning to sound familiar. However, we'd like to first echo the sentiments of many others, and that is that the process of implementation not be unduly delayed. The toll is already too high. We fully expect the model to evolve as the data begin to flow in for analysis, and the very fact that there's a commitment to evaluate the results is cause for celebration. We view the graduated licensing system as one of many promising strategies which collectively have the potential to significantly reduce road trauma, one which may finally restore a sense of value, pride and accomplishment in holding a licence to drive.
Just by way of a brief background on the Driving School Association of Ontario, just a brief description of who we are, I've attached on the final page of our report a brief for your perusal at your leisure.
Our organizational objectives are succinct: to reduce the number of fatalities and the incidence and severity of injuries resulting from road trauma in Ontario; to design an effective road safety education system in cooperation with government, research and corporate sectors; and to deliver this road safety education system professionally through members of the road safety education profession.
We believe that education is a process and not a product. Our members are community-based, and they're becoming even more community-involved. There is a growing awareness of the importance of looking at the needs of the community as well as the individual and of taking all road users into account in the process.
Although policy issues are touched upon in this presentation, our primary concern is one of legislation.
The DSAO fully supports the Ministry of Transportation's objective to make Ontario's roads the safest in North America. The objectives of graduated licensing are well understood. However, we believe that in order to maximize the benefits of graduated licensing, several key issues must be given higher priority and definition. Paramount among these issues are experience and incentives.
Among the overheads, and I can just read these off, in terms of a survey of why people take professional instruction, we find: wanting to learn to drive safely; insurance discounts; mobility; parental influence and convenience; employment opportunities; status with peers; and to pass the provincial driver's test. Of these, employment opportunities, mobility and safety are the key issues that we feel graduated licensing directly addresses.
Many presentations have already pointed out the lack of restrictions in level 2 and the inherent problems this creates. We concur with this opinion and further argue that care must be taken not to forgo justifiable restrictions simply to appease the mobility issue. To avoid trapping people the system is not designed to catch, prudent use of incentives and experience criteria could provide a variety of paths to the same goal. These will allow for the recognition of genuine competency and provide for both the incentives and opportunities to gain the appropriate experience. We have confidence that the appropriate screening tools will be found to justify the incentives. The days have long passed when one keeps the whole class after school because a few students misbehave.
Among the recommendations in level 1 is to encourage education at the inception; that is, when they get their L permit or licence, by allowing early road tests to be booked only after successful completion of a driver education course, and to make the credits six months.
In surveys we've done with classes and groups around the province, we have found that eight months is perceived as a long time and not much different than 12 months and six months is perceived as a very attractive incentive.
Also, the concept of implementing a logbook: This prevents delay of the course to a time closer to the road test and helps to ensure that more practice and, more importantly, more appropriate practice occurs.
We've already had a lot of experience in this province with delays in road tests that run to eight months in some sections of the province, and students have characteristically delayed their training programs to be closer to their road test time so that they'd be prepared and things would be fresh in their minds, rather than taking their training early and getting the experience prior to testing.
On level 2, we'd certainly encourage education at the exit point, providing again a six-month credit and a comprehensive exit test as a logical conclusion to the program, provided that the driver has a minimum of 2,000 hours of driving experience in his or her logbook. British Columbia has already pioneered this as the precedent whereby in BC either a spouse or a parent or guardian signs an affidavit that the individual has had 35 hours of on-road experience under varying conditions. This ensures again that the experience issue is not optional, and it also strongly encourages a positive last impression. That, by the way, is one of the reasons we chose today to present.
Among violators, during the time of the graduated licensing system, we're suggesting that violators be provided with a choice: A 90-day extension of time in the particular level or a meaningful educational intervention through a driver improvement course, but based upon diagnostic assessment and prescriptive treatment; that is, meet the needs of the individual. Yes, we are following the medical model, and we feel that road safety is a health issue. This would encompass both the four-and-one-half-hour practical and eight-hour theoretical component. Research from that program is available from Germany.
Finally, we recommend a pre-entry probation to provide for a pre-entry incentive of an 18-month, conviction-free prerequisite, similar to requirements to obtain a weapons permit.
We don't want to see people locked in the system for ever. Again, it might be difficult to appreciate this humour. We do get students from time to time, but the idea is to encourage experience; this is a little celebration at the driving school, a little something to celebrate your 500th lesson. It's become a fixture in the school.
Additional proposals are enumerated below but are not argued again because they've already been presented previously by other presenters.
Flexibility at the policy level to accommodate special needs is essential.
Optional use of a learner ID sign: Within the association we don't feel strongly that it should be a mandatory requirement. However, there is the comfort level for some people, particularly with parents or family, to use this.
We also recommend zero BAC for the driver and accompanying driver in both phases, no 400 restrictions, and no front seat passengers when the accompanying driver is present who may interfere with the care and control of the vehicle that the accompanying driver is responsible for.
There's another concept again that's been elaborated on by the Road Safety Educators' Association. I believe those slides have already been presented. That is the concept of having a novice peer. We certainly support that concept and the commensurate changes or alterations that would make to the system. It does solve a lot of issues for rural Ontario. We have members everywhere from Smiths Falls to Niagara Falls and from Cornwall to Kenora. We cover the province in a wide geographic area and wide set of circumstances, and we certainly feel the novice peer is a method that is easy to interpret and relatively easy to implement, and it works; it can be effective.
In conclusion, we, the Driving School Association of Ontario, together with the road safety educators in Ontario, are depending on you, our legislators, to bring graduated licensing forward, to provide a sound legislative framework and to trust in the ability of all stakeholders to integrate the issues within that framework for the benefit of all road users.
The success of the system will not be measured solely in the anticipated reduction of fatalities and the frequency and severity of injuries, but also in its ability to meet the needs of the individual and the community. It's an accountability, we feel, whose time has come.
Mr Hans Daigeler (Nepean): Thank you for putting your views forward. We've had quite a few representatives of the driving school system in the province come before the committee and it is much appreciated, since obviously you are intimately involved in trying to pass on the proper attitudes and the proper skills.
Here I mentioned already the one word I want to ask my first question on, attitudes. How are the members of your association involved in training attitudes, because this was identified as a major concern, mind you, perhaps the most difficult educational challenge. Could you explain a little bit to us how the members of your association are trying to work on that attitude problem?
Mr Svensson: Attitude is something that one gets at more indirectly, rather than trying to -- if we think back, I think for any of us, when we were learning to drive and the experience that was involved with that, I think the most common approach to teaching attitude is to tie it in to other aspects of driver behaviour and road behaviour: through example; through an understanding of the implications of one's actions; how one's activities as a driver interact with other road users in the community you live in and what the impact of those actions may be.
As I mentioned at the very beginning of the brief here, we feel it's necessary to have a restoration of some respect and pride in the privilege of driving. It's for too long been something that's been very easy to acquire and has lost a bit of its value. That alone, if someone feels they met a standard, that they've met a challenge and accomplished some more comprehensive objectives, shall we say, I think translates into an attitude into the value they place on the privilege of driving.
1020
Mr Daigeler: Is this part at all, in a formal way, of the classroom teaching? I didn't take the driving lessons here, so I don't know; my kids did, but they didn't tell me about it. Is there any formal time reserved to try and get at this mental framework question in a theoretical sense?
Mr Svensson: Yes. It is part and there are 25 hours of theory incorporated into the program. Maybe, again, how attitude is exemplified is in a person's ability to perceive risk, to recognize risk, to manage risk, to make low-risk choices. That's reflective of an attitude that acknowledges risk is present. We're not talking just of drivers in this case; we're talking about passengers and other vehicles and making choices as to whether one wants to ride with another driver.
The attitude is manifested more in terms of one's behaviour and that's done by example and dealt with in consequences and situations that are discussed. The whole system is moving now towards an interactive system where the student is much more involved in the decision-making process, not just for the driving manoeuvres, but for other decisions that relate to one's behaviour in traffic.
Mr Daigeler: What kind of authority does your association have over its members? Is it just a voluntary association? Do you come together for an exchange, which is useful in itself, or do you have any kind of -- like the function of a college type of thing?
Mr Svensson: We're evolving. The Driving School Association of Ontario has just over 300 member schools across the province that voluntarily subscribe to belong to an approved school system. In so doing they agree to meet a code of ethics, specifications, terms and conditions of business; in other words, to adhere to standards. If they fail to adhere to those standards, then their approval could be suspended until they come back into --
Mr Daigeler: Has that ever happened?
Mr Svensson: Yes. It has happened on several occasions. The primary role of the association is one of education, though. Because there is so much at stake, by far the majority of members are trying to exceed the standards rather than just get by.
Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): I take it from your brief that you're not in favour of mandatory driver's education?
Mr Svensson: Yes, that's correct. I'm sorry; I might have skipped, come to think of it. Thank you for drawing that to my attention. Mandatory training, we feel, actually provides a disincentive because there's no option. Where it's been put into practice, what's happened in the industry is that people shop on price. Because they have to take the training, they shop on price and it causes a collapsing in to minimum standard.
Mr Turnbull: Turning to standards, is it your impression that we need to work on improving standards in driver education?
Mr Svensson: Absolutely. That is a priority with the association and with the Road Safety Educators' Association, both in terms of training the individuals who work in this field as well as the programs we deliver.
Mr Turnbull: In what main areas would you advocate an improvement of education skills?
Mr Svensson: I think moving away from minimum standards and dealing with what we term loosely "the medical model," which deals with assessing what the individual's needs are, not just as a driver but in terms of the individual as a citizen.
Mr Turnbull: Are you differentiating then between performance skills and identifying crash potential?
Mr Svensson: Absolutely. We're looking to the research community as well to identify more the safety quotients, rather than just the psychomotor skills. As I say, we're relying on the research community to help us in identifying those issues, without getting into too many specifics here, moving towards what we'd term "intended learning outcomes," which aren't always directly measurable, as are the typical criteria used right now.
Mr Turnbull: Since you're from the driver's school association -- this is slightly off the graduated licence -- what is your impression of the present arrangement with the ministry for booking tests for people? We hear stories of incredible waits to get tests. What is the impact upon students? You alluded slightly to this in terms that after they book the tests, people will arrange their driver's education clustered around that, rather than spreading out their experience.
Mr Svensson: Long wait times are a disincentive. People feel they're in the penalty box and they have to wait it out.
Mr Turnbull: It seems to me that one of the potential solutions, if this is a financial problem of getting more resources, is that perhaps we've got to raise the cost of testing so that it is completely self-supporting and add the extra staff that are needed to give testing on a timely basis.
Mr Svensson: Yes, that's always been a mystery to us, that the ministry is probably one of the few revenue-generators in government and how previously it could charge $15 for a test that costs $37 to administer. Certainly, in our experience and from our viewpoint out there on the road with the general public on a regular basis, people perceive value when there is a dollar figure attached to it. In other jurisdictions where there have been significant increases in costs to at least meet the cost of delivering the service, there's no evidence that it has resulted in disadvantaging segments of the population.
Mr Turnbull: In fact, in Ontario the pressure has been to reduce the duration of the test. I'm told that in some places you have a 10- to 15-minute test. I'm hard pressed to believe you can possibly assess driving skills in that period of time.
Mr Svensson: I think you're correct in that assumption. The tools we're using now we don't believe are adequate for today's demands on drivers. To the Ministry of Transportation's credit, it has been investigating this for some time now, partially in terms of development of the exit test, but it's hard to conceive of any examiner who has been trained to evaluate people to a higher or more comprehensive level to then want to go back and do people to a lower level. We're hopeful that the outcome of the investigation and the various means of driver assessment and so on will have implications in making the test more comprehensive.
Mr Turnbull: What about this practice in certain locations of having a dedicated test track as opposed to taking the people out on the roads?
Mr Svensson: There hasn't been any solid research that would indicate one system is more predictive than another. There are arguments on both sides and nothing scientific to support things one way or the other. What we are looking for, clearly, are predictive measures which have some correlation to future crash involvement.
1030
Mr Turnbull: At the time of a test, both at level 1, as it's going to be, and the future level 2, do you think there should be an in-class component of that test, part of this predictive basis of the test?
Mr Svensson: When you say in class, what I would think again, just from the current state of --
Mr Turnbull: Written test.
Mr Svensson: Something that has a perception, judgement, decision-making which could be done on an inside type of test. There is a lot of work being done on that area now to find correlations between the scores on those types of test and outside scores in real traffic.
Mr Turnbull: Is there anywhere in the world we should be looking at for good models that we should emulate?
Mr Svensson: The state of Victoria in Australia has got some interesting data on hazard perception, judgement, decision-making tasks, and there is also some preliminary data now coming out of Europe although it's not as far along.
Mr Gary Wilson (Kingston and The Islands): Thanks, Mr Svensson, for your interesting presentation. It's quite thought-provoking. I have a number of questions but I realize time is limited so I'll ask some specific ones, but I'm just interested in what might be a more general one.
On page 2, you mentioned: "There is a growing awareness of the importance of looking at the needs of the community as well as the individual and of taking all road users into account." I'm just wondering what you had in mind when you wrote that.
Mr Svensson: In the sense that members are looking at more than just a population of educating the drivers, for a lot of our member schools the primary target population is new drivers and that's primarily young people, not exclusively any more with the changing demographics. It's, again, very much like the medical model, that a physician would not necessarily be doing a service to his patients if he looked at his patient in isolation from his environment, any more than someone who is teaching someone to drive and whose behaviour in that community can have a very serious impact on members of that community, that that person should be taken in isolation. So when I say community involvement, I mean getting involved with safety villages, having discussions with cycling and pedestrian groups, school crossing guards --
Mr Gary Wilson: Does that happen now, by the way?
Mr Svensson: Oh, yes. It does happen in pockets, and some of our members are far more active than others setting up designated driver programs for special events.
Mr Gary Wilson: The standards that you have for your member schools, though, don't include, or do they include?
Mr Svensson: No. We're encouraging that type of behaviour. I think those that have become involved in that are finding that not only is it good for the community, but it also integrates the business into the community as well. It's good for business.
Mr Gary Wilson: Sure, and there's also that interest of other road users. We've had submissions by cyclists who emphasize the importance of alerting new drivers to the concerns of cyclists.
I just want to touch again on that mandatory aspect because, when you talk about the growing awareness and the importance, I was wondering whether with the complexity of driving as well as the importance of safe driving, both with regard to the individual's concerns but also society's, you wouldn't see the need for a more organized, I guess, approach to driver instruction.
Mr Svensson: If the testing process is comprehensive and does its job, if it's a good screen, a good predictor and an individual can meet the standards, demonstrate the competency, I think it would be inappropriate and actually a disincentive to require that individual to go through a program that was designed to instil those values they had acquired by other means. There are many ways to reach the same end result. For those people who have difficulty acquiring these skills and knowledge and intended learning outcomes, they are going to take training in order to meet the standard. That's the case in England, where over 90% of drivers seek formal training because they perceive the testing standard to be comprehensive.
Mr Gary Wilson: I'd like to talk to the additional proposals that you have. You say no 400 restrictions. Why did you make that as a recommendation?
Mr Svensson: Well, we have not as yet seen any evidence that learners or accompanied drivers are necessarily at higher risk, nor do they put other road users at higher risk, on 400 series highways. Those roads are safer. Statistically, by any measure you want to look at, they're a safer route. It's hard to imagine, for instance, someone driving from London to Sarnia taking the old highway as being a safer way to get to Sarnia from London than the expressway.
Mr Gary Wilson: From your education, would you say that by highlighting the 400 series as being hazardous in this way, it might actually be a problem with learning to drive, that this would always be seen to be especially hazardous?
Mr Svensson: Perhaps, although that's more the personality of the driver. Most drivers do not have a lot of difficulty adapting to it. But again, we would certainly encourage -- and again, if the training happens early on in the process, highway-freeway driving is an integral part of the driver education process. So at least they're introduced to it in a proper manner so that they understand how to use that roadway in the safest, lowest risk possible way.
The Vice-Chair: Mr Svensson, on behalf of this committee I'd like to thank you for taking the time out this morning and giving us your presentation.
CENTRAL DRIVING SCHOOL
The Vice-Chair: I'd like to call forward our next presenter, from the Central Driving School. Good morning. Once again, just a reminder that you'll be allowed up to a half-hour for your presentation. The committee would appreciate it if you'd leave a little time for questions and comments from each of the caucuses. As soon as you're comfortable, could you please identify yourself for the record and then proceed.
Mr Dave McManus: My name is Dave McManus and I'm here representing Central Driving School in Toronto.
We're all horrified at the prospect of our young people dying in fiery crashes. As individuals, we feel sickened and powerless in the face of the enormous waste of human potential. As a society, we call for and embrace legislative intervention such as graduated licensing in the hope of arriving at a solution to a long-standing problem. At Central Driving School, we value the opportunity to be involved in this process. Our observations and recommendations are based upon over a decade of experience in the field of driver training.
The government of Ontario should be lauded for presenting what is quite literally the opportunity of a lifetime. Over the years, considerable effort has gone into improving the safety of vehicles and roadways, but this is the first instance during my own lifetime in which such an all-encompassing investigation has been undertaken focusing on the people who use the road system. Undoubtedly, other provincial governments are looking to follow Ontario's lead, and the final design of Ontario's model for licensing reform ultimately holds the potential to help reduce crash-related death and injury nationwide.
I would like, however, to interject a note of caution. Proponents of graduated licensing postulate that the strength inherent to the scheme lies in the fact that new drivers will be given the opportunity to gain much-needed experience under conditions of controlled risk. Some have even stated outright that experience is the best teacher, drawing parallels with on-the-job training, for example, which, unlike the graduated licensing proposals, usually includes a regimen of ongoing instruction.
Is experience the best teacher? There is no arguing that gaining experience in any endeavour is an important element in achieving competence. However, unlike learning to play the piano, where the most negative consequence of error is a sour note, the consequences of error behind the wheel make the costs of learning a life skill like driving through experience prohibitive.
Drivers who adopt behaviour which multiplies their chances of death or injury have no real way of knowing this until they experience the negative consequences of such behaviour. The many crashes which we see and hear of daily are almost always happening to other drivers. When an individual is involved in a crash, he or she usually views it as an isolated event beyond the realm of normal human control, rather than the natural consequence of average driver behaviour.
1040
In fact, it is precisely the notion that through experience new drivers can somehow automatically grow to become safe drivers which has led us to this re-examination of how best to go about introducing new drivers into the community of road users.
I'll begin with a couple of comments on the level 1 proposals.
One restriction of the proposed model denies level 1 drivers access to the QEW and 400 series freeways and urban expressways. While conventional wisdom holds that these roadways are especially hazardous due to higher speeds, in fact, because of their design, when properly used they are among the safest of roadways. In 1991, sections of the QEW and 400 series highways situated within Metro Toronto experienced a fatal crash rate of 0.12 per 10,000 registered vehicles. By comparison, the provincial highways in the Peterborough area, which would not be off limits to level 1 drivers, experienced a fatal crash rate of 1.49 per 10,000 registered vehicles.
There are responsible driver training programs which include freeway driving. Under the proposed system, it would not be possible for level 1 drivers to receive such training. We therefore recommend that learners be allowed to experience freeway and expressway driving when accompanied by a qualified, licensed instructor.
In the proposed model, a learner must be accompanied by a fully licensed driver whose measurable blood alcohol concentration is less than 0.05%. The co-driver who agrees to take a new driver out to practise assumes an onerous responsibility. That co-driver is, in effect, encouraging the learner to engage in the most hazardous activity he or she is ever likely to undertake. Is it not reasonable to expect that the co-driver maintain a BAC of 0%? Moreover, how can individuals be expected to judge what their BAC might be? The only time anyone really knows for sure is when it's zero.
Therefore, we recommend that licensed drivers who accompany learners be restricted to a BAC of 0%. We further recommend that a violation of this condition be a pointable offence under the Highway Traffic Act.
In regard to level 2 proposals, in practical terms there are minimal restrictions at this level. Maintenance of a zero BAC is a sensible approach to driving, and the fact that in 1991 less than 4% of crashes in Ontario involved drivers who had consumed any amount of alcohol suggests that the vast majority of drivers see the sense in this approach.
The restriction limiting the number of passengers by the number of seatbelts will help to avoid the type of situation in which the whole ball team is loaded into the back of a van with a new driver behind the wheel, thus mitigating the effects of peer pressure in certain instances.
Given the minimal nature of these restrictions, however, there doesn't appear to be any real incentive to exit level 2. Less than 13% of Ontario drivers hold anything other than a class G licence. I see no reason why most level 2 drivers wouldn't be content to spend the rest of their driving careers at that stage, particularly if this would enable them to avoid a second, more comprehensive road test.
Currently in Toronto, the average road test lasts less than 15 minutes. Most new drivers are trained only to road test standard, which means that applicants simply have to demonstrate the ability to adhere to the letter of the law for those few minutes. When over 45% of drivers involved in crashes are deemed to have been driving properly, there's clearly a lot more to road safety than obeying road signs.
The proposed level 1 exit test is described as being similar to the current test. Our concern is the danger in endorsing a scheme which would allow new drivers to exit level 1 after passing a road test which is far too short to allow for a thorough assessment of one's true abilities behind the wheel, and then giving them access to any roadway in the province indefinitely. Inadequately trained drivers, given experience, will only become experienced inadequate drivers. This, of course, is the same problem the new legislation is intended to address.
We request that the committee consider a simpler, more direct and more cost-effective approach which will subject all so-called level 1 drivers to a more rigorous road exam. This exam should include driving on highways and freeways, a demonstration of emergency braking and avoidance skills, and a test of the applicant's ability to identify and react to conditions of increased risk in the driving environment.
We believe that the only way to ensure that all new drivers are equipped with the physical and perceptual skills demanded by the modern environment is to screen for these skills before granting the privilege of a licence. A tougher test will help to remind the public that in Ontario being licensed to drive is a privilege.
A more comprehensive examination will entail more time and thus be more expensive to deliver. It seems reasonable that those who use the system should be expected to bear the cost of operating it. I recently encountered an individual who claimed to have done 13 road tests before finally passing. When asked why they hadn't bothered to invest some of that expense in professional training, the response was it was cheaper to keep going back for tests. I expect that if the true cost of a real driving test were to be in the $90 to $100 range, applicants would be more inclined to ensure that they were better prepared. In the long run, the savings in insurance costs and the collateral benefit in terms of community health and welfare will more than offset this increase in user fees.
I earlier referred to this process as the opportunity of a lifetime. This committee is in a unique position to make a lasting contribution to the quality of life in this province. Whatever changes to the current system are adopted may well become the model emulated in other jurisdictions. Recent polls suggest that a majority of the public will support licensing reform if it will make a real difference. I believe it is time to seize this opportunity and to avoid half-measures. If we really want to make a difference, let's make sure that new drivers are equipped with the knowledge and skills necessary to be able to drive safely before we give them licences.
Thank you for the chance to participate in these proceedings. I wish you well in your efforts to bring this project to a successful conclusion.
Mr Turnbull: It seems that a lot of the points you have in your presentation are the logical follow-on of my questions to the last witness. What sort of testing should we have in level 1, first of all, and then what should we have in level 2, and how should we prepare people for it?
Mr McManus: As I indicated, if I can compare it to the current situation, right now an individual goes out for a brief period. He's expected to obey the speed limit, always drive in the right-hand lane, be able to park the car reasonably and avoid being in a crash for 13 or 14 or 15 minutes. I think that road tests should be administered in the real driving environment rather than in an artificial environment. I believe that a 15-minute road test is far too short to allow for a real assessment of someone's ability to react to real driving conditions.
I believe there are certain things that are not looked for in the current test. To give you one brief example, certainly a driver who drove along in a traffic pattern where he or she was invisible to another driver by riding along in that individual's blind spot, for example, is putting himself or herself in serious jeopardy of being involved in a crash. Things like that are not the types of things that are being examined for today. Every week in Toronto right now there are hundreds of individuals who are licensed to drive on any roadway. They can take the Don Valley Parkway home if they care to, without ever having been on it once.
Mr Turnbull: Give me just your own estimate as to how long a period of time it would take to adequately test a person.
Mr McManus: I would think we'd be looking at something in the neighbourhood of 45 minutes to an hour at least.
Mr Turnbull: Now, that would be for level 1. What about level 2? I realize that the whole of level 2 really is undesigned at this moment, but looking ahead, there's been discussion of trying to identify an individual driver's potential for risk as opposed to just simply driving skills. Do you believe that should be part and parcel of level 2 or level 1?
Mr McManus: I really believe it should be part and parcel of level 1. If we're going to allow these people to be out driving on the roadways unsupervised, which I think is not unreasonable if they've proven they have the abilities, then I would suggest that level 2 really should be a probationary phase and that people who are affected in level 2 would particularly be people who had demonstrated that they still maintained an inappropriate attitude towards driving -- problem drivers, as it were. I think that we have a comprehensive, rigorous test to exit level 1. I see for the vast majority of drivers no need for a second test after level 2.
Mr Turnbull: You're saying no second test after level 2, that you wouldn't have an exit test?
Mr McManus: It should be unnecessary. I think before we allow people to drive around by themselves, we should ensure that they already have the appropriate skills. Many people are suggesting that we use a test much like the current one, which is thoroughly inadequate, and then allow people to go out and then they're allowed to drive on the freeways unsupervised. We have the minimal restrictions of level 2, and then somehow, after they've been in level 2 for a minimum of a year and possibly quite longer, then we give them a more comprehensive test after they've already been put in a situation where they're quite likely to wreak havoc on the roadways for a number of years.
1050
Mr Turnbull: What do you think about the present level, and I'm not talking about your driving school, on the average, of the skill and the education of the driver educators in this province.
Mr McManus: Generally speaking, I feel it's low. I feel it's much lower than it should be. Again, as I mentioned in my presentation, the reason for that is that in many cases -- my experience is mostly within Metropolitan Toronto. I can't really talk about the rest of the province. But in many cases, what happens is that students come to driving schools and these clients are taught to road test standard, period. If they're going to go to a road test at a location where they're not going to be required to do a parallel park, for example, or if there happen to be no one-way streets on that particular road test, then the instructors don't teach it. There are very few schools that I feel really display a commitment to true driver education.
Mr Turnbull: In Metro Toronto today, what is the average duration of a test?
Mr McManus: I believe the exact average is 13 minutes. I'll be kind and say less than 15 minutes, though.
Mr Turnbull: It's rather frightening. Okay, thank you very much.
Mr Paul Klopp (Huron): Interesting report. Some of your comments I've found quite interesting, especially the one about maybe saving some money administration-wise; I think too maybe not having a test in the second year. If you do it in the first year and you find that you don't have any infractions in that probationary level 2, maybe we can save some money here and just do a check and send you out your valid card. I think that might be a big incentive all the way around. I find that interesting.
I don't recall you mentioning anything about the insignia, the new driver identification. If you did, I apologize. I was interested in some other things that you've got in here. What's your opinion on that?
Mr McManus: No, I didn't mention it, but I will comment on it. If the purpose of the insignia is to identify new drivers who may be violating restrictions, I would think that if, for example, I was a new driver who was going to violate a restriction, I'd simply not display the emblem.
If, on the other hand, the feeling is that the emblem should be there so that other drivers in the environment can show some consideration to this rookie behind the wheel, my experience in Toronto is that the effect will be quite the opposite. We display driving school road signs because there's a Metro bylaw which insists on it, and certainly our experience is that, more often than not, the result is that the learners are harassed. So I don't think the emblem is really necessary. I suppose that's what I'm saying.
Mr Daigeler: You have a couple of rather interesting suggestions here. The first one that I think is a good idea is to allow the use of the 400 series if they're accompanied by a licensed instructor. You then agree that they should be prohibited, at least in phase 1, from driving on the 400 series if they are accompanied by an experienced driver. You insist that it's only for instructors.
Mr McManus: Yes, I do, because I believe there are many experienced drivers who don't understand how to use the freeways properly, and the fact that people don't understand how to use their freeways properly probably contributes to this popular misconception regarding how potentially -- they are potentially dangerous, but people often consider them to be the most dangerous aspect of the driving environment merely because the posted speed limit happens to be higher. But in point of fact, statistically they're the safest aspect of the driving environment in terms of crashes per kilometres driven.
Mr Daigeler: That point was of course made earlier. Now, if I understand right, you essentially are saying there's no need for level 2.
Mr McManus: If there's a more rigorous and comprehensive road test to exit level 1.
Mr Daigeler: Right. But you would still talk about some sort of probationary period after level 1.
Mr McManus: I suspect that there will still be, shall we call them, misfits. I don't know. There will still be people who just have a poor attitude towards driving and perhaps a fail-safe in the form of a level 2 would help to screen out these individuals, and they perhaps might be liable to further counselling, whether in the form of professional guidance with a driving instructor or a driving school or perhaps through counsellors who are employed by the Ministry of Transportation, similar to the situation now when one goes in for an interview after receiving nine demerit points.
Mr Daigeler: Essentially, what you're arguing for is sort of a year of experience, which in essence we actually have already. The main difference from what we have now would be a much stronger and tougher driving test.
Mr McManus: Right now we don't necessarily have a year of experience. We have a 365 which may last for a year. Given how far road tests are away, it's probably closer to a year now. But the main crux of my suggestions here involves the more rigorous road test. If people are educated to the fact that this is a serious road test, and you will have to know how to drive if you intend to pass it, I think people will seek out training to prepare themselves for that process.
Mr Daigeler: Training certainly has been identified as an important area where work has to take place, but the other dimension that many people have argued for and certainly the ministry is arguing for is that emphasis on experience. You seem not to give that much importance to the experience factor.
Mr McManus: I think experience can be valuable if one understands how to drive safely and one has the opportunity to practise driving safely. Then that experience will be beneficial. However, if one moves into level 2, based on a road test which is no more involved than the one we currently use, then that test is not screened for the ability to recognize hazards in the driving environment, for example, and when people go out and practise and gain experience based on their limited knowledge, there's no guarantee that they will improve or become better.
As I indicated before, an inadequately trained driver with experience will become an experienced inadequate driver, and this is precisely what's brought us to this situation we're examining right now.
The Vice-Chair: Mr Wilson, has something's arisen out of Mr Daigeler's questioning? Do you have a question?
Mr Gary Wilson: I did want to ask something of the experience you're experiencing. Are you an instructor yourself?
Mr McManus: Yes, I am.
Mr Gary Wilson: How long have you been an instructor?
Mr McManus: Almost 12 years now.
Mr Gary Wilson: What training did you have to get into instructing?
Mr McManus: It's not too much different than the current situation. You go to a course at either the Ontario Safety League or a community college, or in my case it was with an organization called Young Drivers of Canada. You attend a training course for a month, then away you go, really.
Mr Gary Wilson: Do you think that's adequate training for this?
Mr McManus: No, I don't.
Mr Gary Wilson: What would you like to see in its place?
Mr McManus: There are a number of recommendations being looked at by the Road Safety Educators' Association, and I'm also aware that the Driving School Association of Ontario is discussing more intensive and more thorough and ongoing training.
Unfortunately, what happens now in many cases is that a lot of times when individuals go to enrol in a driver training program, there is absolutely no screening to see if (a) they are appropriate people to be teachers, and (b) my understanding is that a lot of the time spent in that program is involved in teaching these people how to drive properly themselves rather than teaching them how to teach others to drive.
Mr Gary Wilson: What's the average salary within the profession?
Mr McManus: The average salary? Oh, boy.
Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): That's really an irrelevant question. It's about $25,000 a year less than the average teacher who is doing the course.
Mr McManus: What was your figure?
Mr Jackson: About 25 Gs less than a teacher.
Mr McManus: Probably that would be close. Certainly, one who wants to be a millionaire would probably be better advised to find another line of work.
Mr Gary Wilson: It's not that highly paid, then, in your view.
Mr McManus: No.
The Vice-Chair: On behalf of this committee, I'd like to thank you for taking the time out this morning and giving us your presentation.
1100
JAIPAUL RAMWA
The Vice-Chair: I'd like to call forward our next presenter, Jaipaul Ramwa. Good morning. Just as a reminder, you'll be allowed up to a half-hour for your presentation. The committee would appreciate it if you'd leave a little of that time for questions and comments from each of the caucuses. As soon as you're comfortable, could you please identify yourself for the record and then proceed.
Mr Jaipaul Ramwa: My name is Jaipaul Ramwa and I'm here on an individual basis, representing no organization.
I have been following up this graduated licensing system for a while, since it has been proposed, and I think in its current form there are some things which I would like to see changed, especially in the sense where it comes to the age of driving.
From my experience and from looking at the driving population, looking at the ages of drivers on the road, there are some things we have to distinguish between in the age of driving when it comes to responsibility and maturity of drivers. I have the facts which are going to back up my points. They are all in a statistical manner, in a tabulated form which is on page 1 of my presentation paper.
As can be seen, the age groups are categorized from 16 to 19, 20 to 64, and 65 and over. If we look at the figures, we see that the driver population for 16 to 19 is 5% of what we have in Ontario. Looking at the accident involvement for these drivers, it is 13.2%, a relatively high percentage basis. We can look at the suspension of these drivers based on the demerit points system.
Looking at the age group of 20 to 64, which represents 84.7% of the driver population in Ontario, we see an accident percentage ratio of 6.6%. Comparably, we can look at the suspension due to the demerit points system of 0.2%.
Looking at the 65-plus age group, we're dealing with a 10.3% driver population and an accident involvement of 3.3%.
These figures clearly show me that the age group we have to target in the graduated licensing system reform is the 16- to 19-year-old group, and I have made some recommendations based on the figures submitted.
As is with the current recommended proposal, I will go with it to a certain point. However, there are some changes which I would like to recommend and they are as follows:
For level 1: "Accompanied by a fully licensed driver who has at least four years of driving experience, who is authorized to operate a class G motor vehicle, and whose measurable blood alcohol level is less than 0.05%."
I would basically like to see this paragraph replaced by the following: "Accompanied by a fully licensed driver who has at least two years of driving experience, who is authorized to operate a class G motor vehicle, and whose measurable blood alcohol level is zero."
I elaborate a little on why I believe this should be changed. Alcohol, as we know, plays a very significant role in accident involvement in Ontario, and this is proven, as can be seen from the chart listed in the driver's handbook on page 79, which states, "Even one drink can reduce a driver's ability to concentrate, to correctly assess unexpected situations and to react quickly enough." If we have it in the driver's licence manual, in the instructor's manual, we should put that in our reform proposals. It's here, we know about it and we know why it is causing an accident. Let's include it.
Once we could have the accompanying driver with zero blood alcohol level, then that fact can negate an additional two years of driving experience. I don't see why we should have a licensed driver with four years' experience with a blood alcohol level of less than 0.05 accompanying a new driver.
Looking at what I'm seeing concerning the non-teenagers, who I would say are basically, on a comparative basis with teenagers, more responsible, once they have completed the first phase or the initial test of the screening tests, the vision test, let them proceed on to their first road test immediately, or as soon as they can. This is where you're recognizing the advanced age, the advanced responsibility and the advanced concern for other road users, as against teenagers, who I am saying are not responsible enough. Let them go to a regular road test.
For level 2: Considering the aspect of limiting the number of passengers carried to the number of seatbelts in the vehicle, I would say let's delete this sentence completely. Why I'm saying that is that once a driver has actually passed the initial road test, he has sort of shown to us that he has an acceptable driving skill which we should go with. He has now demonstrated to us that he can drive a car. All we are concerned about now is monitoring that driving performance on the road.
Telling a driver to get a car where you're saying you must have be limited to a certain amount of seatbelts, you're actually telling him to buy a car with seatbelts in this piece of legislation. That should not be. What I'm saying is let the guy buy a car based on affordability and his concern for safety. You should not legislate somebody's ability to buy a car. Let it be affordable to the guy. He has already demonstrated to us an acceptable driving level in the road 1 driving test.
For the advanced road 2 test, if we are going to say appropriate actions for the driver examiner to judge, let us clearly define these appropriate actions. Nobody sees a particular situation in the same vein, or at least most people don't. A student can see something as an appropriate action and a safety measure -- which could be correct -- as against what the driver examiner might see differently, and he would say: "Do you know what? This is wrong." Let us clearly define the appropriate action aspect so that nobody will be confused as to what we're talking about.
Just this sense of the previous presenter: I would alter my concern for advanced tests in the second phase a little and say, if we're going to have a probationary system after the first phase of testing, the first, initial road test, then there will be no need for a level 2 road test, because you're going to monitor the guy here, or the lady, whoever the person is.
My recommendations are based upon the following, which are based, firstly, on the statistics on page 1. I go with John Bates, who said, "The automobile kills more young people than all other causes of death combined," and "The most dangerous place a kid can be is in an automobile." That's in the Toronto Star, reported May 11, 1993. We know there's a problem; let's act on it.
Stated in ORSAR 1991, which is the Ontario Road Safety Annual Report: "Young drivers continue to be overrepresented in motor vehicle accidents relative to their share of the licensed driver population." This is on my page 3. "While drivers aged 16 to 24 make up 14% of the driver population, they comprised 23% of the drivers involved in accidents." This is not a low figure. We should target this group. It continues: "Approximately one in eight drivers aged 16 and 17 were involved in a collision in 1991."
Quoted from the graduated licensing system booklet: "In Maryland, where the graduated licensing program applies only to people under 18 years of age, the number of collisions involving drivers in the program was reduced by 10%." Here I think maybe that has been very realistic and targeted the group which is actually involved in accidents or causing the most accidents on a percentage basis. If we are going to make reference to Maryland, we should take a word or two from them or an example here or there.
We should realize too that 69% of Canadians want the legal driving age to be raised to 18, and they must have a reason for that; that is what I'm saying. Let's target, in my view, the immature drivers when they are on the road. "In general, accident involvement decreases with age," and this I would presume to be because of maturity and experience and responsibility on the part of a driver.
The last part which I base my argument on is that seemingly, obtaining a driver's licence by non-teenagers is unjustly getting much more difficult when, on the other hand, every newer model of car or motor vehicle manufactured is much easier and safer to drive, and also the roads and traffic signs are constantly being upgraded for safer driving. So instead of making it so difficult for non-teenagers to obtain a driver's licence, proper measures should be put in place to improve the monitoring of the roadways in order to minimize reckless driving.
In my conclusion, I'm just briefly telling you why I say to you, if we are going to propose a reformation of the drivers' system here in Ontario, let's do it based on age groups accordingly and based on the statistics which are available. We have it here. Let's act on it. Let's be very objective in the approach to this graduated licence system and not let emotionalism or any other factor influence this feeling here.
That's basically my presentation in a nutshell.
1110
Mr Klopp: Basically, you're talking about non-teenagers, and it's something that we've somewhat discussed. If I can be clear here, you've talked about two things that I picked out and that I want to verify. One is about the four years' experience to drive with you, and then also the fact that you're 25, you've never driven before -- I'm going to pull that number out for an example. You're 25, you've never driven before, but you decide to get a car. What you're saying is that they shouldn't follow the same regulations?
Mr Ramwa: Exactly.
Mr Klopp: To me, in my terms, if I'm a new driver, I'm a new driver. Under the proposal now, and there may be some amendments, I really have come to not understand the severity of the probation period, because if I'm really doing nothing wrong or whatever, I feel I can probably get through this and it's for my safety and the fellow safety of people on the roads. You obviously don't think so, but I'd like your further opinion on that.
The first part of it was this four years minimum for the driver to have a licence. Do you feel it would be hard for people to get someone to drive with them that's four years?
Mr Ramwa: Exactly.
Mr Klopp: Just expand on what you mean by that.
Mr Ramwa: Getting somebody with at least four years of driving experience, in my view, is going to be hard on lots of non-teenagers, especially for immigrant persons.
The other aspect of why I'm saying that as against where the teenagers must go through the rigorous process is based on statistics. The present rules that we have are working right now. All we need to do is improve on them.
If you look at ORSAR, which is the Ontario Road Safety Annual Report, it states here on page 17: "Despite the fact that the number of licensed drivers continues to increase, the number of fatalities was the lowest since 1986. Injuries are the lowest since 1976." It proves to me that something is working. Something within the present system is working. All we need to do is improve on it, and that's what I'm saying.
We know where the problem is. Everybody causes accidents. That's what an accident is; it's unforeseen circumstances. There's nothing you can do to avoid it if it's there for you. But we see the age group which is causing the most accidents on a percentage basis. Let's target it. They are the 16- to 19-year-old age group. In fact, as the author is saying, it's the 16- to 24-year-olds, but I'm going to say let's come to a compromise here; let's go to the lowest age group, the factor which is more proven to cause the accidents. That's because of the irresponsible nature of teenagers.
People beyond 19 years drive because of a livelihood. They drive because they have to do it for a job, for their family, as against a teenager who just drives mostly for the sake of fun, for the sake of going to the movie, for the sake of going to the mall. Ones who drive for the fancy of it will exhibit the least sense of responsibility. All I'm saying is consider those factors.
Mr Gary Wilson: I just want to pursue that for a moment, because it seems that although those motivations might differ. There's still the aspect of operating a car in today's complex road system. It's that part that I'm interested in. You think that more mature drivers, because of age, would pick that up easier? Is that what you're saying?
Mr Ramwa: The rules of the road, anybody could understand them or pick them up, anybody. Even a kid could do it. The fact that they're crossing a road, we understand the rules of the road. The difference is that when we are driving -- and you will see this every day on the road. You drive on the road and look at the drivers. The ones who are the careless drivers are making the most mistakes. The ones who show the least concern are the groups of teenagers, are the youngsters, especially so when they're with groups of friends.
Mr Gary Wilson: Yes, but rules of the road are different from driving, actually putting them into practice. This is what I'm wondering about. Are you saying that you don't need that kind of instruction, that kind of system that we've got set up to provide experienced drivers with novice drivers? Let's look at it this way, then: Without that, you're saying that drivers past a certain age should be able to get into the system the way we have it now?
Mr Ramwa: Presently, the provisional system right now as applied.
Mr Gary Wilson: You're saying that's enough, that you don't need the extra instruction, the extra attention, I guess, in driving safely.
Mr Ramwa: I would say, based on what is available here, that this system is enough, It's working. I just quoted page 17 of the ORSAR manual. It's working. The fatalities or the number of accidents is actually on a decline. This is the 1991 manual, right? It's actually in a decline.
We are trying to target or trying to make an improvement on the present trend because of fatalities or losses we suffer, both physically, emotionally and financially. If we are going to target people to drive and you want to make a more strict measure for driving, I am saying let it apply to new drivers, but differentiate a little, okay?
What I'm saying is that once the non-teenagers have passed the initial vision test as we have right now and a screening test, let them proceed. Accept their sense of responsibility a little more and let them proceed to the first phase of the road test.
Two things could come after that. You have the second road test one year after, which I am not against, or in the absence of that, you have this current demerit points system applied after the first road test.
Mr Daigeler: Thank you for coming before the committee. I think it's generally recognized that with age comes a little bit more, perhaps I should say -- I shouldn't say more responsibility, but perhaps less risk-taking. I don't think that's perhaps necessarily the same.
However, we've been informed by the ministry that the accident statistics, while they're highest for the youngest drivers, are also quite a bit higher for novice drivers even if they're older. So that, I think, is the major reason why the proposal is the way it is, because even if you are 30 or more advanced than that and you're a new driver, still you show up in the accident statistics much more often than those who are 30 and who are experienced drivers.
Mr Ramwa: That's fine. It's like anything else. With more practice, the better you get. I accept that. But talking about the ministry having those statistics based on the novice driver, I have been trying to get them. I've asked for them and they cannot produce it. I would like to see that. I think in the absence of that, it's merely an assumption. I have been trying to get the statistics. In fact, it's listed in the graduated licence system manual, and I have not seen those statistics. If they could produce them, that's fine.
Mr Daigeler: You are questioning that.
Mr Ramwa: What I'm saying is, in the absence of that, I would be a little vague about believing it. But I go with the point that the more practice you get, the better you become, as with anything else. The fact of the matter is, though, to not guess of people being new drivers, even over 25 years of age, and this is the aspect of their being involved in accidents, the likelihood of them being involved in accidents. Let's look at a differentiation of figures as beyond 19 years and under 19 years.
We were looking at Maryland figures and using that as an example. Go with that. The figure, as far as I'm concerned, for the 16- to 19-year-old age group is astronomical in terms of the accident involvement ratio that they have. Look at it. The 16- to 19-year-old group are 5% of the drivers' population in Ontario and on a percentage basis, they're involved in 13.2% of the accidents. Again, the 20- to 64-year-old age group, which represents 84.7% of the drivers' population, is only being involved on a percentage basis of 6.6%. It's a great number of figures we're talking about there, the difference in that.
You're going to have accidents in all cases. Youngsters and older folks are going to be involved in accidents. Looking a little closer at the statistics, we'll see, on a percentage basis that once they've reached 64 and beyond, they tend to be involved in a little more accidents than other age groups. We know that is due to a slow coordination of the body responses. The older you get, the less likely that you can respond faster to unforeseen circumstances.
1120
These guys have been through the system for so many years. Let's not target them. You have to accept that the older you get, the less likely being a good driver becomes.
But we are not dealing with an age group which is more prone, as the figures show, to be involved in accidents. Let's target them.
For the 20- to 64-year-old age group, yes, you will have accidents. The likelihood is that the younger they are, the more they will be involved in accidents, and that's something we know. It's stated that the older you get, the less likelihood that you will be involved in an accident. There is nothing we can do to stop that unless we put strict measures in place.
But we should not target everybody, based on what we are seeing here in the figures. That's all I'm saying.
Mr Daigeler: Yes, I understand that. I think that's a position one can take.
We've got so many documents and papers from the ministry I can't recall precisely seeing the figures. Certainly, it was mentioned orally several times by the ministry officials that the accident statistics were also quite a bit higher for novice older drivers. Did we get something in writing on that? Did we get any stats? If not, could the ministry share that with us and with the gentleman who is here, since apparently he has not been able to find that? I don't know whether the parliamentary assistant can answer that.
Mr George Dadamo (Windsor-Sandwich): We were given some notes this morning, and some clarifications and some comparisons, but I don't think that was part of it.
Mr Daigeler: No. I think at the beginning of the hearings we got some statistics. I just can't recall whether in one of those columns there was that breakdown.
Mr Dadamo: Would you like something verbal now or something in writing later?
Mr Daigeler: Verbal in the sense of whether that's available to give both to us and to Mr Ramwa.
Mr Dadamo: That's available now, if you want it verbally, from Mr Hughes.
Mr John Hughes: The numbers that we have very clearly show that a 40-year-old driver, a 50-year-old driver and a 60-year-old driver in his or her first two years of driving is three times more likely to have a collision than a more experienced driver at the same age. The statistics that we have were given to the Insurance Bureau of Canada and TIRF, the Traffic Injury Research Foundation, when they produced their public document called New to the Road, which I think you all have; if you don't, we can get that for you. The statistical information in there clearly backs up that claim. We also have other data, but those are publicly available data and have been for some time.
The Vice-Chair: Does that satisfy you, Mr Daigeler?
Mr Daigeler: I guess that would be enough for me. I don't know whether that's enough for Mr Ramwa.
Mr Ramwa: I will need to see the figures too, but still my argument would hold, as the total data show here. If you're going to break down everything by age group, by going to the age group for any five years' difference or 10 years' difference, we're going to see different figures. What I'm saying is, let's target people who are basically involved in the most accidents right now. That's based on responsibility and maturity, and that only comes with aging. We know that. That's a fact.
Mr Daigeler: Perhaps Mr Hughes could stay here for a moment. I think one of the reasons for your concerns, and this has been mentioned by others as well, is for new Canadians, for immigrants who perhaps have driving experience in other countries. It was mentioned again at the beginning of the hearings that where there is an agreement with another country, then they could more or less immediately enter our system after taking, I guess, a basic test, but where there isn't an agreement with another country, then I think they are treated like any kind of novice driver. I'm just wondering, how difficult is it to enter into an agreement with other countries?
Let's say myself. I came from Europe, and I did have to take a test but I could take the test immediately. As far as I know, there's no agreement with Germany. I guess if I came today, I would have to wait at least eight months before I could get the Canadian driver's licence.
My question is, am I correct in what I just said? Secondly, how difficult is it to come to an agreement with other countries so that this situation could be avoided?
Mr Hughes: I'm not totally familiar with the process of coming to an agreement with another jurisdiction. I do know that the process does involve a willingness on the part of ourselves and the other jurisdiction to negotiate that, and the process involves us looking at their standards and them looking at our standards to make sure that they are reasonably compatible and comparable. It does take some time to do that.
Mr Turnbull: Just before I ask any questions, I'll go to Mr Hughes and clarify that if somebody comes here and they're not part of one of these joint agreements, I understand that, at least if they can demonstrate that they have been driving for several years, they can immediately challenge the level 1 test. Is that correct?
Mr Hughes: That's correct. If they can show us that they've had two years' experience, even if they're from a non-recognized jurisdiction in terms of licensing, they will be allowed to try the advanced test immediately. If they have less than two years' experience, they'll be allowed to try the basic test immediately.
Mr Turnbull: Okay. Based upon that, Mr Ramwa, you'll gather from all the questions from the committee that we have difficulty with your proposal, and the reason for that is the overwhelming amount of evidence we've had put before us during this whole committee process. You're suggesting that two years' experience is sufficient. Based upon the evidence we've had, we're saying to you: "No, that isn't true. The statistics don't prove it." You have suggested that we should be discriminating against teenagers.
Mr Ramwa: I wouldn't say it's discrimination.
Mr Turnbull: Okay, well, whatever word you want to use. You want to target teenagers. We have in fact found that there's a very large bulge in the 20- to 24-year-olds who have an unusually large amount of accidents, and let's not use the word "accidents" -- crashes, fatalities. So there's another area. You've also just heard from Mr Hughes that the accident statistics suggest that new drivers, irrespective of age, are three times more likely to have some sort of accident or crash. Based upon that, I have to say it somewhat destroys your premise for your argument. How would you respond to that?
Mr Ramwa: As I said, I haven't seen the data for that, but I'm taking his word as is. As I said, in any situations, with practice comes experience. It happens in all situations.
Mr Turnbull: But then if you accept that concept, you just don't do anything. You say, "Okay, we'll just struggle along with the present system." We wouldn't need to make any changes if you accept that premise.
Mr Ramwa: I would accept it as is, yes, what he's saying, but I would have to see data on that.
Mr Turnbull: But let's not argue about the validity of the data. I'm confident that the government of Ontario has correctly gathered the data in conjunction with the Insurance Bureau of Canada. They have the statistical base. That's not what we're talking about.
Based upon that evidence, which I think is overwhelming, I'm suggesting to you that we need to have more experience. Anybody coming from another country, as did I, with a licence, they're being handled very equitably under this proposal.
We're talking about new drivers -- new, period. They haven't driven before. So why would we exempt drivers over 20 from having to have four years' accompanying driving experience?
Mr Ramwa: Actually, I'm not saying over 20 from having that.
Mr Turnbull: Okay, what are you saying?
Mr Ramwa: What I'm saying is accompanying drivers, accompanying, fully licensed drivers, and this is of both age groups -- it does not discriminate against or it does not differentiate against the non-teenagers or the teenagers. What I'm saying is the accompanying driver, if you're going to say to them, "Have four years of driving experience but have availability," I'm saying no way, don't have any alcohol, because that's an area where you can make mistakes. It's the likely contributing factor for mistakes. Negate the factor of alcohol, but also at the same time demonstrate your sense of ability, of judgement, in saying then have less driving experience. Delete completely the factor of having a maximum of 0.5% blood alcohol level.
1130
Mr Turnbull: There is a very real possibility that this committee may suggest that the accompanying driver have zero BAC. That's being discussed, but not as a quid pro quo for reducing the amount of driving experience for the accompanying driver.
I have to tell you, I know that when I had two years' driving experience, I was not ready to start teaching somebody else how to drive. I have doubts whether I should be teaching now. I think a professional trainer should do it. And I can tell you, I'm a safety nut. I've had a car with a safety belt on it since people thought it was an oddity. It wasn't a standard feature.
I also have great difficulty with the idea that we're going to allow people to drive with more than the number of seatbelts in the car. If I had my druthers, I wouldn't allow anybody to drive in a vehicle without a safety belt on, even if it means retrofitting the existing cars. It isn't a terribly expensive process to retrofit, and within a few years' time this will be academic because all the cars will be of such an age that they'll all have automatically, even if they're second hand, a complete set of belts.
Mr Ramwa: Exactly. There's a comment on your point of being the confidence of being the teacher or accompanying a learning driver. I would say that's a personal judgement. If you don't have the confidence, it doesn't mean somebody else cannot perform the task.
Mr Turnbull: Excuse me, I think I'm a very, very safe driver, but I have never heard anybody going out and saying, "I think I'm an unsafe driver." It seems to me everybody thinks they're a safe driver. I am just dwelling on the fact that I don't believe that with two years' driving experience, you're ready to be the accompanying driver.
Mr Ramwa: I think it has actually worked. From the figures and statistics I showed, it is working.
Mr Turnbull: No, the statistics you showed did not demonstrate that at all.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you, Mr Turnbull.
Mr Turnbull: No, no, the whole point is that we know that safer cars, better design of cars today, is probably the greatest reason for a reduction in the death statistics.
Mr Ramwa: I don't buy what you're saying.
Mr Turnbull: Okay, well, let's ask --
The Vice-Chair: Thank you, Mr Turnbull.
Mr Ramwa: Let me just comment on that. The most important factor which has been identified as a contributing factor for fatalities in Ontario is poorly treaded tires, which reduces the traction on the road, the tire tread? Two is defective braking. Three is a blown-out tire or puncture. If we put in place measures to improve the vehicle inspection process before licensing a vehicle or have regular licence intervals that we can look at the vehicle again, then we're going to put a dent in these factors, downwards, and these are factors which have been identified by the Ministry of Transportation.
The Vice-Chair: Mr Ramwa, on behalf of this committee, I'd like to thank you for taking the time out this morning and giving us your presentation.
RODGER PEAIRE
The Vice-Chair: I'd like to call forward our next presenter, Mr Rodger Peaire. Good morning. Once again, just a reminder you'll be allowed up to a half-hour for your presentation. The committee would appreciate it if you'd leave a little time for questions and comments from each of the caucuses. As soon as you're comfortable, could you please identify yourself for the record and then proceed.
Mr Rodger Peaire: Good morning. My name is Rodger Peaire. I'm really here as my own unit. I'm not representing any organizations or particular groups. I'd like to take this opportunity to thank this committee for allowing me to present my thoughts and my recommendations this morning in relation to the graduated licensing program.
I believe we must look at the fundamental reasons for the introduction of graduated licensing, that being to reduce the number of fatalities and injuries that occur at a disproportionate rate among new drivers, and more particularly with those in the 16- to 20-year age group.
No doubt you've heard numerous studies that have pointed particularly to this age group, that they have a higher rate than most other groups. I believe a possible explanation for this is that there's often a sense of immortality, and as a result they take more risks than one normally would. Although this may sometimes be amusing in college-style pranks, it can be extremely devastating, if not deadly, when trying to drive a half-ton of steel careening down the road. As mentioned before, it is hoped that graduated licensing will help reduce this waste.
We must caution ourselves, however, that we can enact as many laws as we want, and we can impose as many restrictions as we want towards driving, but we cannot implant an attitude into a new driver. That attitude has to be transformed through education, such as drivers' ed classes; it has to be done through strict enforcement of current laws; and it has to be done through the parents and the families of new drivers reinforcing the responsibilities of having a driver's licence.
It can also be done by a no-tolerance attitude towards inappropriate driving habits, similar to the success of the drinking and driving program that has been in Ontario for a good number of years. It is up to all of us to set a model of good driving techniques so we may encourage new drivers to operate in a safe and efficient manner.
Some of the recommendations my wife and myself would like to propose be included in the graduated licensing program are as follows:
(1) Absolutely no tolerance of drinking and driving, regardless of the level of alcohol; that is, even if it's below the allowable 0.08. With a new driver, it should be 0.00. There is no doubt in any of our minds, I don't think, that alcohol impedes one's judgement, and when you have that in combination with a new driver who is inexperienced, that's a deadly force.
(2) Upon obtaining a licence, and at this point I'm suggesting level 2, a driver would not be permitted to carry any passengers, with the exception of the immediate family or, as already recommended, a qualified driver with four or more years' experience. That would take place for a minimum of one year. A lot of tragedies could be prevented this way; that is, there would be no peer pressure, there'd be no reason to show one's prowess or driving ability.
Having the exemption of immediate family members would show sensitivity towards those new drivers who are possibly married or have a family when the restriction would inconvenience them. I would suggest very strongly that, having family members with them, they won't have irresponsible behaviour.
Also, I just heard briefly of drivers coming from other countries. Again, there'd be that sensitivity there that if they brought over their family, they could at least get around, but without harming others as well.
(3) Zero tolerance by law enforcement agencies of any infractions. We must demonstrate the seriousness of driving to new drivers and that any infraction, no matter how minor, can potentially have lethal consequences. We must demonstrate that it is socially unacceptable to drive in an erratic or poor manner. It should be incumbent on all people to report such erratic or poor driving habits to show the intolerance. Echoes of Big Brother watching are sure to abound, but is it not better to err on the side of caution when it could potentially be a matter of life and death?
(4) Impose a curfew on all new drivers between the hours of midnight and 6 am. I'm sure it'll be argued that this would restrict drivers who have jobs that would go beyond the curfew limit, and I can see there would be legitimate concern. I do believe, however, that from an enforcement standpoint it would be too difficult to monitor those driving who were working and those who were not. The other thing is that on a realistic basis, even today there are teenagers who are working without licences well past midnight, till 2 or 3 o'clock in the morning at some of the fast-food places, and they manage. So yes, it'll be an inconvenience and there'll be hardship, but it won't be deadly.
(5) Have some form of permit system to indicate or differentiate new drivers. This could possibly be in a form similar to the ones we have for disabled cards, where you have a card in the windshield. This could be transferred between vehicles, if need be; it could be taken out when a qualified driver is there. Also, on these particular stickers it could be designated whether they're level 1 or level 2 drivers. Again, I think it would be helpful for the law enforcement agencies to differentiate in that area.
(6) During level 1, there should be a need for a specific amount of time for driving a vehicle; that is, the driver must log a specific number of hours, for example, 100 or 150 hours, before being allowed to take a level 2 test, unless there is some way to monitor that a new driver has actually been behind the wheel of a car. Essentially, that person could take their beginner's licence or level 1, keep it for eight months or a year, a year without the drivers' ed, walk in, take their level 2 test and drive without ever really having driven before. It seems illogical in some respects, but it could be narrowed down to two or three weeks or a couple of months, and that's where I suggest, if at all possible, some format for a log time.
(7) If a driver accumulates six or more demerit points while in level 1, the driver should have their licence suspended for a period of 60 days. When that licence is reinstated, the driver starts at the beginning of level 1 again. On a second accumulation of six or more demerit points while still in level 1, that driver would lose their driving privileges for a period of one year and would be reinstated at the beginning of level 1 again when that year was over.
1140
(8) Very similar to number (7) except it is dealing with level 2, in that in level 2, if they accumulate six or more demerit points, they would have their licence suspended for a period of 30 days and at the end of that would start at level 2 again. On a second accumulation of six demerit points or more while still in level 2, the driver would lose their privileges for a period of three months and, when reinstated, would start at the beginning of level 2 again.
These are some suggestions that we feel will ensure safer roads for all drivers and, more importantly, may save a number of innocent lives. We have to protect the young and the inexperienced and we have to protect those who may casually put their fate in someone else's hands.
I'm sure the greatest critics of the graduated licensing program will be that 16-to-21-year-old crowd. I can hear the claims that it infringes on their freedoms and their rights. I ask, what freedom or right does a 17-year-old have to have his classmates visit him in a funeral home? He has no rights, and these are the things we have to protect. What rights does a quadriplegic have after being involved in an accident? Certainly not the same rights we have ourselves today. Should they not have the rights, the freedom we have? What about the families, victims of a sort? Should they not have the right, the freedom to be with their children and not have to carry on a one-way conversation with them at the cemetery, or go through years of mourning, of agony, of deep sorrow and heartbreak?
To those who say it infringes on their rights and freedoms, the resounding answer should be that driving is not, nor ever has been, a right. Driving is a privilege, and it has to be earned and it has to be maintained. As I mentioned earlier, it is incumbent on each and every one of us to enact some form of graduated licensing. It is up to each and every one of us to act as a positive role model to all new drivers. It is up to the parents of the new teenaged drivers to guide the way for graduated licensing and give it total support.
Let me reiterate that no amount of legislation is going to change an attitude towards driving, unless it is reinforced by society as a whole.
One must also be cautioned that although graduated licensing will certainly reduce the number of accidents, and more notably the number of fatalities, it will not stop it altogether, but I can guarantee you that it will reduce fatalities considerably and save countless families tremendous sorrow and anguish.
My wife and I are very strong proponents of graduated licensing, and we had placed many of the restrictions we now have recommended here today on our son. We cannot do it alone. We need the support from this government in the form of legislation. We need the support of the police forces to ensure the laws are enforced. We need the support of the judicial system to give this act some teeth. We cannot sit on our laurels debating. We must stand up promptly and get the graduated licensing program going now. We cannot afford to wait for more deaths or tragedies to occur.
I think since February of this year there have been no less than 21 young people killed in accidents. That's 21 families that have been affected.
Our 17-year-old son was killed by an inexperienced driver -- a young driver, 16 -- who'd had his licence a scant four months. This accident, I might add, didn't happen on a 400 series highway, in spite of the excessive speed, which I think was clocked at over 160. No, it was on a county side road. Had graduated licensing been in effect, I know this accident wouldn't have happened because that driver would not have had any more than a level 1 licence, and I'm quite sure that numerous others wouldn't have occurred.
I thank you, and I look forward to your comments and your questions.
Mr Daigeler: Thank you very much for bringing your personal witness to this committee, which is very important for us. We had similar presentations earlier on, one in Ottawa where a victim of an accident came to share his story with us. This obviously touches us all.
You are making one point that is extremely important and, at the same time, perhaps the most difficult one, where you're saying the whole society has to change its attitude. I happened to flick the television on last night when I came home from the hearings in St Catharines and there was something on TV that I thought, "Gee, that's good; that's a way to perhaps change the attitudes of society."
I don't know whether anybody else in the room saw it on the CBC -- what's it called? -- the extended news program. They showed a report from Alberta where a CBC reporter, I guess through his research, identified drivers who had been under suspension, and through a secret camera filmed them driving while under suspension. Then he went after them, confronted them and said: "Here, I've got the video. You're driving. Why are you doing this?" It was very impressive. It showed that despite suspensions, people were still driving.
By showing this on television, I think a lot of people realized what this meant and what the possible implications of this were. There was one in particular who had been forbidden to drive for life because he had been in serious accidents under alcohol, and they filmed him coming out of a tavern going into the car. I understand that the Alberta government has acted already to try and get the guy apprehended. He apparently is in BC right now.
What I'm trying to say here is that really there is a role -- and I'm glad to see the journalists taking this up -- for all of us in making us more aware of the safety and the public health issue that's involved in this. I think the more we can see what I saw just by chance, actually, last night, the more we will achieve the purpose you're after.
I don't really have a question for you. I just wanted to share that with you, to say that this cause I think is more and more being picked up by the different partners in society and I think we are seeing some change of attitude and approach to this whole question of safety on the roads.
1150
Mr Peaire: As I mentioned, given that the drinking and driving campaign was so successful in reducing the amount, and obviously it hasn't stopped it altogether but it has reduced it, I think if we could somehow get that same message or a similar message out about driving -- I might add as well, in this particular accident where my son was killed, there were absolutely no drugs and alcohol involved, and we know this because an autopsy was performed on the driver, and all three boys were wearing their seatbelts. So you have a situation that no, they weren't bad, but they defied the laws of science, they defied the laws of engineering and it just didn't work out, and they defied the laws of the land.
Alcohol certainly plays a factor, but you have to bear in mind that it's not always there. These kids were literally good kids. It's just that they made a bad choice.
Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): Just one question: Did I understand you to say that in the accident that killed your son on that township road, the driver was driving 160 kilometres?
Mr Peaire: The forensics came back that they calculated it was between 140 and 160.
Mr Conway: On a township road.
Mr Peaire: Yes, sir, and over a narrow bridge to boot.
Mr Conway: My question then is, what do we need to do? We've got a level 1 and a level 2 here, but if somebody who is probably a good kid, the driver in this case, what do we need to do to make somebody aware that that's really not acceptable behaviour? I look at the graduated licence proposal and I support it, with some concerns around some of the rural impacts, but I just sort of think, 160 kilometres on a county road, and that seems to be light-years from any sense of reasonableness. Maybe our proposal is, for those people, altogether hopelessly inadequate.
Mr Peaire: Yes, it is, and I say it's not going to stop it totally. But in that particular case, if you had said or had the restrictions that the only passengers were immediate family, as I say, I think they'd be a bit more responsible, and failing that, having a licensed driver of four or more years' experience again wouldn't allow a novice to do it, and if worse came to worst, that driver would only be by himself. In that case, the stats would indicate that literally two thirds of those fatalities would have been prevented. So no, it won't stop it, but it can reduce it significantly.
Mr Turnbull: I realize how hard this must be for you. I've been pushing very hard for the last two years, since I became our Transportation critic, for us to introduce graduated licences. I believe this is a very modest proposal. In fact, I do propose to try and get the government to strengthen some of these things.
You have indeed hit the nail on the head inasmuch as it isn't just a question of legislation; it's a question of attitudinal change. I'm pleased to say that in some respects I think we are being successful in this province. When I look at the incidence, among teenagers, of drinking and driving, we know that it has reduced tremendously in the last few years. That is an attitudinal change; it isn't because of any legislation, because it's always been illegal to drink while you drive.
You mentioned some sanctions in your brief in terms of bouncing people back to the beginning of the process and suspending their licence straightaway. The head of the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police suggested yesterday that we should in fact have some automatic sanctions in it, not anything which is up to a judge, but if people are found in violation of the terms of graduated licensing, they automatically get bounced back. He didn't recommend specifically in the way you have what we should do, but he said this should be automatic. Is that your feeling? Is that the way to do it, or should we leave some leeway in the hands of the courts or some adjudicator?
Mr Peaire: No. Actually, I'd almost be in concurrence with the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police. Basically, if that penalty is there and there are no ands, ifs or buts, it'll certainly make a person think twice.
Also, my recommendation was a heavier penalty actually in level 1 than would appear in level 2. The thing is that in level 1, although 90 days may seem a long time when you've only got the car one or two days a week, it's not that bad. In level 2, however, that 30-day period would be quite long if you had access to that vehicle every day. So the severity seems less in level 2.
The other thing is that obviously, after the year of driving, you'd have a bit more confidence, you'd have more respect for the road and be less likely to commit an offence. So it's the theory of "hit 'em hard" right at the beginning.
Yes, I agree, black and white, there it is. If there are extenuating circumstances, maybe have some sort of an appeal system, but basically I would say yes.
Mr Turnbull: I think there's a great deal of merit in your suggestion with respect to limiting it to family members or trained driver educators in the car in level 1. I'm not sure whether the legislators will have the will to put that forward, because I suspect we'll have a huge outcry from rural Ontario where, admittedly, they don't have the transportation system that we have.
I wish certainly that those people and in fact the witnesses who have come forward who disagree, for example the gentleman who just presented to us before, could have heard all the evidence we've heard in this two-week period. To anybody who suggests that in some way we're limiting their freedom, yes, we are, but it's in the interests of their children and those people. We don't want them to go through the trauma you've gone through.
It's a question of getting people to accept legislation. It's all very well, as you've pointed out, putting legislation in place. We've got to make sure that it isn't flouted, much in the same way as my colleague Mr Daigeler mentioned in Alberta, where they've got an unusually high number of people who are quite frankly driving without a licence, period. We've got to make sure that legislation reflects reality. I wonder if you could just comment on that. I think you have in saying that we've got to have the attitudinal change.
Mr Peaire: I'm not quite sure exactly what question you're asking. I'm sorry.
Mr Turnbull: How we balance this between legislation and getting the attitudinal changes.
Mr Peaire: There are a number of ways we can do it. Again, the drinking and driving campaign, I'll draw back to that on some things there. The other thing that I personally am going to try for as well, in conjunction with our local police forces, is to go into the schools to drive that message through, to say, "Yes, there are real people there, there are real accidents and there are real deaths," to help educate them towards that new law. It's a combination of everything.
I think probably the most frequent comment we heard after the accident was everybody coming up and saying: "Well, yeah, I sort of remember when I was young. I remember doing things like that. I remember this or I remember that." Is that what we want to demonstrate to our new drivers, to say, "Yeah, we did it and got away with it; therefore that leaves the door open for you"? No. I think we have to say, "Yeah, I did it and it was really dumb, and if I catch you doing it, I'll probably knock your block off." Yes, that's a bit severe but that's sort of an attitude that, "No, it is not acceptable."
1200
Ms Haeck: Thank you for your very moving presentation here. Obviously, none of us can really even begin to understand your loss and the pain and sorrow you have personally gone through. But you do make some very good recommendations.
Following up on Mr Turnbull's line, in your eighth recommendation, the second part of it, my sense would be that if someone had actually reached the second phase and they had managed to accumulate six demerit points, I wonder how they got to level 2. One would have expected a range of mistakes maybe from someone who is a complete novice, but someone would have at that point supposedly had a bit more responsibility and common sense and experience on the road. I like that point, but I personally would have liked to almost take them back to level 1. Any comments on your part would be appreciated.
Mr Peaire: I guess six demerit points seems like a lot. However, one considers that with a careless driving charge, six points are gone; something as simple as going through a stop sign, four points. I believe passing a school bus is either four or six points. So really, in that respect and in that light, you're looking at one, maybe two mistakes. As I understand it, the second part of that is that instead of going back to the beginning of level 2 again, for instance, in that situation, go right back to level 1. Is that how I'd understand you would do it? It would certainly be food for thought.
By the same token, I guess there should be some mercy or some sensitivity shown that yes, if that person, for whatever reason, did happen to blow a stop sign and then the next day got caught for something else, there's six demerit points right away, and they're into their 18th month of the thing, then they've literally got to go back and do an additional two years for the maybe one or two mistakes. That to me is just a tad heavy.
Ms Haeck: I just think if one of your examples was passing the school bus -- Mr Lessard, who's sitting next to me, has written a lot of us about a campaign that he's been supporting about reaffirming that passing a school bus is highly dangerous, particularly for the occupants of that school bus who may be trying to cross the street to get home --
Mr Jackson: Making our buses safer is what we should be doing.
Ms Haeck: I don't disagree with you, Mr Jackson. There are many things, but there are a lot of accoutrements to a school bus these days to flag the fact that it is stopped and is letting out, sometimes, five-year-olds.
In the case of your sixth point on that same page, you raise the point of trying to log the number of hours. While I have asked that question myself of another deputant, I wonder how we would administer that. How would you test for that? I know that may be one of those administrative nightmares. It sounds good, where you're going to make sure that they have the experience, but how do we actually know that they have the 100 or the 150 hours that you've suggested?
Mr Peaire: That is one that, again, is extremely complex. Yes, it could quite conceivably be an administrative nightmare. I'm not really sure I have an answer for that -- maybe require those drivers to literally log in with the MTO, for instance; possibly have somebody sign off that yes, they had been in the car for this amount of time with that qualified driver. It will probably be subject to abuse, no doubt. But I think it just, again, prevents that person from literally grabbing their beginner's licence or that level 1 and two weeks later going for their test.
Again, ironically enough, this driver had taken his classroom theory on driver's ed prior to his 16th birthday. On his 16th birthday he went out and got his beginner's and within a month had his licence. Somehow you've got to prevent that. Somehow you've got to say: "No. You've got to spend X amount of time in there." Hopefully, on the honour system, that's saying yes, you have spent that amount of time.
Something that I never thought of until just now is that possibly our licensing exam should be a lot stricter, should be more scrutinizing. Rather than a 20-minute road test to say, "Yes, you're ready," maybe it should longer; maybe there should be more questions involved. You're dealing with a half-ton of metal or more at some speeds that are deadly.
Maybe it's the combination of the two, that, yes, would somehow be logged in, whether it be on the honour system with somebody vouching for that or an affidavit, as such, and if perchance maybe you set up a fine system saying, "Well, yes, you've said you've done this and we've consequently found out you haven't, therefore you're subject to a fine" -- I don't know. It will be difficult, no doubt.
The Vice-Chair: Mr Peaire, on behalf this committee, I'd like to thank you for taking the time out and bringing us your personal experience and your recommendations to this committee.
Mr Peaire: Again, thank you very much for allowing me to share our thoughts.
The Vice-Chair: We have a bit of housekeeping to do here about the committee procedure. I understand we will be getting a summary of all the presentations, and it's been recommended that maybe we could have the ministry staff come back when the House starts sitting at our first meeting for any questions as a follow-up, and then we'll try and draft a report for the ministry.
Mr Jackson: Mr Chairman, following on yesterday's deputation by Constable Kim Duncan of the Halton Regional Police Service, as it relates to the information about Ontario taxpayers paying for drivers' education in correction facilities for young offenders and the subsequent deaths that resulted in my jurisdiction, could I request the researcher to bring forward information regarding the five youths who escaped custody from a corrections institution and were killed?
I know there was an inquest into that and there was a government report on that, but I would like to pursue this area as a recommendation for the committee and would be very much interested in determining, of the five youths, where they got the car and whether they as well or the driver were trained at taxpayers' expense as a young offender. These are the kinds of questions which arose in my mind late yesterday and I think it might help the committee to examine it.
I don't think it's fruitful to pursue the general issue of how many young offenders have ever been in bad accidents, because I don't think we could gather that information. But this is a known death involving five individuals. They were fleeing custody, and I would like to have access to those reports to help us formulate some recommendations. If I could make that as a formal request for the committee's support, I'd appreciate it.
The Vice-Chair: All right. I'm sure that if research can get that for us, we'll get that.
This committee stands recessed till 2 pm this afternoon.
The committee recessed from 1207 to 1403.
ONTARIO MUTUAL INSURANCE ASSOCIATION
The Vice-Chair: I'd like to call this committee back to order. I'd like to call forward our next presenters, from the Ontario Mutual Insurance Association. Would you please come forward.
Mr Daigeler: While the delegation is taking a seat, I'd like to read something to the committee which I think is unfortunately relevant. This is today's edition of the Ottawa Citizen. There's a big article in here that says:
At noon Tuesday this gentleman was in his yard -- he's an Ontarian in the neighbourhood of Brockville -- "when a car carrying four teenaged girls on lunch break from Athens District High School rounded the curb."
He "knew immediately they were in trouble. The car fishtailed as the young driver fought for control, then veered into a ditch. It rolled over at least once and crashed on its roof into a hydro pole."
Lori Edmunds died. "Karen Haggett of nearby Addison suffered a broken neck. The driver, Tera Talbot, 16, of Toledo, and passenger Nicole Plant, 17, of Athens somehow escaped serious injury. Talbot had received her driver's licence two weeks ago...and had got permission to take the family car to school."
The Vice-Chair: Quite relevant. Thank you very much.
Mr Daigeler: That's today's paper.
The Vice-Chair: Good afternoon. Just a reminder that you'll be allowed up to a half-hour for your presentation. The committee would appreciate it if you'd leave some of the time at the end for questions and comments from each of the caucuses. As soon as you're comfortable, could you please identify yourself for the record and then proceed.
Mr Glen Johnson: My name is Glen Johnson. I'm president of the Ontario Mutual Insurance Association. With me I have Mr Ron Perry, who manages the Lambton Mutual at Watford, near Sarnia, and Mr Doug Little, who manages the Elma Mutual at Atwood. That's near Listowel.
Both of these gentlemen have seen mature children through the driver licensing process, and I have a couple of young teenagers who are about to go through it. I'll just let you know that at the outset too.
I'd like to call on Ron Perry to present our formal brief.
Mr Ron Perry: We appreciate being afforded the opportunity to present our support for the concept of graduated licensing and to give our constructive criticism of the model that has been proposed.
Farm mutuals in Ontario: This brief is presented on behalf of the members of the Ontario Mutual Insurance Association, commonly referred to as the farm mutuals or pure mutuals. There are 51 such mutuals operating in Ontario. Most of them have been in operation for over 100 years.
These companies are guided by boards of policyholder-directors, most of whom are farmers. Mutual companies do not have shareholders. The owners are the policyholders. Profits of the company's operations are kept as policyholder surplus, or can be refunded to the policyholders.
The farm mutual companies are provincially licensed and operate strictly in Ontario. They underwrite most lines of property and casualty insurance. Their market share is approximately 5% of the total property insurance market in Ontario and about 1.4% of the auto insurance market. In total, approximately 175,000 policyholders obtain insurance through farm mutual companies. We insure approximately 116,000 vehicles. Most of our insureds live in rural and small-town Ontario.
As purely mutual companies, we are charged with the responsibility of acting in the best interests of the consumers who own these companies. Simply stated, it is our belief that consumers want the safest possible environment in which to operate their vehicles.
The need for graduated licensing: The figures released by the Ontario government speak for themselves. In 1991, road collisions in Ontario injured over 90,000 people and resulted in over 11,000 deaths. Statistics show that collisions are the leading cause of death of young people in Ontario between the ages of 16 and 24.
There is an obvious, disproportionate number of young drivers dying on Ontario's roads. Although the age group of 16 to 24 represents only 16% of Ontario's driving population, this age group makes up close to one quarter of all drivers killed in collisions.
We also recognize that the government's statistics reveal that all new drivers, regardless of their age, have a much higher risk of having a collision than experienced drivers with two to five years of experience.
It is obvious that attention needs to be given to improving these statistics. We support the proposed concept of graduated licensing as a logical approach to the problem. Graduated licensing would help provide new drivers with a safer learning environment in which to develop their driving skills. Experience is the best teacher, but that experience must be gained in a safe learning environment.
When compared to the existing system of licensing new drivers in Ontario, the proposed system of graduated licensing will allow for a longer, better controlled period during which new drivers can gain experience under safer conditions. It is encouraging to see the results of implementation of graduated licensing in all other jurisdictions: Maryland, a 10% reduction in the number of collisions; California, a 13% reduction; New Zealand, an 8% reduction.
What these figures do not tell us is the positive effect that graduated licensing would have on the reduction of the number of collisions involving older age groups resulting from good driving habits developed during the learning period. Nevertheless, the results are encouraging and support the concept.
1410
Now we would like to analyse the proposed model. While we are strongly in favour of the concept of graduated licensing, we'd like to give our analysis of the proposed model with recommendations for some improvements.
The first point would be the concept of two levels. We agree with the concept of a two-level system. It is logical to have more controls in the earlier stage, with the new driver graduating to a less controlled stage before earning the unrestricted licence.
The second point, the need to address special circumstances: To be workable, the system needs to be socially acceptable. We believe that the system must build in a mechanism for endorsements for cases of proven need, and we emphasize proven need. We are thinking of cases in outlying areas, cases involving issues of livelihood and earnings and special needs for mobility. Our specific concern is with respect to farming. We believe that there could be cases where exceptions would be warranted. These exceptions could be specific to certain constraints within level 1 and level 2, but should be dealt with on a specific-case basis with a strong requirement for proof of need.
Our third point, level 1 conditions:
-- The entry requirements of age 16, medically fit, vision test and written test are appropriate.
-- The minimum period of 12 months, reducing to eight months with successful completion of an approved driver education course, is appropriate, and it is appropriate to require the candidate to pass a road test before entering level 2. Naturally, minimum standards need to be in place for what constitutes an approved driver training course.
-- The requirement for zero blood alcohol content is imperative. We strongly recommend that the model be changed to require that the accompanying driver have zero blood alcohol content also.
-- We believe that the accompanying driver should be required to be fully licensed for at least three years. This will ensure that the accompanying driver is at least age 20 and will have gained the required type of road experience that a young, learning driver needs to develop. Driving experience before becoming fully licensed should not be taken into account.
-- The restriction from driving on 400 series highways and multilane urban expressways is reasonable. Collisions on these high-speed roadways result in the most severe accidents and require quick reaction to emergency situations, which inexperienced drivers are probably incapable of.
-- The night driving curfew from midnight to 5 am is also a sensible measure.
-- The use of a sign identifying the learning driver is a good method of indicating to other drivers that extra courtesy is in order.
-- Limiting the number of passengers to the number of seatbelts in the vehicle is sensible and should be a requirement for every driving situation, not just under the graduated licensing system.
-- The restriction limiting learning drivers to class G vehicles is appropriate. Larger vehicles or specialized vehicles requiring more expertise should be prohibited from use by a new driver at this stage.
Our fourth point of analysis, level 2 conditions:
-- The requirement for zero blood alcohol content with level 2 is imperative.
-- We do not agree that level 2 drivers should be able to carry as many passengers as the vehicle has seatbelts without further restriction. The level G-2 driver could have as little as eight months' driving experience at this point. Experience has shown that a young driver who has a number of peers in the vehicle could be significantly distracted. We believe that the requirement should be for no passengers during this stage unless the learning driver is accompanied by an experienced driver with at least three years of fully licensed driving experience and zero blood alcohol content.
-- We agree with the restriction to only class G vehicles being carried through to level 2.
-- We agree that a minimum period of 12 months for level 2 is appropriate.
-- We agree that to obtain full licence privileges the level 2 driver must complete an advanced test of driving skills that focuses on their ability to recognize and take appropriate actions when presented with hazardous conditions.
The fifth point of analysis, licensing of motorcyclists:
-- We agree with the concept of a two-stage model for licensing of new motorcycles. We recommend that the minimum time period for level 1 be extended to 90 days as opposed to 60 days. A two-month period in level 1 is too short. The maximum time period for the level 1 licence should be 120 days instead of the recommended 90 days.
-- We further recommend that there be a size restriction on motorcycles that new motorcyclists are allowed to operate, for example, displacement of 500 cc's limit.
-- We agree with the requirement that the new motorcyclist pass a level 1 road test before advancing to level 2. We do not think this requirement should be waived in cases where a safety course has been completed. However, we do agree that the minimum period in level 2 could be reduced from 22 months to 18 months by successfully completing an approved motorcycle safety course. If the motorcyclist has completed level 1 and passed the entry test to level 2, there is some assurance that he or she has attained at least an acceptable level of experience.
-- Zero blood alcohol level in both stages is imperative.
-- It is appropriate to restrict the learning motorcyclist to no passengers in level 1 and we believe this restriction should be carried through to level 2.
-- The restricted driving period of daylight hours is appropriate for level 1.
-- The restriction to highways with speed limits posted at 80 kilometres per hour or less, unless no alternative route is available, is appropriate for level 1.
-- We agree that before the motorcyclist is given full licence privileges, an advanced exit test is appropriate.
Enforcement issues related to the new system: There has not been a great amount of information put forth with respect to enforcement of the new system. We wish to make some general views known.
The question arises with respect to what will happen if a new driver violates any of the conditions of graduated licensing, for instance, having a blood alcohol content above zero, not being accompanied by an individual who has the required amount of driving experience etc. We believe that if this system is to be effective, enforcement must be strict. We believe that the entire level 1 and level 2 period must have been completed conviction-free and free of violation of any of the conditions before the fully unrestricted licence is granted. We believe that if, for example, violation of any of the conditions only resulted in a 30-day delay or some such minor consequence, the system will not be effective.
In conclusion, the Ontario Mutual Insurance Association has been a strong supporter of the concept of graduated licensing since the issue arose in various debates about auto insurance over the past several years.
First and foremost, graduated licensing is an important component of road safety which will prevent needless injury, death and property damage. With respect to the debate over the cost of auto insurance, lower claims costs are reflected in premium levels. As an organization comprised of small community-oriented and policyholder-owned insurance companies, we can attest to the claims-cost, premium-level relationship.
It is obvious that graduated licensing is an improvement over the existing system of licensing new drivers in Ontario. We are confident that if this system is implemented, it will have a positive effect in reducing the number of automobile accidents involving new drivers. We believe that in the years following the implementation of graduated licensing, this system will result in a general improvement in driving habits of Ontario's drivers. The positive results will go beyond the new driver stage, as far as better driving habits will be carried by those drivers beyond their learning periods.
Mobility is an important social need for many people. We are confident that the new system could be structured to appropriately address special needs. We also believe that the public must weigh the cost of preventable injury and death against any inconvenience which this new and more comprehensive method of licensing new drivers might create. We must consider the rights of innocent victims who could be needlessly injured by inexperienced drivers.
We strongly encourage you to move ahead with the graduated licensing concept. We hope you will take into consideration our sincere concerns for change of the model which has been proposed.
1420
Mr Turnbull: Indeed, the most commonly quoted concern about the introduction of graduated licences has been the question of mobility of people in rural areas that are not served by proper transportation systems, so it's very useful that you're here representing predominantly rural drivers, admittedly from the insurance point of view.
You talked about exemptions. I was quite curious about the fact that you talked about exemptions under levels 1 and 2, because so far I didn't think people were really thinking in terms of level 1. Could you tell me what you have in mind in level 1?
Mr Glen Johnson: We haven't got this down to the minute details, but we know concerns have been expressed by farmers who might, for instance, require the son or daughter to follow the combine home at dusk or drive to and from an adjacent farm that's just too far to walk to, that sort of thing. Within level 1 is where that restriction is for the accompanying driver, and that's the sort of thing we're thinking about.
Mr Turnbull: Under the 365 licence at the moment, you need an accompanying driver too, and there are no exemptions. I'm not arguing that it may not be necessary, but to the extent that at the moment we require an accompanying driver, would it seem reasonable to allow an exemption at day one?
Mr Perry: I think our thought was that, yes, you do, but many of these 16-year-old drivers can probably obtain their licence within four months, so they would be certainly much under the age of 17 before being able to drive unaccompanied.
I think there's some feeling too among the farm people who we represent that these people, the children who are raised on these farms do have some driving experience with vehicles like farm tractors and things like this. They're not exactly not used to driving. While we think that certainly it needs to be controlled and watched very closely, there may be some specific need where there could be some exemption for a younger driver.
Mr Turnbull: When we think of exemptions, two or three specifics emerge as questions. One is what exemptions would we give? Would it be a geographic limitation? Would it be for a period of the year, say in harvest time? Who would administer it? Do you see MTO administering it through the licence-issuing offices? Indeed, who would pay for it? To the extent governments today cannot afford any new expenditures, how would we pay for it? Would we have the people who were looking for these exemptions pay a fee for this exemption to administer it?
Part of the testimony we had was that in the US there's a system where if you can present a letter from an employer that you need it to travel to work, that would act as sufficient evidence. But I can see some real problems with that, inasmuch as everybody would get some fictitious or maybe not even fictitious employer to give them a letter, and it would be used at all times of the day for all circumstances. Perhaps you could comment on that.
Mr Perry: I would say, as to who's going to pay and these kinds of things, I think we're trying to point out a fairly general principle here. Certainly the issue needs a lot further study and a lot further development as to what would be fair and who would administer it and that type of thing.
It just seems that in any rule, if you try to make it universally applicable with absolutely no possibility for a special circumstance to be looked at, it may end up failing. Certainly as to coming down with hard rules, we're not here really to propose any of that today but to bring forward the concept that we think it's something which needs to be studied and there could be certainly some possibly warranted circumstances out there.
Mr Turnbull: To the extent that I would foresee exemptions as predominantly operating in rural areas, would you, as one of the principal carriers of insurance in rural areas, be prepared to administer it? You have a strong vested interest in this, and you would in effect be approving that this person could be travelling within level 1, because you're the people who are presumably going to benefit. All of society benefits, I don't want that to sound wrong, but you benefit from a reduction in accidents and also you have a strong vested interest in making sure that the terms you set down for that exemption are adhered to.
Mr Glen Johnson: I think that certainly if it results in any extra claims cost, the insurance companies are picking up an added exposure, and that's why we would like to see it very closely controlled. But going back to the beginning of our brief, the farm mutuals are owned by the farmers in the community so we're speaking on their behalf as well.
It needs to be closely controlled, but we feel it could be built into the system somehow. As to who pays for it, I don't know if I can speak for farmers. These two fellows are actually farmers also, live in rural properties anyway, but I can't see that someone who wanted their son to have this exemption for a case of need would object strenuously to paying a reasonable cost for it.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you, Mr Turnbull. Mr Klopp, Mr Morrow and Mr Lessard, five minutes. Make them short.
Mr Klopp: Five minutes each? Wow.
The Vice-Chair: No, five minutes total.
Mr Klopp: Good afternoon. It's good to see you here. The issue about the farming: I'll maybe dwell on that a little bit more. I was hoping you had an idea. I've been playing around with this for almost three years now. We're talking about this and we've been talking about it at caucus and we've been talking to the ministry and not just even farmers -- I live at Zurich and my job's in Bayfield. It's 14 miles. Maybe grandpa walked it but I don't know if he did it every day -- the whole idea about this specific exemption.
I've actually thought about level 1 too. When I brought up it, someone said, "Oh, you haven't got a licence and you're going to give it in level 1?" I've been sitting here for two weeks now and thinking no. I think that you still have to go get a licence and go for a test. But it would be very much job-specific and all the other exemptions don't count, because I know full well that -- I'm 16. If I get out of the curfew because I have this exemption after, I was thinking, maybe four or five months -- you brought it out yourself.
Historically, if you really have a job when you turn 16, you really do try harder to get your licence, for the most part. Those statistics aren't out there but I do believe that people who really are at their job point of view, it isn't the accident that happens. It's Friday night or it's Saturday or it's even Monday night and you're taking the car from high school and you're driving home. I don't think any of us are talking about an exemption of that type. We're talking about very job-specific.
I've got some ideas and I'm going to throw them out over the next couple of weeks. But if you do have any thoughts, we'll definitely probably bounce them off you, and I appreciate your coming in.
You did mention the second level. This is my question: The curfew is not on the second level the way we're proposing it now. To me it seems like the curfew should be left on for the second year, mostly for the young people in this world. Is there any thought to that, if the curfew part is kept on for the second year?
Mr Doug Little: I think the reason that we didn't consider leaving a curfew on is because of the way we have it worded, that they should be a responsible driver still accompanying that person -- that gets away from the problem -- or the fact that they should not be allowed to transport other people. The problem you always have with young people is that if you get a group of them out, one person on his own is a responsible driver. I have no problem with that. But he gets three, four or five of his friends in the car, that's when silly things happen. For that reason, we would like to see the restriction stay on that they are not allowed to take passengers with them. That curfew time then isn't as big a problem if the person is by himself or herself.
1430
Mr Mark Morrow (Wentworth East): This piece of legislation is a hot topic around my dinner table every night. I have a 15-year-old daughter who's turning 16 this March, so you can understand the idea of it. We keep talking about enforcement and she keeps telling me that kids are going to drive anyway; they'll just disobey it. Do you believe the enforcement should be beefed up at all, or what should be done with it?
Mr Perry: We certainly believe, yes, the enforcement has to be strict. The enforcement that's being talked about, as we said in our brief -- the minor thing, you know, 30 days or demerit; something along this line -- we don't think is strong enough. This thing is only going to work with strict enforcement. If it becomes a laugh, then it's just exactly what you say: The kids are going to be out driving anyway, so what the heck.
We're thinking something along the line that they start over again. You pick up a charge, whatever it is, you start over again. Your 12 months is just all of a sudden started again. Most of us can get through a couple of years with no demerits, I think, quite easily. We think these 16- and 17-year-olds can get through it, too. If they know they've just extended their time another year, they're probably going to want to be very careful. That's what we're trying to get at with this thing.
Mr Morrow: I would think so.
Mr Perry: Yes. We think, then, having had two years of that, when they turn 18 they will probably be in that mould, hopefully, and they're not all of a sudden going to go nuts at 18. They'll have trained themselves.
Mr Daigeler: Obviously, as you saw when I referred to the article that appeared in today's Citizen, we're all supportive of this concept and all of us have been calling for this for quite some time, actually. If there's one criticism that we have, it's why did it take that long to come to this point.
I presume you, as the other insurance companies, have a policy that says if you're in violation of the laws of the province then you're not covered by the insurance. Do you have that as well?
Mr Perry: Yes. The standard automobile policy applies to everyone. We write under the owners policy form, OPF, just like everybody else, so whatever the rules are, it's the same for all of us.
Mr Daigeler: I'm just wondering whether you will be making or are making any special effort to let the young people know that as well. I know they're covered for the collision, the second party, but they themselves, for their cars and so on, will not be covered. I think that also is something the people should know and understand more. If they're in violation of any of these things, they're not covered by insurance.
Mr Perry: I would certainly think an excellent place to get this information out is in the examination courses they must write in order to get their licence in the first place. Starting off, a young person, that should be part of his education program.
Mr Daigeler: What I was thinking, frankly, was that when you send out your renewal notices and so on, you might consider adding this as a little reminder to people, "Listen, if you don't drive the way you should, you're not covered." Frankly, until I saw that in the documentation, it hadn't really sunk in with me that was the case. I think it really hit home with me. I think that would be an easy way, like they do with Bell telephone and so on; they put all kinds of notices in there.
Mr Perry: I don't think the insurance industry is willing to create any traps. I think once the system is defined, it will be well promoted.
Mr Daigeler: I do want to come back to this possible exemption for the rural riders. I'm sure Mr Conway would like to see that as well because he's been arguing for this as well. In your opinion, how much of a burden would it really be for the rural driver if he or she has to wait the eight months under the current system and if there were no exceptions? Is it really that dramatic?
Mr Glen Johnson: I think we're mostly thinking of farmers when we're talking about it. There could be other social needs other than that, but --
Mr Daigeler: But even for farmers, how much of an imposition is to wait another eight months?
Mr Glen Johnson: The difference between the current 60 days and the eight months in the new system could take you through a whole summer, for instance.
Mr Daigeler: The crop season.
Mr Glen Johnson: Yes, the crop season. That's probably the main concern. It would be one year longer before that son or daughter could run those errands, that type of thing.
Mr Daigeler: You were saying this is still a very common occurrence.
Mr Glen Johnson: I think it would be a common occurrence for a son to have to go to another farm to perhaps spell his dad off on the combine. I shouldn't say son -- son or daughter. Yes, it's common.
The Vice-Chair: Mr Conway, briefly, one minute.
Mr Conway: I'll pass.
Mr Daigeler: Could I then ask a question? Actually, it's not addressed to you, but to the parliamentary assistant. We haven't really touched on that at all, how the ministry is preparing, with regard to its staff, for the additional workload because there are going to be two tests now instead of just one. What is happening? How is the ministry planning to cope with this additional workload that will be coming? It's not only another extra test, but also the second test is going to be much more elaborate than even the one we have at the present time.
Mr Turnbull: All the people they hired for auto insurance said they are going to work on that.
Mr Dadamo: Should we get a response from Mr Hughes? Actually, I'm surprised it hasn't come up before this point, or would you like it in written form?
Mr Daigeler: Both, probably.
Mr Dadamo: Would you be satisfied with a verbal?
Mr Daigeler: Both would be useful. First of all, verbal and then --
Mr Dadamo: Okay, because he's here and he's agreed to answer that.
Mr Hughes: The policy submission that's gone forward has costed for additional driver examiners and it has also included a provision for setting the fees for driver examinations at a level which will make the whole proposal cost recoverable and user pay.
Mr Daigeler: I do want this in writing.
Mr Dadamo: Okay, then you shall have it in writing.
Mr Glen Johnson: Can I make one brief comment? I just want to emphasize that we are strong supporters of graduated licensing and these are constructive criticisms that we feel will improve it, but we want to see it through one way or another.
The Vice-Chair: Mr Johnson, Mr Perry and Mr Little, on behalf of this committee, I'd like to thank you for taking the time out and giving us your presentation today.
JEREMY RILEY
The Vice-Chair: I'd like to call forward our next presenter, Jeremy Riley. Please come forward. Good afternoon. Just a reminder that you'll be allowed up to a half-hour for your presentation and the committee would appreciate it if you'd leave a little time for questions and comments. As soon as you're comfortable, could you please identify yourself for the record and then proceed.
Mr Jeremy Riley: I'm Jeremy Riley. I was drawn to your committee because I've spent a number of years, about 25 years, in the education business and it seems to me that while I think graduated licences are a very good idea, I think the idea of having people take a sober second look at the way they drive and have a long range of experience is a good thing. I'm concerned that perhaps you haven't stepped far enough back from the driving process and you aren't looking at a large enough group of drivers as people who need to have testing and training.
I thought I would focus on that point rather than on some of the other things that people with much more knowledge of the actual machinery of ensuring and controlling drivers have addressed much more thoroughly than I will. What I've put together is a summary of the points I'm going to make in a one-page typical educator fashion, a one-page summary which you can follow as I read through what I'm going to say.
It seems to me that your proposal for graduated licences addresses only a small portion of the problems that we have with driving and drivers. I think perhaps we should aim at improving all driving done on our roads. In order to do this, I think driver training and examination needs to be much more demanding. In addition, I think existing drivers should be tested at regular and irregular intervals in their driving careers. I'll come back to that in a minute.
1440
It seems to me that the intent of the graduated licence is to respond to some of the political fallout caused by teenage collisions late at night and often with alcohol involved. What follows are a few thoughts on a way in which everyone might win in an attempt to have better driving on the roads of the province.
One of the issues you have to address is, do you want to reduce the carnage on the highway to an acceptable level, or do you want to stop it altogether? There's a clear political problem that the graduated licence is trying to address, and it's the larger problem that I'm trying to come to.
Many drivers now are more or less petty scofflaws. They speed; they follow too closely; they cut dangerously through slow traffic; many drivers are competitive and have unforgiving attitudes that contribute to collisions. All of these things contribute to the bad climate of driving, and coupled with the huge increase of cars and drivers registered in Ontario between 1980 and 1990, contribute to a terrible overload on the road system.
The roads, as you know, didn't develop at the same rate as the number of drivers. The number of drivers increased by 50% in that decade. It seems to me that what you have is less road space for a vehicle to enter in an emergency. This, in turn, requires a greater level of attentiveness on the part of the driver.
The central question is whether the province wants to have all drivers drive according to the law or whether the political cost of such adherence and supervision would be too high, with the population up in arms complaining about Big Brotherism. Nevertheless, the cost of the controls and the tests is likely to be lower than the current cost in lives and damages.
If the intention of the provincial government is to attack the current level of driving skill and personal attitude displayed by drivers in Ontario, the problem should be attacked at its root. This attack could profitably start with the currently licensed driving population, but politically it would probably best start with the person who wishes to become a driver and to use the natural gatekeeping device of a combination of training and testing to prevent from driving those persons who wish to drive but fail, like so many of our fellow drivers, to show the best and safest attitudes and procedures. The idea of a graduated licence is excellent, but attaches to so few drivers overall. Why not address the whole body of drivers?
With the use of technological police aid, we can stop the carnage and release police from the roads for other police work. We certainly have the technical ability to ensure that drivers follow all our highway rules, without the use of extensive funds or even human police resources. These can be replaced by the computer and sensors and cameras. For example, the use of a split-image camera already is catching speeders with a composite image of their licence, their speed and a picture of the driver as well, in some instances.
With sensors the driver can be followed through such activities as following too closely, switching lanes through slower moving traffic and other moving traffic offences. As well, the sensor in the car puts an additional benefit on the insurance game by being able to discourage theft. If you can find the car very quickly after it's been stolen by tracking the sensor number, it's really of no profit to steal it.
So the questions are, what laws do we really want obeyed, how well do we want them obeyed and then, of course, what penalties will be charged for disobedience?
My third point: A driving test of greater complexity is required. It must test both crisis response and psychological attitude, in addition to the rules and regulations of the road. The Ministry of Transportation's current tests don't seem to quantify the skill level of the potential driver. It would be useful to test the driver for physical abilities, crisis response and attitude as well.
The purpose of the test is to act, again, as a gatekeeper, keeping off the road those drivers who are unable or unwilling to adjust to the needs of the crowded roads of Ontario. This test should replicate the conditions of the road as accurately as possible while limiting the time and cost of administration. This can be effectively accomplished by a computer process. The physical test can be part of a physical examination and can be performed by a physician who normally attends the driver.
The current test does little to indicate that the future driver is prepared to meet the difficult driving conditions of the real world. A test that incorporates examining some of the psychological attitudes of the potential driver would be beneficial. There are areas of aggressivity that can easily lead to disaster in a car. As well, a test that examines the reflex actions of drivers in a crisis would be instructive.
As recently as 10 years ago, the driving test of the Ministry of Transportation was becoming increasingly out of date compared with the real needs of the driving public, as it sank through inadequacy towards dangerousness. The level of dangerousness has now been reached. It's actually dangerous, I think, both to the new driver and existing road-using population, for a new driver who has passed the current road test to be released on to the highways and roads of Ontario.
Existing drivers as well as future drivers should be tested at both regular and irregular intervals in their driving careers. A while ago a new driver went on the road with a view that was shared by other existing and new road users, that experience was as good a teacher as any other. This has become increasingly untrue, as the roads have become more congested and the attitude of the driver more impatient and unforgiving. However, the view of the public has not changed to reflect the evidence of the statistics about crashes and the increasing evidence that a driver can be largely trained before getting on the roads of the province.
Training does work. The first time a pilot flies a large airliner, the plane carries a passenger payload. The idea of continuous testing for drivers, as for the pilots of aircraft, seems to be reasonable and demonstrates an interest in safety. The pilot must sit for regular retests of his skills. This continuous testing should be even more obviously needed for competent instructors in any field, even driving.
The testing of drivers should be regular, for example, every five years. It should also be random, like a lottery, with the results combined with crash data and analysed by actuaries to ensure that the regular tests are adequately frequent and that they test appropriate skills and attitudes. Statistics should be kept that reflect the behaviour of drivers before collisions as well as through collisions so that we come closer and closer to the point of understanding what causes accidents, as we call them, crashes on the roads.
Training has a proven ability to improve the techniques and attitudes of drivers now on or about to come on to the roads. In general, training is likely to be necessary to prepare all new drivers to take their place on the roads of Ontario. However, should an untrained driver wish to take the test, it should be rigorous enough to ensure that those who pass the test, with or without training, can be sure that they are competent drivers.
Only effective training will accomplish better driving. Courses and trainers should be certified and re-examined by the provincial authorities in an effective and meaningful way. A good way to evaluate a course is to compare the results of students from that course with those who come from other courses. In addition, the students' results should be compared to some objective standard. There are a number of standard statistical techniques for doing both of these.
Human beings change over time and teachers are not immune from these human changes. Tests of trainers should include a wide range of physical, psychological and technical tests with a lot of discussion of the results with the trainer by the administrator of the test. The intention of these tests is to signal to the trainer areas of change from earlier examinations that, while still indicating adequacy, are pointing to future failure. That's an attitude of testing that I commend to you because it involves the testee in improving the future results.
The training of drivers is essential, and this training should be provided by instructors who are themselves trained exemplars of the proper attitudes and methods used in driving. The training and licensing of instructors should be of primary importance in the drive to improve driving in Ontario -- sorry about that.
I do not know what training is demanded by the province, nor what percentage in what test is required to become a driving instructor, nor with what frequency a retest is administered to instructors to maintain their qualifications, but I'm sure that you have this in mind, that some process is intended.
The graduated licence will contribute to the perception by teenagers that the citizens of Ontario take seriously the prohibition of drinking and driving, I think. The purpose of the proposed graduated licence is to limit the new driver to situations where he usually, but also she, can avoid the dangers of the frequently tragic combination of drinking and driving when the driver is new to and ignorant of both. I regret to say that this appears to be a Band-Aid on the problem of bad driving leading to crashes. It's a useful Band-Aid but it doesn't cover a wide enough group, is what I'm effectively saying.
1450
I think that driving is a skill that requires a combination of talents and abilities, many of which increase with practice. Some, however, do not, and people are not all able to decide among alternatives both rapidly and safely. For many, the decision-speeds, both on the highway and even on the high street, are such that driving is for them a very stressful occupation. Training that includes freeway, highway and city street practices and the theory that underlies those practices is the most useful beginning to a driving process. If this is followed by a rigorous test of the competencies learned, the new driver has a better preparation than any prohibition would provide, in my view.
Mr Dadamo: I just want to draw your attention to point 3. You know you're not the first one to come before us and talk about the complexity of the driving test and how it should be strengthened a little bit or maybe made a little bit tougher, I'd say. What do you think? Where does it lack at this point? How much do you need to know when you go out on the road and take this test?
Mr Riley: I think that one of the things you need to know is that the person's eyes have been tested. My understanding is that about 10% of those people who come for the test actually get asked to read a piece of a chart. Everybody gets marked as though they had 20/20 vision even so. From hearing children talk, generally, I perceive from a distance that the test is regarded as a joke. If you want it not to be regarded as a joke, it has only not to be a joke.
Mr Dadamo: So you and I come from an era that -- I think you've taken the same kind of test that I took almost 25 years ago that I guess wasn't tough enough then. It sort of has stayed the same.
Mr Riley: Well, it was tough enough then because in fact your experience time on the highway was such -- you had so much space on the highway. There were so few cars. The roads were so big and lovely. Now the roads are the same size and there are a lot more cars on them. I think that's the central problem, that your reaction time has shrunk. It used to be that you had lots of room for making a mistake because people were forgiving. They were kind. They said, "Oh, well, what an idiot," but they didn't run into you. Now they have no place to go so they run into you and they curse you far more energetically.
Ms Haeck: Thank you very much for a stimulating presentation, and I think we all find many parts with which to concur. I'd like to follow up on your comment on the random testing, an interesting idea. I'm realizing that it's been a few years since I have gone through --
Mr Jackson: Give us a number.
Ms Haeck: It was 1972, actually.
Mr Jackson: Everybody else --
Ms Haeck: It was 1972 and I was 23 at the time, so you can do your calculations.
Mr Riley: Are you sure you can do it?
Ms Haeck: I'm 45, just to make it simple. In any case --
Mr Jackson: Math's not my problem.
Ms Haeck: The fact of the matter is that one of the things that has been problematic is whether or not to have everybody who all of sudden reaches the glorious age of 45 come in and do their test, or what we're basically requiring, folks who have reached the age of 80 to do one, that they are to be tested on a more regular basis. In your mind, is it just a matter of pulling names out of a hat or a lottery system that this day you won and that day you didn't?
Mr Riley: No, the purpose would be to have a double check. You have a standard: Every five years, say, everybody goes through it. So you're picking constantly at the drivers and saying, "We expect you to maintain a standard of driving; if you don't think you can, you can go to X driving school or any driving school you care to name and get a refresher course," because we want to make sure -- it seems to me that the ideal aim is to not have to have policemen down the street picking out people who make a left turn illegally. They should say to themselves, "Jeez, if I make a left turn, I'm going to get a three-point offence here." They should think about it before they do it and not say, "Oh, look, I got caught," after.
Mr Jackson: A lot of people don't know it's a three-point offence.
Mr Riley: Well, I can't help that.
Mr Jackson: Well, you should. You're an educator.
Mr Riley: Ignorance is not a fault of education.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you, Ms Haeck.
Ms Haeck: Jeez, and I thought I could even get a supplementary in here.
Mr Jackson: I got it in for you.
Ms Haeck: Thank you. It wasn't exactly what I wanted, though.
Mr Daigeler: Thank you very much for your presentation. I think you're describing a society that frankly I'm not sure I really would want to live in. I mean, it's probably a safer one.
Mr Riley: I know. Bear in mind that I'm asking a question, not describing the society.
Mr Daigeler: With the tests and with the psychological examinations that you're suggesting at rather frequent intervals in our lives, while I understand the objective, and it's a very praiseworthy one, we're not doing this kind of thing in any other situation. I could just see the same principle being applied for many other situations, all of which I think we would want to avoid.
Mr Riley: It's being done increasingly in industrial settings.
Mr Daigeler: As a society, we are accepting --
Mr Riley: -- of some failings.
Mr Daigeler: Yes.
Mr Riley: Sure, that's fine. That's no problem. You can set it up so that you accept the failings to any degree you want. You say: "Okay, you would be allowed to travel through traffic. Because you're going between Collingwood on a daily basis, you're going to drive in a different way from the person who gets on the Collingwood road once in a blue moon and is overwhelmed by the traffic."
Maybe you're prepared to accept a number of different approaches. You might say, "Well, we charge more for people who drive at a higher speed for road travel," just as simple as that. If you want to travel at 180, it's more.
Mr Daigeler: I can see that the free-for-all we have now -- you take a driving test once in your life and you never have to do it again unless there are special circumstances -- is very open-minded, but I don't think we've reached the stage yet to really move aggressively in the area you're proposing, particularly the one that worries me the most, where you're saying to test psychological attitudes. Again, I think you're probably right that it's the key to people's driving behaviour, but it's the key in people's behaviour generally. When we come as government to start testing people's attitudes --
Mr Riley: Yes, it's very Big Brotherly, I agree. But your problem is that if you care about the people who aren't driving badly -- you're talking about 2% or 1% or less of the population that is involved in accidents on an annual basis; it's a very small percentage.
Mr Daigeler: It's 4%.
Mr Riley: It's 4% of drivers? All right. Of those, half are ticketed, presumably, so the other half was there by circumstances. For them it really is an accident in most cases. That's the sort of thing. Then what you're saying is that you'd rather rid the roads of the people who are driving badly after the fact than before, because that's just the nature of the society. I have no problem with that. I agree with you; I think that is the nature of the society.
Mr Turnbull: Continuing in the same line of questioning, in terms of testing people for crisis response and psychological attitude, obviously this is one of those touchie-feelie things. Where do you go over the line where you start being Big Brother and what do you do in terms of how far you carry this process? How far do you see this process evolving?
Mr Riley: It depends on how you do it. If, for example, I sat you in front of a computer and I said to you, "All right, you're going to drive this car" -- you're sitting at the wheel of the car and you're driving along -- what you see on the computer screen is the road in front of you, on which there is sometimes traffic and sometimes not. As you see the traffic in front of you and as you see the traffic in a rear-view mirror that might also be part of this process, you're expected to react to the traffic around you. By your reaction, you create and contribute to the situations that may or may not cause hazards around you.
For example, if you're talking about an hour's test, it's clearly uneconomical to do that with humans. At some point you're going to have to get computers. You're sitting there for an hour. You can probably fool almost anybody, including a pretty well-trained examiner, for 20, 30, 40 minutes. After that, you can't; you just can't. It's not possible. You can't maintain the concentration for much longer than that.
You're driving along and you decide that the traffic is getting heavy and it's boring and your foot's flying from one pedal to the other, you're driving too close behind and suddenly the person in front of you stops and you hit him. That demonstrates two things: It demonstrates that you were too close and it demonstrates an attitude problem. Is that a psychological test?
1500
Mr Turnbull: How realistic would it be to introduce that type of simulation today, and what would the costs involved be?
Mr Riley: The costs for the first one would be in the order of $3 million. You just happened to ask me.
Mr Turnbull: And for the whole system?
Mr Riley: The cost for each subsequent one would be in the order of $30,000 is my guess.
Mr Turnbull: Very much numbers which realistically you could recapture by charging user fees to that extent.
Mr Riley: Yes. I think you could recover your costs without a lot of trouble, and if you put up the money for the deal, you could probably sell it to a variety of other jurisdictions.
Mr Turnbull: Yes. Is there anybody doing anything like this at the moment?
Mr Riley: Not with cars, but with computer-aided engineering and others do it with airplanes. It's never been economic with cars, but this is making it economic, I think.
Mr Turnbull: There have been a certain number of licence-issuing officers across the province who are concerned that they're going to lose their livelihood because the province is experimenting with automats to dispense with the licence. Now you're talking about retesting of people. It would seem that a logical first step would be that when we go to apply for our licence, we should go to a licence-issuing office and at least take an eye test while we're getting it.
Mr Riley: I think in fact what you should be expected to do is produce a certificate from a doctor that says you're in good health, or maybe you're not in good health and you have this eye problem, like I do, or you have whatever you have. You need to drive only with your left hand or one eye is blind or you're deaf in your right ear, whatever it is. That information should be available and should be recorded on your driver's licence or at least in the information that is behind it.
Mr Turnbull: Can I ask what your field of expertise is, because I suspect we're into your field of expertise.
Mr Riley: Yes, I think we probably are. I've spent probably 25 years in a combination of computers and education. I'm quite interested in how the computer works in terms of making life easier for people around them. It's probably even more difficult than perhaps Mr Daigeler has suggested.
The Vice-Chair: Mr Riley, on behalf of this committee, I'd like to thank you for taking the time out and giving us your presentation today.
Mr Riley: It's a great pleasure.
ONTARIO MEDICAL ASSOCIATION
ONTARIO CORONERS' ASSOCIATION
The Vice-Chair: I'd like to call forward our next presenters from the Ontario Medical Association. Would you please come forward. Good afternoon. Just a reminder that you'll be allowed up to a half-hour for your presentation. The committee would appreciate it if you'd keep your remarks somewhat briefer to allow time for questions and comments from each of the caucus members. Would you please identify yourselves for the record and then proceed.
Dr Rocco Gerace: Rocco Gerace.
Dr Kevin Flynn: My name is Kevin Flynn. I'm also representing the Ontario Coroners' Association today.
Dr Ted Boadway: I'm Ted Boadway, the director of health policy for the Ontario Medical Association.
Dr Gerace: Perhaps I'll start. Firstly, I'd like to thank the committee for hearing our presentation. We feel that this is a very important issue.
At the OMA, I am the chairman of the committee on accidental injuries. In that role, we look at injuries and methods of preventing and treating injuries which might occur. In my professional life, I'm an emergency physician and a member of the trauma program at Victoria Hospital in London. In my professional life, I am responsible for the care of trauma victims and have been treating trauma for many years.
More importantly, we have seen that trauma is, for the most part in our society, the result of motor vehicle collisions. Unfortunately, the collisions that occur, occur disproportionately among young and new drivers. We've all heard the statistics that although 16% of drivers are in the 16 to 24 age bracket, they represent 25% of the fatalities that occur.
We often think about serious disease. I'm sure most of you know that heart disease and cancer are the two leading causes of death, but because trauma is a disease of the young, although ranking high as a cause of death, it is indeed the leading cause of lost life years. We think that trauma is an important disease and we now have an opportunity and are pleased to be able to comment on the opportunity to impact positively on these trauma-related statistics.
We've heard good evidence that graduated licensing works. It has been implemented in New Zealand, where there's been a 13% reduction in fatalities associated with motor vehicle collisions among new drivers. In most of the documentation that we hear about, we hear about fatality statistics. These are really incomplete in terms of describing the problem, the tip of the iceberg. For every death that occurs in a motor vehicle collision, there are at least 60 to 70 hospital admissions; for each death that occurs, there are probably 200 victims of trauma who seek medical care. The problem does extend far more widely than death statistics will indicate.
Clearly, the ability of graduated licensing to reduce the number of injuries and the number of deaths could be seen by us in the medical field as a very positive public health initiative. I think we have now an opportunity to improve the health of our patients and the health of your constituents by implementing this program.
We've heard about costs. I think the financial impact of this program cannot be minimized. We have from the Ontario trauma registry data the fact that an acute hospitalization, secondary to trauma, costs in the range of $15,000. This does not include the number of costs associated with long-term care and ongoing problems. Based on numbers presented to you earlier by Dr Jim Young from the coroner's office, we can speculate that the cost of trauma in the young is somewhere in the range of $250 million a year. Therefore, we not only have an opportunity of improving health, we also have an opportunity of saving money while we do so.
As I'm sure you've all gathered, the OMA supports strongly the principle of graduated licensing and would like to express that support here today. We do have some concerns regarding some of the details of the program, and Dr Kevin Flynn, who's both a family doctor and a coroner, as he indicated, representing the Ontario Coroners' Association, will address some of those concerns.
Dr Flynn: I am also a member of Dr Gerace's committee at the Ontario Medical Association. I have been an active coroner for 21 years and in that time have been responsible for guiding a number of highway-related inquests through the system, resulting in many recommendations in the direction of promoting graduated licensing systems and have been in regular contact with officials of the ministry regarding those. Coroner's inquests, as most of you probably know, function in a somewhat similar fashion as a public inquiry, with the exception that there are five jurors representing the community, and evidence, of course, is taken under oath.
I would like to present to you three scenarios and then perhaps indicate what areas we have some concerns over in the proposed legislation.
At 5:30 in the morning of August 17 two years ago, a 16-year-old named Adam Sadler from the community of Parkhill near London, Ontario, died at the side of Highway 403 in Mississauga after driving a pickup truck all the way from Cornwall, having left there around midnight. The vehicle became airborne and struck the undersurface of an overpass. He was the holder of a learner's permit and had failed two driving tests. Notwithstanding his two failed attempts, he had persuaded his parents that he held a valid permit and had been known to make previous long-distance trips with the same vehicle.
The jury at that inquest recommended urgent action on legislation to introduce a graduated licensing system, which was about the time the publication New to the Road was released.
The second scenario involves a 16-year-old girl from Milton, Ontario, who was one of four rear-seat passengers, none of whom were wearing seatbelts. She was killed by being thrown from a car which lost control while overtaking a friend's car at 110 kilometres per hour on a side road, also in 1991. The driver of this car was a 17-year-old learner, a girl, while another 17-year-old girl operated the gear shift, the clutch, the accelerator and the brakes.
They were on their way home from a swimming and drinking party at the end of the school year. The original driver of that vehicle had decided not to drive because she had had something to drink. The judge at the hearing -- this was not the subject of an inquest; it was the subject of a hearing -- ruled that they were guilty of youthful errors of judgement and sentenced them to some hours of community service.
1510
In 1991 also -- that was a bad year -- a car driven by a 16-year-old with five passengers at excessive speed was driving over a rural side road in Halton county for the purposes of catching air. I'm sure most of you will know what that expression entails. It means that you're driving on a roller coaster in order to get four wheels off the road at the same time. This vehicle lost control and the four passengers were trapped in the rear seat and all four died of burns.
In the course of an inquest into a number of fatalities on Highway 403 last year, I had a review of 26 fatalities on one stretch of the Mississauga portion of Highway 403. This review indicated that 10 out of the 25 drivers involved in those fatalities had five years or less driving experience. All were either impaired or inattentive. Four of those drivers, all under the age of 25, had no licence and never had a licence. This latter group is a source of great concern to coroners, and we need assurance that the restrictions imposed by the graduated licensing system do not result in more unlicensed drivers on the highway. In fact, I think this is a real danger which might not have been considered. Accordingly, we need to see increased penalties under the Criminal Code for those who drive illegally, either while under suspension or never having held a licence.
A review of fatal collisions in Ontario involving three or more fatalities shows a high correlation between driver age and these collisions. The findings of this review will be presented in more detail at an inquest commencing on Monday of next week into the deaths of eight young people killed at about midnight on May 9 in Caledon, an inquest over which I will preside.
This collision followed a field party and again involved most of the main features in the proposed graduated licensing system. The jurors at that inquest will hear also statements from the families of the eight victims on how this tragedy affected them as individuals and also from the families of the incident in Halton region in 1991.
The coroners in Ontario rejoice in the proposed legislation. We are very supportive of the legislation. We have a few concerns on the proposals. The accompanying driver, who is allowed a 0.05 milligram content, we feel should also have 0% blood alcohol. The purpose of the accompanying driver, one would assume, is not only to supervise the learner driver, but also to be able to take control of the vehicle in the event of an untoward incident. We feel that the restriction should apply at both levels of the graduated system.
In regard to the number of passengers, we feel that one passenger only should be allowed in the front of the vehicle and that the remainder should be no more than the number of seatbelts provided as original equipment.
We do not believe there should be exemptions either in regard to the hours between midnight and 5 am or in regard to the use of expressways or designated highways.
In regard to the problem posed by immigrant drivers, and by immigrant drivers we would include drivers who come to Ontario from other parts of Canada or the United States, who bring with them driving experience in other jurisdictions, we feel that those drivers should have to provide proof of experience and also be subjected to the advanced test, not the basic test.
These are the basic questions which we raise concerning the proposals. We believe that the system will create a pool of better behaved drivers who will also graduate into being more responsible citizens of Ontario.
Mr Conway: Thank you, gentlemen, for a very excellent presentation. Just some quick questions: Did I understand you, Dr Flynn, to say that you did not believe there should be any exemptions from the prohibitions that are included in the proposal around the 400 series highways? In other words, you accept the government proposal.
Dr Flynn: Yes.
Mr Conway: A second question: In that incident involving the young fellow from Parkhill who was driving from Cornwall, did I understand your information to indicate that this was a young person, 16 or 17 years of age, who had just a beginner's permit, had failed --
Dr Flynn: He had a 365 permit.
Mr Conway: Right, but he failed --
Dr Flynn: He failed two subsequent driving tests, two different locations.
Mr Conway: Presumably, his parents knew this.
Dr Flynn: His parents were led to believe that he did have a valid licence. I'm not suggesting that parents always take the steps of confirming that their teenager does in fact have a valid licence. This is something which did cause them concern.
Mr Conway: That's one thing, but it strikes one that it's one thing to bamboozle your parents about whether or not you've got a valid licence; it's another thing to be running around across the province. I'm just trying to imagine this --
Dr Flynn: Very briefly, the situation is that he spent the summer working with his father on a construction site away from home, was staying with his father and was allowed to drive a company vehicle on the site. It was that vehicle which he had taken on company business to deliver goods for the company.
Mr Conway: I just raise that because it reminds me of parents who come to the school at 14 to complain about the fact that their kids can't read and write. I hear these stories occasionally and I think, "Well, how is it that your children got to age 14" --
Dr Flynn: Well, we repeatedly see parents who are not aware that their teenaged son or daughter has been suspended.
Mr Conway: Dr Young was here last week and he, I think, really stunned the committee. He really gave us some very upsetting data.
I've got his submission in front of me. When I look at his chart, which talks about fatalities in Ontario on Ontario roads, 1980 to 1990, with a blood alcohol content of over 0.08%, the trend line is good in both cases. He's separated out the 16- to 19-year-olds, and the rate dropped in 1980 from 46.6 to 1990, 10 years later, to 17.9. So it's a very significant decrease. Then you look at the 20- to 25-year-olds, and you see that the decrease is much less. It's 55.3 in 1980; 39.4 in 1990. The suggestion in those data is certainly that young people, when they become legally able to drink at age 19, are pursuing some behaviour with respect to automobiles that is still quite worrisome.
Have you any suggestions as to what we might do reasonably around the fact that a surprising number of young people between the ages of 19 and 23 or 24, are still behaving in ways that are quite worrisome, according to Dr Young's data?
Dr Flynn: I'm sure a lot of this is the peer atmosphere, the availability of alcohol at so many outlets, at sporting activities, get-togethers such as field parties and bush parties. I must confess that prior to the incident in Caledon I had never heard of a bush party, but I've learned a lot more about bush parties in the last three or four months, and I understand that they are quite the thing in most parts of the province. You can call them field parties, bush parties or anything you like, but they are still gatherings of young people in that same age group in the post-high school or late high school age. Many of them come back at the end of the school year to catch up with their buddies, two or three years later, and that is a get-together where alcohol is a necessary ingredient.
Mr Jackson: The primary activity.
Dr Flynn: It's the primary activity. Of course it is, and that is just, I think, if you want to take that as a cross-section of the type of activity which those young people are involved in, where alcohol is a necessary ingredient, whether it's in a vehicle or in any other atmosphere where a number of them will gather. Unless they're very unusual people, alcohol will be a feature. The fact that they happen to be in a motor vehicle is just part of the scenario.
1520
Dr Boadway: Mr Conway, to directly address your question, I don't think you can approach your problem, which is very real, through this system. But as a separate issue, the whole issue of how you convince people that they should not drive while impaired is a complex one which includes the feeling of certainty that they may well get caught if they do so. That's one of the psychological impacts it's important to have. As long as people feel an aura of safety -- I'm not talking about personal safety about getting drunk; I'm talking about personal safety with the authorities -- then they continue with irresponsible behaviour.
Mr Conway: When I look at those data, I say to myself, why wouldn't we consider a policy that says there will be a zero blood alcohol tolerance for everyone up until they're 23 years of age and any breach of that is going to bring a very serious consequence? Because we look at Dr Young's data and it's quite clear that for a whole series of cultural reasons, we've got a lot of young people who just don't get the message and are prepared to run risks. Apparently, when they get away to college and university, they are as bad as or worse than they are when they're at home.
Dr Boadway: Mr Conway, it would be fair to say that that's a thought we're prepared to consider. We have not given that thoughtful consideration at this moment so our advice to you wouldn't be very good.
Dr Gerace: Just to add, one of the things to consider in the legislation is that, if you'll recall, we've requested that the accompanying driver who will have years of experience have zero blood alcohol. I think if we add the time where an accompanying driver will have to be with the novice driver, his years of experience, we will be getting, given that someone starts at 16, up into an accompanying driver who may be 20 and above who will have to have zero blood alcohol concentration. All of these, I think, will contribute to learning a certain behaviour while behind the wheel. But the whole issue, I think, is, as Ted has suggested, beyond the realm of this discussion.
Mr Jackson: Very briefly, because my colleague Mr Turnbull, our Transportation critic, has several questions, as the seniors' advocate, I also want to invite your expertise with respect to the other end of the spectrum of licensing as it relates to seniors. It strikes me that if our system is to be more responsible of licensing at the front end, it should be equally more sensitized at the other end.
I know that the optometrists and the physicians who take care of people's eyes in this province have lobbied strongly and hard for a differentiated licensing system or modifications to licensing for senior citizens, wherein there's a greater level of involvement with the physician, other than simply the system we have now. Could I get some comment from you for the record, because as this committee is able to consider matters around the Highway Traffic Act and licensing, we may have the capacity to make recommendations to the government on seniors' licensing.
In particular, perhaps I may, without leading you, suggest that matters of curfew, age, years of experience, driving record, diminishing vision strength with night-time, weekend, distancing etc -- there's a whole series of recommendations floating around and other jurisdictions that have reacted very sensitively to seniors. Could you, for the record, give us some input? I know you have a committee within your own organization that's looked at it, but it's an area that I believe this committee should pass some comment on, because we are hearing from seniors who feel frightened, intimidated and quite concerned about licensing as it relates to them and their rights in this province.
Dr Flynn: Night vision is singled out in your comments as one area where I think there is a great deal of work to be done, not only in seniors but also in other members of the population. I'm not sure that the ministry has the technology on a generally available level to test for night vision, but it is becoming more visible in the literature in regard to highway safety that some people don't realize they are night blind until they are involved in an accident. I think that is certainly an area which will require further work.
The other areas in regard to their ability to drive with certain medical conditions I think would tend to apply more to the older driver, those approaching 80, where various insurance companies in the past have required medical reports on the driver for insurance reasons. There may well be instances where physicians should be reporting as medically unfit not only senior drivers but other drivers, but particularly in regard to the constituency that you are concerned with. Senior drivers would feel threatened if physicians were ever to report all of the cases which they should report.
Mr Jackson: I deeply appreciate your candour because I know that's going on, and it's a difficult issue for your association. I'd like to yield to my colleague.
Mr Turnbull: I would say that many of your recommendations have already been made by many other people who have presented to this committee; for example, zero blood alcohol in the accompanying driver. However, you did mention the fact that nothing we do in implementing graduated licences should encourage people to drive without a licence, and of course that is always the danger, that we overlegislate. I wonder what you would do in terms of the attitudes of young people to ensure that this is not the case.
Dr Flynn: In anticipation of that very question, this morning I telephoned one of my contacts at Peel Regional Police and asked what their experience is and what the penalties are for a suspended driver. To be frank, they feel that the courts are not dealing appropriately with the suspended driver unless the suspended driver is driving in contempt of a criminal conviction where suspension is part of the conviction.
That is when the suspended driver will be charged under the Criminal Code, and it is rare that that driver would get time. It's more likely to be in the order of an extension of the suspension, possibly up to a $1,000 or $2,000 fine, but the usual fine for a suspended driver is somewhere in the order of much less than $300. With the graduated licensing system, it may well be that there will be a disincentive to a driver to go through the system and take his chances on paying $300 if he gets away with it.
Mr Turnbull: The answer is to beef up the measures.
Dr Flynn: Be firm, and I think if you look at other jurisdictions, the state of New York very recently has started to tighten up on the suspended driver who has been stopped for other reasons. In one case I read of a man who had been suspended 67 times and was still driving. They have now started to haul those people in to the slammer. It's been up to the courts.
Ms Haeck: You've raised some interesting points. I represent not only part of the community of St Catharines but also Niagara-on-the-Lake, and there's obviously a little bit of farm land between the two communities. The point I've raised with others is the fact that a lot of the farm families, the children of those families, frequently have exposure to motorized vehicles a lot sooner, operating a range of farm equipment. They've always been seen really as very integral to the operation of the farm and frequently as soon as they get to be 16, they get their licence fairly quickly and become the gofers, running errands, and definitely it has been something that has been very important to the farming community.
You indicated in your presentation you did not want to see any exemptions. Are you saying that also applies to the rural community trying to get to work or trying to do some of that work?
Dr Flynn: Yes. It's an unqualified statement.
Ms Haeck: I know there's another colleague who has a question so I'll yield my time.
Dr Boadway: I might say on a very personal note on this one that I was raised in a farming community, and many of my friends, in fact, because they were farming families, got their licences very early. I can personally attest to the fact that it did not make them more responsible than those who got their licences later, and I also, unfortunately, can tell you that several of those friends of mine lost their lives at that point, and I regret that they got their licences because they were good friends of mine. I'm sorry; that wasn't acceptable to me in my life.
Mr Gary Wilson: Thanks very much for your presentation. Some of the points that I wanted to ask about, especially the relation of alcohol and driving, have been touched on, although I wasn't quite sure from your presentation, Dr Flynn, whether you think there is an accompanying driver at level 2 as well.
Dr Flynn: Very definitely should not have --
Mr Gary Wilson: But there is no accompanying driver at level 2. I was just wondering whether you --
Dr Flynn: With the accompanying driver, yes.
Mr Gary Wilson: There is at level 1, of course.
Dr Flynn: That is required, if the legislation were to include an accompanying driver.
1530
Mr Gary Wilson: I wasn't sure whether you say there should be one at level 2 as well.
Dr Flynn: No.
Mr Gary Wilson: Okay. The one I wanted to ask about, though, was the other one, the 400 series. Would you say that is a good one to keep in, that they're restricted from driving on the 400 series except with a driving instructor, so that even with an experienced driver, in other words, novice drivers aren't allowed?
Dr Flynn: We believe that would constitute an exemption, and once you start making exemptions, you're destroying one of the basic principles of the system in that there is a minimum standard set and that standard will not be reduced and it will not be reduced for anybody; you must have the same system for everybody. It will be an inconvenience for some people. Everybody acknowledges that.
Mr Gary Wilson: Yes. I was thinking more in the sense that there might be a gap there in their learning if they're kept off the 400 series, and it's been pointed out too -- at least some people believe -- that they're even safer than some of the roads that --
Dr Flynn: I've heard that said. My feeling is that the progression, at least, into level 2, before level 2 is arrived at, should not include the 400 series. It may well be that time will show that because we are looking at a completely new system, those drivers could be allowed on 400 highways, with some restriction in regard to hours and passengers and speed, but that I think is something which could be added on as past experience shows.
The Vice-Chair: Dr Gerace, Dr Flynn, Dr Boadway, on behalf of this committee I'd like to thank you for taking the time out of your busy schedules and coming and giving us this presentation today.
THE ONTARIO FEDERATION OF HOME AND SCHOOL ASSOCIATIONS
The Vice-Chair: I would like to call forward our next presenters, from the Ontario Federation of Home and School Associations. Could you please come forward? Good afternoon. Just a reminder that you'll be allowed up to a half-hour for your presentation. The committee would appreciate it if you'd keep your remarks somewhat briefer to allow time for questions and comments from each of the caucuses. As soon as you're comfortable, could you please identify yourself for the record and then proceed.
Mrs Ruth Woodcock: Good afternoon. We're from the Ontario Federation of Home and School Associations. My name is Ruth Woodcock and I am the first executive vice-president. With me is Bette Turner, who is the president, and Norma McGuire, who is our immediate past president.
The Ontario Federation of Home and School Associations welcomes the opportunity to appear before this committee. It is of the utmost importance to collect and consider public input during the process of draft legislation to ensure that the welfare and safety of all citizens, but especially children and youth, are protected.
The Ontario Federation of Home and School Associations, a member of the Canadian Home and School and Parent-Teacher Federation, is a non-profit volunteer organization which has been in existence since 1916. The Ontario Federation of Home and School Associations, a province-wide network of over 18,000 dedicated members, is committed to informed and proactive involvement in our homes, our schools and our communities to obtain the best for each student.
We believe parents and guardians are willing and active partners with those delivering education programs and service. We believe Home and School at all levels is the advocate for the students in the public school system. We believe cooperative and healthy environments in the home, the school and the community are necessary for the development of each learner. We believe local, provincial and national parental networking is essential, and we believe effective communication is critical.
Home and School acts as a direct link between the home, the school and the community, actively promoting the objectives: the educational, social and environmental wellbeing of children and youth. It is involved in promoting and securing adequate legislation covering all aspects of the care and protection of children and youth. Our policy is determined by resolutions passed by our association members at our annual meeting.
The Ontario Federation of Home and School Associations, OFHSA, applauds the Ontario government's efforts to improve safety on our roads and reduce the number of traffic deaths and injuries. OFHSA supports the most important benefit of graduated licensing: to help provide new drivers with a safe learning environment to gradually develop practical knowledge, skills and experience.
OFHSA supports the Insurance Bureau of Canada's belief that an effective graduated licensing system could help save lives, prevent injuries and damages and make Ontario's roads safer for all who use them. We also agree that for such a system to be effective, four basic principles must remain intact: New drivers need to be gradually introduced to the road; new drivers need to learn gradually to cope with inherently risky driving conditions; new drivers need continuing development of driving skills, education and testing; and new drivers must be encouraged to take responsibility for safe driving.
The main focus of our presentation today will be on the student drivers and their parents. OFHSA strongly supports driver education courses. In 1963, it became the policy of the Ontario Federation of Home and School Associations that there be a complete driver education course for 16- to 19-year-olds and that a driver's licence be denied to anyone between the ages of 16 and 19 who has not satisfactorily completed and passed this government-approved driver education course.
We urge you to consider this policy. Instead of offering a shorter time for obtaining driving experience in level 1, all student drivers between 16 and 19 years of age should be required to be enrolled in driver education during the 12-month minimum. Satisfactory completion of such driver education instruction should be a requirement for entry into level 2.
In 1979, it became the policy of OFHSA that driver education courses with high standards at a reasonable cost continue to be offered to the students in Ontario secondary schools. At this time, the joint memorandum of agreement between the Ministry of Transportation and Communications and the Ministry of Education was under review and our members wanted to make sure that driver education would continue.
In 1973, it became the policy of OFHSA that a driver education course be accepted as a credit subject in the secondary school curriculum, funded jointly by the ministries of Education and Transportation and Communications. This would ensure that the students who would become drivers would be able to access the driver education. Many potential student drivers cannot afford the high cost of driver education classes. Also, driver education classes, as offered now outside the school curriculum, must be taken after school. Students who must work cannot take advantage of driver training. Often these are the very students who would most benefit from this course, as good driving skills would often prove an asset in earning money to enable them to complete their education.
Since 1987, OFHSA has petitioned the Minister of Education to encourage boards of education to promote driver education course enrolment. As our ultimate goal of having driver education offered as a credit course has not yet come to fruition, though we continue to strive in that direction, we continue to urge boards of education to advertise driver education. Many parents and/or students do not know that such courses exist and that successful completion results in substantial savings on insurance premiums for young drivers.
The Ontario Federation of Home and School Associations is very concerned about the high incidence of traffic accidents, deaths and injuries caused by impaired drivers. It is the policy of OFHSA that the minimum legal age for the consumption of alcoholic beverages be 21. The combination of young, inexperienced drivers and young, inexperienced drinkers greatly increases the risks. We support the zero blood alcohol level for drivers in level 1 and level 2 and for the accompanying driver. As a matter of fact, this should be the law for all drivers at all times.
1540
Though OFHSA has no policy on the following issues, we would like to raise some questions:
(1) How will the new driver entering level 2 gain experience in driving on a 400 series highway if they are restricted totally in level 1? Perhaps the legislation should be broadened to allow level 1 drivers to use 400 series highways when accompanied by a certified driving instructor in the front seat.
(2) Where in the proposed legislation does it indicate where the accompanying driver must sit? Certainly not in the back seat.
(3) Why is less time required for new drivers on motorcycles to gradually develop the practical knowledge, skills and experience?
In closing, the Ontario Federation of Home and School Associations would like to make some recommendations:
(1) That driver education courses be given a higher profile by promotion and advertisement to students and parents.
(2) That there be a complete driver education course for 16- to 19-year-olds and that it be a requirement for promotion into level 2.
(3) That the ministries of Transportation and Education and Training collaborate to have a driver education course accepted as a credit course in the secondary school curriculum, funded jointly by the two ministries.
We thank you again for the opportunity to speak on behalf of our members in the interest of increased safety for our children and yours.
Mr Turnbull: You're dwelling on the idea of mandatory driver education. I must say, going into these hearings, my inclination was towards that too. However, in questioning expert witnesses, I've come to the conclusion that you cannot coerce people successfully into going into courses; they have to go in of their own accord. The evidence seems to suggest that if people decide it's to their benefit, they will probably take more advantage of those courses.
You mentioned the cost of driver education, and you're suggesting it should be held at school. Now, whether we like it or not, we're faced with the bare fact that funding is being cut in all areas.
You further mention that there are insurance discounts for those people who have gone through driver education. Do you not think it would be fair and reasonable to say that we should expect the students or the families of the students to pay for this driver education since they reap the benefits of reduced insurance?
Mrs Bette Turner: I think it's a two-way street. The family or the student reaps the benefit of the reduced insurance rate, but I also think it makes a much safer driver on the road, and I think we have to look at it from that point of view.
Mr Turnbull: From the evidence we've received, it did not appear that the standard of driver education that is being offered, either in the schools or through private education organizations' driving schools, is of a very consistent standard.
Mrs Turner: That's true. We've found that ourselves. It's not consistent.
Mr Turnbull: How do we come to terms with this? The bare fact is that there's no money in the system for government money to be spent on it. One of the things we're probably going to have to wean Canadian taxpayers off is, "Oh, just get the government to spend more money," because the money's not there. We've already spent it for so long that we're leaving a debt to our kids, and I think we're fooling ourselves to think that we give them these free lessons and we just pile up the debt and somehow it's going to go away.
Mrs Turner: I think part of that comes from the fact that the school is considered a place to learn. With qualified people teaching a course in a learning situation, and especially if there was a credit for it, there would be a lot more attention paid to drivers' education as an educational item.
Mr Turnbull: I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm just putting forward a few suggestions.
It seems to me, the imperative is to improve our educational system in Ontario and in Canada if we're to remain competitive. If we start giving courses like this credits, do we give credits to basket weaving and things like this? That's the problem I'm seeing and, believe me, I have sympathy for what you're saying, but I'm asking you -- I mean, there's no money. Should we be watering down school credits in this way?
Mrs Turner: I think we presented it as an option to look at and to consider when you're considering everything else.
Mr Turnbull: I completely agree with you on the question of the location of the accompanying driver. More than that, I have mentioned on several occasions I don't believe we should have more than the accompanying driver in the front seat. As the legislation is written at the moment, or the draft legislation, we could have three people in the seat. I think we all know how distracting it can be when you've got a lot of people in the car. Could you comment on the number of people in a car and this question of three people in the front seat?
Mrs Woodcock: That's something we don't have a policy on. Speaking for myself and, I think, it's almost a motherhood issue, the fewer people in the car at the time a driver is learning, I think, is the best thing. I was quite surprised when I learned in the legislation that it had to be stipulated that part of the restriction in level 1 was that they only have the number of people in the car as per seatbelts. Unfortunately, that was news to me at the time. I thought that was the law and found out that it isn't, that it's only restrictive for the front seat. I very much think that, as you said, only two should be in the front seat at the time there is a learner driving behind the wheel.
Mr Turnbull: What do you think of the proposition that, at least during level 1, there should only be qualified driving instructors or family members with the learner-driver?
Mrs Norma McGuire: If I may, I feel that, depending on the age of the family member -- I noticed in what was written that it was the spouse or something -- that was perhaps a parent but not an older sibling. Frequently, you have a sibling in the families today who might be 10 years older than a younger sibling and that person meets all the other qualifications except the stipulation that they be a spouse or that type of thing. Therefore, I would think a family member who is qualified properly to accompany --
Mr Turnbull: I think you're mixing up two things.
Mrs McGuire: I'm sorry. Okay.
Mr Turnbull: There's the question of the accompanying driver, who must have four years' experience and there's no restriction as to whom that may be. This is something that has arisen out of the hearings. The suggestion has been made that the only other people, other than the accompanying driver, should be family members. What do you think of that suggestion?
Mr Jackson: In level 1.
Mrs McGuire: In level 1.
Mr Turnbull: The thrust of that, let me explain, is essentially that we don't get a car full of kids and all of the peer pressure that goes along with that.
Mrs Woodcock: Personally, I think that's a good idea. If you put in that kind of restriction then you would have to, I think, be careful of the driver education courses, because I understand that when the driver education car goes out, they have other students in the back seat. During the lesson, there would be a driver education student driving, the driver education trainer in the accompanying seat in the front seat, and then they also take the other students with them in the back seat.
Mr Turnbull: The thrust of how this was put is when you're in your own car. We're not talking about driver educator's car.
Mrs Woodcock: So the restriction wouldn't apply there.
Mr Turnbull: There's nothing been written down so far as to what the restriction would be. It's just a question of how it would be couched.
1550
The Vice-Chair: Mr Dadamo.
Mr Daigeler: Mr Chairman, would it be possible, because I have to catch a plane at 5, to ask my question quickly, with your permission?
The Vice-Chair: Certainly. I'll allow that. Go ahead, Mr Daigeler. We're a very friendly committee today.
Mr Daigeler: Thank you for coming to this committee. You're the first parent-teacher group that has come to us and I think you have an important contribution to make. I'm just wondering: How did you hear about it and what made you appear before the committee?
Mrs McGuire: I can answer that one. We were contacted by the Insurance Bureau of Canada to ask if we would be interested in participating in some discussions that --
Mr Daigeler: Had you seen any kind of advertisement yourself, or seen anything about this matter?
Mrs McGuire: Personally I hadn't, no.
Mr Daigeler: Anybody else? No? Because -- where was it? Oh, the bus driver who brought us up from St Catharines said he hadn't heard anything about this at all. He thought it was a good idea, but he thought it was too bad that the media hadn't picked it up -- they have, frankly; there have been stories in the press about this matter.
I'm glad you're here at least and I do want to say one other point, though, because I think it's important: All of this isn't just for the young people. There was evidence earlier that we as parents also have things to change -- the way we allow younger people to drive and use the car, and that there is an attitude change required in society at large from young to old. I would hope that you would do your share in that regard as well, not just with the young people.
Mr Dadamo: I want to take this opportunity, before I make comment, to thank the MTO staff who have been around for the last couple of weeks and travelled with us. They've given us a lot of information and been there for us.
I want to bring you to page 3 and talk about a few points. Point 1: I have clarification that if you have an experienced driver in level 1, you can be on the 400 series. On point 2,
I think it's in the legislation that the accompanying driver with the experience must be in the front seat and hopefully wearing a seatbelt.
Mr Gary Wilson: Could you repeat that? Now I'm a little confused. Are you saying, with an experienced driver you can be on the 400 series in level 1?
Interjection: Driving instructor.
Mr Gary Wilson: Driving instructor. Okay, because that was what I wanted to continue with and say, if somebody were taking a course, would you see that it would be advisable or beneficial for them to also drive on a 400 series road with an experienced driver? They're not taking a course all the time, obviously. That would give them more experience at level 1. In other words, they wouldn't be restricted -- the important thing is that they're taking a course. They are out there on the 400 series with a qualified driving instructor. Could that continue with an experienced driver?
Mrs McGuire: To me, it would depend on what part of a 400 series you were using. If you're using across the top of Metro, I think it's quite different from using the Cornwall area. There's a big difference in the amount of traffic and in the risks that are presenting themselves in certain parts of the 400 series as compared to across the top of Metro. I think perhaps that --
Mr Gary Wilson: Other presenters have said the 400 series are actually safer than other roads. We didn't really make that distinction, so that's part of the reason. So you do see some possibility for that.
Mrs McGuire: That's certainly a very personal expression.
Mr Gary Wilson: Sure, that's fine. I want to raise another issue, though, that Mr Turnbull raised. You said a couple of times that there is no money. As you can see, the lights are on here, so there obviously is some money. It's a question of how we spend it. I'm not sure that, given the presentation just before you came here -- they were a group of doctors saying how costly highway accidents are. As we all know, it's a tremendous cost, both in social costs and in medical costs. In other words, it might be efficient to make an investment of public money in things like driver education.
I was just wondering what you think about that, especially considering that not everyone is able to make the same payment; not all parents, in other words, have the same discretionary income to make the driver instruction courses.
Mrs Turner: I'll answer this as a mother who has survived two teenaged boy drivers. The thing was that it was an excellent carrot to hold out to get cooperation from the teenager. "If you want the money for the driving instruction, then this is what you have to do for it." This is how it proceeds. You have to manage it very, very closely. Even when they obtain their licence, you still have to monitor the use of the car, that they don't just come in and pick up the keys and take it.
There has to be a purpose and reason and we have to have been following the rules all along, and as soon as there's a slip, not being home on time or whatever, then we have to have penalties in it so that they pay attention to what they're doing. As a parent, you have to take responsibility to make sure they are trained properly, you hope, and you do the very best you can. But you really have to put the effort into it and it's not easy.
Mr Gary Wilson: As a parent, you mean, you have to put the effort in to monitor it.
Mrs Turner: Yes.
Mr Gary Wilson: What about in cases where that's not always available? I was just wondering what your view of that is or what you would recommend. I'm thinking here too in rural areas, for instance, where kids and other novice drivers need their vehicles at times when it would be inconvenient to have some of the restrictions that apply here.
Mrs Turner: I think you'll find that in rural areas, in some cases, many young people are allowed to drive fairly powerful motorized vehicles as long as it's not on a public highway, and given the nature of the young persons, they can learn from that experience and become fairly good drivers or they can go the other way. It's strictly an individual situation.
One of my sons had the opportunity of doing that, but I found out that in the province he was in at the time he could drive on the shoulder of the road and drive a grain truck and he wasn't old enough for a valid driver's licence. I thought that was a bit much.
Mr Conway: It's an interesting presentation. To the person who said she had just raised two boys, I sit here and I think about the attitudes. I really was troubled earlier today, and I don't know whether you were here when the coroner or someone -- Mr Peaire, I think it was, said his son was killed because he got in a car with somebody who went down a country road at 160 kilometres an hour. I just say to myself, what do we need to do here to change these attitudes?
I live on the road and I've been really impressed by a lot of this testimony and I think the government's proposal is essentially a good one. It's a modest proposal, really. But I leave here with a kind of sick feeling that there are attitudes out there that are so incredible that we may be a long way from getting to some of these people. I don't know. I end with that.
In that context, did your two young sons respond reasonably well to the directions? How did you as a parent keep them away from friends who would drive down a country road at 160 kilometres an hour?
Mrs Turner: They had to use my car. They didn't own a car or have full use of a car. They also had friends who lost their lives. That was a very sobering experience, unfortunately, for the friends they had.
Mrs Woodcock: I think sometimes the perception is too that if we live in a metro area, the highways and the driving there are a lot more dangerous. In some ways I think it is because there are more cars on the road. But then I don't think any of the restrictions should be lifted in rural areas, because there is the fact there that you've got more open space and there is more of a tendency for the young people to open up and let it go.
Mr Jackson: And less policing.
Mrs Woodcock: And less policing. Some of the worst accidents we have seen lately have happened on rural country roads. I'm thinking about the Mother's Day accident at Forks of the Credit, and they're no less tragic --
Mr Conway: I agree with you, by the way. I don't think there should be a dual standard. I think there has to be one policy, but I think the policy has to be sufficiently flexible to take into account the realities of a very large province where the conditions in the Rainy River district will be very different than they are in, say, North Halton or in the interior of Metropolitan Toronto.
I was concerned, and I think it's a very valid concern -- I don't know whether you heard the coroner just a moment ago talk about the number of people driving without any kind of a licence, that we have to operate in the real world, and if we draw restrictions, we have to hope that there's some reasonable level of compliance.
Mrs Woodcock: I would hope that the restrictions, if there were any convictions during level 1 or 2, would be severe enough to make it give a very strong message to the young people.
The Vice-Chair: Ms Woodcock, Ms Turner and Ms McGuire, on behalf of this committee, I'd like to thank you for taking the time out of your busy schedules, bringing us this presentation and giving us a mother's perspective.
Mr Jackson: I just wanted to make a closing request of research and/or ministry staff to seek out some additional information which may prove helpful to the committee in drafting its final report. It centres on this area of licence suspensions. I know it's possible to ascertain the number of licence suspensions that occur in a given year and I realize that there's a whole variety of reasons for that. You may have the data broken down that way.
It is possible to get from the Attorney General's office the statistics on the number of convictions by specific offence, and in this case it would be driving while suspended, which is a designated offence. Perhaps we could get some memo from the Attorney General's office with respect to either the average fine per case -- I think that's highly unlikely -- or the fine guidelines as set out by the Attorney General's guidance to crown attorneys and to judges.
Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Walkerville): Not judges.
Mr Jackson: Yes, the judges would get memos periodically if there is a range. I'd like to know what that recommended range is, or if there's a three-page memo on how to deal with fine suspensions. I don't want it simply as, "It is recommended that it be $300." I'm sure it's more than that. It takes perhaps a little bit more digging, but I'm sure we've given our judges direction and we've certainly advised crown attorneys what offences should be recommended.
On the issue of the licence suspensions, it's my understanding that everyone's licence is date-sensitive and it's contained in its numeric order, that your actual year of birth is incorporated into your 12-digit licence. That was my understanding. So if that is the case, it's possible to do a computer search of those licence suspensions, and without our knowing who those individuals are, it's possible, with a limited amount of research, to determine the average age of licence suspension.
I'm getting nods from staff and I'm getting some degree of concurrence that they would attempt that, but I think, having thought through this request, with a little bit more effort, I believe we could get a better handle, by age, of licence suspension. I think if we could assemble that data, it would be very helpful to us in formulating some additional recommendations. We have heard deputations that the linkage between the Attorney General's office and the Ministry of Transportation could be strengthened in terms of this whole process we're in right now.
Interjection: Or Solicitor General.
Mr Jackson: Or Solicitor General. I think the Solicitor General's office has been extremely helpful, but it's the Attorney General's office which I think is -- we're seeing less of their involvement or influence or impact in the draft legislation and the discussion papers to date. That's not meant as a condemnation, nor was it an intentional oversight on the part of he government. I just simply, by making this request, would like our committee to come up with a stronger report.
The Vice-Chair: I'm sure, Mr Jackson, all the ministry staff and legislative research will get us all the information that we requested and at our meeting back they'll be providing some of the responses and maybe answering some of the questions we have that arise between now and then.
Right now, I'd like to thank all the committee members, all the staff and all the ministry people and anybody who's participated in these committee hearings. This committee stands adjourned till the call of the Chair.
The committee adjourned at 1604.