by arthur Weinreb, associate Editor,
December 30, 2004
Under Ontario’s Highway Traffic act, those who are convicted of drinking and driving offences; impaired driving, operating a motor vehicle with over 80 milligrams of alcohol or refusing a breathalyzer test, must take certain steps in order to get their driver’s licences reinstated after the period of suspension ends.
When the period of suspension ends (which is a minimum of one year for a first offence and three years for a subsequent one), drivers can only drive if they have an interlock device installed in their vehicles. These are the devices where the driver must blow into a device inside the motor vehicle and that prevents the driver from starting the engine unless the breath sample given is free of alcohol. after re-instatement of a driver’s licence the driver can apply to have the device removed after a one year period in the case of a first offence or a three year period if the motorist has been convicted of a subsequent offence. In addition to having to have an interlock device installed, convicted impaired drivers must take a remedial course on drinking and driving before they can receive their licences back.
MaDD Canada has recently issued a release of a study that they did using statistics from Ontario’s Ministry of Transportation. according to MaDD Canada, well over 50 per cent of convicted drivers don’t bother getting their licences back and 7 per cent of those convicted never bother to have the interlock device in the first place.
Ontario Minister of Transportation, Harinder Takhar, downplayed MaDD’s study pointing out that Ontario is about 30 per cent below the national average when it comes to drinking and driving offences and that the number of offences has dropped by 56 per cent between 1992 and 2002. Takhar further said that MaDD Canada’s study consisted of mainly anecdotal evidence.
Takhar has a point. One important fact that the study does not show is how many of the thousands of motorists who are driving without a licence are still drinking while they are driving. and there is no mention of how many drivers have decided to give up driving rather than go through the embarrassment and the cost of having an interlock device installed in their motor vehicles.
The law regarding how to obtain a licence reinstatement is way too hard. It results, not in deterrence or added safety to the public but in having too many people simply ignore the law. and the steps that need to be taken are simply too expensive. In addition to higher insurance rates that results from drinking and driving convictions, motorists must pay for the installation and use of the interlock device as well as the required course on drinking and driving. Since these costs are fixed; unlike a fine that a court has the discretion to adjust depending upon income, some drivers can easily pay the costs while others simply cannot afford to have their driver’s licences reinstated. Undoubtedly many of those who do not apply to get their licences back do so because they simply do not have the money to get reinstated.. There are undoubtedly wealthy people with five convictions who become licenced again while a lower income person with one conviction cannot afford to legally drive again. There is one law for the rich and one for the poor. It’s simply not fair.
MaDD Canada’s answer to the problem is to increase the penalties for driving while under suspension for a drinking and driving offence and to have the police be more vigorous in checking motorists who have been previously under suspension.
Forcing people to go to jail for the reason that they, unlike others in a similar situation, cannot afford to have their licences returned, is unfair. and in a perfect world, the police would have the time and the resources to follow up on all those drivers who are eligible for licence reinstatement but haven’t done so. But the world is far from perfect.
If Ontario insists upon requiring drivers to take remedial courses and have interlock devices, the province should pay for them. a law that a large proportion of the affected population ignores and one that is impossible to enforce should be removed from the books.