STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
ROAD SAFETY EDUCATORS' ASSOCIATION
CONCERNED CHIEF INSTRUCTORS OF THE CANADA SAFETY COUNCIL MOTORCYCLE TRAINING PROGRAMS IN ONTARIO
CONTENTS
TUESDAY 7 SEPTEMBER 1993
Graduated licensing
Young Drivers of Canada
Peter Christianson, president
John W. Bower III
Road Safety Educators' Association
David Baker, vice-president
Sue MacNeil, president
Concerned Chief Instructors of the Canada Safety Council Motorcycle Training Programs in Ontario
Don Redekop, representative
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
Hansen, Ron (Lincoln ND) for Mr Gary Wilson
Runciman, Robert W. (Leeds-Grenville PC) for Mr Jordan
Villeneuve, Noble (S-D-G & East Grenville/S-D-G & Grenville-Est PC) for Mr Turnbull
Clerk / Greffière: Manikel, Tannis
Staff / Personnel: McNaught, Andrew, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1408 in the St Clair Room, Macdonald Block, Toronto.
GRADUATED LICENSING
The Chair (Mr Bob Huget): I'd like to welcome members back to the standing committee on resources development and welcome all those who have come out this afternoon to participate in and listen to the hearings. As members know, we are charged with dealing with draft legislation on graduated licensing.
Before we move into that, I would like to introduce people who are sitting here at the front with me. To my immediate right is Tannis Manikel, the clerk of the committee. To her right is Andrew McNaught, the research officer assigned to the committee. To his right is Beth Grahame from Hansard, and in the far corner is Tony Abbatangelo, who also is assigned to the committee. We have a very capable and hardworking staff assigned to this committee, and I'm sure they'll be performing to their optimum again as we consider this very important issue.
The first order of business this afternoon is a witness by the name of Gary Barlow. He is currently not here so we will move to the second witness and have Mr Barlow's presentation when he arrives.
YOUNG DRIVERS OF CANADA
The Chair: The second witness is the Young Drivers of Canada, if it is present. If you could identify yourself for the purposes of Hansard and then proceed with your presentation, you've been allocated one half-hour, and the committee would like at least half of that, if possible, for questions and answers.
Mr Peter Christianson: Mr Chairman, honourable members of the House, ladies and gentlemen, my name is Peter Christianson, president of Young Drivers of Canada.
We have 80 classrooms in this province. We train 25,000 new drivers a year of all ages. We have 50 additional classrooms across the rest of the country, 20 in the United States and 13 in Finland.
While some of the proposals I may make may appear to be in self-interest, I would like to make it clear that my interest in this subject goes back a very long way. I was three years of age when our family car slammed into an oncoming army bus in 1946. My father was a surgeon. He was killed instantly. Just before the crash, he reached over and pushed me down out of the back seat on to the floor. Seatbelts were not available in those days. It changed the way I looked at driving.
When I was 16, I was truly afraid of learning to drive. I spent a year developing my skills so that when I went for my road test, I was virtually perfect. I became so skilful that I entered rallies, driving skill tests and became a race driver. While I was apparently risking my life on the racetrack, five of my friends were killed on the road: head-on collisions, left turns at intersections, gravel shoulder dropoff. So my interest goes back a long, long way.
The problems we have in Canada, and specifically in Ontario, have been noted for many years, and this committee is addressing the problems in a dramatic fashion. I would like to open with a couple of overheads to point out the problems, as we see them, and note that graduated licensing will address these problems significantly if you see fit.
It has been stated that Canadians can't drive safely because the provincial drivers' test did not demand any real driving skill or knowledge when they were first licensed. It takes almost 10 years of experience before they get it right. That is borne out by the statistics across this country. We know that teenagers make up 5.3% of the driving population, but they're involved in 14% of the fatal collisions. We would expect that. A big part of graduated licensing is to address that problem. But even the 20- to 24-year-olds who make up 9.7% have 18% of the crashes. It takes about 10 years before we get it right and start to crash statistically equal to the size of our age group.
The problem with that drivers' test is that ineffective driving schools and high school driver education teach to the level of the drivers' test. However, their students took so-called professional driver training and believe they're prepared to drive safely, but they have false confidence. The parents believed the high schools would provide high-quality training, but they hired the lowest bidder for in-car training in most cases.
This is from the Kenzie study commissioned by the Ministry of Transportation, done by the Traffic Injury Research Foundation of Canada. I will acknowledge that this government has just withdrawn funding for high school driver education, and it's a step in the right direction. Even though it doesn't appear to be so, it is.
Two statements from the study:
"A considerable number of classroom teachers have no officially approved training in either classroom or in-car instruction."
"For a commercial driving school to win the in-car tender, there is pressure to bid low and provide cut-rate instruction by hiring instructors at low pay. Among these low-paid instructors are individuals who know little about teaching and who communicate poorly or cut corners on instructional time given to students."
That study still reflects the problems today in high school driver education. Going to the United States, the Yale study in Connecticut showed that when funding for high school driver ed was eliminated in 1976, and nine school districts dropped driver ed, there was a 63% reduction in accidents. So it worked and what the Ontario government has done will also work.
The author stated, "What moral or political philosophy can possibly justify the state taking a person's taxes to finance a program which increases the taxpayer's risk of being killed or injured by a teenage driver."
The problems go one more step. In looking at driver improvement programs, it appears they've been designed like bandages instead of cures. Classroom-only courses do not change driving habits, they only change knowledge. They do not reduce accidents. Again, this is from a Ministry of Transportation study.
We know that any program to be effective must have a practical module. The experts tell us we can remember 10% of what we hear, up to 20% of what we hear and see and up to 80% of what we hear, see and do. So whenever we look at a driver improvement program, we ask you to consider a practical module to make it effective.
In dealing specifically with the graduated licensing proposal that will address these problems, the Ontario government is to be congratulated for the design of the Ontario model of graduated licensing. It involves innovative solutions to problems and demands much higher driving skill from new drivers.
The proposed model will reduce collisions and deaths in Ontario and through this consultative process will probably become even more effective. Young Drivers of Canada fully supports the Ministry of Transportation and the government of Ontario in this sensible approach to licensing new drivers. In a recent national telepoll concerning graduated licensing, 92% of the 38,179 callers were in favour of graduated licensing, a strong endorsement.
The following recommendations are based on 25 years of driver training experience and observation of driver licensing systems around the world.
We believe, in level 1, that the present driver's test is not an effective filter to screen out drivers likely to crash. We strongly recommend that the current test be improved to incorporate some if not all elements of the proposed second test. Applicants attending the test should be restricted to automatic transmission when they pass in that type of vehicle. Those passing in a standard shift would not be restricted. There is a significant risk of crash for those new drivers who learn on an automatic and then drive a standard shift without training or practice.
Responsible driver training courses have been teaching freeway driving skills for over 30 years. However, the existing level 1 restrictions do not allow such training. This would mean that over 100,000 new drivers, who would otherwise have received freeway training, will receive a licence for level 2 without ever having been on a high-speed freeway. According to the proposed model, they may drive on a freeway alone or with the car full of teenaged friends the day they receive their level 2 status, and this would obviously be a mistake. We request an exemption from the freeway restriction during in-car training on an approved course in level 1 so that we can continue to train people properly in freeway driving.
The intent of level 1 being eight or 12 months in length is to allow the new driver time to gain experience. However, there is no guideline as to how much experience. Most new drivers will probably get their learner's permit and wait until close to the eight-month stage to take an approved course and try their first test.
The recommendation is that 2,000 kilometres of driving experience be required to qualify for the first test. While an average distance driven on an approved course would be 375 kilometres, the remaining kilometres would probably take at least six months to acquire. This would encourage new drivers to take training early rather than delay it, and provide parents with more confidence while acting as co-drivers. In France, young drivers are required to gain 3,000 kilometres of experience before attempting a road test. The results showed an 80% reduction in collisions among those participating in this new program. I have added a couple of pages at the end of the papers to document that.
The proposed model appears to be very forgiving of violations and collisions, which means there is insufficient deterrent for the aggressive driving that often leads to collisions. We acknowledge the 30-day suspension for violations of the graduated system, but do not believe that this is enough. We would recommend a 90-day extension to the length of level 1 in the event of any pointable violation or collision, so the Highway Traffic Act as opposed to just violations of graduated.
1420
We acknowledge the proposal that a new driver involved in a collision take a driver improvement program, but are concerned about the standards for such a program. The course should have both a classroom module to gain knowledge and an in-car module to gain or change driving habits. Violators could be given a choice between a driver improvement program or a 90-day extension. When German researchers studied a similar driver improvement program for new drivers who violated or crashed, they found that graduates had a 33% reduction in collisions among those with a previous violation and 17% reduction for those who had crashed previously.
The Driving School Association of Ontario recommends that a driver improvement program consist of eight hours of classroom and four and a half hours of private in-car training. These programs would be taught by approved driving schools and should be required for those involved in collisions or violations. Since co-drivers will be counted on to provide advice for up to 12 months in the graduated system, it will be beneficial to guarantee at least a minimum level of proper advice. Driver improvement courses have already been recommended by the Ministry of Transportation for new drivers who crash.
Our recommendation would be to require co-drivers to be graduates of a driver evaluation course of two and a half hours classroom and 90 minutes in-car to assure a minimum level of competence in assisting new drivers. That is a minimum level of training, but isn't it absurd that someone who's been driving wrong for 30 years is going to pass on those bad habits or counteract what we're going to try and teach a new driver? Many of you have been through it, I can tell.
Times change, really. What is being taught today is quite different from what we learned 20 or 30 years ago. There are ways you can stay out of collisions that are innovative and new, and we all need to look at them.
The learner stage of the Ontario model will provide experience on low-speed roads with limited supervision for eight or 12 months. This first stage is well-designed. However, we strongly recommend that only one passenger be allowed in the front seat, to minimize distractions. In an emergency swerve, the upper body of the passenger in the middle of the front seat could be thrown into the driver, causing total loss of control. It's a small point, but I think it's an important point.
We praise the government for virtually all of its proposed level 1 elements, but suggest that the marking of vehicles driven by learners is a mistake. Instructors who teach every day in marked vehicles must contend with drivers who will do anything to get ahead of a training vehicle that they assume is being driven by an incompetent. Marking family vehicles will lead to conflict with impatient drivers, just as it has in England. It makes sense on the surface, but out there in the real world, I think it's going to hurt.
Moving to level 2: The second level has virtually no restrictions, and because the first test does not demand defensive driving or freeway skills, there will be many wasted lives. In order to reduce multiple-fatality collisions in level 2, drivers carrying passengers should be required to have a four-year licensed accompanying driver in the front seat, but with employment exemptions allowed.
Drivers in level 2 should be restricted from selected freeways unless they graduated from an approved driver training course in level 1, including freeway training, if you so decide, or from a driver improvement course, eight hours class, four and a half in-car, which would include high-speed highway or freeway training.
The second level has an excellent qualifier in the advanced road test at the end of its 12 months. The advanced test is described as "focuses on their ability to recognize and take appropriate actions...with hazardous situations." This indicates a very effective road test that will demand improved driving skills and result in fewer crashes in the future. This new test will create the need for advanced training involving defensive driving, emergency braking and freeway driving. In order to encourage new drivers to take appropriate training, a four-month credit could be allowed for successful graduates of a full driver improvement program, just as you have in level 1.
In order to reduce the driver examination backlog, the graduates of these approved courses could take the advanced test as part of the course. I strongly encourage you to look at that as an incentive in level 2 that is not there presently. In order to make level 2 more effective, we recommend that any level 2 driver involved in a collision or committing two moving violations be given a choice between a driver improvement program and a 90-day extension.
The Ontario graduated licensing model could be an example for the world to follow. You will hear many experts support and suggest ways to improve the proposed model. With over 90% in favour of graduated licensing, you will probably hear very few objections. Those who do object will not understand that the consequences of accepting many of their proposals will be more injuries and more deaths.
Peer pressure, risk-taking and incompetence are the factors that graduated licensing must counter. A properly designed system allowing employment exemptions will provide a new driver with the experience and skills required to survive. The citizens of Ontario, especially the parents, desperately need this committee to succeed. I wish you both the wisdom and the political strength required to do so. Thank you for this opportunity.
I have two summary pages at the end that may help you, because I've covered a lot of points; that's a fast track as well as two pages on the French experience. I have left several papers with Tannis Manikel on the different reports that I have quoted throughout the paper. If you need those, they're available.
The Chair: Thank you very much. Questions?
Mr Hans Daigeler (Nepean): First of all, I would like to say that I'm very pleased to be able to participate in these hearings because I think this is an issue that is of great importance, and really, for all of us as politicians, I think at least this is something quite meaningful because we're talking about saving lives and preventing people from injuries. So I think it's a very important matter that we're looking at and I'm pleased that the government has taken the initiative, first of all, to bring this forward, and secondly, to hold public hearings on this matter.
I am also pleased to finally see this come forward because I remember in November 1989 I asked our then Minister of Transportation about this matter and he indicated to me in the House that he was preparing this type of an initiative. Were it not for an election, I presume we would have moved forward with this initiative rather quickly.
So I do want to say that we on this side are supportive of this initiative and we congratulate you for your efforts on behalf of this initiative and for your excellent presentation. I just have a couple of questions to make me understand better your presentation.
First of all, the statistics that you were referring to, showing us on the overhead, are these statistics similar in other countries as well; and also, the driver training in other countries, where they have restrictions, does it show that the accident rates are going down with either age or improved driver training, as far as you know?
Mr Christianson: Yes, the statistics are similar in other countries. Young people taking risks is a common thing. New drivers lacking experience, lacking skill, is common. It requires proper training and it requires government leadership to create change. There have been several examples around the world where they have created positive changes.
1430
In Japan, between 1970 and 1979, they cut the death rate from 18,000 to 9,000. Part of the program was improved testing and training of drivers, and they improved cars and barriers and lighting and everything. So there's no question that if you do want to create change, you can. In Japan they rested on their laurels, though, and didn't create any changes in the driver training portion and the death rate went up to 12,000, because they thought they had it made. They thought they had a perfect system, and you never have a perfect system. You have to keep changing and innovating and improving.
The results from Germany that I quoted significantly showed that a driver improvement program will work. It was a controlled study; it was not one that rolled out to the entire nation. There are always problems with anything that's brought in, but it did show a program that had merit.
Mr Daigeler: How much time do we have?
The Chair: Very quickly. You have about a minute and a half, two minutes.
Mr Daigeler: Okay, one important question. You're referring to that proposed second test and you seem to say that's a great idea, but frankly I have not seen anything that's been presented to me by the government that describes what this test will be. I agree with you; there's a very short reference in the public announcement to say -- and I think you're quoting this here -- "focuses on their ability to recognize and take appropriate actions...with hazardous situations." Well, one could conclude from that that possibly the tests would be quite elaborate, but I have not seen anything. Have you seen anything more? Have you been given any kind of indication of what the second test would be?
Mr Christianson: Yes, there are several of us within the industry who have been called upon to join in the committee to design that second test. It is too early to be clear on what will be there, but as I have stated, it will be a very strong test, with defensive driving. The intention is to look at freeway driving, and I believe that we will see emergency braking as part of it; the things that will help new drivers avoid collisions. And the intentions are 100% correct in where they're heading. I ask you to support them in what they're trying to do.
Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): I'm just curious, Mr Christianson: Were you involved with the development of this legislation? Were you consulted? Was your organization consulted in any way, shape or form?
Mr Christianson: Yes, we were asked for input.
Mr Runciman: Obviously, it wasn't followed to the degree you'd wished to have seen it followed, based on your recommendations and what you see as the weaknesses in the legislation.
I'm curious when you talk about a variety of experiences, the German experience, the experience in Great Britain. What's the experience in terms of enforcement of this kind of legislation? Does it fall upon the parents of young drivers to ensure that they're not breaking the law? We know our police forces are already overburdened in terms of their responsibilities. There's no additional funding forthcoming for this or other responsibilities being placed upon them. I'm just wondering what you've noted in terms of other jurisdictions.
Mr Christianson: Canadians are wonderful when it comes to compliance with laws, despite the fact that they drive too fast. If you look at how they wear seatbelts across this country -- as soon as you create a law that says they must put their seatbelts on, somewhere around 80% immediately do so. I mean, that's unheard of. No one feels anyone can tell what they're doing in their car and yet we significantly do comply. I don't think there's any question that compliance is part of our nature. We even line up at bus stops. I mean, it's wonderful.
I don't think that's an issue and I don't think the police have any problem with their normal, routine stops. If someone's speeding, if someone violates, they pick them up. They talk to them and find out that they're in violation of graduated. They're not going to do a net and screen out everybody to check for this. It just will be part of their day-to-day operations. So I don't think that they have any problem with keeping this law in place.
Mr Runciman: So it's essentially self-regulated --
Mr Christianson: It's a natural thing.
Mr Runciman: -- through the parents.
Mr Christianson: If I can make a point there, that you have brought up, strongly, the parents desperately need this kind of law so that they're not the bad guy.
Mr Runciman: I've heard that argument.
Mr Christianson: So that they can say: "Look, son, it's the law. You have to be home at this time. You can't have your friends," whatever. They need this support. I could quote --
Mr Runciman: I have to encourage brief responses because we have limited time and Mr Villeneuve has a question.
You mention about co-drivers and requiring a two-and-a-half-hour evaluation or course. I think that's an element that could run into some resistance. It seems to be a bit of a contradiction and since maybe I misunderstood you -- you were talking about high school programs not being worth their salt, in essence. I know in my own riding, for example, the board of education contracts out with driving schools to provide driver education, but you're indicating that the quality of education that they receive through the high schools perhaps wasn't all that great.
I guess I'm just curious. What you're doing is, in some respects, denigrating some of your colleagues in the business, but on the other side of the coin, you're saying, "We still want to require experienced drivers to take this two-and-a-half-hour course before they qualify as co-drivers." I'm just wondering about that. I'm not familiar with the regulatory atmosphere that you folks have to go through or if indeed there is one. Maybe you could comment on that.
Mr Christianson: There is a great change happening this year. The Driving School Association of Ontario has taken over the approved school system in this province after years of what we could consider were not satisfactory controls. We have too many schools that are incompetent, and they will be put through a filter where all instructors will be retrained in the next two years so that there will not be this problem of incompetence. So we're heading in the right direction, but legislation could assist that.
The Chair: Mr Villeneuve, very quickly.
Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): Thank you very much, Mr Christianson, for your presentation. In Level 2 here you specify, "Drivers carrying passengers should be required to have a four-year licensed accompanying driver in the front seat with employment exemptions allowed." Could you expand on that?
I represent a very large rural riding and I've had a number of farm people being very, very concerned about the four-year licensed driver accompanying. In these vast areas of rural Ontario, there's got to be something in there. Our rural people are as good drivers as anyone else, and probably those who were born and raised on a farm may be better drivers, but they also get killed because there are situations that occur not because they're not good drivers, they were careless, they were too aggressive or other things were involved. I would like your comments on that as to the exemptions.
Mr Christianson: I think the government is to be congratulated on finding that solution of the four years' experience. It is a way in which you can have passengers. Without that, it's no passengers. I think that's a very innovative solution.
I recognize the problem of the rural community. I recognize that some of the times they want to drive would be employment. If they're farming, that's employment. I think the exemptions must be looked at as a solution to the objections that will come, as your constituents have expressed. It is the right thing to do despite the fact that it could take them eight months to get through the first phase. That's not a long time to develop the skills necessary to drive properly, and right now in Ontario you have to wait eight months for a road test anyway.
Mr Mike Cooper (Kitchener-Wilmot): First off, let me congratulate you. My son just graduated from your course over the March break and he's doing quite well. That's why one of the things I agree with is getting rid of the high school training. He now drives on expressways and high-speed highways, which I think is a better way of travelling than going on the back roads and some of the back streets. I think you find more accidents in those areas because there's more on and off traffic.
A couple of things that I really agree with are the unmarked cars -- I know with him when he was taking his courses, as soon as he got out on the road, people wanted to get past him -- and the testing in the course. I took the motorcycle safety course at Conestoga College where I received my licence through that course rather than having to go down and testing. That will help with the backlog.
One of my big concerns is the cost. I know why a number of my son's friends didn't take the course through Young Drivers was because of prohibitive costs. What solution could there be to that? I know the advantage from taking the course is because you can get reduced graduated licensing, length of time and lower insurance, but what can you do about that?
Mr Christianson: It's an incredible myth that the cost of a Young Drivers course is too much money. The only reason is that the government has subsidized high school driver education for years so that we all expect it to be $250. You add on the rest of the cost -- of an office, a full-time employee answering your phones -- and you're easily at $500. Our course is extremely inexpensive. But it's the perception, based on subsidized driver education, that it's expensive, and it's unfair. It isn't. It's cheap. Look at insurance for one year, compare it to that, and they do that every single year. Look at the cost of a vehicle. So $500 is absurd.
Mr Ron Hansen (Lincoln): The co-driver is requiring 2.5 hours in the classroom and 90 minutes in a private car. So if I'm a dad of a son who's coming along, before I can even ride with my son, he would require this. What do you think about drivers who are out there without a new driver beside them who are driving? Do you feel that some of these people should be retested? I know it's a little bit off this graduated licensing, but it's not just these young drivers who we're taking a look at who are having accidents.
Mr Christianson: The reality is that the problems I showed at the beginning have created incompetency on our roads. We all need to go through a retesting process or a retraining process, as they did in Japan. Anyone who got a violation had to go back and get retested. You got a licence every four years and they just kept cycling people through until they all understood what everyone should: how to avoid collisions.
Yes, the problem is everywhere, but we're getting there.
1440
Mr Hansen: I know. I have my truck-driving licence, so every year I go for a test or a medical. I taught quite a few men to drive truck, and this was a water tanker truck. I had one driver who received his licence, but he'd been driving all the way along with an empty truck. So with a full truck, I'd go out with him. After a dog ran out in the road and he swerved to miss the dog and just about rolled the truck, I had to say that he wasn't qualified to drive one of my trucks, because this is what I call defensive driving. You have to make that snap decision on whether you swerve to miss the dog, hit an oncoming car and maybe kill 10 people, or you wind up going ahead and -- I mean, it's not a nice thing to hit a dog. Would you like to comment on that? He was a licensed driver. He'd passed the test and everything else. It's pretty hard at times. And talk about that defensive driving.
Mr Christianson: The animal lovers of this world, I'm not sure I'm going to touch it. I agree with you totally, and it's part of our course, that we have to try and train them. If it's a squirrel, hit it. Don't even think about swerving into a tree. Why kill a human being to save a tiny animal? It's so hard. We grow up looking after animals, and it's so hard for us to save our own lives. It's a problem, and the problem is, everyone driving needs to have a good hard look at what they're doing.
The Chair: I would like to thank Young Drivers of Canada, and you, sir, for appearing here today and so effectively putting forward your views. I found the brief to be very comprehensive and I'm sure all the committee members will look at it in depth. I trust that you'll stay in touch with this committee, either through the clerk or any member of the committee or for that matter any MPP as this proceeds through the process.
JOHN W. BOWER III
The Chair: John W. Bower III, good afternoon and welcome. Proceed at your leisure.
Mr John W. Bower III: Thank you very much, Mr Chairman. First of all, I must apologize. There are some grammatical and spelling errors in this document that may confuse the various members of this committee.
The Chair: Many of whom make grammatical and spelling errors themselves. I think we'll get by.
Mr Bower: Okay, great. Good afternoon to all the members of this committee. My name is John W. Bower III. I'm a first-year political science and labour studies major at McMaster University in Hamilton. Today I will be presenting to you a youth's view of the proposed graduated licensing system set to begin in the summer of 1994. I will start out by presenting you with a brief background about myself.
I have been recognized as a leader of youths within both my community, province and country. I have represented my community on various city-based panels such as the Burlington recreation department's development committee. I have also represented Burlington as an ambassador to the central Ontario leadership seminar in 1990. In that year, I also represented Ontario and Canada at the Hugh O'Brian Youth Foundation's international leadership seminar. Since then, over the past two years as central Ontario president of this organization, I have represented Canada and Ontario at the international congress as one of the three Canadian voting delegates and as the international vice-president.
Thus, being selected to represent my fellow youths within this province, I believe I will be able to present to you the youths' opinion on this matter.
All drivers, whether they are new or have been driving for 30 years, can agree that there is a need to improve road safety in Ontario. However, to target only one group of drivers will not solve the problem. The way to ensure road safety is to improve the driving skills of all drivers on the road.
I will now present a step-by-step analysis of the government's document entitled Graduated Licensing and What it Means to You.
First off, problems with the document: In examining the proposed system, we must realize that there are many holes and problems with it. First and foremost, when reading through the government's document, there are a few major unnecessary statements that jump out at the reader.
The first statement is that the drivers in both levels 1 and 2 must have a zero tolerance to alcohol. I agree with this mission. However, since the government is so adamant in pointing out that about 45% of new drivers on the road are between the ages of 16 and 19, I must remind the members of this committee that the Liquor Control Act of Ontario prohibits people under the age of 19 from consuming or being in the possession of alcohol. Thus, the government is, in my view, recycling existing statutes.
The second statement is in the Ministry of Transportation's publication, which states that the two levels of the graduated system can be completed after "a minimum of 20 months total." Currently you must write a multiple choice test to receive your 365-day learner's permit. Then you may take a road test. After successfully completing this, a driver is on two one-year probationary periods. My math may be a little off here. However, if the government's new system is designed to provide new drivers with experience, would the current system of 24 months not be better suited to reach this goal than the graduated system?
The third and final statement is found on page 4 of the manual, which says that there be a limit on "the number of passengers carried to the number of seatbelts in the vehicle." Are seatbelts not mandatory in this province? Then why reinforce this statement in legislation? Instead, my view is that we need to reinforce this on the road.
Limitations: Limiting a driver from driving on a freeway is dangerous. Since a new driver will have completed his or her driver's education in the level 1 portion of the graduated system, they will have had no freeway driving experience. Freeways or limited access highways are the safest roads in Ontario. Why would we not let new drivers on them?
For example, if, say, on Highway 5, or Dundas Street, the flow of traffic is going at the speed of over 90 kilometres an hour, does the new driver do one of the following: either (a) pull off to the side of the road; (b) stay within the speed limit and impede traffic; or (c) stay with the flow of traffic? I would suggest to you that most driver's education programs will instruct drivers to stay with the flow of traffic. My question is, what will the driver's options be?
Also, I would like to point out to the committee that here in Ontario the Gardiner Expressway has a speed limit of 90 kilometres an hour. That is only 10 kilometres faster than Highway 11 or Highway 5. If a new driver wanted to drive from downtown Toronto to, say, Etobicoke or even to Hamilton, instead of using the Gardiner Expressway, a faster yet controlled roadway, they would have to use Lakeshore Boulevard and drive within the city. With traffic signals, pedestrians, children, TTC trolley cars, sudden stops and many more situations that will require split-second judgements, I believe this is a more dangerous situation than driving on a freeway.
Scenarios of limitations: As for driving between the hours of midnight and 5 am, few new drivers are out at that time of night. However, some do have to be out there, for example, the designated driver.
I am usually my parents' designated driver. Around Christmas every year, for example, there's a Christmas party at a hotel in Burlington. I am the designated driver not only for my parents but five or six of their friends. So at 1:30, when the 11 pm dinner has been eaten and the dancing is finished, I drive from my house to the hotel, pick up everybody and drive them home. This is a responsible mode of driving. Yes, there are other alternatives. However, for convenience and cost it is much more practical for myself to pick them up.
Most new drivers under the age of 19 are used as designated drivers by their parents. Also, many people, including myself, make themselves open to friends to call at any time during the night as their designated driver if they need one.
Then there are the university students. I'm living at home for university, as are many of my friends, as we cannot afford to live on campus due to the many increases in tuition and costs for post-secondary education. As with many students, prior to university they have seen no need to get their licence due to the convenience of public transit within their town. Usually in the summer prior to school, they go through a driver's education program, pass the road test and have a licence.
However, when they reach university and they realize that they may be doing research at the university until after 12 midnight for a paper because of the lack of availability of equipment before that hour, the new driver cannot drive home. They must then either stay on campus or find a motel. Personally, I think my parents would be a little worried if I had not appeared by about 12:30 at home because I had to walk to find a place to stay.
The other consideration is the dangers for most young women in our communities now.
There are many more people who are waiting until they are over the age of 20 to get a licence. According to this pamphlet, Graduated Licensing, published by the Insurance Bureau of Canada, "By 1988 the figure [of new drivers over the age of 20] was 46%" and increasing. Due to costs, many students must stay at home for school. With government cutbacks to universities and public transit, it makes it difficult for students who are new drivers to get an education.
1450
I would propose to this committee a change in the wording of the clause. It would read that the new driver would need not to be on the road between the hours of 12 midnight and 5 am. If they are caught driving between these hours, then they would be subject to possible licence suspension. However, if they have been working at school or have a special reason, such as being a designated driver, to be out on that road and are on their way to their place of residence, they should be subject to exemption of this portion of the legislation.
Proposed changes: To completely revamp the current system to make the roads safer would be a waste of precious taxpayers' money. However, there are many changes that can be made in line with the proposed system and the current one. First and foremost, the zero tolerance of alcohol for all drivers on the road would make Ontario's roads some of the safest in North America.
I propose a driving ban for new drivers between the hours of midnight and 5 am. However, as I said previously, there must be exemptions.
I would also advocate stronger enforcement of seatbelt laws. Limit all cars to only the number of people that there are seatbelts available for.
Force all drivers to return to a driving school if they gain too many demerit points.
I would also propose that we create a new, more rigorous driving examination. An 18-minute examination with no freeway driving is not feasible in this province. A two-tiered system could be introduced. It would be along the same lines as the graduated system, but at first your city driving would be tested, and then the second test would allow for highway and freeway driving and a general rules of the road written test. This could occur over a 12- to 18-month or even a 20-month period after the first test. A failure of either could result in the revoking of a licence.
Retesting of every driver every five years to ensure that they meet provincial standards or still do practise the rules of the road could also help to increase road safety.
If you were to run driver education offered within the school day as one of the elective credits a high school student can earn, such as what happens in the United States, I feel you would have more people taking the courses. The previous speaker mentioned that the other provinces subsidized the school board driver education programs. Why not have Young Drivers of Canada or other organizations come directly into the school and run them during the school day as an elective credit? There are -- well, under the old system -- 16 elective credits that we can have as a student.
I would support a combination of the current system along with some of the limitations proposed in the graduated system for new drivers so long as other changes involving older drivers also occur.
Conclusion: Not all new drivers are irresponsible. Most are law-abiding and conscientious drivers. They are aware of what driving is: It is a privilege and can be dangerous if it is abused. Just as there are many irresponsible new drivers, there are older ones too. These are the people who do not yield the right of way. They travel at 130 kilometres an hour on the 400-series highways and swerve in and out of traffic, causing backups and actually accidents behind them. These people must be dealt with, just as much as we must deal with new drivers before they develop poor skills.
We all realize that there is a need for Ontario to improve the safety of its roads. However, to target only one group of drivers will not solve the problem. The way to ensure road safety is to improve the driving skills of all drivers on the road.
Mr Villeneuve: Thank you very much, Mr Bower, for your presentation. You make excellent points, particularly where 400-series highways are concerned. I come from a rural area and I notice that your presentation is primarily urban-based. I appreciate that, but most -- not all of them -- of the very tragic accidents where young people are killed happen on county roads and, to some degree, on some of our provincial two-lane highways. I think you're right on: With the comparison of the numbers of cars on our 400-series roads, the accident rate is considerably lower, I would think, than on some of these county roads and two-lane provincial highways.
Could you comment to some degree on the exemptions you've suggested? Could you just expand that into the rural parts of Ontario, where indeed agriculture is a predominant factor and we have many young people with drivers' licences and many young people probably without drivers' licences using some of the more secondary roads in the province and getting into some problems?
Mr Bower: I definitely can comment on that. Coming from Burlington, north of Highway 5 it is very rural. The roads are very hilly, very poor condition. Three years ago there was a very tragic accident on that road where five youths died in a single car crash.
You were mentioning the number of accidents. I have the statistics here. On secondary roads and other roads, the fatalities in 1987 were about 390 people, compared to 143 on the 400-series highways in that year.
When I took driver's education two and a half years ago, we actually were tested out on the rural roads north of Burlington. I think that everybody should be tested in some way, if possible, on the rural roads. I think that should be a definite focus, not just the 400-series highways, because as you stated, that is where a lot of the accidents occur. In fact, the 400-series highways are some of the safer roads. I agree that we do need to do testing on those rural roads, because it's very easy to gain speed quite quickly and to joy ride.
Mr Villeneuve: To adjust to conditions of the road, I think education is a must there. After the first snowfall every year, we're all guilty of forgetting that snow is slippery. Rain is another factor. I think we should emphasize that road conditions are probably even more important. We can teach till we're blue in the face, but we've got to adjust to conditions.
Mr Bower: You're exactly right. I was mentioning the roads north of Highway 5. If you're going to Milton or even trying to get up to the 401, it's the most efficient way to do that and the quickest way. You're correct. When it starts to rain, the roads are very slick. When there's snow on it, you have to adjust to it. You have to decrease your speed. That's just my personal view of it.
I think that most young drivers -- yes, there may be the sense of invulnerability. However, I think most youths realize they have a lot to live for and will decrease their speed. I think that, yes, the number of accidents involving new drivers is high. However, the people who go out and cause these sensational accidents, the tragic accidents, I don't know whether or not you'd want to call them nut cases, but they're the ones who are the irresponsible drivers. They're the ones who give new young drivers a bad rap.
Ms Sharon Murdock (Sudbury): Thank you for coming here today. You've made it fairly clear, I guess, through the presentation that you see this draft legislation as targeting only one group of drivers. Were you here for the slide presentation of the previous speaker?
Mr Bower: No, I was not.
Ms Murdock: In that, he made the point that 5.35% of teenaged drivers, 16 to 19, cause 14% of the accidents and 9.7% of the next age group, up to age 24, cause 18% of the crashes that occurred, which is a third of all of our crashes in the province of Ontario. I'm wondering, on that kind of statistic, why you wouldn't want that to be controlled.
Mr Bower: I'm looking at it more personally, putting myself in that situation, along with the comments of my peers. We feel that given the opportunity to develop the skills -- there's no better way to learn than actually being in a circumstance, something that calls for split-second judgement. Sometimes you'll make the right decision; sometimes you will not make the right decision. If it causes an accident, then you have to be prepared to suffer the repercussions of those actions.
I think the experience is a key. I think we need to have people, who've only been driving for two or three years, as the province points out -- and I would agree with the statement that it takes about five years for a new driver to fully develop their skills. I think the only way you learn is through doing. That's human nature. If you give people the opportunity to be in an instance where they have to make a split-second judgement, they'll be able to use it, if they're taught properly. That's another key. It all comes back to the training that they receive, both from their parents --
1500
Ms Murdock: I don't know about your parent, but my parent -- I'm glad I didn't learn from him.
Mr Bower: Actually, after this crash a few years ago on 1 Side Road in Burlington that I was mentioning, I wrote a thesis paper for my driver's education course, and what I said was that the onus is upon all of us to teach each other how to drive properly. If a parent drives irresponsibly, drives at 130 kilometres an hour, just like anything, the child will pick up on that and will think: "Okay, fine. My father hasn't had an accident driving like this. Why can't I?" We have to breed responsible driving in everybody before it will filter down.
Ms Murdock: I guess what I'm saying is that integrated within this program, with obvious potential amendments, that is exactly what it would achieve. So I don't think we're saying much different, except for the exemption portion that you've suggested.
Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): Thank you for your presentation. I think that we all share in a common purpose in terms of working to try to make the roads a safer place for everyone.
I'd like to ask for your thoughts on this. I've gone over the level 1 requirements, and I think that you've spoken about this, as well as the level 2. One of the problems that I see with level 1, as we speak about novice drivers and experience, is that there is no driving required for a level 1 driver. In other words, someone can, at age 16, for instance, pass the test, not drive and eight months later apply for the level 2, and therefore be given all of the privileges that they now have.
If anyone is speaking about the need for experience, especially on the roads in Ontario and the different climatic conditions, quickly looking over the regulations, there seems to have been omitted the need for an individual to actually drive during the probationary period. I'm wondering if you might want to comment on that.
Mr Bower: I guess I could do a comparison to the current system of the probationary period. You probably could get your licence currently under either system pretty much without driving a car for very long. I'll concede that. There are always holes within any type of policy, but I believe you're correct. With the new graduated system, there will be problems, a lot of problems, where you don't have to actually physically go out and drive a car, and then all of a sudden you'll be allowed to drive on a freeway. You would have supervision, but some parents may take their child on the 401 right away and say, "This is the best way to learn, throw you right into action."
I think there could be some serious problems with that, and I believe that if you go through the proper stages, as I pointed out, where you take your 365-day learner's permit and you have your written test there, a multiple choice, you then -- as the gentleman before me pointed out, it takes about eight months to get your licence in this province right now. You're looking at, in southern Ontario anywhere, the earliest is probably the middle of January that you can get your licence.
What happens there is that this forces you to have experience. You're forced on to the road to drive. You must learn to drive, and what happens then is that when you go for your test, you pass your test and you're on two one-year probation periods. I think that's incentive enough.
To add to that, I'm one who believes that the family has a big role to play in driving. My parents put me through their own graduated system. "You can drive to the corner store for the first six weeks. You can drive to school for the next two months. You can then drive to the other side of town. You can go to the movies. You can drive to your grandparents' place in Toronto." This past year, after almost three years of having a licence, I've been able to travel extensively through this province and the northern United States. I think that's where the onus should be, on the family, to really put them through and to be responsible. Everybody needs to be responsible.
The Vice-Chair (Mr Mike Cooper): Thank you. Mr Conway.
Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): Excellent brief. I'll pass.
Mr Daigeler: In preparing your brief, or even before that, were you talking to your age cohorts, I guess, and also to the older people, and what was their reaction, their general reaction towards this initiative?
Mr Bower: I definitely did talk to peers and any time that I have the opportunity to strike this conversation up with adults, people I respect, teachers, various members of various levels of government, we had some very constructive dialogue. I think the sense was with the younger people, "Why are we being censored out?" and for the adults I would say it was more, "I think this is a good step; I think we're taking a step in the right direction." Then most of the youths would come back with the statement that, "Yes, but they drive just as poorly as we do." To give you a balance, the adults I've talked to are very much in support of this; the youths are not.
Mr Daigeler: Including your parents?
Mr Bower: No, my parents do not fully support the system that is proposed. They do support parts of it, as I pointed out, very much. I read through the document first and gave them ideas and then they bounced ideas back off me, and we had a lot of constructive dialogue about the situation, especially with my brother, who is going to be, most likely, under the graduated system. So it does affect us.
The Vice-Chair: Mr Bower, thank you for taking the time out of your schedule and coming and giving us this presentation. I trust you'll follow the proceedings of this committee and keep yourself posted on what's going on. Thank you very much.
ROAD SAFETY EDUCATORS' ASSOCIATION
The Vice-Chair: The Road Safety Educators' Association. Good afternoon.
Mr David Baker: My name is David Baker. I'm vice-president of the Road Safety Educators' Association.
The Road Safety Educators' Association is an organization designed for the individual educator working in the field of road safety. RSEA is open to anyone who is involved in educating the public about the safe use of our roads. This includes driving instructors, of course, but it also includes those who train truck and bus operators as well as those who train cyclists, motorized or not, and pedestrians. Membership is open to journalists, safety officers, health care practitioners and any other persons who are in a position to make recommendations to the public about the safe use of the roads.
It is our aim to develop a coalition of agencies and organizations interested in road safety education. We are entering very interesting times in the areas of transportation, mobility and safety and, hopefully, with graduated licensing on the horizon, we will find solutions to issues affecting all road users that involve the new or young driver.
We would like to thank the Ministry of Transportation for inviting us to appear before this standing committee to represent the concerns of the road safety educator. As a group of educators, we are very excited about the concept of graduated licensing. We intend to stay abreast of any and all road safety initiatives and we hope that graduated licensing will be only the tip of the iceberg of strategies to reduce road trauma.
It may be a balancing act for government to implement a graduated licensing system under a criterion of restricting only those drivers who are at higher risk, but we believe the results far outweigh any difficulties that will be encountered in the process.
I'd like to introduce to you our president, Sue MacNeil.
1510
Mrs Sue MacNeil: Hello. Thank you very much. Before I begin I should tell you that I do wear many hats when I come to this committee. I am a parent of two teens. I live in a rural area. I live on a farm. We have D vehicles. I'm an educator and I've been involved in health promotion and road safety education injury prevention, which my degree is in, for almost 25 years. I'd like to continue with what we see as the proposed graduated licensing system for Ontario. We have a few general comments.
The Road Safety Educators' Association, RSEA, would like to commend the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario for its initiative in proposing this form of licensing new drivers. However, there are some concerns regarding the time lines and placements of the restrictions that we as a group would like to address.
The province of Ontario is extremely diverse. There are large barren areas with few towns and villages as well as metropolitan areas made up of highly sophisticated roadways and transit systems. Due to this fact, the system of graduated licensing will have to be worded very carefully in order to gain maximum safety benefits while only slightly restricting or limiting mobility and/or inconveniencing those individuals or situations the system was not designed to restrict.
It is our position that (1) This mandate can be accomplished by selecting vocabulary that does not adversely affect individuals using either age or gender; (2) that flexible interpretation at the policy level will allow the necessary exemptions so people will not be unduly restricted.
Our specific concerns: As we understand the currently proposed system -- I'm sure you all have it in front of you but I have it on a slide as well -- the restrictions exist, for the most part, in phase 1. Phase 2 has only the zero blood alcohol concentration restriction, the passenger limitation to number of belts and the G-vehicle-only restriction. We question if, indeed, this could truly be called a graduated system since research has shown that novice drivers are most at risk under these situations once they drive without the accompanying driver. That's the whole concept of graduating the system.
One of the issues we've been looking at very seriously is trying to word the concept of passengers which seems to have been a stumbling-block in a lot of legislation and a lot of issues that we've been dealing with. I think we've come up with something that may be something to think about for this committee. I'll read it and we're going to put it up on the board as well.
The number of passengers is not as big a factor for increased teenage deaths as the number of increased teens in the car. So in this particular area, we're looking at the age variable and in a little while I'm going to look at the experience variable because TIRF, the Traffic Injury Research Foundation, is teasing those two apart and both are contributing factors. But we can't disfranchise someone who is not a teen nor can we disfranchise someone who is experienced, so it's trying to use those two variables and tease them apart province-wide that's been the challenge.
Therefore, it is suggested that the wording address the issue that represents the highest risk. If this were accomplished, an actual number could be specified. The word we are recommending for this restriction is "novice peer" and that novice peer be defined as: A peer is defined as an individual who is within four years of the driver's age.
An example in this case would be that Bill, age 17, would have both male and female peers between the ages of 13 and 21 years of age. Mary, age 42, would have both male and female peers between the ages of 38 and 46 years of age.
"Novice" refers to someone who has not held a driver's licence for at least four years.
Example: Bill's peers would more than likely not have held a driver's licence for a minimum of four years. Mary's peers will most likely have held a driver's licence for a minimum of four years. While this looks like I'm being very nitpicky, I think you'll see as we go on why this is important.
This would alleviate the instances of multiple youth in a car -- he's mentioned the Burlington crash. We could just go off on our hands, the number of multiple youth crashes that have been occurring in this province -- but this would not restrict parents in transporting their children or a group of their friends.
One of the issues -- as I said, I'm from a rural community and I've done a lot of going out and trying to understand across this province what are the issues and how do we deal with them. The last speaker raised the issue that it's the teens we're concerned -- that it's against them. In essence, in a very rural environment, which I live in, when asking the teens about the restriction, in this way they could live with it.
But what they were concerned about is if it restricts all new drivers, because just about every country teen, farm teen, has had some person, some elder in their community -- aunt, uncle, grandparent -- who has had to become licensed at an older age -- ie, grandpa dies and at 62 grandma's got to get a licence. That would literally move them off the farm, if you don't take that into consideration. So actually, those farm teens were not the ones -- they were actually concerned about community members who would be disadvantaged by this.
This would not be the intent of the legislation, as we understand it. In this case, the young, new driver could help with the transportation issues facing rural families, because what we're suggesting, as you'll see later on, is that they be limited in phase 2 to driving with one novice peer. Any more than one novice peer, they would have to have an accompanying driver in phase 2.
I think the issue the young man raised earlier is very, very important, and that is a lot of parents do not want to let a teenage female out on her own. It has nothing to do with the risk of crash, but it has to do with a lot of other risks, especially down around the Burlington area after the Mahaffy and French cases. We're seeing a lot more parents who are really uncomfortable with the idea of having to drive alone.
So the idea of a novice peer -- because if you look at the statistics, that group, where you have one other novice peer, is not specifically disproportionately represented in crashes. It happens when you get multiple, so let's be very specific and if that's where the problem is, try and target just the problem.
These young drivers could help with the transportation issues facing rural families -- and there are a lot of transportation issues facing rural families -- by picking up a sibling from hockey practice or from an after-school job, but not having a slew of other teenagers in the car. Usually, these types of errands are monitored by parents and are often accomplished using the family car. "Monitoring" here I'm using very generally, "Take the car down and pick so-and-so up because I've got to finish the milking." That is not an uncommon thing that happens. Those are not the concerns of the researchers. Those are not where we're having multiple crashes. We're trying to address just the crash issue.
Parents have raised the issue with us that one of their greatest fears is having their teenage daughter be alone in the car. If the graduated system were to restrict other persons in the car in phase 2, completely restrict them down to just driving alone, these parents have reported that they would not allow their daughters to drive at all during that time. Coming back to the issue that was raised, what about the waiting-out phase which happened in New Zealand? We just simply wait it out. That is a problem and it's a concern. We want parents to encourage their children to use the car, but use it in a safe environment, not in high-risk situations. Therefore, the concept of novice peer would allow the teenager at least one other person with them. You'll see when I put up our chart of that, that's what we would suggest doing.
The night-time curfew: While the issue of a night-time curfew is one that is very contentious, we recommend that this restriction be put in place in phase 2, with exemptions for school, work or family obligations, in such a way that families are not disadvantaged due to a member not being able to carry out necessary transportation tasks between the hours of midnight and 5 am. This restriction is most important not in phase 1, where the driver has an accompanying driver who's a minimum, at this point, of 20 to 21 years of age -- four-year experienced driver -- but during phase 2, when drivers are first taking their initial foray by themselves or with their one novice peer. This restriction would not apply if the new driver were accompanied by a fully licensed driver with four years' experience. So during phase 1 and during phase 2, they can drive between midnight and 5, given that they are accompanied by someone who has four years' experience. So they do get some experience in that, but not in the high-risk situations.
Zero BAC: We realize that zero BAC means no drinking, as in having a drink of alcohol, but it's not going to be so ridiculously tight that one cannot take cough medicine. I think we've already gone through some of these issues. We fully back the concept of not allowing new drivers of any age to have any measurable amount of alcohol in their system while driving in either the first or second phase, irrespective of age. Again, we're getting away from this being an age issue, because what alcohol does, certainly in terms of the literature and research, is that alcohol does not act any differently on young people than old people, and that's not something we should be targeting youth for at all. It's that phase when you're just learning to drive, where you're having to do an awful lot with your brain, that alcohol affects you, whether you're young or old. It's in the judgement area, so we'd say it would be for everyone across the board.
1520
The "new driver" ID vehicle sign: I'm so glad Peter Christianson of YD and I see eye to eye on this. I think all instructors will give you some different views on this. Intuitively, it makes sense to alert other road users that there is a novice behind the wheel. It follows from that intuition that experienced road users would be more patient, understanding and less aggressive towards the new driver. However, this assumption may be faulty. Consistently, instructors report four specific responses other drivers have towards a vehicle that is clearly identified as being driven by a novice driver. The responses are as follows:
-- Drivers behave as intuitively expected, exhibiting patience and understanding; that's the smallest group.
-- The signs make no difference; that's the biggest group.
The other two are of concern.
-- Other drivers try to "help" by giving away their right of way. You come to a way stop and the other driver should go and he sits there -- "Go." It's very frustrating, because you've got to smile and thank them because they think they're being helpful, and that's really wonderful, but all they're doing is confusing the driver. It becomes very confusing and frustrating both for instructors and for accompanying drivers.
-- New drivers are often harassed just to get a reaction. They like to get each other's goat. The only time I've ever had a beer bottle thrown at my car was when I had a student sitting beside me with the roof sign on. So we've had some situations where drivers do some rather stupid things to upset the new driver.
This type of aberrant behaviour is most often exhibited from young drivers to other young drivers. For this reason, we are wondering if indeed this identification process should be used at all.
The 400 series: We as a group are at a loss to understand restricting these highways when they are considered some of our safest roadways. In phase 1, the new driver is accompanied by a fully licensed driver with a minimum of four years' experience, therefore the opportunity to practice in a less risky environment exists. For both expressways and high-speed roadways, we recommend that some form of professional training be encouraged. Once a driver has had the time to practise this throughout phase 1, we see no problem in letting the new driver use these roads, providing (1) it is not after midnight; (2) they meet the passenger requirements as per the item entitled "Passengers"; and (3) they have zero blood alcohol concentration. So it doesn't make this messy if you look at it, because they're already in place, and that's where the problems may exist.
Drive class G vehicles only: My friend from the north here will appreciate this, I think. This is no different than the existing regulation, with the exception of a farm employee driving class D vehicles for farm use while working. The Road Safety Educators' Association recommends that persons operating class D vehicles as previously specified be fully exempted. We do have to keep the economy and agriculture going, and we just can't be making these blanket statements that work extremely well for the urban environment but do not work very well for the rural environment.
I'd like to go on now to talk a little bit about incentives, and I'll talk fast because I'm running out of time. Is that right?
The Vice-Chair: You have about 15 minutes left.
Mrs MacNeil: I'll go really fast, because it's not finished yet. Using incentives may be very beneficial in having new drivers behave in ways that enhance road safety, but it is of concern to us that these or any incentives be offered so that maximum safety benefits are realized. For instance, if one offers a reduction in the minimum time for moving from one phase to another so that experience can be capitalized on, the incentive should encourage experience, not just enhance waiting out the phase. Steven Offer will appreciate that one.
The concern here is that if the new driver receives an incentive, four months' reduction in time for taking driver education, the driver may delay taking professional instruction until closer to the first test in order to increase the likelihood of passing the test. It is doubtful that this will improve road safety. This scenario raises other administrative questions such as: When may the new driver book the test for level 1? What constitutes a driver education course at level 1, at level 2 etc? More importantly, how can the entire process of driver education be more specifically defined to reflect the learners' needs across the province in the new system of graduation from phase 1 to phase 2 to fully licensed driver?
Incentives should be used to:
(1) Encourage professional road safety education, both individually and within the community;
(2) Promote safe driving practices;
(3) Develop and exhibit a healthy attitude towards road use; and
(4) Encourage a healthy respect for the different road user groups.
These incentives should encourage:
(1) New drivers to seek out professional road safety education, and after successful completion, receive an earlier entry into and out of stage 2. The time lines would then be six months minimum rather than 12 months minimum, if the individual has successfully completed a recognized and approved road safety education class designed for the entry-level novice drivers;
(2) Further education in the second level, allowing persons to be eligible for a further six months' reduction in time to become fully licensed if they successfully complete a recognized and approved road safety education class designed to enhance the experience received from their time spent both in the first phase and in the first few months of phase 2. Experience and learning are very closely tied in this issue, and you can't do it all in one phase. That's the whole concept of graduated;
(3) Incentives should also encourage new drivers to adhere to safe driving practices and be encouraged to seek professional evaluation and training if they are in an "at fault" crash or collision.
Additional proposals, and this is very short:
(1) The legislation and policy should be designed in terms of "gaining" privileges rather than "losing" restrictions. I think it's really important to put it in as positive a note as possible;
(2) We propose that there should be an 18-month probationary period pre-licensing. This is probably something very new.
I don't even know whether I ethically should refer to the Burlington crash, but anyone who is familiar and has looked through the coroner's reports in this province realizes that there is another variable in there, and it is not only age and it is not only youth but it is also age, youth and being a bad seed, being a bad egg. That individual who was driving that car got out of jail at 11 o'clock in the morning, got his test at 1 and killed four teenagers that night, and he had had multiple, multiple offences that led to his incarceration at that young age. So I think you have to be very cognizant of some of the issues that are being involved in the whole licensing process.
The condition of this probationary period would be that the individual has not been convicted of a felony. To remain conviction-free would gain the individual the privilege of starting the licensing process at the age of 16. This measure is designed to encourage younger teens, which we don't seem to be doing very much of, to be respectful of the law and take seriously their social responsibility if they want to attempt to become one of the driving public.
If you'd put up the second one of that -- the summary you can read on your own -- we'll just go over this.
Mr Baker: Which did you want?
Mrs MacNeil: The Road Safety Educators' proposal.
Here you can see that basically what we've done is tried to shift those areas that are extremely high-risk, that we know through statistics and through the work we've done across the province, into the area where they're going to receive the most, and yet try not to restrict those situations where even though they're in the age or the time, they're not disproportionately represented in crashes. So herein you'll see on the right-hand side in phase 2, number 7, the restrictions in numbers 4 and 5, ie, limit to one novice peer, and the curfew is lifted if a four-year licensed driver is with the driver.
That's basically our proposal.
Mr Paul Klopp (Huron): Thank you very much for coming today. You hit a chord with the rule issues. This discussion has been in our caucus for the last year or so, I guess, as something that we think we all agree on: safety and better education for anyone driving a vehicle. The records show that the more you're prepared, the less there are accidents, and I'm totally in agreement with that. One of the issues is, especially in rural Ontario and especially -- I may be a little biased about that, the farmer in me or whatever.
Mrs MacNeil: Me too.
Mr Klopp: Your recommendation is that a G licence be exempt.
Mrs MacNeil: No, D.
Mr Klopp: Now, your proposal --
Mrs MacNeil: Phase 2.
Mr Klopp: In phase 2, could you expand on that a little bit more for me?
Mrs MacNeil: About D vehicles?
Mr Klopp: Yes, but what you mean by "exempt."
Mrs MacNeil: Under the current system, if you live on a farm -- you don't even have to live there -- or if you work on a farm for a farmer and he's hauling grain from one farm to another in a D vehicle, ie, a dump truck, which is typically how you carry grain across this province from one farm to another, and other machinery that classifies as D vehicles, you can currently drive once you have your licence. We would like to see that exemption stay in place because there are a lot of young people who get their licence and there is an expectation that they're going to help dad.
1530
My son, just to give you an example, has been driving the tractor since he was 10, but when he came to the road, he had to stop. Once he became 16, he could drive the dump trucks and we had to take them from our elevator, which is in one place, out to the fields, which is 15 miles. He could take those D vehicles because he was classified as a farm employee within the farm family. That's really important for farm families.
Mr Klopp: So basically you're saying then, leave it the way it is now if you're going for this D licence.
Mrs MacNeil: You don't have to have a D licence. I'm talking about the vehicle being a D licence. It's just a regular licence, but you don't need a D licence classification if you're driving farm vehicles. It's just a glitch in the law. But that's how it works so that farm people can use their vehicles across the province.
If you're driving for someone and you're hauling and it's not farming, the D vehicle requires a D licence, but if you're driving from a field within the farm operation, you do not require a D licence, but it is considered a D vehicle.
Ms Murdock: Just a quick question on one of the last comments you made about involving pre-16-year-olds and basing it on conviction under the Criminal Code, I presume: I'm wondering how you could justify that under the Highway Traffic Act and involve a federal piece of legislation on top of that. How you would be able to justify that, I don't understand.
Mrs MacNeil: I was involved in a lot work this year with coroners and whatever, and that was the question: Would that have to be legislated federally? The answer would have to be no, because getting a licence or any prerequisites is a provincial jurisdiction.
Ms Murdock: True.
Mrs MacNeil: But given that someone has a criminal offence, we do it. I think the analogy we came up with that was the closest was gun legislation. If you have been convicted of a criminal offence, a felony, you cannot apply for a gun licence until it's been a minimum of 18 months, I believe. Now, I could be wrong on the time lines, but there is that, and that would be the same mechanism.
Now, I don't know how you do your mechanisms inside, making laws in government. It's not our biggest recommendation, but certainly we don't really have very many things that encourage young people prior to the age of 16 to act responsibly.
Ms Murdock: No, and some of your points are well made. I appreciate the new thoughts you've given me in terms of length of time. But one of the other concerns I had is that in your way, you would even have less time for experience.
Mrs MacNeil: I'm sorry?
Ms Murdock: The suggestion you're making in terms of incentives would create an even shorter time period in terms of gaining experience. Am I correct?
Mrs MacNeil: There's a real issue with the whole thing about having a time line and the expectation of what people are going to do in there. I'll be in front of you next Monday, but I'll do it again then.
The problem is that you want people to take driver education at the first part of phase 1, because that's where you want to establish some decent understanding of the road system, but you want them to take road safety education at the last part of stage 2, so you have a maximum amount of experience in there. By trying to get them to do that -- and part of the incentive is to try to get them to move driver education to the first part, because once they gain experience, they don't have a problem getting the car. The problem is trying to encourage parents to allow them to drive, and that is a real problem.
If you wanted to use something like Peter was suggesting with the number of hours that you've got to accumulate, that's very difficult. I think we're going to have to be very careful in how we word the whole legislation so that we get people taking driver education at the appropriate time and not waiting right up before, plus the fact that depending on when you can book your road test, as to whether or not you can avail yourself of that criterion.
Right now, the way it's written, in urban populations they are advantaged; in rural populations they are disadvantaged with that four-month period. Again, that's partly an administrative issue but it has to do with when you're allowed to book the test. If you have to wait until you're finished your driver education program to book a test, I'll guarantee you that becomes a misnomer for anyone living in a rural community.
Mr Conway: Very, very stimulating recommendations. Just where in rural Ontario do you live?
Mrs MacNeil: Actually, just outside of your riding. You're in Renfrew, right?
Mr Conway: That's right. So you're where?
Mrs MacNeil: I'm just in Arnprior. I go to your office often.
Mr Conway: The reason I raised it -- I mean, I live in a car and I think the government is certainly --
Mr Runciman: Because of salary cutbacks?
Mr Conway: -- essentially right here. What was that, Bob?
Mr Runciman: Because of salary cutbacks?
Mrs MacNeil: He hasn't collected enough air miles yet.
Mr Conway: Actually, it's the one place where I can be alone and not bothered. I really want to support this policy because I think it is certainly the right thing to do. But as I look at this and as I think about the world I grew up in, in rural Renfrew, I think we have to find ways to substantially amend this or this is going to be a completely unworkable, unenforceable policy in the rural world that I come from. You've made a number of very, I think, interesting and helpful suggestions.
Mrs MacNeil: What I did was, I sat with a grid, and because I come from a rural environment -- and I'm in Toronto literally once a week on either meetings or whatever. I always seem to say, "Just a second. What about the 42-year-old who lives in Ompah? What about this 68-year-old just outside of Renfrew who's just lost her husband? Let's take these people into account." I made a grid and I put all the different road-user groups by all the restrictions and then I went down and said, "How can we get through this and make it simplistic enough that it would be workable?" That's where the concept of novice peer -- it may not look like that took a lot of work, but there was a lot went into coming up with those two words and the definitions of those.
Mr Conway: I think that's very helpful and we're going to want to look at that as a committee.
I've got a couple of other things I'd like to quickly touch on. I think Mr Villeneuve or someone made the point earlier, and perhaps you did in your testimony, but I continue to be amazed at just how incredibly reckless people are in bad conditions. It's one thing to -- and I'm certainly guilty, the department of transport knows me only too well. But one of the things that always amazes me is how incredibly careless and reckless people are prepared to be in bad weather: in the worst snowstorm, in freezing rain, in heavy rain.
Mrs MacNeil: Their behaviour may be that but I don't think they're trying to be that.
Mr Conway: No, I know.
Mrs MacNeil: They just don't know.
Mr Conway: So what do we do? How do we change the way in which we educate people?
Mrs MacNeil: Do you see the words in there, where I said not only individual education but community education? Why in the name of Pete don't the stations in Renfrew, Arnprior, Ottawa, when we know we're going to have a snowstorm, have a talk that day on how to deal with snow? Last year, the first snow, in one hour, in Ottawa we had 89 crashes. There was a waiting period for police to come to crashes of over an hour and a half. Give us a break. That's crazy. But was there one statement within 24 hours before that snowstorm? Nothing.
Mr Conway: If I remember correctly, the people on the RIDE program -- one of the things that I think I remember from that is, why did that work after a while? Someone said to me, from the police or the department of transport, it worked because the enforcement got to a point where people began to believe for the first time that they would get caught. It is when they began to understand that they might very well get caught that their behaviour changed. I think the difficulty we have in so many of these things is, people think, "Oh, it's snowing out there, but it's not going to happen to me." What do we do?
Mrs MacNeil: Have you read any of my work on perceived and objective risk in driving? You should pick it up because there's about five hours I could give you, and that's what the whole thing is all about. We don't perceive we're at risk when in essence we really are, because we perceive other things as being more important and more of a problem.
Mr Conway: Thank you very much.
Mr Daigeler: Just a very quick question: Are you involved, like the other gentleman who was here from the Young Drivers, in the development of the level 2 examination?
Mrs MacNeil: In a simple answer, no. Would I like to be? Yes. Were there problems around me getting on? Yes. Was it political? Yes. Any other questions?
Mr Daigeler: Well, we'll ask the minister tomorrow.
Mrs MacNeil: Okay.
Mr Daigeler: The other point: Again, like Mr Conway, I think your suggestions are excellent. Frankly, it's not too often that we have such well-thought-out, specific proposals to revise a government project. Sometimes, perhaps, it's not that easy to come forward with new ideas, but here we clearly have two ideas that are very interesting. Again, have you already checked these with the ministry, in particular this idea about the novice peer? Has this just come up recently?
Mrs MacNeil: I've been working on it for a fair length of time. Politically -- oh, my gosh, I wish that tape wasn't going. A lot of times that you can come up with something and say, "If we can make this work and we don't disadvantage those groups," conceptually they're all for it. It's the idea of trying to come up with it, and then it takes a phenomenal number of hours to go out and talk to people. I mean, I drive thousands of kilometres in this province. I know this province fairly well and I'm not amiss at all to talk to any group or any individual about this. It takes a lot of that before you can come up with some way to get the words. So had they actually seen these two particular words? No. But conceptually, yes, they like the idea if they can make something that's workable.
1540
Mr Runciman: I'm intrigued by your comment about your not being involved in the second phase because of political reasons. I'm just curious: Are you talking about political reasons in a partisan sense or within the industry?
Mrs MacNeil: Small-p. No, no, no. Small-p. Within the ministry.
Mr Runciman: Within the ministry. You've had some difficulties in --
Mrs MacNeil: A lot of times -- I'll say this because maybe you'll understand it. You've all appreciated that I'm fairly innovative. Sometimes bureaucrats find innovation and change threatening.
Mr Villeneuve: Sometimes?
Mrs MacNeil: Sorry.
Mr Runciman: Do you share Mr Christianson's rather negative views in respect to driver education through the high school system?
Mrs MacNeil: Did anyone see Marketplace? That was me driving. There are some real problems, and it is not only driver education. To put that only in high school drivers' ed -- that it's the problem is a fallacy. There is some really poor driver education, period, in this province. Mind you, there is also some of the best driver education worldwide, because I do a lot of consulting both in the United States and across Canada. So we have the opportunity for probably the best system, especially over the next two years, and with the Road Safety Educators' Association, a democratically elected group which is the only one in North America, I think the opportunity for growth in that direction is very, very, very high.
Mr Runciman: You're not totally opposed, I gather, to providing that kind of training through the high school system.
Mrs MacNeil: The high school system is not the best place for it, but that's not because I think the high school system is bad.
Mr Runciman: There's such an emphasis on professional road safety education in this legislation and in your contribution here today. What's the system like across the province in some of the more remote areas?
Mrs MacNeil: Almost negligible in some areas.
Mr Runciman: What's the impact in respect to this legislation? You're saying it's almost negligible.
Mrs MacNeil: How much time? Am I going to run out of time in two seconds if I start into this?
The Vice-Chair: There is somebody else waiting.
Mrs MacNeil: If I go fast?
The Vice-Chair: As quick as possible, please.
Mr Conway: The rule in committee is to talk until somebody stops you.
Mrs MacNeil: Oh, is that right?
The Ministry of Education had subsidized driver education within the extracurricular area of high schools across the province. Therefore, most boards -- almost every board -- offered driver education. Now, I wish I'd brought my maps with you. I could show you clearly where driver education is available through that system, which comes from the Ministry of Education, Ministry of Transportation, certification through them. Everything is different about it. No monitoring to it whatsoever. Problem number one.
On the other side, we look at where the DSAO schools are, through their approval system, and they're very, very urban-centred. I mean, that's typical. You don't find very many computer stores way off in Ompah or whatever. Same with drivers' ed. So we need those school programs, but we need them monitored.
We've finally, after years of fighting and saying, "You can't just give someone a licence after three weeks to be a driving instructor and send them out there and expect them to do a good job and understand the issues about road safety, which are very complex, without some follow-up" -- that's where the problem lies.
What we'd like to see is that anyone who is doing a good job be encouraged to do a good job. If you read the criteria we have for road safety education in the more rural environments, they are to use whatever facilities, keep the price where the people can get it. Even right now, we're trying to fight with the Ministry of Education to allow late busing, if they are going to have it in these rural communities, because if you live 45 kilometres away from the school and you've got to get home to milk, there's probably no way Dad can come and get you. So there are a lot of issues and I'm not anti, but it's in the wrong place.
Mr Villeneuve: The gaining of privileges, I think, is most important, and no one's looked at that positive concept as opposed to taking away privileges. I think we have to very much make sure that young people -- "I'm 16. It's my right to drive." It always will be a privilege, and I think we make absolutely sure that they realize that at the outset: It's a privilege to use the public roads.
You address the situation about specific exemptions, and I very much like that, but how would that work? Could you explain to me how a specific exemption would work on one youth and not on another?
Mrs MacNeil: To begin with, we're still restricting after midnight to 5, so the big thing is to restrict the time. I mean, if you go through the factors that cause a crash, all you've got to do -- if you want to have someone have a crash, guaranteed, you start off with an 18-year-old male. You put six people in the car, you make it late Friday night, drink for half the night and come home at 4 o'clock in the morning. You add a great big car he's never driven before. Guaranteed, if you add enough variables, enough factors, the car will crash. So the trick is to word it in such a way that they have maximum --
Mr Klopp: I didn't think you could guarantee a crash.
Mrs MacNeil: You didn't think I could guarantee a crash?
Mr Klopp: No, no. I'm just thinking about that.
Mr Villeneuve: You've described the scenario.
Mrs MacNeil: Yes, but that's the whole point. It's to restrict only those who are going to be in those situations without restricting the fellow who goes and he's got to pick up a sibling or whatever. So the novice peer does an awful lot to do that. It does a phenomenal amount when you think it through. And the other one is that if you do work, you have a card that you can get and have signed or stamped or whatever that you work Tuesday nights and whatever. But you'll find that that's not a major deal. It's really not the single person with his girlfriend coming home at 2 o'clock in the morning. That's really not the big crash stat.
Mr Villeneuve: We in eastern Ontario have had a number of exactly the scenario you --
Mrs MacNeil: Yes. Oh, I know, with eight of them, one of them in a trunk. I know; I was at that one.
The Vice-Chair: Mrs MacNeil, Mr Baker, thank you. We look forward to your presentation later on during the committee's deliberations.
Mr Conway: While the next two witnesses come, maybe you didn't hear that report the other day when CBS News reported out of Louisiana that the state troopers had stopped one vehicle, a 1990 Grand Am, which is -- what? -- a medium-sized car, and there were 26 naked human beings in that car.
Mr Daigeler: What are you listening to?
Mr Klopp: So what's your point?
The Vice-Chair: Thank you, Mr Conway.
Mr Conway: CBS News.
Mr Villeneuve: It didn't crash, though.
Mr Conway: Well, it did actually crash.
The Vice-Chair: Into a tree.
Interjection: The naked truth.
Interjection: It's certain that they don't have seatbelts on.
The Vice-Chair: The problem is they ran out of cars along the way.
Mr Conway: No, actually, a divine voice told them that the Devil was inhabiting their clothes. It was a wonderful story.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you for that.
Ms Murdock: So they hadn't been drinking. They had taken drugs, I guess.
The Vice-Chair: Order, please.
CONCERNED CHIEF INSTRUCTORS OF THE CANADA SAFETY COUNCIL MOTORCYCLE TRAINING PROGRAMS IN ONTARIO
The Vice-Chair: Mr Redekop, welcome. Please identify yourself for Hansard and then proceed.
Mr Don Redekop: Sure, but Mr Conway's is a tough act to follow.
My name is Don Redekop. Do all of you now have a copy of that presentation before you? I apologize for not being able to get it to you beforehand for your consideration.
Just by way of background, I am a chief instructor with two community colleges offering motorcycle rider training in Ontario, one of them being Humber College and one of them being Confederation College in Thunder Bay, which has just begun a rider training program under my guidance.
I am here for several reasons. I am concerned that graduated licensing may inadvertently have the impact of reducing the incentives for novice motorcyclists to take rider training. It's certainly not planned and I trust that this will not be the case, but it may be.
1550
In a larger context, one of the reasons I'm concerned about motorcycles is because, of course, that is my avocation, in motorcycle training, but also because I think the vehicles are interesting to you from several points of view.
They have a greater accident record than other vehicles on the road, to most other vehicles; even though they are a tiny minority of vehicles on the road, they do occupy a significant portion of the fatalities that are reported to the Ministry of Transportation.
They are marked by a reasonably visible segment of the driving public, that being the young and to some degree young males, though that is changing yearly. For that reason, motorcycle fatalities seem to have occupied a position, I think, that is perhaps disproportionate to the number of fatalities that they are actually accounting for.
If I could just direct your attention to page 1 of my brief, there are two significant points I wish to stress: One is that in a five-year period, which is the latest five-year period for which we have good numbers, motorcycle fatalities were halved; they declined by 50%. This is not, I think, a matter of typical public perception; it comes as a surprise to most people.
Secondly, during that very same five-year period, the number of people taking rider training as a route to getting their motorcycle licence and as an entry to the sport climbed from approximately 25% to approximately now 70%, 75%. This is, I think, a tremendous tribute to a totally voluntary, totally private, quite expensive -- from the point of view of the customer -- process to educating oneself in safety.
Despite all of that, the Canada Safety Council motorcycle training program has made tremendous inroads; we have terrific penetration in the market. In the Toronto area it's considerably higher than that. We estimate that it is close to 80% of newly licensed people taking training without any compulsion on the ministry's part, and we're very proud of that. We think we offer something of service to the community and that's why it has become so popular.
What I am concerned about is that perhaps there will not be sufficient incentives built into the graduated licensing scheme to encourage people to take training. It may be seen by some customers that it's a bit of a bitter pill: They have to spend a weekend with us, they have to spend a good deal of money to get training. We've been able to offer them some sugar coating: You will at least earn your licence; you will at least earn the opportunity for insurance discount with some motorcycle insurers; you'll have fun, all those things.
It is my concern that, for example, if rider training is not seen to be a sufficient substitute for a given amount of time during level 1 and level 2 probationary periods, there will perhaps be seen to be a lesser incentive to take training. After all, why not just wait out the period, take the ministry test, and, "All in good time it will come to me." So I'm here to make a plea that certain things be adopted for your consideration, as on my page 2 under "Recommendations."
You will hear, if you have not already heard, from other motorcycle groups suggesting incorporation of existing standards, that being the Canada Safety Council, Ontario Safety League motorcycle training program which is national, widely accepted, has international recognition and has done very well by Canadian motorcyclists' needs.
Now, stop me if I'm just recounting details you're fully aware of, but there was some attempt in the recommendations to bring into parallel structure automobile levels 1 and 2 and motorcycle levels 1 and 2. Is there a chalkboard that I could have access to, or a marker board? That would be fine.
The Vice-Chair: I believe there's a clip-on microphone that you'll be able to use.
Mr Redekop: The most recent suggestion I have seen from the ministry's discussion paper was that level 1 should consist of two months plus a level 2 period of 22 months, to make 24. My proposal, as well as the proposal of other motorcycle groups that you will no doubt hear from, is for a longer period 1, which is the most highly risk-factored period for a novice motorcyclist; extend that and correspondingly shorten that, still to bring it into sync with the automobile portion of graduated licensing.
We're making a further suggestion, as I am in this paper, that with rider training this figure would be substantially reduced, that you accelerate your own passage through the system by voluntarily submitting yourself to training. I am leaving open in my presentation what that figure should be, but other suggestions will be for acceleration from six months to two months, with rider training having been taken during that period.
Another proposal in the discussion paper was that, rather than accelerating this period, rider training perhaps function to accelerate this period, from 22 down to 18 months.
Here's the problem we have with that. The only restriction that a level 2 exit test will remove from a motorcyclist is the business about zero alcohol tolerance. So unfortunately, an examination to get your fully privileged licence after this 22-month waiting period will be seen to be a licence to drink and ride. That's a very awkward position for someone like me involved in riding education to be associated with: ""Here's your nominal advanced skills test. You passed it. Here's your licence. Have a drink." It's a bit awkward and we'd rather not be seen to be accelerating the period during which you'd have to wait to drink and ride. Do you see what I mean? We would much rather that we be responsible for putting people on the road earlier and removing other restrictions on their licence but not the drinking restriction.
Are there any questions about that before I go on?
The Vice-Chair: We'll hold all the questions till you've finished your presentation, if you don't mind.
Mr Redekop: There are other recommendations that I make in the paper of somewhat lesser importance, but I do think it is essential that this committee recommend adequate incentives for rider training. We have an existing system in place that we think has been very successful: excellent penetration, widely recognized. We would hate to see any of that jeopardized, for whatever reason.
So please protect the Ministry of Transportation approved rider training site system, signing authority system: the ability for people to get training and to have some adequate incentive to do so; that being, earning their licence that much more quickly with fewer impediments from the ministry in terms of waiting periods, appointment times being booked up at the John Rhodes testing centre, that kind of thing. So that in a nutshell is my presentation.
1600
Mr Conway: Mr Offer once took the course, so I think we should let him tell us what it's like.
Mr Offer: Thank you for your presentation. One of the things in the first level is to refrain from driving on highways at more than 80 kilometres per hour. You haven't spoken about that. Does that cause you a problem?
Mr Redekop: Not at all.
Mr Offer: Okay.
Mr Redekop: No. In fact, that is not a change from the existing framework as far as we can tell. The R permit conditions will be identical to the level 1 conditions, except for the zero alcohol tolerance.
Interjection: You must have failed that course.
Mr Offer: Yes, I guess I should have known that. The best I can make out of the level 1 and level 2, as it applies to motorcycles, is that there is a restriction against drinking, basically, for the couple of years.
Mr Redekop: Yes.
Mr Offer: This graduated licensing, in so far as motorcycles are concerned and the speed limit, doesn't apply in terms of the seatbelts and all of those other things.
Mr Redekop: Correct.
Mr Offer: All this really does is say that for those with a motorcycle licence, there won't be any drinking for the period adding up level 1 and level 2.
Mr Redekop: That's right, and I have no problem with that suggestion at all. In fact, I think it's a wonderful initiative. It will have an impact on fatalities.
Mr Offer: Is your only concern that the first level is too short and that the first level should be increased while the second level should be accordingly decreased?
Mr Redekop: That's correct. One of the reasons for that change in emphasis on the time is so that rider training during level 1 is seen to be something that's highly desirable, because it will accelerate a passage to real privileges, ie, being able to ride on other highways, other hours of the day, possibly with a passenger.
Mr Offer: Thanks.
Mr Conway: Just a supplementary: One of the things, if I had a commercial instinct in me, I think -- and as you probably heard me say, I support the general direction here -- but this is going to be a boon for good driver ed schools, isn't it?
Mr Redekop: Yes. Not any different than it presently is.
Mr Conway: Why wouldn't it be?
Mr Redekop: Because now, if someone registers at a local community college in Ontario, they will, within that very weekend, obtain their full M licence, no restrictions on the privileges whatsoever. So within three days, they can pass from having written their basic written test to obtain their learners' permit to a full licence within three days. That will be a longer period. There will be a much longer break in the period for people to become acclimatized to the idea.
Mr Conway: So that's potentially more opportunity for the schools, isn't it?
Mr Redekop: For any rider training sites, yes, of which there are perhaps a dozen and a half in Ontario right now and growing.
Mr Daigeler: Just quickly, why do you think in the ministry's proposal there's no incentive there to take such a course?
Mr Redekop: As I understand it, in the ministry's most recent proposals, rider training will only have the effect of reducing the 22-month waiting period in level 2 to -- I think the figure's 18. Can anyone confirm that for me? I think it's 18.
Ms Murdock: Yes.
Mr Redekop: So rider training does not hasten the acquisition of some real privileges, such as over-80 and after-dark riding. It does only serve to accelerate the passage to the privilege of drinking, which is not something I'm particularly anxious to be seen to be supporting.
Mr Villeneuve: In that same vein, should we even talk about zero tolerance in this legislation?
Mr Redekop: I think it's a useful initiative. Alcohol is still involved in 50% of motorcycle fatalities, as it is for automobiles. They're very comparable, and anything that reduces public acceptance of that condition, drinking and riding, is something that we, as motorcycle safety trainers, are very much in favour of.
Mr Villeneuve: I know that certainly for a few parents, when junior bought the motorcycle it drove them to drink.
Mr Redekop: Perhaps you could cover that with legislation.
Mr Villeneuve: These statistics are most interesting because I certainly always figured that you pass motorcyclists or they will pass you in a lot of cases on the highway and they're going at well over the speed limit and there is nothing between them and the road except some leather britches.
Mr Redekop: Or shorts, in many cases.
Mr Villeneuve: Sometimes shorts, and it's amazing that these statistics -- I appreciate your bringing them to this committee. You've given us food for thought. But again, it's rather interesting that all of a sudden within this legislation zero alcohol tolerance is no longer after the two years. I guess maybe we need to reinforce that, but it's amazing it would be mentioned. I just find it a bit of a dichotomy.
Mr Redekop: Yes. It's my entirely private guess that we will have zero alcohol tolerance for all vehicles at all times within 10 years in Canada, following the European model.
Mr Hansen: One issue you brought up was the point that 2% of the registered motor vehicles are motorcycles in Ontario, where it is almost 6% of road fatalities. The problem is, and I think you sort of brought it out, that when a motorcycle meets with a car, it's most likely the motorist on the motorcycle who is the fatality.
I have to say that I had an accident. I'm a motorcycle rider and have ridden since I was 16. I received a beginner's permit and I rode on the beginner's permit until I got a regular licence and drove with no insurance at that particular time. You paid $5 and you had your beginner's. Maybe I'm a dinosaur in that, but the thing is that I've seen a lot of changes go on in motorcycling over the years. I know Mike would like to ask some questions too.
But the thing is, I had an accident. It wasn't my fault. My neighbour next door had an accident -- it wasn't his fault -- with an impaired driver of a vehicle, and I see more accidents happening on motorcycles where the other people have not given the right of way to the motorcycle. So you can't come forward and say that with the statistic of 6% -- okay, maybe that's a true fact, but yet whose fault was the accident? A lot of cars do not give the road to the motorcycle and this is what the Bikers' Rights Organization is talking about. Could you clarify a little bit on that?
Mr Redekop: Certainly. I want to make it absolutely clear that the fact that there is that distinction between the 2% of registered motor vehicles and 6% of fatalities does not mean that motorcyclists drive three times as badly as car drivers. It just means that if they are struck they are more vulnerable, as you say. It does mean, though, that whether or not there are any motorcyclists at fault whatsoever, there's still room for training to improve those numbers. We teach, for example, defensive driving. We teach alertness to risk factors on the road. We teach people to use their mirrors and to shoulder-check. These are not things that are necessarily -- I don't wish to acknowledge that motorcyclists cause their own accidents to any degree greater than automobile drivers do.
Mr Hansen: We've had this issue with the Bikers' Rights of wanting the month of May to distinguish that the bikes are back out on the road. One issue they bring up is the size of the bike. In other words, what's happening right now is that someone can go in with, say, a 125 cc bike, pass the test, go down to the licence bureau and say, "I've got a qualified licence," go into a motorcycle dealer and buy, say, a 1,000 cc or larger bike and never have ridden one before and decide they're going to take off on a trip someplace and they can't even handle the bike.
How do you see this in the regulations coming up on the size of bike? It's totally different than what we're talking about on the graduated licensing, but should there be graduated licensing on the size of the bike also, that you have to qualify as you go up?
Mr Redekop: I would say not. I know it is part of the system of many other graduated licensing regimes that you graduate from one motorcycle engine size to another. But I find that undesirable from several points of view. First of all, it distorts the market. In Britain, for example, where there is a system of graduated engine sizes, there is an exaggerated premium on small motorcycles, a very limited market as a result for large motorcycles, and it's just not a kind of messing with the market that I would want a licensing system to be seen to be responsible for.
Further, there's a famous study from California called the Hurt report, which will no doubt be cited to you in motorcycle statistics, that there's actually an inverse proportion between the size of the motorcycle, the size of the engine and its likelihood of being in an accident. The reason for that, presumably, is that motorcyclists self-regulate. As novices, you ride a small bike. You're more likely to get into trouble, not because the bike is small but just because you happen to be inexperienced and have chosen a small motorcycle to start with. By the time you are experienced, you've graduated to a large Harley or a large Japanese touring machine and you're less likely to have an accident. So the engine size is not a good predictor of whether or not you are at risk.
I appreciate your scenario, though, which is a 16-year-old having been tested on a 50 cc machine and takes away a large muscle bike from the showroom. It's a situation that is fraught with peril, but I don't see that a licensing system attacks that problem efficiently.
Mr Klopp: With regard to that, you mentioned that in England they have some form of cc-graduated thing with motor size. You stated then clearly for the record here that's there's actually a study to show that really isn't stopping accidents in the system, this report from California.
Mr Redekop: I cannot say that it hasn't worked in Britain. I can only say that the study in California showed it.
Mr Klopp: That's my question. Why do they believe in it in Britain? When did they bring it in, first off, and why is it working in Britain?
Mr Redekop: I don't know when it was brought in. My guess is it was about 10 years ago, and I know that there are a lot of motorcycle groups that are very unhappy with the results of that graduated licensing scheme there because it concentrates, in their opinion, on the wrong risk factors. Engine size is not a risk factor; attitude and alcohol are risk factors, not the mechanical parts of the equation.
Mr Klopp: Okay, I think it's important for us to talk about that. I appreciated the time to put that on the record. I do agree with you, because I've got a young kid up the road who has a little 250 and he drives it like daylights. It's bouncing all over the place. You hit a tree with it or you hit a tree with a 500 cc, I don't think the tree knows the difference and neither would he, but I could be wrong.
The Vice-Chair: Mr Redekop, I am a graduate of the Conestoga College motorcycle training program, and part of that program does teach you things like the proper wear, the proper helmets and the proper handling of your machine so that if you do get involved in an accident, you're more protected, obviously, with leather and boots and the proper helmet. You're more likely to survive an accident than people in shorts and sandals you see every day.
I really endorse these programs and I thank you on behalf of the committee for coming and giving us your presentation today. I hope you will follow the proceedings of the committee.
We are adjourned until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning.
The committee adjourned at 1614.