GRADUATED
LICENSING
INSURANCE BROKERS ASSOCIATION OF ONTARIO
CONTENTS
Monday 13 September 1993
Graduated licensing
Insurance Brokers Association of Ontario
Diane Wigley, member
Don Stewart, manager
Ontario Safety League
John Sharpe, president and general manager
Ken Morgan, supervising chief instructor, Canada Safety Council motorcycle training program
Al Majauskas
Toronto Board of Education
Ron Kendall, director, driver education
Dan Keegan, driver education teacher
Fara Ladhani, driver education consultant
David Stewart
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:
Caplan, Elinor (Oriole L) for Mr Conway
Dadamo, George (Windsor-Sandwich ND) for Mr Waters
Daigeler, Hans (Nepean L) for Mrs Fawcett
Haeck, Christel (St Catharines-Brock ND) for Ms Murdock
Jackson, Cameron (Burlington South/-Sud PC) for Mr Jordan
Jamison, Norm (Norfolk ND) for Mr Cooper
Lessard, Wayne (Windsor-Walkerville ND) for Mr Klopp
Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes:
Cooper, Mike (Kitchener-Wilmot ND)
Ministry of Transportation:
Dadamo, George, parliamentary assistant to the minister
Domoney, Bob, manager, graduated licensing compliance branch
Clerk / Greffière: Manikel, Tannis
Staff / Personnel: McNaught, Andrew, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1403 in the St Clair Room, Macdonald Block, Toronto.
GRADUATED LICENSING
INSURANCE BROKERS ASSOCIATION OF ONTARIO
The Chair (Mr Bob Huget): Good afternoon and welcome. The first witnesses the Insurance Brokers Association of Ontario. Identify yourselves for the purposes of Hansard and proceed with your presentation. You've been allocated one half-hour and I know the committee members would like, if possible, 15 minutes of that for questions and answers and dialogue.
Ms Diane Wigley: My name is Diane Wigley. I'm a registered insurance broker from Metropolitan Toronto. I'm a principal of a medium-sized brokerage firm. I'm here today with one of our staff members from IBAO, Mr Don Stewart.
Mr Don Stewart: My name is Don Stewart. I'm a manager with IBAO and have worked for many years in both the insurance company business and the brokerage business.
Ms Wigley: The Insurance Brokers Association of Ontario is a non-profit organization representing over 7,200 professional insurance brokers throughout the province of Ontario. Our purpose is threefold: to provide quality education to members; to liaise with government offices on behalf of members and the insurance industry in general; and to promote and communicate the importance of the independent broker to the consumer.
The government of Ontario has taken a major step forward with its announced intention of introducing a system of graduated licensing for new drivers. The IBAO commends this initiative and the concept has our full support. We feel it is a proven method of reducing current levels of death and serious injury and is more than justified on that basis alone. Further benefits will result from reduced damage to physical property and ultimately savings in the cost of automobile insurance to the consumer.
After reviewing the components of the proposed program, we feel there are some areas that could benefit from a strengthening of the regulations, particularly with regard to level 2.
One of the justifications used for implementing a graduated licensing program is the positive quantitative experience developed in other jurisdictions, particularly New Zealand. New Zealand has more restrictions in its program phase corresponding to our level 2 and there would seem to be a real possibility that we won't obtain its positive results with a program that is significantly less restricted.
Upon completion of level 1, there still exists a large gap in ability between that individual and an experienced driver. Under the proposal, all restrictions from level 1 are removed in level 2, with the exception of the number of passengers being restricted to the number of seatbelts and the requirement for zero blood alcohol.
The level 2 phase most closely represents the current situation where we have a driver who has passed his or her road test and is fully licensed. We are sure that a review of serious accidents involving new drivers would reveal that most occur within a relatively brief period after the permanent licence has been granted. It therefore seems only prudent to maintain sensible restrictions for the level 2 phase. During this period, the driver will be gaining competence in higher speed and night driving situations.
Many new drivers do not have full-time possession of a vehicle and drive only on an occasional basis. This could well translate into little actual road experience during the level 1 phase. Also, it is conceivable that completion of level 1 in the minimum eight-month period could result in no controlled exposure to winter conditions being actually experienced.
Accordingly, we would suggest that level 2 be strengthened in the following manner:
-- the restrictions on passengers applicable to level 1 continue in level 2;
-- driving between the hours of midnight and 5 am require an appropriate accompanying licensed individual;
-- similarly, all driving on 400 series highways and certain designated urban expressways require an appropriate accompanying licensed individual; and
-- continue to require the display of a standard novice driver sign in the vehicle.
It is our sincere feeling that these measures will ensure that the level of benefits gained in other jurisdictions are repeated in Ontario.
One area we have not yet discussed is exemptions to the graduated licensing regulations.
There are circumstances where a new driver is employed on a shift-work basis that would conflict with curfew regulations. It might be impossible to arrange for other transportation, especially in non-urban areas, and the time of day could render it extremely difficult to arrange for an appropriate accompanying licensed driver. In these circumstances, we feel it would be reasonable to be able to apply for an exemption under level 2 effective only with respect to travel to and from work, place of employment. It is felt that existing exemptions for farm and rural dwellers should be detailed in the regulations and continued. Another possible blanket exemption should perhaps be considered in the instance of a bona fide medical emergency.
In summary, we are basically in agreement with the proposed level 1 regulations and hope that you will seriously consider our recommendations for strengthening level 2. We trust that our comments will assist you in formulating your recommendations, with the end result being fewer deaths and injuries and safer roads for all users.
We thank you for your attention and we will be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
1410
Mr George Dadamo (Windsor-Sandwich): Mr Chair, we have three members from the Ministry of Transportation who are here this afternoon to answer any questions the committee members may have.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Dadamo. We will start questioning with the official opposition. First, I'd like to welcome Mrs Elinor Caplan, the member for Oriole, and Mr Cam Jackson, the member for Burlington South, to the committee this afternoon.
Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): I know Mrs Caplan also has a few questions and I think we have the time to do that.
Firstly, thank you for your presentation, especially as it regards level 2. When I look at level 2, I see basically three requirements. The first is maintaining a zero blood alcohol level when driving. It could then be argued that when you're looking at people entering level 2, they'll be 17 or 18, many of whom will by law have to have a zero blood alcohol level because it is against the law to drink. I think this underscores the point you've been making.
The second is limiting the number of passengers carried to the number of seatbelts in the vehicle, and maybe we could get some help. It would seem that the law is that everybody must be wearing a seatbelt, so the number of passengers would be limited to the number of seatbelts in the car, again underscoring the point you're making that level 2 doesn't really have much teeth to it at all.
Of course, the last is to drive a class G vehicle.
The question I have is, apart from your presentation, which talks about strengthening level 2 -- and I think even last day, when we heard from the coroner, the statistics make your point -- should there be increased penalties for contravention of any offence under level 1 or level 2? What is it that's needed to drive home the real issue here?
Mr Don Stewart: I think perhaps the problem with penalties is that they always happen after the fact. I'm certainly not against the idea of having relatively stiff penalties in place, but much like the zero blood alcohol, that's going to be an after-the-fact situation in a great many cases. Our major concern that we've been concentrating on is trying to prevent things from happening in the first place.
Mr Offer: Mrs Caplan also has a question. Just before that, I was wondering, could the parliamentary assistant or ministry officials give us information clearly indicating what are the penalties for contravention of a level 1 offence or a level 2 offence to the driver? We can do that afterwards, I'm sure, but it's not clear in my mind what are the penalties to be incurred by a contravention of a level 1 or level 2 requirement.
Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): I'd like to explore the exemptions with you for just a minute. In my riding, there's a very large immigrant reception centre and a number of my constituents arrive in Canada to settle and make new lives for themselves. Many of them have drivers' licences and driving experience. What do you contemplate as far as an exemption is concerned for people who arrive in Canada needing to have a driver's licence to enable them to work? Do you see an exemption for individuals such as that?
Mr Don Stewart: There is a problem. I suppose it depends a great deal on where the driving experience was obtained. There are in effect current exemptions, I believe for Japan, all the states in the United States and perhaps Great Britain -- I'm not sure -- agreements that have been reached where their driving experience and being licensed in that jurisdiction is accepted, and you get a licence in Ontario. I suppose that's a matter of research for the department and the ministry.
On the other hand, there are areas of the world where with all the driving experience in the world there'd be no winter driving experience, for instance, or areas where because of congestion and what have you there's probably never any speed above 30 miles an hour. I'm sorry; I'm not really metric yet.
This is the sort of problem that it has. I think it's very difficult to try and judge what exemptions should be made for that. My thought would be that that's probably best left in the hands of the ministry for analysis of whether that driving experience obtained in another jurisdiction is comparable or not.
Mrs Caplan: So at this point the industry's position is: exemptions, yes, but the determination of which countries and what kind of driving experience would qualify should be part of either the regulatory or the administrative process.
Ms Wigley: Yes.
Mr Don Stewart: I think that would be wise, yes.
Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): It's good to see you here today. I have to say that I'm very much in agreement with your recommendations. I feel a great deal of ownership of this bill even though it is a government bill. You'll recognize I'm not from the government. I've been pushing this for two years.
I have some somewhat technical questions with respect to the exemptions that you put forward. We have been exploring these possibilities to alleviate any hardships in rural areas which are not serviced by public transportation. My concern runs along the lines of who will administer this and how we recapture the cost of this, because let's face it, governments today are not in a position to be able to spend any more money than they're spending today; quite the reverse.
Ms Wigley: That is a concern with the costing and where that is recovered and how that is dealt with. Do you have any comment on that, Don?
Mr Don Stewart: I would think that for a partial method of recovering the cost, for instance, we suggested in the case of shift work drivers that they would have to apply and be accepted.
Mr Turnbull: Apply to whom?
Mr Don Stewart: To the government, to the ministry; I would assume that there would perhaps be a charge, a fee for that. I suppose it would be very difficult to charge any fee that perhaps represented the cost of assessing and granting and what have you, but I must admit that I hadn't given it much thought beyond that. The medical exemption, we think, would be a blanket for a bona fide case.
Mr Turnbull: Yes, quite so, and presumably if the emergency arose, you wouldn't have to worry about, "Do I have an exemption or not?" You would just go and do it.
Mr Don Stewart: I don't think the penalty would be a deterrent. In that case, you'd just do it.
Mr Turnbull: Absolutely. Would it be reasonable to adopt what one or two of the US states are doing, in that just the mere holding of a letter stating employment conditions from an employer would in itself constitute an exemption? I see some problems with that, but nevertheless that is one of the ways that have been used.
Ms Wigley: You don't want to incur abuses of the system so that anybody just gets a letter. I think you'd need to have something a little bit more restrictive than that, whether it's done through another type of driving course that they could take or something.
Mr Turnbull: I asked this question to insurance companies last week. Given the fact that there presumably will be some reduction in the cost of injury payouts as a result of this system -- otherwise, why are we doing it? -- would it be reasonable to say that the first money out might go towards paying for covering these exemptions, administering it?
Mr Don Stewart: It might not be popular with consumers, who would anticipate receiving the full benefit of an indicated premium reduction, but it's certainly a possibility.
Mr Turnbull: What about the possibility of insurance agents validating any letter from an employer, where the insurance broker says, "Okay, we agree to this exemption"?
Ms Wigley: I'd like to contemplate that one. That's a suggestion --
Mr Turnbull: Perhaps you could get back to us on that. Another question is with respect to seatbelts. I've got a great concern about the idea that we allow three people in the front seat. I believe that, certainly in level 1, the distraction of having a person there other than just the accompanying driver might be a serious problem. Do you have some thoughts on that?
Mr Don Stewart: If I'm not mistaken, the current regulations state that for anyone under 16, the driver is responsible to see that they have seatbelts on; for anyone over 16, they're personally responsible and the driver is not. This, in effect, I suppose, allows more passengers than seatbelts.
1420
Mr Turnbull: This says that there can only be as many passengers as seatbelts, or that at least the seatbelts have to be fully used. Above and beyond that, if you have more people in level 2, that's okay, but the seatbelts must be done up. A lot of North American vehicles have three seatbelts in the front. Do you see a problem with having other than the accompanying driver in the front?
Mr Don Stewart: Yes, I don't think there should be anyone other than the accompanying driver in the front. I quite agree.
Mr Turnbull: As far as exiting both levels 1 and 2 is concerned, do you think it would be reasonable to impose a restriction that people cannot exit either of these levels without a completely free, clear record within a given period of time?
Ms Wigley: Yes.
Mr Don Stewart: I would certainly favour a record completely clear, yes. I suppose there might be something, a minor infraction, a licence plate light out, this sort of thing. I don't think that should stop anyone, but certainly any record where they develop points.
Ms Wigley: Any moving violation.
Mr Turnbull: Points or where you've violated the terms of the graduated licensing.
Mr Don Stewart: Yes.
Mr Turnbull: For example, not being with an accompanying driver or something like that.
Ms Wigley: Right.
Mr Don Stewart: Certainly.
Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): Thank you for a good presentation. I apologize that I missed the first portion of it. A couple of questions: The first one, on the 400 series highways, having lived in northern Ontario for a large number of years, we don't have the luxury of having very many four-lane highways, or the 400 series. It's Highway 11 which travels right across. I've travelled on the 400 series and I've never seen a car coming at me in the wrong way, where on a two-lane highway it happens fairly regularly, where you have two cars squeeze sideways and let that person go through the middle, which to me is fairly dangerous, compared to -- it doesn't happen on the 400 series. So that's questionable. I just wanted to know if you had any comments on that.
Ms Wigley: With the 400 series highways, even entering and exiting the highways are not that easy to deal with unless you've been properly trained in how to get on and off properly, so it takes a different kind of skill in using those. Certainly, up north you have a different kind of problem, but they are not easy to get on and off at times. You need the experience behind you in order to know how to deal with them.
Mr Wood: On the weekend they had a talk show on, and some of the comments from two different people that came out of that, discussing the graduated licences, the public hearings that are going on right now in preparation for draft legislation, were that there should be a maximum of no more than two passengers in the vehicle during stage 1 and stage 2 of the training process.
In most full-size cars there are six seatbelts, which would mean that six people could be in the car with a 16-year-old driving. These people could be of varying ages. I know you have to have a person who has four years' experience accompanying them. I just want to know if you had any comments on that, because like I say, it was a radio talk show and they were getting feedback from the people as to what further restrictions there should be.
Mr Don Stewart: I certainly don't argue with the concept and I suppose really it's a matter of trying to say what we feel is of the most benefit and perhaps being able to not make it as restrictive as we could. I think it really is a sawoff, and that probably makes it a hard point. Of course, if you follow that recommendation and do it and then something happens and there's a horrible example, you're going to feel dreadful, but I suppose that's really what it is. It's just trying to say, "There have to be some restrictions," but there has to be a limit to how much you can restrict people too, because at some point they also have to learn to drive with all that.
Mr Gary Wilson (Kingston and The Islands): Thank you very much for your presentation. In fact, it's the learning that I would like to look at now, because of course, as you know, experienced drivers are very important in this scheme. I was just wondering what your opinion is of four years' driving experience being the necessary length of time. In other words, do you think that four years, remembering that those drivers can be as young as 20 -- we've heard at least one submission that suggests drivers of 20 can appear not to be that much more safe than drivers of a younger age. Have you thought about that, about how much experience? Of course, I'm also interested in whether you think the education of drivers is given enough emphasis in the scheme as it is now and the one that's being proposed.
Mr Don Stewart: I think the key is probably looking at it in terms of the minimum you can put in to get out, and that's a year and eight months, I suppose. That's not a lot of experience. The problems arise when -- for instance, when my son was of such an age, when I was dealing with my son, he certainly didn't get the car more than once a week, so in an eight-month period under level 1, he'd be lucky if he was out 32 times, let's say, on the road, and not for a long time at that. That's not a lot of experience and that's a problem.
Unfortunately, or not necessarily unfortunately, we have to deal with the fact that we're dealing with all new drivers of all ages, but there is a large percentage of those drivers, which naturally is usually the younger drivers, who, when they get their licence, are going to be occasional drivers. I think we have to try to make sure that we cover enough time to pick those up, because in numbers they're probably the larger number of the group. How long is enough? I really don't know. I suppose a lot of that would depend on the person.
Ms Wigley: I think the weather situation in the province too and the time of year they start driving also has a bearing on it.
Mr Gary Wilson: What about the education courses, then? Are you satisfied with the standard of driver education that we have in the province?
Mr Don Stewart: I don't really know the percentage of people who do take it, but we know that we have a problem. That being the case, I would have to say no, I couldn't be happy with it. I think the main problem, especially with younger males, is once they get the licence, not getting the licence. The driver education happens while you're getting it. The problems start after someone has said: "Right, there you are, son. You're a driver." That's when the trouble starts and that's when the serious accidents happen.
Mr Gary Wilson: So you mean even once they're through what is proposed as the graduated licence process, we still have a problem.
Mr Don Stewart: I think certainly at level 2. Level 2 is at a time when you're more likely statistically to have the accidents. That's why we concentrated our suggestions on that level, because we think that's the serious level. It's a little like skiing, I suppose. When you're actually dealing with the instructor at the top of the hill, things are all right. It's when you start to think you can do it that the legs get broken.
Ms Wigley: The whole training process I think is very important. I really don't think they realize that it's really a lethal weapon they're dealing with when they get behind the wheel of a car. It's not a toy any more; it's a lethal weapon and they have to respect that. I think the whole education process has to be strengthened to emphasize the privileges they've been given when they're allowed to drive.
Mr Gary Wilson: Would you like to see more emphasis on the educational aspect here?
Ms Wigley: Yes.
Mr Gary Wilson: But you really haven't given it that much thought, I guess. You don't have any proposal in your presentation as far as strengthening the educational component is concerned.
Ms Wigley: We did not deal with that aspect of it in here, no.
Mr Don Stewart: Currently there are financial incentives with your insurance premium for taking those courses, and they're substantial financial incentives.
Mr Gary Wilson: What are they? Is there an average?
Mr Don Stewart: If a brand-new licensed driver, he would be rated with one year accident-free. If he took a driver training course, he would be rated, with most companies, with three years accident-free, and that's probably a 40% saving. At young driver rates especially, that's a lot of money. That's every year. It just goes on and on as long as he's in that underage category.
Mr Gary Wilson: So there's a very strong incentive there now.
Ms Wigley: Yes.
1430
The Chair: There's about 30 seconds. I would like, with the indulgence of the committee, to ask one question. You probably have a lot of rural members of your association and I wonder what the feedback is from rural Ontario around these proposals, or what feedback you're getting from your member brokers who represent rural ridings.
Ms Wigley: It's been positive.
Mr Don Stewart: I have not heard anyone connected with the insurance industry who has suggested that graduated licensing is a bad idea, and I think that's a very good thing because it's not really a self-interest matter; it's a matter of saving lives. I don't think I've heard anyone speak out against it, rural or otherwise.
The Chair: I thank both of you for taking the time to come here this afternoon and so effectively put forward the views of the association. Your views and your association's views are an important part of the process and they play a valuable role in determining how this will unfold in its final shape.
Mr Domoney on a point of clarification for Mr Offer.
Mr Bob Domoney: With regard to your question, Mr Offer, about the penalties, the penalty proposed in the regulations for violation of a novice condition, either level 1 or level 2, is a 30-day suspension upon conviction. There is another penalty proposed in the regulations for conviction for moving violations. In the current system, a driver receives demerit points for various convictions and a fully licensed driver would receive a 30-day suspension upon obtaining 15 demerit points within a two-year period.
The regulations propose an earlier set of interventions for novice drivers, which are intended to attempt to improve their driving performance earlier than we would for regular drivers. They would be given a 90-day suspension at 12 demerit points. There are other interventions prior to that that could result in interviews or driver education courses recommended as a condition of licensing. The actual details, while they're proposed in the regulation, are still under consideration by ministry staff and are being worked out at this time.
There basically are two types of suspensions: a demerit point suspension of 90 days at 12 points, and an automatic suspension for violation of a level 1 or level 2 condition for 30 days.
Mr Offer: This is very important. Thank you for the information. For a person of 16 or 17 who is found with a 0.04 or whatever blood alcohol level -- it's under 0.05 and it's surely under 0.08 -- is there not going to be anything more than a 30-day suspension? What type of penalty does an individual now get, found in the care and control of a vehicle and driving outside with any blood alcohol -- they can't drink until they're 19. What is the penalty they now get?
Mr Domoney: Currently, there wouldn't be a penalty for under 0.05 under the Highway Traffic Act. There may be penalties under other legislation related to drinking, but I'm not familiar with that legislation.
Mr Offer: Is any consideration being given to putting a penalty on a person under 19 with alcohol in their blood and in the care and control of a vehicle, a penalty at least equal to an individual found blowing over the legal limit; in other words, a year suspension? How are you going to drive it home?
Mr Domoney: I'm not sure I can answer that question at this point.
Mr Offer: The question was, is there consideration now being given in the ministry to that type of penalty? You said there were still matters under consideration in the ministry.
Mr Domoney: The matters under consideration relate to demerit point interventions, not drinking interventions.
Mr Turnbull: Has consideration been given to moving people down from level 2 to level 1 if there was such an intervention by the ministry?
Mr Domoney: Those options were considered in the original deliberations but they're not part of the current proposal.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Domoney. While I'm at it, I'd like to welcome to the committee Ms Haeck, the member for St Catharines-Brock; Mr Jamison, the member for Norfolk; and Mr Lessard, the member for Windsor-Walkerville.
ONTARIO SAFETY LEAGUE
The Chair: Next is the Ontario Safety League.
Mr John Sharpe: I'm John Sharpe, president and general manager of the league and I'll be making the presentation. Hopefully, it will be about 11 to 12 minutes long.
Mr Ken Morgan: My name is Ken Morgan. I'm the supervising chief instructor for motorcycle training programs.
Mr Sharpe: The Ontario Safety League is a non-profit and charitable organization that has been actively and effectively promoting road safety for 80 years. Our motto is "Safety Through Education." To many, we're best known by our free Elmer the safety elephant programs which teach road safety to young school children. But we do much more than that.
We train the instructors for driving schools and for the transportation industry. We provide the quality control monitoring of driving schools that train the novice drivers, and we monitor motorcycle instructors at the community colleges. We also provide driver improvement training for experienced drivers.
Graduated licensing has been advocated for some time now. Throughout its evolution, the Ontario Safety League has remained supportive of the concept and applauds the efforts of MTO, IBC and TIRF to guide us to where we are today. In 1991, the league submitted our own graduated licensing proposal to MTO and we're pleased to see several of our recommendations incorporated in today's plan. Currently, another officer of the league and myself are members of the MTO-IBC advisory group developing the exit test for the graduated licensing.
Vehicle collisions continue to be the major social and medical problem here in Ontario. The situation is improving, but there remains much to be done. We are always looking for the solution, but of course there is no such thing. It's the accumulation of the many positive societal safety improvements such as increased seatbelt usage, less drinking and driving, better public awareness and enforcement campaigns, better trauma care, safer vehicles and better roads and signs that have made the difference.
The number one problem continues to be the person with the hands on the steering wheel: the driver. Of course, there are two categories of drivers: the novice or new driver and the experienced driver. Many of the latter, over time, become less careful and more aggressive. The novice driver is at high risk because of a lack of experience.
Graduated licensing is designed to provide this experience and the Ontario Safety League is confident that it will work successfully here in Ontario.
Graduated licensing will save lives and reduce injuries. The league supports the early introduction of this legislation. We suspect that many others who have presented before you have also expressed similar sentiments. That's great and therefore there should be no problem. But there is a problem.
By now you no doubt have heard and recorded objections to almost every aspect of the plan. You will also have heard presentations that are clearly self-serving. From this, you might conclude that the legislation is faulty and should be either rejected or sent back to MTO for a complete rewrite. Please do not do that. It is much better to implement graduated licensing now and commence reducing collisions than to delay its introduction in the elusive and impossible task of making a perfect plan. Let us not kill this long-awaited and welcomed initiative by over-attention.
Having said that, I should now emphasize that the Ontario Safety League supports the plan as proposed without amendment and sit down. Unfortunately, I cannot.
We can accept the plan for class G drivers. We cannot accept the proposal for motorcyclists. We cannot because of the key role we play in motorcycle training and monitoring in Ontario. We have an obligation to the Minister of Transportation, to your committee and indeed to the general public to express our concerns and to propose a workable solution.
Regrettably, the planning for a motorcycle graduated licensing system has been an afterthought throughout the development stages. Given the preponderance of cars to motorcycles on our roads, this is not surprising. Nevertheless, it must be put right. Fortunately, there is a simple solution that should be agreeable to all concerned. Let me first explain the problem; then I will propose a solution.
For 20 years, the Ontario Safety League has provided the Canada Safety Council's motorcycle training program in Ontario. From Thunder Bay to Windsor to Ottawa, a total of 14 community colleges deliver league-monitored motorcycle training to novice riders. Each year, approximately 6,000 motorcyclists graduate from these programs.
1440
The training program consists of 15 hours of on-bike training and five hours of classroom instruction. The program is designed to teach potential motorcyclists the correct and safe method of motorcycle operation.
The Canada Safety Council course is taught right across Canada, and indeed is highly regarded outside of Canada. All instructors are skilled motorcyclists and have been trained to teach the program. All are Canada Safety Council certified instructors. As mentioned, the Ontario Safety League monitors the instruction.
Motorcycles for the program are provided at no charge by member companies of the Motorcycle and Moped Industry Council, or MMIC, and I believe it made a presentation to you.
Since 1982, the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario, through its recognized/signing authority program, has recognized designated motorcycle instructors. These instructors teach the motorcycle course and then administer the ministry's motorcycle operator skills test at the community college training site upon completion of the training program. The wide availability of the training program and its reputation for administrative and instructional excellence has resulted in a broadly measured success. There are three significant successes of the program.
The first is the percentage of individuals taking training to obtain their motorcycle licence compared to the total number of motorcycle licences issued. MTO's 1991 statistics show that 66% of newly licensed motorcyclists voluntarily took and successfully completed the Canada Safety Council motorcycle training program. This compares with only 25% in 1986. In 1992, training registrations were higher than in 1991 and in 1993 our registrations exceed those of 1992. We are anticipating at this moment that three out of every four riders, or 75%, will have voluntarily taken professional motorcycle training to obtain their motorcycle licence in Ontario.
The second measure of success is the ability to attract young riders. In 1992, as part of a study conducted by Humber College's centre for transportation training, it was found that of 1,100 rider training students surveyed, novice motorcyclists between the age of 16 and 24 enrolled in training were heavily overrepresented compared with the licensed population in that age group. In other words, the training program is attracting exactly the age group most likely to be involved in accidents and collisions.
The third measure of success is the decline in the motorcycle accident rate between 1986 and 1992. Although there has been a reduction of 23% in the number of Ontario licensed motorcyclists, there has been a much larger concurrent decline in the number of fatalities and injury-producing accidents. Specifically, the number of fatal motorcycle accidents has dropped by an impressive 44%. Even more encouraging, the number of injury-producing motorcycle accidents has dropped by 54%.
As the percentage of riders engaged in professional training prior to operating a motorcycle has increased, the accident rate has declined. It is reasonable to conclude that training has had a positive impact on these figures.
All of this is very positive and I'm sure you would agree that forthcoming changes should be designed to assist and not hinder this most positive trend towards increased numbers of young novice motorcyclists seeking professional training.
Unfortunately, it is the league's belief that the graduated licensing plan for motorcyclists, as presently described, could result in a significant reduction in the number of novice riders seeking early training. This is so because the current legislation does not provide any encouragement to the novice motorcyclist to enroll in an early training program. Rather, the reduction of time spent at the second level of probation as a result of taking training is so modest as to be of little incentive. In any event, the training will simply be taken too late.
Study after study has shown that a motorcyclist is most at risk to accident involvement in the first six months of motorcycle operation. Consequently, the Ontario Safety League respectfully submits that the value of training and thus the incentive to be involved in training must be offered at the commencement of the rider's career.
To ensure novice riders are encouraged to take rider training prior to venturing on to the public roads and highways, the Ontario Safety League recommends the following five changes to the proposed draft legislation:
(1) The level 1 licence duration for a motorcyclist be extended to six months from two. The option for reduction to 60 days should be available for a rider who successfully completes a ministry approved rider training program.
(2) The level 2 licence for a motorcyclist be reduced from 22 months to a minimum period of 18 months. This then would ensure consistency with the class G licence total of 24 months.
(3) The level 1 exit test be the well-known and proven motorcycle operator's skill test II, or MOST II. This is the same test currently in use by all Canada Safety Council motorcycle training programs sponsors here in Ontario.
(4) The level 1 test be administered at ministry approved rider training sites following the successful completion of the Canada Safety Council motorcycle training program in accordance with common practice.
(5) Instructors, acting under the Ministry of Transportation's existing recognized/signing authority program, be authorized to conduct level 2 exit tests at approved training sites for applicants who qualify and wish to obtain a fully privileged motorcyclist licence.
The Ontario Safety League believes these recommendations, if adopted, will continue to support the most welcome decline in motorcycle collisions. Motorcyclists are unable to benefit from an experienced rider at their side during the earliest driving experiences. Future legislation must continue to support incentives for early enrolment in professional ministry-approved rider training programs.
The Ontario Safety League stands ready to continue to lead the way in novice motorcycle training in Canada and to assist MTO in achieving its goal of having the safest roads in Canada.
Mr Turnbull: When you talk about the first six months as being the most accident-prone for motorbike riders, I'm reminded of a situation that I heard of in Switzerland where a young boy got a motorbike without the permission of his parents at the bare age that he could get the licence. On his way home from taking delivery of the motorbike, he had a rather nasty accident where part of the motorbike was sticking through his legs and they had to literally dismount the part from the motorbike and transport him to a hospital and take it out, and all he could do was scream, "Don't tell my parents."
The suggestion that you make of changing level 1 from two months to six months was explored last week. One of the counterarguments to that was the fact that unlike a class G licence, we're letting somebody go without any accompaniment, for obvious reasons, so the quicker we can get them through level 1 and get them to a test situation, to test for their proficiency, it was suggested, the better. Could you comment on that?
Mr Sharpe: I don't follow the logic. As you've got it right now, level 1 is two months and level 2 is 22. Nothing that person can do can shorten that 60-day period. We feel that if he's got six months riding under the penalties of level 1 and you say, however, "We will reduce six to two if you take professional driver training," we believe that will attract, as in fact is currently happening, the rider to go on day one, before they get their licence and take the training at a professional site.
Then they'll realize they're still going to drive 60 days under level 1. Even the MTO's current proposal provides that and ours doesn't change it. We're not reducing that level of restriction. We're just suggesting that by having six months at that level 1 and having this carrot of reduction of four months, we think that will attract students to go on day one and take the training and not leave it to some time after, whereas if the carrot is only at level 2, we feel there's not going to be that incentive in the first 60 days to take training. They'll leave it till level 2, but when in level 2? Well, some time before the 22 months are up to get the four-month credit. They could wait for 16 months before they say, "I might as well go take that course now to get that credit." It's too late. Training must come early.
1450
Mr Turnbull: There was also a discussion last week as to whether -- we're talking about G class licences, but I'll extend it to the discussion of M licences -- we should perhaps have some compulsory component of training. You seem to be leaning in the direction that you'd like to incent people -- shall we put it that way.
Mr Sharpe: It's always a very interesting point, Mr Turnbull. In the Ontario Safety League's opinion, 100% of new drivers of vehicles, 100% of new motorcycle riders should take professional training. The roads would be safer.
How to achieve that? Let's make the law state it. The concern with that is that you now have got too many people, we believe, taking that training for the wrong reason. They might go with the wrong attitude and be unwilling and fighting and resisting, whereas if you can, by some other means short of legislation, provide carrots to get people to voluntarily seek out that training, we feel you have a better, attentive student who will be more willing to learn positively.
Mr Turnbull: In the case of motorbikes, should we be considering a three-step licensing process so that we do have at least some road test after a shorter period of time -- I'm thinking about the question, is it two months or is it six months? -- and perhaps have some bonusing for taking driver education?
Mr Sharpe: You understand of course that when the student graduates from one of the 14 community colleges, they are taking a road test. But the ministry has extended that testing privilege to the motorcycle instructor rather than having to go to an MTO examiner and be tested. In fact, there is far more control at the community college than if you go to the examination centre. You know, "Drive your bike around the block and come back and see me."
Mr Turnbull: Because you further spoke about working with the MTO on exit testing, could you comment on our tests at the moment and where you think we should be going with both level 1 and level 2? Perhaps you want to comment on both motorbike and G class licensing.
Mr Sharpe: If I could handle the car, I'll let Mr Morgan perhaps deal with the bike.
As you know, we're ready to start phase 2 of the exit test, and I have to tell you that when I mentioned that the motorcycle is an afterthought, we see it consistently. We've seen it at the study group on exit testing. We see the Insurance Bureau of Canada -- any group that comes and talks about it always deals with the car and doesn't mention the motorcycle.
However, in regard to the car, there could be many different methods of that level 2. Theoretically, it could be a simulator if you don't want to hire the staff facilities. I'm not suggesting that I'm a proponent of the simulator. My point is that if you go from simulator down to a one-on-one situation, my personal view and that of the league is that we still have to have a one-on-one examiner and a student and a much more difficult test than is currently rendered at level 1. That is going to be expensive. Again, I'm not here trying to solve that problem. First, I think that's where you should be rather than some cheaper, simpler way of doing that.
On motorcycles, I'll let Mr Morgan respond.
Mr Turnbull: Just before you move on to the motorcycles, can you comment? Is there any model in the world for automobile testing that you would lean towards?
Mr Sharpe: No. In phase 1 of our study we looked at all testing systems in the world to see if there was a model that we could adopt that would acceptably meet the Ontario standard and in fact we found no model that met our requirements. We've stated what we felt all those components should be of testing. No one is doing it. The closest thing we found was a new truck test in the United States of America. Basically what we're trying to take is what we hold to be the most essential components of testing and to take the US truck testing model and try and bring them together. That's phase 2, which we hope you will start shortly.
Mr Turnbull: Could you perhaps provide this committee with a copy of your criteria for a test model?
Mr Sharpe: Yes, although the request really should go to MTO, because it really is its study. I'm just a member of that committee, but I'm sure they would be happy to provide that.
Mr Turnbull: Perhaps we could get that from MTO.
The Chair: The request is noted. Would you like Mr Morgan to respond to the motorcycle issue, Mr Turnbull? Then we'll have to move on.
Mr Morgan: The test which is currently in use at one MTO test centre in Ontario and all of the community colleges that are running programs is the motorcycle operator's skill test, which is being proposed as the level 1 test. Currently, there is no level 2 test available. There have been several tests tried over the years by the Ministry of Transportation and in several states in the US, none of which is acceptable.
This does present a conundrum at this time. Nobody has come up with a solution for that yet. Level 1, yes; level 2, no.
Mr Gary Wilson: Thank you very much for your presentation. I'm really interested in the safety issue and how that can be worked on through training. I was therefore very interested to hear about your comments about how, if you mandate training, you get unwilling students and, I guess, poorer in that way. However, without the mandate you are going to get people who are interested in any case, so it is to reach that group who are willing students and are therefore going to be less likely to pick up good driving habits on their own. What about the mandating that everybody has to take a test? Is there any way of doing that to moderate the problems with it? There is the incentive through insurance, as we just heard from the previous people here.
Mr Sharpe: Currently with automobiles the incentive to take driver training -- about 130,000 a year take it, by the way, 80,000 through Ontario Safety League approved driving schools and about 50,000 through the secondary school driver ed program. There are over 300,000 newly licensed drivers each year. Mind you, that's licences issued, which could be people just moving in with current drivers' licences.
About 130,000 novice drivers are voluntarily seeking out driver training, and one of the big incentives of course is the insurance discount. The gentleman before me addressed that issue. Other than the odd person who really believes it's going to help, but more correctly parents who know it will help their children, it's the insurance discount that's the primary incentive.
Next year, with graduated licensing -- hopefully it will definitely be there -- there will be two incentives: the insurance discount, which hopefully will not be removed, and graduated licensing to reduce the time of driving under restriction. Hopefully, they will attract larger numbers, so we'll get beyond the 130,000 figure. The motorcycle is much more positive. We're now at 75% of riders voluntarily seeking out this training: very positive.
Mr Gary Wilson: How many motorcycle licences are granted?
Mr Morgan: For 1991, which are the most recent numbers available, it's just under 10,000 -- 9,000 and change -- and right now we're training around 70% of those people through a voluntary program.
Mr Gary Wilson: So are you suggesting that the changes you'd like to see really wouldn't amount to much change in what's happening already?
Mr Morgan: We just wish to reinforce that rider training has been successful and that there is an incentive there now and we would like that incentive to remain. Clearly, if we look at the numbers between just 1986 and 1991, which is a five-year span, there has been a dramatic increase. It also addresses the 16 to 24 age group which is heavily over-represented. It has become the method of choice to obtain a motorcycle operator's permit, via a training program. Fifteen years ago that was not the case.
Mr Sharpe: It's not expensive. You're looking at less than $300, because the bikes are provided in a professional setting by professionals. It's working. The program is fine.
Mr Mike Cooper (Kitchener-Wilmot): Just to let you know, I am a graduate of the Conestoga College course and I was on this committee last week. The first recommendation you have in here states, "The level 1 licence duration for a motorcyclist be extended to six months from two months." What would prevent somebody from getting it for six months and then next year going and reapplying and getting it for another six months and never moving out of level 1? That's one of the problems with extending it for six months, because usually the riding season is about six months. Somebody may just stay in level 1 for ever under your recommendation of the six-month extension, rather than two months.
Mr Morgan: If I understand correctly, the legislation as proposed is essentially no different from what is in place now, that being that you go and write a fairly simple test and you can continue to write that in perpetuity. The existing legislation and the proposed legislation, as I understand it, doesn't change that. Whether it's six months or two months, somebody can just go and do a written test and never do a skills test.
1500
Mr Hans Daigeler (Nepean): Thank you for an excellent presentation. I think you are making some very good recommendations that hopefully the ministry will take under careful consideration. I think especially the idea of reducing the period of level 1 by taking the course is a good idea and I do hope that goes somewhere.
You mentioned that you're involved in the training of our driving instructors. I think that whole area of our driving schools and our driving instructors is another area of concern. I think we've heard several times in these hearings that there doesn't seem to be enough regulation, I guess, and training for driving instructors. Apparently, there is a very limited type of qualification that you have in order to be a driving instructor. I'm wondering what your suggestions are to look at that area. How can we improve the driving school system in this province, and how are you involved in that yourself?
Mr Sharpe: We're off subject, but I'll gladly handle this question. Obviously, any system, any teaching method can be improved. There's always room for improvement and we always look for ways, but I can tell you this: I've done an analysis of all the driver teaching programs in all provinces and territories in Canada, and there's not a close second to Ontario in the quality of education being offered.
In some of your provinces, they don't even mandate a driving instructor. Anybody who wants to be a driving instructor just becomes a driving instructor. There are no standards. In many provinces, they don't differentiate between car instructor and classroom instructor. With the league's involvement, we've now built a whole second tier of classroom teaching. We don't let anybody become classroom -- you can't teach 20 people until you've taken the Ontario Safety League one-month course to prepare you for classroom teaching.
Mr Daigeler: I was just going to ask you, what is the requirement right now?
Mr Sharpe: The requirement right now is MTO standard. They must take a one-month, in-car instructor's course, very clearly laid out, and we're the principal deliverer of that program, although community colleges also may teach it. It's very clear and they have very good standards. We go beyond that. We insist that they be in-car instructors for one year. Then if they come back and want to be classroom teachers, and they are going to deal with more than just one student, there's an additional month: one week of technique instruction and three weeks of teaching skills for the classroom driving instructor. There is not a province, again, that prepares driving instructors to the extent that we are prepared in this province.
It's not perfect, but we are trying to continue to improve it. We have a revalidation program to bring the classroom teacher back to the classroom for revalidation.
Mr Offer: I very much appreciated your presentation. I think the points you make in terms of upping the level 1 from two months to six months are founded in some really commonsense approach dictated by your experience. I hope that in the short days this committee has left in dealing with this matter, we can hear from the to why it wouldn't accept this type of proposal. It seems that it tries, as best it can, to almost mirror the driver in the class G type of scenario. I think it does all the right things and it goes along the right route.
My question is around the zero blood alcohol level, and I brought this up the last time I asked a question. A lot of these young drivers are under 19. By law they must have a zero blood alcohol level, so to say that in level 1 a person under 19 has to have a zero blood alcohol level is really almost restating the existing law.
Would you be in favour of a penalty for drivers who are in the level 1 category and have a percentage of blood alcohol level, 0.05 or something of that nature, to have their privileges suspended for one year? Basically, obviously, if we are found as fully licensed drivers with a 0.08 and over, we suffer a penalty of one year if found guilty. Why shouldn't somebody who can't have anything and has something not suffer a similar penalty? I'd like to get your thoughts on that.
Mr Sharpe: I heard your question to the previous person sitting in this chair. Of course, if a novice driver goes and blows 0.08 the penalty's the same. I think the problem MTO has is that anything below 0.08 -- the law is 0.08 -- you're down below and so they're trying to establish some new scale of punishment, administrative penalties which Mr Domoney was explaining to you. That's why I think they got themselves into the situation. Because the alcohol content is less, the penalty really must be less. I think that's the problem they're going to have with trying to penalize somebody with less than 0.08, with the punishment as if he had 0.08 or higher. I think you are automatically going to have a lower punishment.
Mrs Caplan: I think the concern is that anyone under the age of 19 shouldn't have any blood alcohol level, so would it be possible to penalize if there was any trace? They are drinking illegally and driving a vehicle.
Mr Sharpe: I don't know if I can say any more. I haven't given a lot of thought to this. I'm sorry.
The Chair: Thank you, gentlemen, for appearing. You have provoked some interesting dialogue. We appreciate your taking the time to come down and leave your views with the committee.
Mr Gary Wilson: Mr Chair, if I may just correct one small thing in the appendix, I'm pretty sure that should read "St Lawrence College" against Kingston.
Mr Morgan: No, it should not. Durham College, through an arrangement with St Lawrence College, operates the program in Kingston. St Lawrence declined to continue its involvement.
Mr Gary Wilson: I see. Okay, thank you.
AL MAJAUSKAS
Mr Al Majauskas: My name is Al Majauskas. First, I'd like to thank the committee for the opportunity to make the presentation. I am a private citizen, a professional driving instructor and a parent.
Saving lives is the bottom line of graduated licensing, but the bottom line has been erased. The way graduated licensing is being presented today, the promise of saving lives is lost for the following reasons: Level 2 has too few restrictions and level 1 has no provision for mandatory driver training through an accredited school.
Let's look at the first area, being that level 2 has too few restrictions. As you're aware, the proposed restrictions are that the level 2 driver must have zero blood alcohol content, can carry passengers equalling available seat belts and can drive class G vehicles only. In practical terms, the only incentive to graduate from level 2 would be to be able to drink and drive. Otherwise, there is no difference from the present system. A new driver would be able to fill the car up with five friends and take off in their class G family car wherever they please. The only restriction that's different is zero blood alcohol level, and while I'm pleased at this very positive move, it's the only real restriction proposed under graduated licensing.
Without minimizing the alcohol factor in traffic fatalities, it is not the only factor. Lack of experience, too many distractions in the car and many other factors contribute to new driver fatalities, but none are addressed in the latest proposal. Graduated licensing is supposed to address all factors and force new drivers to restrict their driving to safer conditions. Under the present proposal, a new driver would be unrestricted and enjoy most of the risks of a fully licensed driver.
According to government statistics, the 16 to 19 age group represents almost half of all new drivers. The 16 to 24 age group represents almost one quarter of all fatalities, although it comprises 14% of all licensed drivers. Clearly, if any group of new drivers needs to be restricted during the first few years of obtaining their licences, it is this group.
It is a tragedy that it has taken this long to identify and admit that something needs to be done. Surely the opportunity has arrived with graduated licensing, yet the proposed level 2 does nothing of the sort. It is my feeling that more restrictions are needed at this level to ensure that all new drivers acquire more experience before graduating with full driving privileges, but it is especially important in the 16 to 24 age group.
I heard a radio report recently that certain experts were making arguments that the restrictions should be scaled down, that they're too tough. The arguments went on to suggest that if restrictions were made too tough, new drivers, namely, teenagers, would choose to delay level 2 by completely avoiding driving. Missing the benefit of level 2 and the necessary experience, they would take the road test and receive full driving privileges.
This argument assumes that it would be possible to pass a road test with no driving experience, which should not be possible. It also assumes that the general public presently supports a graduated system with fewer restrictions. In fact, polls show there is broad general support by all age groups for more restrictions.
1510
I'd like to meet those teenagers the experts are talking about. Imagine this scenario: "Thanks anyway, Dad, but I won't be needing the car for the next 12 months. I'm not putting up with all those stupid restrictions." Not very likely. Just as fully licensed drivers are limited by the Highway Traffic Act, new drivers will accept and conform to restrictions imposed by graduated licensing, and parents will have the backing of the law.
To continue, the original proposed restrictions for level 2 address the problems associated with new drivers, but it was watered down under pressure from isolated groups and individuals. It goes as follows: curfew from midnight to 5 am; zero blood alcohol; no passengers unless accompanied by a minimum four-year licensed driver; refrain from 400 series and multilane urban expressways; display a sign in the rear window that says "New Driver." How is the original proposal better? It addresses the problems associated with new drivers in the 16 to 24 age group. That is:
(1) A curfew: This limits the new driver from driving during the period when bars close, parties end, when normal fatigue sets in etc. Many fatalities occur late at night and the curfew simply reduces the number of young, inexperienced and immature drivers on the road. It's a pure numbers game in part. You can't get into trouble if you aren't on the road.
(2) Zero blood alcohol level: This is indisputable and is obviously a must. At any hour of the day, the last thing a new driver needs is further impairment during the steepest part of their learning curve.
(3) No passengers: This restriction would eliminate the peer pressure young drivers face during this period of their lives. The urge to please a friend, to show off, to compete is enormous, almost irresistible. The miracle is that there aren't more fatalities than we presently have. As each of us knows from personal experience, some of the things we did when we were teenagers can make you shudder today. That's why handing over the keys to the family car can be such a gut-wrenching experience the first few years, and then dreading the late-night phone calls until they're home safe. How many sons and daughters are killed every year as passengers of a new driver? How many of the parents tried and failed to convince their kids to stay out of a new driver's car, but failed because presently it's legal? New drivers can carry as many passengers as they wish.
Our own son used to drive to hang out with a friend who was bent on what to us seemed like suicide. His driving was so reckless it even scared our son. But because there was nothing illegal about driving with a new driver, this friend would fill his car with pals and off they'd go. Luckily, they always came home in one piece, but what we wouldn't have done for some sort of law that would have restricted this fellow from being able to have friends in his car for the first couple of years as a new driver.
No passengers totally eliminates peer pressure. It limits the number of fatalities and injuries by virtue of the reduced number of people in the car instead of the multiple fatalities that take place each year in Ontario. Just this morning, I heard on the radio about a 19-year-old driver involved in a crash, all his passengers being between 15 and 18. Luckily, all survived, but it illustrates how serious this problem is. New drivers out driving alone would be more apt to be responsible and simply present less risk to themselves and other motorists. With no distractions, they can concentrate on the task of driving.
(4) Expressways: Most accidents take place at intersections, driving off curves or even straights on two-lane paved and secondary roads. Expressways are the safest way to travel, and restricting their use would deprive new drivers of the experience to learn how to use them properly. I don't believe expressways or 400-series highways should be included on the list of restrictions.
(5) "New Driver" sign in the rear window: A standard sign displayed in the rear window should be part of the requirements of both levels. It would alert other motorists of the new driver's status and allow police to monitor the new driver's behaviour without the need to actually stop them. Trucking companies do this more often now as a way of keeping their drivers on the level: a "How is my driving?" sign with a company phone number on the back. Countries such as Britain require a special L plate attached to the front and rear bumpers of any car used by a new driver until a full licence is acquired.
Yes, some drivers may remove the sign and take their chances, but the penalty for doing so would discourage this. Suggesting that anything more than a tiny minority of new drivers would abuse a sign requirement would be a bit of a stretch. Most people are law-abiding and would comply with the rules.
I would ask the critics opposed to displaying a sign for their reasons why. Presently, we label handicapped drivers. Transport vehicles must display a sign describing hazardous goods. Vehicles of every description have signs describing their business, with company names, phone numbers etc. What is so terrible about a sign in the back window that would simply let other motorists know that this person is a new driver?
The second point I'd like to talk about is mandatory driver training at level 1. We expect that anyone learning a new skill should take special training under controlled conditions with a carefully prepared program. We retrain workers for new careers. People go to night school. It costs money and it takes time, but in the end new skills are learned and employers have a reasonable expectation of what that worker will be able to do when presented with a certificate of completion.
We have schools for every imaginable task and people enrol to capacity because it provides certain guarantees. It helps us get jobs. It helps us become competent in a particular field. It helps us keep the job. It builds a solid foundation for future learning in that area. It's a basic premise in our society. We accept it and it's expected. We take courses to shoot guns, to fly planes, to learn computers, to swim, academics and so on.
Yet to this day we can apply for a driving permit, take some basic lessons from mom or dad or a friend, drive to the store a few times and maybe drive to the cottage, and within weeks set up a road test, pass, and bang, instant motorist. And it's legal. Without a single minute of instruction on driving skills by a trained and qualified instructor, anyone can, with a bit of effort, obtain their licence, mix in with traffic, operate a ton and a half of machinery and hope that nothing untoward happens.
That's basically it. It's hasn't changed since motorcars were invented, and we've been killing ourselves ever since.
A compulsory driver training course would provide each new driver with at least minimum knowledge and skill. Many companies require their drivers to take upgrades. They know it pays off. Reluctant employees soon realize what they didn't know and become excellent, safe drivers. Company records prove it's worth the cost. Airlines require constant retraining and upgrades. They know skills get rusty; even highly trained professionals. What do these organizations know that we in the general motoring public don't know?
If even just 5% fewer deaths occurred, or about 200 lives, each year because of mandatory driver training, would it be worth it? Think of the friend who lost a loved one. What would they say?
Insurance companies recognize the value of driver training and give discounts to new drivers who complete the standard 10 hours of in-car and 25 hours of in-class instruction through an accredited school.
Mandatory driver training at level 1 should be a basic requirement and the level 1 period could be shortened to a standard eight months instead of the 12 months presently proposed without training.
For comparison, I've included some information on New Zealand's recent experience with graduated licensing. Listed below are data on traffic fatalities in New Zealand, broken down by age group, from 1989 to 1991. As the table shows, a 30% decline in fatalities occurred in the 15 to 19 age bracket in 1991 compared to 1989.
There are figures showing motor vehicle fatalities among the general population. A decline of 3.8 fatalities per 100,000 occurred in 1991 compared to the previous four-year average, coinciding with graduated licensing. Both tables show a decline that takes place immediately after graduated licensing is implemented.
Outlined below is a summary of restrictions in the New Zealand graduated system. At level 1, all applicants are required to meet the following: eye test; written test, must pass 23 out of 25 and 4 out of 5 on specific questions; oral test, must pass 4 out of 5; must have less than 0.03 blood alcohol level; a 20-year-old, two-year-licensed driver must be present at all times; a six-month minimum period before eligible to take level 2 or three months if attending driver training.
1520
At level 2, applicants must have less that 0.03 blood alcohol; no passengers without a 20-year-old, two-year-licensed driver; no night driving, 10 pm to 5 am, without a 20-year-old, two-year-licensed driver; 18 month period must elapse before full licensing can take place, which is reduced to 9 months if defensive or advanced driver training taken.
Finally, I'd like to summarize the main points of my presentation.
At level 1, as proposed by the ministry, it reads as follows: You must be at least 16 years of age and be medically fit. You must pass a vision test. You must pass the written test. You must maintain zero blood alcohol. You must be accompanied by a fully licensed driver of at least four years' experience who has a class G licence and less than 0.05% blood alcohol. You must display a sign that says "New Driver." You must drive class G vehicles only. You must pass a road test before proceeding to level 2.
I would like to see the following restrictions added to level 1: (1) You must complete driver training by a qualified instructor at an accredited school within the level 1 period. (2) Refrain from driving from 10 pm to 5 am. (3) No passengers except one fully licensed driver with at least four years' experience. (4) Level 1 would last eight months.
At level 2, as proposed by the ministry, it says maintain zero blood alcohol; drive class G vehicle only; limit the number of passengers carried to the number of seatbelts; and after completing minimum 12 months, must take an advanced, real world road test, focusing on hazardous situations, avoidance and defensive driving.
The following are changes I would like to see made at level 2: (1) Curfew from 10 pm to 5 am; (2) Must display a sign that reads "New driver." This last restriction would be added and would replace the corresponding proposed restriction that permits passengers, that being, no passengers except for licensed drivers at least 20 years of age and four years' experience. That would be it.
We all agree that a graduated licensing system is long overdue. I've tried to add value and meaning to the points that were already proposed to make graduated licensing effective and lasting, one that will carry us far into the future generations of new drivers. Ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much. This concludes my presentation.
The Chair: Thank you. Mr Wilson, you've got about three minutes.
Mr Gary Wilson: I'd like to share two with Mr Wood.
The Chair: Remind yourself of that, then, Mr Wilson.
Mr Gary Wilson: Yes, will do. Thanks very much, Mr Majauskas, for your presentation.
I'd like to ask you about the mandatory driving. First of all, have you had experience with the driving test; that is, with that kind of driving instruction?
Mr Majauskas: The driving instruction or driving test?
Mr Gary Wilson: Sorry, the driving instruction. You called for mandatory --
Mr Majauskas: Yes.
Mr Gary Wilson: What's your experience with that?
Mr Majauskas: With driving instruction as it stands right now? I'm not sure how you mean.
Mr Gary Wilson: For instance, you're not an instructor yourself.
Mr Majauskas: Yes, I am.
Mr Gary Wilson: Oh, you are an instructor.
Mr Majauskas: Yes.
Mr Gary Wilson: I see.
Mr Majauskas: It's not a self-serving presentation. I only mentioned that as an aside. It's not meant to be a self-serving statement.
Mr Gary Wilson: Sure. I'm glad to have an instructor here. We've been told that you've got to have some road instruction to be an instructor and then you have classroom as well if you want to do more. Which level are you at?
Mr Majauskas: I'm what you would call a level 1 instructor, I guess. There isn't a designation as such. I don't teach classroom yet, but I am a fully qualified driving instructor.
Mr Gary Wilson: Have you any idea what your students' driving record is like after they graduate?
Mr Majauskas: We don't keep records ourselves. We do know that in our own particular school we do surveys once in a while, and it seems to be acceptable. We do hear about the odd nick, but we haven't heard of anything that would worry us. However, it's not a scientific survey by any stretch.
Mr Gary Wilson: What's the cost?
Mr Majauskas: Our course would be $500.
Mr Gary Wilson: What does that get you?
Mr Majauskas: Typically, they range from $200 to $500. That's for an insurance program that qualifies you for the 40% discount that insurance companies give on average.
Mr Gary Wilson: You mean the higher rate qualifies you for the insurance?
Mr Majauskas: It depends on the school. As long as you take 10 hours of actual driving and 25 hours in class instruction at an accredited school, you qualify for a discount. You get a certificate, which is all that's required for the Insurance Brokers Association of Ontario.
Mr Wood: I noticed that on expressways, your feeling is that the 400 series are probably safer than some of the other terrain highways.
Mr Majauskas: Yes.
Mr Wood: I want you to comment on that. Previous presenters are saying that one of the reasons that they feel they should be excluded from drivers who are learning was that when they're merging on to the 400 series or exiting -- there are only the three different speed limits on the highways, I guess, depending on where you are. They're either 80 kilometres, 90 kilometres or 100 kilometres, and I just want to know if you want to elaborate more on that.
I made the comment to the previous presenters that being from the north, when I'm travelling the 400 series highways, I don't see anybody coming at me in the wrong direction. I know it has happened. People have made a U-turn and caused accidents. In the north, that happens pretty well on a regular basis. Somebody's trying to get around a transport and boom, all of a sudden you're making room for three vehicles on there. I just wondered if you wanted to elaborate more on your feelings on that.
Mr Majauskas: Our school experience shows that, first of all, expressway driving is not one of the lower priorities but it's one of the easier things to teach. The hardest thing to teach is urban-type driving: intersections, lane changes, traffic turns, residential driving. We are able to advance to expressway driving very easily once we've taught everything else. Once you teach lane-changing, traffic turns and basic manoeuvres, expressways are very easy. In fact, we stress it about to the level of parking and three-point turns. To us, you can learn just as much by driving on minor collectors such as Ellesmere Road, for example.
There's a lot of fear about driving on expressways. When we get our students on the first day, they ask us, "Are you going to take us on an expressway?" We usually tell them, "No, but we're going to be driving a lot around in the city, and once we get on the expressway, you're going to find that it's a lot easier."
The fear is there, but after about six or seven hours of driving, when we take them out, invariably they will tell us that the expressway driving was very easy and that the experience is extremely relaxing compared to driving in residential areas where you have a lot of parked cars and a lot of complicated manoeuvres at traffic intersections. The hardest thing to teach is traffic turns and lane changes. Those are very time-consuming. Very few have any trouble at all whatsoever on expressways. So I would keep that off.
1530
Mr Daigeler: Thank you very much for coming as an individual to make a presentation. Obviously, most of the presenters who are coming represent various groups and it's always nice to see individuals make the effort to come here.
I appreciate the position you're coming from. You want to significantly strengthen this proposal here. I have some sympathy with what you're saying. It's difficult to argue. This could possibly save even more lives, so I do think you make a good point. At the same time, we're moving here almost from no restrictions to pretty well making it impossible for a young person to drive, or making it very, very tough. I guess the ministry's approach is a graduated approach, which I think has something to be argued for as well.
When you were talking about the way you're teaching the young people, you were referring to the technical difficulties. You were saying that on the 400 highways, it's really relaxing, whereas it's much more complicated in the city traffic. But what worries me most is that it's not just that you have to learn the technique, but you have to learn the responsibility.
It worries me somewhat when you say it's relaxing on the 401. That's why the ministry perhaps is saying they shouldn't be allowed on the 401 or on the 400s, because the speed is so high and they may be relaxing and then all of a sudden something happens and the accident then is very serious.
Frankly, I was of your view at the beginning of the hearings, and I've become more convinced that perhaps it is a good idea to restrict the driving on the 400s because of the nature of the accidents. There may be fewer accidents, but if there are accidents, they're usually very serious.
How do we teach young people to be responsible? We can teach them technique, but it's that responsibility. You're saying that simply by limiting the number of people in the car would be one way. Well, it's one way, but it's pretty draconian, of course.
Mr Majauskas: But it works. It works in New Zealand.
I think the focus has to be on the young group. The older people of course are going to be affected, and there are regions that have problems with it as well. I think the whole idea behind the graduated is to restrict the kids, especially the young males, who have a lot of pressure to perform. Whether they're in a car or whether they're not in a car, the pressure to perform in all different sorts of ways is there.
The restrictions simply prevent a lot of the situations where they're forced to perform from taking place: (a) You eliminate the friends from the car; (b) You eliminate them from those times late at night. Do they have to be on the road? Does a 16-year-old have to be out after 10 o'clock in a car when there's a lot of other people who are drinking and a lot of friends are coming from parties and so on? By restricting times, by restricting the number of people in the car, you eliminate a lot of the reasons they are having problems on the road and getting involved in fatal accidents.
My feeling is that driver training at level 1 provides them with some basic abilities and skills. The restrictions limit the amount of time they could be on the road during the times that cause the most fatalities. It's been proven to work. If there's a better way, I'd like to hear about it, but so far New Zealand and some states that have used restrictions have found that the fatalities went down dramatically overnight.
A 30% drop for us would be tremendous in terms of fatalities. It's the only thing we have to work with. If you take away those restrictions, you take away the effectiveness of the system. That's why I feel so strongly about them.
Mr Turnbull: On your consideration of changing the curfew hours from midnight to 5, to 10 to 5, I take it that's principally because of the question of pubs turning out around midnight and more drink --
Mr Majauskas: There's the Friday and Saturday night problem with groups of teenagers; the alcohol factor and the parties is a real serious problem. In my experience I do get young teenagers and their conversation often turns to the aspect of peer pressure. The anecdotes you hear would shock you: "My friends got drunk. They were drunk. I was the only sober one and I had to drive home. I haven't even got a license." These are not bragging stories; they're truthful stories. These kids have a license, they go get drunk and they drive home. They take their chances.
Mr Turnbull: Yes. I'm not disagreeing with you that these things happen, although certainly statistics suggest that today we have a much lower incidence, fortunately, of kids driving with alcohol in them than we had 20 years ago.
One of the very few objections to graduated licenses that we've had expressed here is the concern for rural residents who have no transportation service available to them. I would put it to you that if we were to change it to a 10 pm curfew, this would potentially cause a serious hardship for those people who live in those rural areas, in northern Ontario particularly, and perhaps would encourage people to just simply drive illegally.
Mr Majauskas: It's obviously a problem and we did talk about that very problem. The exceptions for shift workers and the people in rural areas obviously have to be addressed in some kind of way that would allow them to get to and from their activities.
I think that if a 16-year-old has to go home from a basketball game at 10 o'clock at night or 11 o'clock at night and load his younger friends in the car and then go home along Concession 10 in the middle of winter, that is a questionable idea for any parent. I think parents want to have the legal backing of the law to say: "No, I'm sorry, you can't do that. You can't borrow the car. You can't be home past 10 and you can't have any people in your car." I think every parent would sleep a lot better if they knew that Sally isn't going to climb into the car like that.
It does affect a minority of people in the country. My own son lives in the country and I know I'm more concerned about driving out there in the rural conditions than in the urban areas because of the open nature of the kind of driving they do there. It's wide-open spaces and so on.
As a parent of a 15-year-old clamouring for his 16th birthday, I'm very happy to see that we'll have the backing that he will never climb into a new driver's car unless he's 20 years old. He's also not going to be allowed, hopefully, to be out driving after a certain hour. He'll not be piling his friends into his car, borrowing our car for that purpose.
You have to weigh the positive and the impact it would have against the real concerns of these people who are saying, "Yes, it's a problem logistically," but I think the parents are going to have to get up, take their nightclothes off and get into the car and drive the kids home.
Mr Turnbull: Turning to your suggestion of mandatory driver education, once again there is the cost factor that is raised and, as well as that, the availability of this in some of the more remote areas of the province. Perhaps you could comment on that.
Mr Majauskas: Again, I don't mean to sound as if this is a self-serving presentation on my part, but the cost factor is also something we talked about. It's a real problem. I think that again it's a cost, like anything else, that we have to bear, and whether we have programs or grants to assist people who have a problem, I don't know. But look at it in another way. The insurance discounts that will come from this will pay for -- there's an income tax deduction on the parent's salary as well as the discount. On $2,000, 40% more than covers the cost.
The insurance discount, the safety factor, the reduced likelihood of a claim against the insurance on the family car and so on I think far outweigh the $500 cost. If a parent or a child is willing to pay $3,000 or $4,000 for a car and $2,000 for insurance, then I think $500 is a small price to pay.
Mr Turnbull: Just explain that income tax credit for the parents again.
Mr Majauskas: The fee is actually deductible off their income tax. It's actually completely deductible.
Mr Turnbull: You've just made one parent very happy now that you've told me about that. Thank you.
Mr Majauskas: Make sure you get your receipt.
The Chair: Mr Majauskas, thank you. Your views are important to the committee and they've played a valuable role in the process. We trust that you'll stay in touch with the committee through the clerk, any member of this committee or indeed any MPP, and we thank you for dropping in and presenting your views today.
1540
TORONTO BOARD OF EDUCATION
The Chair: The next scheduled witness is the Toronto Board of Education. I don't know whether we have the whole board or representatives of the board. I would assume representatives of the board.
Mr Ron Kendall: First of all, I'd like to thank the committee for taking us at short notice. We found out about the committee about two weeks ago during some discussion and thought it was important that we appear. At very short notice you took us and we appreciate that.
My name is Ron Kendall. I'm the supervising principal for continuing education for the Toronto Board of Education. One of the responsibilities of my department, apart from night school, summer school and a variety of other programs, is driver education. Our board feels very strongly about driver education and we thought we should come and make a presentation about driver education to you.
Mr Dan Keegan: I'm Dan Keegan. I'm a driver education teacher with the Toronto Board of Education.
Ms Fara Ladhani: My name is Fara Ladhani. I'm a representative of City Driving School who is working with the Toronto board currently in implementing a driver education course.
Mr Kendall: There is a document I passed out to you which has not been made especially for you put rather is passed out to all students or parents who are interested in the course. It describes the course the way we have set it up. The reason I asked Fara to come with us is that we consider ourselves partners with the firm Fara represents, City Driving.
Essentially, what we do, and I'm not sure if you've gone into this before or not, is that we have a driver education program which is 30 hours of in-class instruction taught by instructors who may or may not be Ontario teacher's certificate teachers but certainly do have a driver education in-class instruction card. Then we have 30 hours of in-car instruction, 10 of which is behind the wheel. The way that is set up is that there are three youngsters put in each car. One has a turn behind the wheel while the other two sit in the back seat and watch.
That's the nature of our program. It has changed a little bit this year. Primarily, I'm here to describe what we do and to make an offer to you. It's up to you whether you accept it or not. Essentially, we're concerned with the type of curriculum that is in driver education. We have a course outline and we do offer that, but we understand that with the new type of graduated licensing, perhaps more is in order.
We teach from a document that is produced by the Ministry of Transportation called Roadworthy. That is where we get our basic outline. We're concerned that perhaps that should be reviewed in light of the new process you're talking about, and also that perhaps we should be looking at another driver course, perhaps call it driver education 2, which you may want to consider coming in after one has reached the level 2 part of the program you're talking about.
What we'd like to do is make the offer to you that the Toronto board, with its expertise, is represented not only by the two individuals on either side of me but by a number of in-class instructors and a number of in-car instructors working with Fara, who would be pleased to share their expertise with any smaller group that would be interested in taking a look at the curriculum and conducting a review of it as such. That is our sole purpose really in being here.
My superintendent, Dr Beggs, is aware of our presence here today. I should describe to you the Toronto board's commitment to driver education. We feel pretty strongly about it. Last spring, we received notification that the Ministry of Education would no longer be financing the in-class portion of the driver education program. My understanding is that a number of boards then decided that they would not have driver education, starting in the summer or for ever after.
I felt strongly and so did my immediate boss, Superintendent Beggs, and we've worked out a situation where we still charge the same amount to a student for the City Driving component, which is $235.40. We reckoned what it costs for our in-class instructor, and figuring on a class of 15, came up with another charge of $60. Now the total charge, and you can see that on the blue sheet, is approximately $312. We are still offering the course. That course in its present form, starting this fall, is not costing the taxpayers of Toronto one penny. It is completely self-operating except for my time involved in the course.
Again, I emphasize the offer from the Toronto Board of Education, and I would not be surprised, if a few other boards were approached, if they too would be interested in participating in some curriculum review and perhaps putting a new course forward for the after level 2 section. That's all I have to say.
Mr Daigeler: Thank you for coming before the committee and offering your cooperation. I'm sure the ministry will be glad to follow up on that. I'm serious about this. I think they will, because obviously with the level 2 examination there will be changes to their curriculum. We haven't really seen any details on it. I understand they're working with various people on developing the tests, and of course with the test comes the curriculum, so I certainly do expect that the ministry will be involving you, anybody else who is knowledgeable, and those, obviously, who will be providing the training to make sure that they know what's required and generally improve our training system.
I want to ask you, though, you were here when the previous presentation was made, and we have heard the argument several times that this really isn't tough enough, that this isn't much of a graduated licensing system and that really, once you're in level 2, which could happen after eight months, you're more or less scot-free. How do you see that? You're involved with a lot of young people. Do you feel that if we were really to disallow any passengers other than the driver or somebody -- I think the last one said somebody who's at least 20 years of age and has so much driving experience -- would that really encourage our young people to break the law? How do you see that?
Mr Kendall: One comment: We have about 750 youngsters a year in our driver education programs. We have that many.
In answer to your question, my personal opinion: I also am a parent of two driving daughters. Quite frankly, I think if there are three or more in a car, there is a problem. I personally -- and I speak not as a professional driver education instructor; my job is in administration -- cannot see the difficulty in having another person or two in the car. I think where the problem --
Mr Daigeler: You don't see that as too difficult?
Mr Kendall: I don't, no. I think where the problem arises is where there is a gang in the car, and by a gang I mean a gang, five or six or seven, illegally, but they do it. I think that's when the driver can become distracted and perhaps react to peer pressure more. If there are very few youngsters in the car, I don't think it has the same chance of happening. That's a personal opinion.
Mr Daigeler: Just one quick one before I pass it on to Mrs Caplan: I'm sure your board is involved in -- what is it called? -- PRIDE, that program against alcohol.
Mr Kendall: Yes, PRIDE; not my particular department.
Mr Daigeler: PRIDE. That's what I thought. Have they continued to be involved? The funding has been cut back on that as well. Is the board promoting something in that regard itself?
Mr Kendall: My understanding is that it is more of a school-centred rather than a board-centred program.
Perhaps I could make a response. Somebody made another comment about the idea that having designated drivers is really coming along very well. In my experience with young people and my own family, I've noticed that it is true. Young people are very, very cognizant of the dangers of alcohol, and when they go out, there is a designated driver before they go and that person doesn't drink. I really have to give it to young people that they do stick by that, much more than when I was that age.
1550
Mrs Caplan: I agree with your previous comments. I think young teenagers today are very aware, that we've done an excellent job as far as education is concerned. Certainly, the young people I've had contact with are very responsible about designating the designated driver.
The question I have is: Your courses are available to anyone over the age of 16, whether they're a full-time student in the schools or not. Is that true?
Mr Kendall: Our courses at the present time are available to students with the Toronto Board of Education only, not students from Scarborough nor adults. Because of when they are run, which is after regular school -- they usually start at about 3:30 in the afternoon and go on till 5:30 or 6 -- it makes it very easy to run a program like that. If we opened it to other people, we'd have more difficulty.
Mrs Caplan: Does the Toronto Board of Education have a significant size adult education program, new immigrants and so forth, who would qualify for instruction in your classes?
Mr Kendall: Yes, we have. The total number, for example, of English-as-a-second-language programming would be at about 80,000 per year.
Mrs Caplan: I know that having access to these kinds of programs is very important, particularly for new immigrants who come to Ontario. My riding is a large immigrant reception centre. I know there's a lot of concern about the impact of graduated licensing on new immigrants who have licences from other countries but want to be able to upgrade those skills to meet Ontario standards. As far as you're concerned, at this point in time you don't know of any program through the boards of education that would respond to that need?
Mr Kendall: The only other program that I know of besides ours that we're involved in does not deal with folks who have recently come to the country; rather, it deals with seniors. There is an upgrading course for seniors who I guess get nervous before they have to take the course again when they reach the age of 80, so there's a program such as that which is available.
One concern that I have, if I could mention it to you, is the time limitation. My understanding, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, is that the implementation of this could be as soon as the end of next June. We run a summer program, and we need some lead time. It would be appreciated, if you did decide to take advantage of the expertise that is here, if you would let us know some time ahead of time.
Mr Turnbull: Ron, it's good to see you again. Given the relative unanimity among all parties, I think you can take it as read that this legislation will be enforced next year. So I think you can go ahead and plan on it.
Mr Kendall: Good.
Mr Turnbull: My question would be: From your experience as an educator, aside from the cost factors, if we were to try and have compulsory driver education, would that have a detrimental effect in terms of how people would receive education, as opposed to making it something which people can avail themselves of?
Mr Kendall: I don't think it would. We have mandatory education and I don't think it's detrimental. I don't think it would be with driver education. It could be a headache to administer because every youngster who wanted to get a licence would have to take that course. But my reading is that an awful lot of kids are into it now. Of course, the carrot, if I can call it that, is that right now the insurance is substantially less for a youngster who has taken driver education than for one who has not taken driver education. That also encourages parents, who usually are the ones who are paying for the insurance.
Mr Turnbull: Could you comment on the course curriculum? When I learned to drive in England, I have to say it was a lot harder to get a licence in England than it is today in Canada. Have you looked at any other models of driver education, and where do you think we should be going with driver education?
Mr Kendall: Could I pass that over to Dan Keegan? He has done some research on this.
I think that in England there isn't any classroom teaching involved. In England, you go with an approved instructor and you go through that process. The road test is very difficult, so you have to take a certain number of lessons.
Here, we try to cover everything a driver might ever need to know in 30 hours in the classroom. We go through everything, from the responsibilities of driving to control of the car, traffic rules and regulations, highway driving, freeway driving, winter driving, insurance, everything.
I think that's out of date. I don't think it's possible. There's a huge boredom factor unless you're an outstanding teacher, and even if you are, at 3:30 to 6:30 there's the fatigue factor setting in. I don't think we should be using the same type of curriculum under graduated licensing.
Mr Turnbull: What should we be doing?
Mr Keegan: What I would see and what I hear more and more of the experts talking about is a beginner's curriculum where you learn basics and there would be in-car and classroom involved. Then at some later stage there would be the opportunity for the more mature driver to become involved in discussion format programs where they would be able to clarify their values or go through some process that would improve their attitudes. They would be able to consult with one another on what their values were. There would be some guidance from a skilled counsellor.
Mr Turnbull: Would you see benefit, if there was any violation of the terms of graduated licensing, if in level 2 people violated those, that they would be demoted down to level 1 again?
Mr Keegan: Yes, I think that sounds like it would be a good idea. One thing I've noticed in listening to the various presenters is that there hasn't been much mention of education as a factor. It has all been problems with flexibility and a lot about rural drivers and so on. I would ask: Why not solve those problems with educational modules, if you like? If somebody needs to drive sooner in the countryside or needs to drive unaccompanied, why not offer them the option of taking an educational pathway?
Mr Turnbull: Of course, with graduated licences, to the extent that you take an approved education course, you can get through level 1, which most of the people see as a stumbling block because they need an accompanying driver, in eight months as opposed to a year, so that time incentive is built in at the moment. Is there enough of an incentive?
Mr Keegan: I don't think there is. If somebody doesn't want to take it or pay for it, I think the only thing that would save driver education programs that we offer now would be the insurance discounts.
Mr Turnbull: So you would like to see the insurance companies be more aggressive in terms of incenting people to take driver education.
Mr Keegan: I think more incentives would be very valuable.
Mr Gary Wilson: I'd like to continue this line of questioning. I wrote down "750 involved in the program." Is that what you said?
Mr Kendall: That's 750 over a year, yes.
Mr Gary Wilson: Over a year. How many is that out of the potential number who could enrol?
Mr Kendall: I don't know what the total number would be -- well, I can give you a count of all the youngsters in the Toronto board. It would be those who were able to apply for their licence and --
Mr Gary Wilson: That strikes me as a bit low, though. Does it seem to you that you're getting all you would expect?
Mr Kendall: No, we're not, and there are a number of youngsters who take the program with private institutions.
Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): Free enterprise is not so bad.
Mr Gary Wilson: Well, I don't know. We'd have to get the record, and the price might be different too. Do you know what the --
Mr Jackson: We are subsidizing the schools.
Mr Kendall: No, sir, you're not.
Mr Jackson: Who pays for the vehicles?
Mr Kendall: It is $335. City Driving pays for the vehicles. They're not ours.
Mr Jackson: Well, recently you've changed.
Interjections.
Mr Gary Wilson: For his edification, I think he should know what's happening, so I don't mind.
Mr Kendall: I've been there for three years and the driving school has always paid for its own vehicles.
Mr Gary Wilson: Right. Of course, the cost is a major factor, but let's go right to the issue of mandatory. Would you like to see it made mandatory for all the students?
Mr Kendall: The driver education program?
Mr Gary Wilson: Yes, the driver education program.
Mr Kendall: I have to say yes, some type of driver education program.
Mr Gary Wilson: The question of motivation was raised by an earlier presenter, saying that if you have to force people into it, you would have problems with the kind of instruction and it won't be as good. Do you think that's a major consideration?
Mr Kendall: No, not any more than the regular courses in the high school program that we have today. The youngsters are forced to go to school, and some of the courses they like and some of them they don't. I would think, as a youngster, that I would myself really like a driver education course. It would be a lot more fun than some others I can think of.
1600
Mr Gary Wilson: Oh, we won't get into that. I want to check about the standards that are applied for teachers of driving instruction. Do you think that they're high enough, that their education, their courses for the instructors are rigorous enough?
Mr Kendall: My understanding -- Dan, correct me if I'm wrong -- is that there is a four- or six-week course given at York University in the summer. It provides you with a certificate for teaching in-class driver education. Now, I cannot comment at all about the courses for in-car instructors.
Mr Keegan: The teachers in the high school system had to take that York University course, but that's changed now. You don't have to be a certified teacher to teach the high school. You can actually get those programs now through community colleges. York University would be one alternative, and the community colleges or the Ontario Safety League.
Mr Kendall: What about in-car instructors, Fara?
Ms Ladhani: They have courses through the community colleges as well as the Ontario Safety League. It's not four to six weeks; usually they can do it in a couple of weeks. Sometimes they have crash course, things where it's like every day for a week. Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing maybe a more rigorous course for them to take.
The in-class teachers we have are not bachelors of arts or whatever; however, they have to have a minimum number of in-car instruction experience. I believe it's 1200 hours. There's a minimum number before they can even go on to take the in-class instructor's course to be able to teach in the classroom. There are minimum requirements, but there's room to have more. But it is sufficient right now with the current courses that we have going.
Mr Gary Wilson: Is there any requirement to update your training too?
Ms Ladhani: Our in-class teachers actually have to go through an update every two years with the Ontario Safety League. Currently, the Ontario Safety League doesn't have anything for in-car instructors, but it is available, I think, if they want to go back on their own accord to improve their own skills. Our in-class teachers do have to take a refresher course every two years.
Mr Gary Wilson: Do you think there's any problem with making the education mandatory?
Ms Ladhani: Personally, no. I think it's a good thing. I remember, when I was taking my driver's ed course, that it did help enormously. I know a lot of attitudes haven't been that way, but I think they are changing. A lot of the students who come into our classes privately at City Driving School, come out and then even voice their opinions -- they put them in writing -- that they're much better for taking the course. They recommend it to all their friends, their families. I think making the course mandatory would be an idea. I don't know if it would be the first thing to do once graduated licensing came in. It might be something further down the road, once everyone adjusts to the graduated licensing system after it's implemented.
The Chair: Thank you for appearing. Your offer to assist in developing new curriculum if it's required has been noted and acknowledged. Seated behind you in the audience are two Ministry of Transportation officials, Mr Domoney and Mr Levine, who were taking notes fast and furiously as you made your presentation. You may wish to speak to them before you leave.
DAVID STEWART
The Chair: Next is Mr David Stewart. Good afternoon, and welcome. You have been with us in the audience, I think, from the start of these hearings. I'm pleased to see you here presenting this afternoon. I think you probably know all there is to know about presenting to this committee, so just proceed at your leisure.
Mr David Stewart: I also know you have a tight time schedule as far as going to airports to go up to Ottawa is concerned, so I will be quick. I do talk fairly quickly, so maybe I'll talk even more quickly today.
Good afternoon. My name is David Stewart. I'm here as a citizen of the province of Ontario.
Mr Chairman, honourable members of the standing committee, I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to be here today to present this brief to you. Although it has my personal name on it, I firmly believe that many of the views expressed are similar to those of thousands of individuals across the province, many of whom I have had the pleasure to talk with at road safety events over the past decade.
This brief will focus more on motorcycle licensing, and that will be self-explanatory. I have listened for the last three days of these hearings to the many interesting presentations made, including the one led by the MMIC on behalf of some motorcycle organizations and also the one this afternoon by the Ontario Safety League. Included with my brief is a copy of a new report that deals in depth with fatal motorcycle collisions in Ontario, together with six written submissions gathered from members of the motorcycle public in Ontario.
Similar to some of the people who have testified here, I too had parents who imposed their own graduated licensing system on me when I started to drive. I certainly consider myself lucky to have been taught car driving by an excellent instructor who also encouraged me to further my goals after passing the basic road test by applying for an advanced test. With extra instruction and after one year of experience on the roads, I was able to pass that extremely difficult test. All of the instruction and practical driving I have done since then has not stopped me from being involved in some collisions in many years of driving, but it has helped me to avoid countless other potential collisions.
I have been a driver and a motorcycle rider since I was 16, I have taught car driving and motorcycle riding and I was a licensed motorcycle riding examiner in the province of Ontario. I have raced, and I still race, believe it or not, both cars and motorcycles. I am still active in promoting the use of speed of a motorcycle in the proper place. For several years now, I have been considered an expert in relation to motorcycle collisions and have testified in courts and coroners' inquests on the subject.
On average, I spend about 30 hours a week spending volunteer time to promote safety and I've met an awful lot of interesting people over that more than a decade now, many of whom have testified before you.
I've written several papers on motorcycle safety and I'm a member of those organizations that are included in the brief. I was a founding member of the Motorcycle Rider Safety Council. I am glad to say that I have now left them to find their own way, and hopefully they will keep surviving out there.
The annual loss of life on our roads has become an acceptable social disease to many. Few major incentives have been undertaken to reform our ability to obtain drivers' licences, get training, and improve testing procedures and incentives to upgrade our driving skills after obtaining a licence. The proposed graduated licensing system is, I believe, the one incentive that will be seen in the near future to have been the most beneficial action ever undertaken, even ahead of design technology, that will save lives on our highways.
I implore you not to delay. Bring in a system by the spring of 1994 and keep improving it as time goes on. This is one area where you have the support of the majority of the general public. Responsible parents need this legislation to reinforce their views to their children. All parents need the legislation to keep their children as safe as possible while they gain experience using our roads.
During this past year, I was named as the chair of a new national road safety committee for the Canadian Motorcycle Association. However, similar to many things in safety, due to the lack of enthusiasm of its members the committee has yet to formally sit. However, in March of this year I was able to complete a study on behalf of the Canadian Motorcycle Association that dealt with fatal motorcycle collisions in the province. This was a first of its kind in the province.
I do not want to bore you with too many facts of recurring problems of motorcycle-related deaths. However, if you can cast your eyes to the Ontario map on the wall there, you will see many green dots. Each of these was the loss of at least one human life as a result of a motorcycle crash on our highways during 1989. Again, I must re-emphasize exactly what Dr James Young said, that each one of these human lives is important. It was a loss of a life but it affected many other people. Most of these deaths occurred in southern Ontario, as you can see from the map.
In the report presented to you there are many facts, including those on page 6, where there's reference to the higher death rate of motorcycle riders, and we heard that before, compared to other road users, and the numbers of motorcycles on our roads.
The motorcycle market has been in a depression since the mid-1980s. Contrary to the suggestion by Mr Robert Ramsay of the MMIC -- and again this afternoon by the Ontario Safety League; different figures -- that a 49.2% reduction in motorcycle fatalities was achieved by rider training in community colleges, I respectfully suggest that this was probably due more to the greater reduction in sales and the use of motorcycles on our roads.
1610
Motorcycle sales increased greatly from the 1970s through to the 1980s, when the North American market was inundated with larger and more powerful motorcycles. With this increase, there also came an increase in motorcycle deaths, due partly to the many people taking up motorcycling at that time in the same way as a child would pick up a toy and play with it for a while. They got into motorcycling without too much thought. Unfortunately, many of these people did not learn that these toys can be dangerous, and we recorded their deaths one after another.
Provincial governments did try to react to rising motorcycle deaths in the 1980s, and in fact in 1985 it was people within the rider training establishments and the motorcycle industry who stopped progressive efforts by that government at that time that could have reduced fatalities.
Most motorcycle deaths occur in the peak summer months and at weekends, as you'll see in the report. On page 11, you will see that the age profiles of riders being killed are shifting from the younger rider to riders aged between 20 and 24. That is also due to the demographics of the people entering motorcycling at this present date and time, until the market changes. If this market changes and we get cheap motorcycles on the road, I guarantee you will see the same deaths as you saw climbing in the late 1970s and into the early 1980s. Most of these riders who were killed and shown in this report owned their own motorcycles.
In the everyday collisions on our roads, motorcycle riders are only to blame for 40% of the collisions. That's every day, where you have a little fall, have a little collision, and 40% of the time the motorcycle rider is at fault. You will never stop all collisions. You can stop fatal collisions and you should stop them, because when it comes to motorcycle riders, the motorcycle riders themselves, people like me in some ways are to blame for 70% of those deaths to themselves.
When you talk about excessive speeds and engine size of the motorcycles, you may be aware of a study completed by Dr Herb Simpson of the Traffic Injury Research Foundation of Canada. That was paid for by the industry. Dr Herb Simpson could find no conclusive proof worldwide that larger motorcycles were overinvolved in crashes. I applaud Dr Simpson's efforts over the years to introduce graduated licensing, and he's the one who wants to see new road users gradually exposed to traffic.
Dr Simpson has stated that he likes reassurance when he is being flown in an airplane, that he likes to know the pilot has a proper licence to fly that plane. Why then would we want a system that allows a motorcycle rider to be able to start riding on our highways on any size of motorcycle after taking only a basic vision and road knowledge test? To hundreds of people I've come in contact with, including some motorcycle dealers themselves, it just seems that common sense dictates that an inexperienced rider should not have easy access to extremely fast motorcycles, unless of course they can show proficiency in their use.
The very serious problem of alcohol abuse by motorcycle riders is covered in detail in the report. With balance, coordination and judgement being primary factors for riding safely, it seems ludicrous that alcohol has the prominence that is seen in these deaths. Motorcycle riders have, however, for years led the way to be more likely to be involved in drinking and driving and becoming a fatality. I've heard many times, unfortunately, that some people have said that riders usually kill themselves, so no great effort should be made for their safety. It's not just the attitudes of motorcycle riders we have to change within society.
In a survey of 404 people conducted at a police motorcycle safety display in a 1988 motorcycle show in Toronto, 55% of those people said that the BAC, blood alcohol concentration, should be lower for motorcycle riders than car drivers and 75% said that the present motorcycle licensing system at that time was inadequate. It hasn't changed; the system is still the same. In response to problems seen regarding unlicensed riders, 60% of these respondents said that motorcycle sales should be made only to licensed riders. As I said, these replies came primarily from motorcycle riders themselves at this show.
When I am asked by parents whose children want to learn to ride a motorcycle, I advise them at the beginning learning on a dirt bike. Then they can progress to learning on a straight motorcycle in a closed road situation, similar to the Canada Safety Council or Ontario Safety League course, before going out on the roadway.
On the subject of what size of a motorcycle to buy, I've always advised someone with less than two years of experience to consider a bike of no more than 400 cc's. Modern technology gives these motorcycles enough power of acceleration and power of stopping to give that rush of adrenalin for new people coming on to the highway on motorcycles. Then after two years, if they want that bigger bike, go out and get one, provided you take another training course, preferably now with instruction on the responsible use of speed included.
I have no major objections to the proposed module being presented by the ministry. However, I'd like to put forward these following suggestions.
Upon motorcycle riders passing the basic road test in level 1, lift the restriction of prohibited highways but keep the 60-day minimum time frame. That's in response to people saying earlier in the hearings about they want an incentive there.
Achieve a method whereby actual road experience and not purely time is shown to exit from one level to another. I know there may be problems. I don't have the solution. I have concerns that contrary to views expressed by other briefs to this committee, many drivers-riders may wait out time periods, and to allow for that occurring, we should make sure that the testing procedures are of a high standard. I've even heard employers saying, "If we have to wait for a certain time period, we'll find him another job in the meantime where he's not driving."
Where a person holds a full licence, a driver-rider with in excess of nine points should revert back to level 2.
If convicted of a speeding offence on a motorcycle, a rider should be counselled to take a speed-training course.
For any drinking-driving offence on a motorcycle, the rider's vehicle permit should be suspended and the licence plate returned to the ministry until that person undergoes medical assessment.
The early intervention of the present probationary system of six points should be kept in effect in conjunction with the new graduated system.
Motorcycle riders presently have to wait for up to three months at the beginning of each year to get a community college course. You've heard two briefs from two people of importance as to why they see it going to six months. I suggest to you that this may be one of your answers, why it won't go up to -- people out there have a problem at the beginning of the year. You can get a motorcycle training course at the end of the year in two weeks, three weeks. At the beginning of the year, you can wait two to three months because of a lack of availability. Under the control of the ministry, there could be promotion for the opening of other vehicle training establishments, apart from the now Ontario Safety League.
Introduce provincial legislation whereby 50 milligrams is the maximum BAC permitted in Ontario for any driver of a motor vehicle and adopt it as a condition of being granted a driver's licence. Violating the conditions of a driver's licence at the moment is a $90 out-of-court settlement. I believe that introducing this as a condition can greatly assist road safety, and it can also help law enforcement of the federal drinking-driving laws.
Promotion or incentive from the Insurance Bureau of Canada for drivers to take professional training at skid schools and advanced car and motorcycle training schools that we have here in Ontario, many of which are the finest in the world. In fact, we have one that is the only one in the world.
Police officers on the street should have computer access to the temporary driver's licence history of new drivers. That is still not in effect and has been asked for in previous coroners' juries' recommendations.
Temporary licences should not be renewable without the exams and an interview by a Ministry of Transportation officer as to why a time extension by way of a new temporary licence is required. The present system where you can just go in and get one after another should terminate now.
Only one qualified driver should be in the front seat with a G level 1. Also, no distractions allowed. I have seen the use of car phones, even by driving instructors while they're training somebody on the roadway, and other possible items of distraction: loud radios. Take my son's car stereo for example.
Speeding convictions of up to 15 kilometres an hour over the speed limit should have a minimum of two points.
All moving violations should have at least two demerit points. If you have ever seen the court systems, you will see paralegal firms now wheeling and dealing to make sure that person gets no points by changing one offence to another. I suggest that can be stopped by bringing these two sections in.
If a car test is taken on an automatic gearbox, the driver should be licensed only for that type of car.
If a basic motorcycle road test is performed on a motorcycle of less than 400 cc, then the restriction should be in place until the rider passes the advanced in-traffic road test. This will include all present motorcycle training courses where small-displacement, 125 cc, dual purpose machines are most frequently used, the machines supplied by the industry to the motorcycle training centres in Ontario. This may also match up with standards apparently to be implemented by the European Community where new riders will probably be restricted to 400 cc for a first machine and there will be an overall ban on street motorcycles which are in excess of 100 bhp.
1620
To allow for easier identification of the motorcycle, all motorcycle licence plates should be larger and/or reflective.
Vehicle markers should be displayed for all class M level 1 until the basic road test is completed.
The motorcycle operator skill test should be taken by a rider wanting to ride on the highway and not attending a motorcycle rider training course. Before a new rider gets a chance to go on the road, he should be given a test.
In agreement with the Canadian Automobile Association, people who don't really know that much about motorcycles, with all due respect to them, I agree that the basic road test for class M level 2 should be an in-traffic test, not an off-road enclosed away from the real world.
If the motorcycle advisory committee which has been asked for was to be implemented, there should be representation from the general riding population, the vast majority of whom are not members of any club. There are only about 4% of our total population that are actually club members in Ontario. Most people are just individual motorcycle riders.
Standards for driving instructors and the driving tests are far too low and should be improved.
Included with my brief are the replies received by the Canadian Motorcycle Association to a request we made in a national motorcycle magazine to all riders to send their suggestions regarding graduated licensing. There were only six replies from Ontario. That's bad, but in other requests for different information, there was only maybe one letter or two, so we thought we were great getting six replies. These are included in this brief. You can see from those that they suggest testing on bikes that were being used by them and not borrowed. In other words, people were borrowing motorcycles to go to the testing centres and then going off on their own bikes, which were totally different. Do real-world training, not off-traffic, engine size restrictions for new riders and lower blood alcohol concentration.
The May proclamation ceremony that was held in Queen's Park on motorcycle safety that I attended again this year showed the usual apathy of even motorcycle riders, people who profess an awful lot, and you've heard and seen many briefs dealing with motorcycles, more so maybe in percentage to car drivers. The only time any number of riders got together was to go to the insurance board hearings a few years ago when about 200 showed up to protest what was happening with insurance.
In my research since 1976, many coroners' court recommendations have been implemented; however, nothing has been done to date regarding in-traffic testing, and also for police to have computer access for temporary licence details of road users.
Some briefs have included the request that collisions should be included as a factor in exiting various levels. The new collision reporting centres that are operating now in Toronto, in most cases, people going to those centres to report collisions do not get charged. This means there is presently discrimination against many drivers who do not live in areas where these new facilities exist and are unfortunate enough to be involved in a minor collision.
There is no training course, not even the MOST that you've heard so much about, that shows conclusive proof of lower collision rates for their graduates. However, the courses do give them the skills required to perform driving tests. What generally happens, you will find, is that most people drive with 95% of their skills that they've been taught, no matter the level of training, so if they go for more skills, the automatic thing is people say, "Oh, I can do that much there," and they don't allow themselves a balance.
Community colleges make substantial profits through rider training, in part due to the contribution by the MMIC of free use of small, dual purpose motorcycles. Courses should be affordable. Rider training fees have increased each year and if the demand for training continues, each college will keep putting up its prices to the point that only those fortunate to have lots of money will take the course, and generally these people are not those who are found in the fatality profile. Even in this time of restraint, there was no shortage of applicants for courses, as you've heard, and some Canadian colleges were even looking to expand their schools into the USA when there is a need for expansion here to accommodate riders throughout the province.
When this legislation is passed, the government will be giving a golden handshake to its community colleges and other commercial training establishments to train drivers. I hope that all of these establishments put some of this money back into road safety and that they also keep the costs to a level where everyone in the province can afford to be taught to use our roads proficiently.
The Chair: Questions, Mr Jackson.
Mr Jackson: No, I don't have any at the moment. I want to thank Mr Stewart, and Hansard should show that there are actually three briefs he's tabled with us at this time, one which I'm just now trying to get through, Fatal Motorcycle Collisions in the Province of Ontario, your analysis, so I just want to thank you for your presentation. Give me time to absorb the second brief.
Mr Cooper: As we discussed earlier with the Ontario Safety League about the six months rather than the two months that are being proposed, how would you solve this? One of the problems is that when you try to harmonize it with the G licence, when you're talking about the two-year period, if you reduce it back, what you may end up with is a winter period where people are going for their motorcycle licence, to get an exit from level 2, and there's probably not too much incentive. It's quite a difficulty how you would set this up to give incentive, first of all, to take the course, because if you went to six months, there's not much incentive. You could ride for six months, take the test the next time and ride for six months, year after year. What's your solution here for time?
Mr David Stewart: One of the things I've asked for is, do not allow repeat licences to be issued without having a basic road test. I hope that would stop it.
I think you also have to remember, as you're well aware, that riding a motorcycle and driving a car are two totally different skills. One is far more demanding than the other, and it's not the car driving. The profile that I have seen in all the research that I've done for over 15 years of research now is that there is a high-risk person out there who goes into motorcycle riding who has certain characteristics. Some of these may be able to be caught by the new testing systems that are being explored now by the Traffic Injury Research Foundation and other agencies.
Certainly, a lot of these riders are getting involved in the first six months. In other words, as soon as they get out on to the roads with a motorcycle, they're becoming a target waiting for a fatality to happen. I would hope that we can capture those. I don't honestly think we should allow easy access for someone to get a motorcycle and get out on the roads and play with the traffic. They virtually play chicken with the traffic.
Mr Cooper: I know when I got my licence, I had bought my bike first, before I went for the course. I was actually riding to the course. I noticed a number of women who were in the course especially, they're more noticeable, where they had never even touched a bike, and the amount they progressed from the course. They were quite confident going out. But a lot of my friends just went and got the bikes and didn't take any course, and they were quite weak on the road.
I know that in one of the proposals, you're saying it's 0.05% for motorcycle riding. So you want a dual standard for drinking, for blood alcohol?
Mr David Stewart: Zero BAC.
Mr Cooper: Zero BAC across the board for everybody?
Mr David Stewart: Zero BAC the whole way. As far as motorcycles are concerned, zero BAC. It has to be for two wheels, because of the balance coordination judgement. With cars, you're sitting there, you've got four wheels. Sure, you need the same skills, but do you need as many? Maybe not. As you can understand maybe from my accent, I'm a little bit Irish, so I've got no problem with having a drink. I can tolerate up to 0.05%, which is a worldwide accepted tolerance for impaired driving in a car. However, when you talk of two wheels, it has to be a zero BAC.
Mr Cooper: I know when I took the course, they really highly stressed the blood alcohol because of the balance thing and the awareness.
Mr David Stewart: You'll see from the statistics there that for these riders who get these motorcycles, the BAC is way out of all proportion. Most of them are way above the legal limit and most of them, again, are even higher than that.
Mr Cooper: Basically, you're saying that we have a mandatory course before you're allowed to ride.
Mr David Stewart: I don't think you have to have a mandatory course, but encouragement for people to take courses away from the traffic, first of all, off-road, in dirt, whatever. There's one manufacturer at the moment who has that type of facility within easy access to Toronto, so there's a place for someone to learn in an off-road capacity there.
We have OSL-Canada Safety Council courses where now you can take those skills and come down to an enclosed, safe area where you can learn to ride a street motorcycle on pavement. Once you've mastered that, then you can go out and have your 60-day out on the road; at that 60-day, then road test at that point again, in traffic this time. So a road test after taking the off-road, enclosed pavement course, similar to the CSC, and then out into the traffic, maximum 60- to 90-day period, and you have to take an in-traffic course.
Mr Cooper: The graduated cc's, has that proven to be effective in places like England?
Mr David Stewart: There's no conclusive proof in the world, as was found by Dr Herb Simpson. That doesn't mean to say that there weren't areas and countries where they found proof that it did help. What generally was found was that it relocated the problem. In other words, instead of getting a 750 cc bike, they then dropped it down to 400. The profile of the person didn't change, just the machine. So we used the speed on the machine. The technology now, of course, is you can kill yourself at 160 kilometres an hour the same as you can do at 260, which is the technology we have for new riders to go on the roads with.
Mr Daigeler: Thank you for your concern for the safety you want, which has been evident for many years, according to your brief. Even though perhaps not as many people are interested in it as you would like, I think it's extremely important that people such as you who are motorcycle fans are promoting the cause among their peers. Perhaps that's my first question: Why does it seem to be so difficult to get through to the motorcycle fans? How are you trying to spread the message among your friends?
Mr David Stewart: A lot of people get into motorcycling with the attitude that was found in the 1980s, that it was just a toy that you can lift up and drop down, the same as Ski-Dooing. We see each year the fatalities with Ski-Dooing. There's a different attitude with snowmobile users. They've got a major club in Ontario. They talk safety among themselves.
Motorcycle riders are more individuals, as I explained there. They're not group people per se. Only about 4% of motorcycle riders in Ontario actually belong to some form of club and take part and interact, talking about safety. Most motorcycle riders just get out, jump on to a machine, go and have a ride, come back and that's it. They generally only do it for about three or four months a year. There are very few really hard, dedicated motorcycle riders out there, and I'm sure Mr Cooper probably is one of those people who rides more than just three months of the year.
Mr Daigeler: So it's, I guess, very difficult.
Mr David Stewart: It's an uphill struggle. I know the ministry, certainly at the time in 1985, wanted to do things. Two of the key players at that time who were supposed to be looking after people's safety wanted nothing to do with the incentives the government was putting forward at that time.
Mr Daigeler: Actually, that was going to be my next question: Do you know what those restrictions were at the time?
Mr David Stewart: I was part of the hearings at that time. It was probably one of the first major meetings I had between MTO and other key players. Until that time, I was on the sidelines. We talked about engine size and we talked about mandatory training. The riders' establishment, CSC-OSL, didn't want it because they said: "We only have volunteer people who come on weekends and it's not a high-paying job for them. We couldn't afford to do a course if we were to take on full-time people. That's why we don't want mandatory training."
Engine size restrictions were before MMIC commissioned TIRF to do the studies, but at that time the industry said, "No, no, no." At that time, from 1982 onwards, virtually every motorcycle in a dealership was more than 500 cc. Generally, they were round about 700 cc. If you wanted to buy a small cc-size bike to be introduced into it, in the mid-1980s there just wasn't one available. Markets now have changed.
Mr Daigeler: I think the way you analysed this is very interesting. You also made another observation that I appreciated. You cast into doubt the explanation of the reduction in motorcycle accidents. Earlier it was said that probably the increased driver education had something to do with the reduction, and you say no, it's probably the increase in motorcycle sales.
Mr David Stewart: I'm not saying conclusively. I'm suggesting there may be something else.
Mr Daigeler: Yes, I understand that. Perhaps someone from the ministry might help us at a later date, whether the increased sales were taken into account in the analysis of the accident figures or not, whether these are just raw data that we got or whether there is sort of a per-thousand on the road type of thing and whether that has in fact declined over the last 10 years.
Mr David Stewart: Even the major study carried out by Dr Harry Hurt in California, which was really in-depth, could find not enough exposure data, in other words, how many miles each person or each motorcycle of each size was out on the roadway. Without that, there is no conclusive proof. Nobody can put actual facts on the table.
The Chair: Mr Stewart, thank you for appearing. I would like to acknowledge the fact that you've heard every presentation to the committee, certainly while we've been here in Toronto, and haven't missed one.
Mr David Stewart: Unfortunately, I can't join you in Ottawa; otherwise I would.
The Chair: I would have to say that it certainly demonstrates to me a real, sincere interest in the issue. In the event that you can't make it to Ottawa, you can certainly stay in touch with the committee through the clerk and obtain Hansard of the hearings in Ottawa. I'd like to thank you on behalf of the entire committee for being here this afternoon.
The committee is adjourned until 10 am tomorrow at the Delta Hotel in Ottawa.
The committee adjourned at 1635.