Public distracted as Campbell government "consults" on driving

The Office of the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles deserves credit for launching a consultation process on June 30 on distracted driving. Nobody wants to be in front of the guy who’s text-messaging his girlfriend. Kudos to the bureaucrats if they're considering a clampdown.

But the way this process is unfolding is typical of the Gordon Campbell government's approach to public consultation.

The news release was issued on June 30, right before a holiday when relatively few people are paying attention.

The deadline for submitting responses is August 7, which means that this consultation will occur when many  British Columbians  are on holidays and are  not focusing on public affairs.

There’s no information in the news release about where comments can be submitted.

If you hit a link within the news release and scroll to the bottom, there’s an e-mail comment form requesting responses to five specific questions. It's not an open-ended process.

The government conducted similar e-mail consultations on the Residential Tenancy Act and on consumer protection.

It's becoming a B.C. Liberal trademark: no public meetings, no Web site listing other submissions from the public or vested interests (unlike the CRTC, which does this), and no major effort to draw attention to the process.

The Ministry of Public Safety and Office of the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles have released a discussion paper, which includes some troubling information about driver distraction.

Approximately 25 percent of accidents are linked to this, which can include anything from talking on a cellphone to being distracted by anything else.

The top cause of distraction, according to an ICBC observational study in 2006, was cellphones, which suggests we'll soon see restrictions on using a cellphone while driving.

In 2008, an Angus Reid poll reported that 85 percent of British Columbians want drivers banned from using hand-held cellular phones while behind the wheel.

The discussion paper notes that talking to a passenger in a vehicle is not as distracting as speaking to someone on a hands-free cellphone. That’s because the passenger is aware of the situation on the road and can look out for hazards.

Moreover, the discussion paper claims, cellphone conversations “suppress brain activity necessary for perceptual input”. There are references at the back of the discussion paper if anyone wants to know where this information originated.

According to an estimate by Transport Canada--which is cited in the discussion paper--road crashes cost B.C. approximately $8.8 billion each year.  

A five-week e-mail consultation process launched before a national holiday hardly does justice to the importance of this issue. Then again, e-mail consultations didn't do justice to the issues of consumer protection or residential-tenancy legislation, either.

Comments

4 Comments

John Newcomb

Jul 2, 2009 at 12:41pm

This spring, a couple of UVic Geography students did an excellent report on cellphone use at sampled intersections in Victoria.
http://ocs.sfu.ca/fedcan/index.php/cag2009/cag2009/paper/view/1489/0
Interesting that their study reported that the gender of most cellphone users at the intersections tended to be male. One of the assumptions that could be made is that its more hazardous to be using a cellphone at an intersection than on a straight freeway, and if that were true, could one option (now illegal) be to operate cellphone jammers at intersections?

0 0Rating: 0

Scott2nd

Jul 2, 2009 at 2:34pm

It's already against the law to drive while talking on a cellphone. It's called "driving without undo care or concern".

People don't follow the current law so what good will a new law do? It comes down to enforcement and there is simply no way to enforce this.

0 0Rating: 0

chipmunk L

Jul 2, 2009 at 4:23pm

The idiots are going faster on freeways or straight stretches, so just as stupid where-ever they are.

Get the word out on this!

Find the links from the article and send in your opinion on the 6 questions. There seems to be room there for new ideas too, as it's blank reply form. Keep it simple, and just maybe.....

0 0Rating: 0

capt. crunch

Jul 2, 2009 at 10:59pm

Scott2nd is correct, there are already laws to deal with people's stupidity but what's the use of introducing news one's when the old ones are ignored?

0 0Rating: 0