Thursday, December 10, 2009

Random breath tests could prevent hundreds of crashes: doctor

Source: Victoria Times Colonist

BRITISH COLUMBIA - Hundreds of crashes, injuries and deaths caused by drunk driving could be prevented each year in B.C. if police were given the legal authority to conduct random roadside breath testing, according to a B.C. doctor.

Dr. Roy Purssell, a Vancouver Hospital emergency room doctor, co-wrote an article requesting lawmakers change police policy to prevent the collisions.

"It may be the hardest part of my job, telling family members their loved one has died as a result of an impaired driving accident," Purssell said yesterday.

In his B.C. Medical Journal article, co-written with two University of Western Ontario law professors, Purssell said that numerous countries in Europe have already implemented the change with life-saving effects.

Federal Justice Minister Rob Nicholson said recently he wants to give police power to conduct random roadside tests.

Currently, police can administer breathalyzer tests only if they have a reasonable suspicion of drunk driving.

1 comments:

Peter (Associate Editor) said...

Justin, thanks for your comments.

First off, I want to be sure we're talking about the same thing. By 'random breath testing', we're referring to testing EVERY driver at a checkpoint, checkstop, RIDE or what-have-you.

Currently, in Canada, police require cause to subject a driver to a breath test. At a checkstop, the police detain each vehicle, and ask drivers whether they've been drinking, in order to ascertain they are impaired or not.

Typically, once you roll down your window, police may pick up on the smell of alcohol that hits them when the window comes down, or they may notice physical signs of impairment when questioning the driver, whether it be through the driver's speech, demeanour, reaction to light, etc.

The difficulty in this is that this is not foolproof. Many impaired drivers 'survive the RIDE' and continue on their merry way. Especially included in this group are experienced and long-time drinkers, who, while still legally impaired, do not outwardly exhibit those signs of impairment when stopped roadside. These, especially, are the types of drivers who would be caught and prosecuted with the implementation of random breath testing.

The fear for impaired drivers is not that they're going to be charged -- it's that they're going to be caught. By increasing the likelihood that an impaired driver is going to be caught and apprehended, whether it be via random breath testing or by someone calling 9-1-1 to report them, you reduce the number of people who will choose to drink and drive. Simply said, if drivers knew 100% of the time that they'd be caught drinking and driving, you'd eliminate the problem overnight.

Part of the problem I see with roadside testing in the USA, and I've also seen it in Canada, is the publishing of checkpoint locations by police. To me, this totally defeats the purpose, as the people who make the criminal choice of drinking and driving will take an alternate route home. Usually it's a route the drunk driver is less familiar with, which only serves to exacerbate the potential for collisions. As a result, like you say, the police are then stopping hundreds of cars with little or nothing to show for it. What a waste of taxpayers' dollars.

Perhaps this article, which I blogged yesterday (Dec 16th), better helps explain my POV.

December 16, 2009 11:54 AM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

News Archive

This month's poll: Do first time, convicted drunk drivers deserve house arrest?