GO TO CMA Home
GO TO Inside CMA
GO TO Advocacy and Communications
GO TO Member Services
GO TO Publications
GO TO Professional Development
GO TO Clinical Resources

GO TO What's New
GO TO Contact CMA
GO TO Web Site Search
GO TO Web Site Map


CMAJ
CMAJ - April 18, 2000JAMC - le 18 avril 2000

Changing drinking-and-driving behaviour: the effects of Ontario's administrative driver's licence suspension law

Robert E. Mann, Reginald G. Smart, Gina Stoduto, Edward M. Adlaf, Evelyn Vingilis, Douglas Beirness, Robert Lamble

CMAJ 2000;162:1141-2

In response to calls from many groups, including the Canadian Medical Association1 and the Ontario Medical Association,2 for legislative action to curb drunk driving, the Ontario government introduced an administrative driver's licence suspension law,3 which came into effect on Nov. 29, 1996. Before the implementation of this law, a driver in Ontario who was charged with driving a motor vehicle when his or her blood alcohol level was above the legal limit could have had his or her licence suspended for 12 hours at the time the charge was laid. Under the new law, if a driver is charged with refusing to provide a breath sample or driving with a blood alcohol level over 80 mg%, his or her driver's licence is suspended by the Registrar of Motor Vehicles, for a period of 90 days, at the time the charge is laid.

Administrative suspension laws such as this one have been introduced in 7 Canadian provinces and territories and are being considered in several others. They can have important specific and general deterrent effects in reducing alcohol-related collisions, these effects depending on public awareness of the laws.4,5,6,7,8,9 Information about the new Ontario law was spread through a series of press releases and media events. Anecdotal evidence suggests that excellent media coverage was achieved throughout the month of December 1996 and later, although media attention appeared to drop off in January 1997 and afterward.

We report here on public awareness of Ontario's administrative suspension law and its impact on self-reported drinking-and-driving behaviour. The data were obtained from the 1996 and 1997 cycles of the Ontario Drug Monitor survey of Ontario adults.10,11 The total unweighted sample of adults 18 years of age and over was 2721 in 1996 and 2776 in 1997, and the response rates were 64% and 67% for the 2 years respectively. The responses were weighted to account for nonresponse and sampling probability related to stratification to reflect a representative sample of Ontario adults. The survey contained 2 questions assessing self-reported driving after drinking and 5 questions assessing knowledge of potential consequences for a driver charged with driving with a blood alcohol level over the legal limit of 80 mg% (Table 1).

A comparison of the responses before and after the introduction of the administrative suspension law (Table 1) indicates that public awareness improved. Before implementation, 51.8% of the respondents mistakenly thought that the sanction for driving with a blood alcohol level of more than 80 mg% was a 90-day suspension of the driver's licence. After implementation, 76.0% correctly identified this sanction, which suggested an increased level of awareness. The fact that after the implementation of the administrative suspension law 32.1% of the respondents mistakenly believed that the driver would spend 48 hours in jail indicates a further need for public education.

It is encouraging that the proportion of drinkers who reported driving after drinking decreased significantly after implementation of the administrative suspension law. The prevalence of self-reported driving after drinking 2 or more drinks in the previous hour (for the preceding 30 days) dropped by about 35% after the introduction of the administrative suspension law. These reductions remained significant after we controlled for demographic and background variables.

These are important early indications of the impact of Ontario's administrative driver's licence suspension law in reducing drinking and driving. A reduction in drinking-and-driving behaviour of the magnitude suggested here would be predicted to have a significant impact on alcohol-related crashes, and it will thus be important to examine data concerning such crashes when they become available.

This research was supported by a grant from the Alcoholic Beverage Medical Research Foundation.

We are grateful to Anca Ialomiteanu, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, for her assistance with technical aspects of managing the Ontario Drug Monitor data set.

Competing interests: None declared.

Comments Send a letter to the editor
Envoyez une lettre à la rédaction

Drs. Mann, Smart and Adlaf and Ms. Stoduto are with the Social, Prevention and Health Policy Research Department, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto, Ont. Drs. Mann and Adlaf are also with the Department of Public Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont. Dr. Vingilis is with the Population and Community Health Unit, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Western Ontario, London, Ont. Dr. Beirness is with the Traffic Injury Research Foundation, Ottawa, Ont. Dr. Lamble is with the Road Safety Program Office, Road User Safety Branch, Ontario Ministry of Transportation, Downsview, Ont.

Reprint requests to: Dr. Robert E. Mann, Social, Prevention and Health Policy Research Department, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, 33 Russell St., Toronto ON M5S 2S1; fax 416 595-6899; robert_mann@camh.net

References

  1. Canadian Medical Association. Substance abuse and driving: a CMA review. Ottawa: The Association; 1989.
  2. Ontario Medical Association. An OMA position paper on drinking and driving. Toronto: The Association; 1994.
  3. Highway Traffic Act RSO 1990, c H.8, s 48.3, as amended by SO 1996, c 20.
  4. Mann RE, Vingilis ER, Gavin D, Adlaf E, Anglin L. Sentence severity and the drinking driver: relationships with traffic safety outcome. Accid Anal Prev 1991;23:483-91. [MEDLINE]
  5. Homel R. Random breath testing and random stopping programs in Australia. In: Wilson RJ, Mann RE, editors. Drinking and driving: advances in research and prevention. New York: Guilford Press; 1990. p. 159-202.
  6. Vingilis ER. A new look at deterrence. In: Wilson RJ, Mann RE, editors. Drinking and driving: advances in research and prevention. New York: Guilford Press; 1990. p. 99-115.
  7. Vingilis E, Blefgen H, Lei H, Sykora K, Mann RE. An evaluation of the deterrent impact of Ontario's 12-hour licence suspension law. Accid Anal Prev 1988;20:9-17. [MEDLINE]
  8. Mann RE, Macdonald S, Stoduto G, Shaikh A, Bondy S. Assessing the potential impact of lowering the legal blood alcohol limit to 50 mg% in Canada. Ottawa: Transport Canada; 1998. Publ no. TR 13321 E.
  9. Beirness DJ, Simpson HM, Mayhew DR, Jonah B. The impact of administrative licence suspension and vehicle impoundment for DWI in Manitoba. In: Mercier-Guyon C, editor. Alcohol, drugs and traffic safety — T'97. Annecy, France: Centre d'études et de recherche en médicin du traffic; 1997. p. 919-25.
  10. Adlaf E, Ivis F, Bondy S, Rehm J, Room R, Walsh G. Ontario drug monitor, 1996: technical guide. No. 132 of Addiction Research Foundation research document series. Toronto: Addiction Research Foundation; 1997.
  11. Adlaf E, Ivis F, Ialomiteanu A, Bondy S, Rehm J, Room R, et al. Ontario drug monitor, 1997: technical guide. No. 140 of Addiction Research Foundation research document series. Toronto: Addiction Research Foundation; 1998.

© 2000 Canadian Medical Association or its licensors