Safer Roads??

As of January 1, 2019 roads it is now safer to travel the roads of Ontario - at least according to the Ontario Government. It is difficult to argue against increasing the penalties for those drivers who are caught driving while being distracted by various mobile devices, or for that matter any driver who is not totally focused on their vehicle and the vehicles around it. It is especially difficult when one reads that, according to the Ontario Government, "deaths from collisions caused by distracted driving have doubled since 2000"(1).

Unfortunately, the above statistic is completely meaningless. The reader has no idea as to the number of deaths in 2000 - was it half a dozen or a thousand? Furthermore, there is no indication of how many of these deaths, either in 2000 or 2013, were caused by talking on a cell phone, texting, looking at a GPS or eating a donut. The statistics are used to create a blanket assumption that if one has something in ones' hand - there is a risk of being distracted. And this assumption may be, at the very least, misleading.

There is ample research in the academic literature that suggests that it is not the act of holding a phone while driving that creates the problem, it is the very nature of telephone conversations that can potentially distract a driver (see Lamble et al(2, Caird et al(3)). It would appear that it is almost irrelevant as to whether or not the phone is being held in the driver's hand or if the driver is using a "hands-free" system. Therefore to ban holding a cell phone while allowing, if not encouraging the use of blue tooth etc makes no sense. It is quite clearly a knee-jerk reaction to the proliferation of cell phones, their use in cars and the increase in accidents and deaths. The new regulations will not solve the problem.

On the other hand, clearly it is extraordinarily dangerous to type text messages, or to read messages while driving, it is also equally as dangerous to enter addresses etc into a GPS. These type of activities should be banned, the consequences harsh. But given that many vehicles now have large screens built into the dash that function as both a GPS unit and a control system for entertainment and climate - the opportunities for distraction appears to be increasing.

What makes the new Ontario regulations appear to be a "shotgun approach" to solving a problem is the inclusion of eating in the vehicle being clearly defined as a possible driving distraction. There is no doubt that managing a hot coffee while eating a hamburger can be distracting. But that activity is nothing new. The very existence of drive-in-windows at virtually all fast food restaurants would suggest that a significant number of people eat and/or drink while driving. Again, it would be useful to know if eating in a vehicle is a problem and if so how much of one.

While by creating harsh laws with significant penalties is a short-term solution to the problem - perhaps developing better training for drivers, encouraging people to take responsibilities for their actions or the actions of those who are driving with them, or reducing the number of distractions in a vehicles might make a difference. Which leads me to my final point.

If a bar can be held accountable when a drunk patron gets behind a wheel and then causes an accident, can McDonald's', Wendy's or Tim Horton's be held accountable when a patron while opening their burger causes an accident?


1 https://www.ontario.ca/page/distracted-driving
2 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0001457599000184
3 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0001457508000183

Learning What to Protest or How Not to Waste Time

It would appear to be fashionable for those involved in the oil business to scream at anyone who will listen that the Liberal Party and specifically Justin Trudeau are not doing enough to get Albertan oil to the various markets. There are demonstrations, truck convoys and threats/promises to bring the protest to Ottawa. The outrage and concern of the families who are dependent upon oil flowing freely across the plains and over the mountains is real. Whether or not they are angry at the right person or institution is another question. It is tempting to suggest the protests only provide a bit of news with lots of lovely pictures of ordinary Canadians - something especially useful when there is not a lot of other news happening in the dark days of the holiday season.

It is perhaps inappropriate to be so cynical during the above mentioned season which is, at least on paper, suppose to be about love, hope and peace. I, however, cannot help but wonder who is suggesting to those protesters that the only enemy are the Liberals in Ottawa. I would think that any person capable of rational thought would wonder - who benefits from the protests? Does anyone really think that a relatively small number of protesters are going to be able to convince the Federal Government to ignore the rulings of the Supreme Court and build the pipeline? Does anyone want to live in a country where the government ignores the ruling of the Supreme Court?

I disagreed with the Liberal Government's decision to buy the pipeline - a decision they made so that they could ensure that the pipeline would be built. The purchase was a sizeable commitment to get the oil to market. It is, in fact, one of the few things that any federal government has done to make certain that the pipeline got built. The cynic in me cannot help but be curious as to why five years ago, as the pipeline approval process dragged on, the same protesters were not out demanding that the Conservative government do something? That same cynic would also wonder if the directed attacks on Trudeau are more about the provincial election in Alberta next year or the federal election a few months later. While all of the protesting is going on - why is no one asking what any of the Conservative governments-in-waiting would do to change the situation? No one is asking those questions because of who may be facilitating/directing/shaping the protests.

How Canada deals with the resources buried in the ground (or that which grows above the ground e.g. trees) is a legitimate discussion for all Canadians. It may be one of the most fundamental conversations in the next decade or two. We must find a way to balance the need to generate an economy that can support the needs of all Canadians with the need to be far more cautious (and far-sighted) as to how we protect the environment. It is a complex discussion full of competing needs and dangerous, non-productive side arguments - laying blame for political reasons is one of those side arguments. It is not useful. It is, in fact, dangerous.


As individual Canadians, we must become responsible for thinking for ourselves. We cannot afford to accept, without critical thought, the opinions and direction of others. Protest is a legitimate response to poor government decisions. But it us, the individual, who needs to decide what we will protest and why. It is perhaps an over-used but true thought - we really can't trust those who want to political power to tell us what is right or wrong.