Strategy to Reduce Impaired Driving (STRID) 2010
(PDF 69K)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 ISSUE

1.1 BACKGROUND

1.2 CURRENT STATUS

1.3 OBJECTIVE OF STRID 2010

2.0 OVERALL STRATEGY TO REDUCE IMPAIRED DRIVING

2.1 TARGET GROUPS

2.2 GUIDING PRINCIPLES

2.3 PROGRAM ELEMENTS

2.3.1 Education and Awareness
2.3.2 Role of Policing
2.3.3 Policy/Legislation Initiatives
2.3.4 Health/Promotion
2.3.5 Linkages
2.3.6 Monitoring, Evaluation, and Research

2.3.6.1 Monitoring
2.3.6.2 Indicators
2.3.6.3 Primary Indicators
2.3.6.4 Definition of Drinking Driver
2.3.6.5 Baseline
2.3.6.6 Other Indicators

2.3.7 Research
2.3.8 Evaluation

2.4 OTHER ELEMENTS

2.4.1 Impairment by Drugs
2.4.2 Impairment by Fatigue
2.4.3 Impairment Drivers operating vehicles off highway
2.4.4 Impairment among other road users
2.4.5 Impairment due to driver distraction

3.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

1.0 ISSUE

Impaired driving continues to be a leading contributor to fatalities and serious injuries on Canadian roads. In 1999, the latest year for which national data is available, 33% of all fatally injured drivers had been drinking. Almost 20% of drivers were in serious injury crashes that involved alcohol.

The current Canadian strategy to manage this problem, which was formulated by the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators and endorsed by the Council of Ministers Responsible for Transportation and Highway Safety in 1995, officially comes to an end in 2001.

This document describes a successor strategy, titled "Strategy to Reduce Impaired Driving 2010 (STRID 2010). This strategy builds on the experience gained from two previous strategies and a recent national workshop on impaired driving.

1.1 BACKGROUND

In 1990, the Council of Ministers directed CCMTA to proceed with programs to reduce by 20% the number of traffic fatalities involving impaired drivers by the year 1995 and approved the resulting Strategy to Reduce Impaired Driving (STRID).

Under STRID, each jurisdiction was encouraged to develop a four year plan; establish a central coordinating agency; establish an inter-agency committee; coordinate enforcement and awareness programs; develop and implement mandatory treatment programs; and implement a new legislative initiative by the end of 1993. Very few jurisdictions were able to implement these recommended programs by the suggested date. No improvements were observed in the incidence of impaired driving and its consequences during this period.

In 1995, the end date for STRID was extended to 2001. A new strategy, STRID 2001, was formulated with the goal of reducing the per cent of fatalities and serious injuries involving drinking drivers by 20% by 2001.

STRID 2001 contains three core program elements that relate to enforcement and awareness, legislative initiatives and communications.

• In the area of enforcement and awareness, STRID 2001 recommends that jurisdictions conduct combined enforcement and awareness campaigns during the Christmas season, focusing on drinking and driving. Jurisdictions were also asked to participate in enforcement and awareness campaigns focusing on drinking and driving during other periods of the year.
  
  
• With respect to legislation, jurisdictions were asked to implement minimum license suspensions of 1, 3 and 5 years for first, second and third or subsequent convictions for impaired driving within a five-year cycle.
  
  
• Jurisdictions were also requested to develop communications to promote the visibility of STRID.

These core elements were supplemented by a number of suggested optional programs in the areas of education, legislation and assessment/rehabilitation. These included the implementation of server intervention programs, education of police, crown prosecutors and judiciary about the impaired driving problem, implementation of administrative licence suspension programs, ignition interlock programs, vehicle-based sanctions such as vehicle impoundment programs, removal of exemptions for work permits and assessment and rehabilitation programs.

In the years subsequent to the introduction of STRID 2001, there was a significant amount of progress in the area of the implementation of various components of the recommended core and optional elements by the different jurisdictions. Progress has been sporadic but positive.

As of the year 2000, seven jurisdictions had implemented minimum license suspensions that are at least equal to the recommended periods of 1, 3, and 5 years for first, second, and third or subsequent offences. All jurisdictions have been active in the areas of enforcement and awareness during the Christmas period and initiated activities to promote the visibility of STRID. The latter activity in this area has involved government organizations and vast array of non-governmental agencies.

Ten jurisdictions have implemented or, at least, introduced enabling legislation for administrative licence suspensions by the end of 2001. Similarly, five jurisdictions have implemented (or introduced legislation for) ignition interlock programs as of the end of 2001. Vehicle impoundment programs have been introduced in eight jurisdictions and has been legislated, but not proclaimed, in one additional jurisdiction. Nine jurisdictions currently have some form of mandatory assessment/treatment program for drinking and driving offenders. An assessment program is under development in one jurisdiction.

1.2 CURRENT STATUS

As can be seen from the foregoing, a significant amount of the recommended STRID infrastructure is in place and work on developing the other remaining components is on-going. As mentioned above, the STRID 2001 objective is to reduce by 20% the percent of fatalities and serious injuries involving a drinking driver by 2001.

An examination of the data available as of the end of 1999 indicate that:

i) there has been a 23.1% decline in the percent of motor vehicle fatalities involving drinking drivers, from 39% in 1995 to 30% in 1999;
ii) the percent of drivers involved in alcohol-related serious injury crashes has decreased by 9.5%, that is from 21% in 1995 to 19% in 1999.

These crash statistics indicate that reductions have occurred in the magnitude of the alcohol-crash problem in Canada since STRID 2001 was endorsed in 1995. These declines are, however, in part due to a continued decrease in the number fatally injured drinking drivers and an increase in the number of fatally injured drivers who were not drinking.

In spite of these reductions, the alcohol crash problem is still significant. Close to a third of all drivers fatally injured in road crashes in 1999 had been drinking and an estimated 1,134 persons died in alcohol-related collisions. It has taken several years for the jurisdictions to organize themselves and to develop policies and legislation to help deal with this problem. Many lessons have been learned along the way and there is tremendous opportunity to maximise the impact of the growing and maturing STRID infrastructure in the different jurisdictions.

STRID 2001 has officially come to an end. The alcohol-crash problem, however, remains significant. This document outlines a new strategy to advance the fight against impaired driving. This strategy, which will be called Strategy to Reduce Impaired Driving 2010 (STRID 2010), builds on the experience and lessons learnt from the two predecessor strategies as well as a recent national workshop on impaired driving. This workshop was held in October 2000, and brought together government and non-government stakeholders to discuss the issue of impaired driving and come up with new ways of managing the problem.

1.3 OBJECTIVE OF STRID 2010

Canada has developed a new national road safety vision known as Vision 2010. This vision calls for a national target of a 30% decrease in the average number of road users killed and seriously injured during the 2008 - 2010 period over comparable 1996 - 2001 figures. STRID 2010 is a key component of this overall vision with the following objective:

To achieve a 40% decrease in the percentage of road users fatally or seriously injured in crashes involving alcohol.

The elements of the strategy to achieve this objective are outlined in section 2. Our recommendations are set out in section 3.

2.0 OVERALL STRATEGY TO REDUCE IMPAIRED DRIVING

2.1 TARGET GROUPS

Building on the discussions of the CCMTA National Workshop in the fall of 2000, we propose a strategy with elements that address the multifaceted nature of the impaired driving problem. This strategy will be aimed at addressing issues related to a number of key target groups that were identified at the workshop.

These groups, which are not necessarily mutually exclusive, are:

i) the hardcore drinking driver;
ii) new/young drivers;
iii) social drinkers; and
iv) the first sanctioned driver.

We shall first present a brief description of each of these groups.

The Hard Core Drinking Driver

Hard core drinking drivers may be described as individuals who drive with a very high, illegal blood alcohol concentration (BAC) or who repeatedly drive with an illegal BAC or both. Their drinking and driving may fall within a scale ranging from infrequent drinking binges to long-term alcoholism.

Research has demonstrated that less than one percent of Canada's driving community make up the so-called hard core drinking drivers. Although they constitute a small percentage of the drinking driver population, they have a disproportionately high representation in collisions, injuries and deaths. The behaviour of this group does not appear to be influenced by traditional programming and sanctions.

The New/Young Driver

New/young drivers are considered to be those who have reached the age of driver licence eligibility or who have decided to become newly licensed as adults. Young drivers are at an age where considerable peer pressure exists to partake in alcohol consumption. By continuing to establish with this group that drinking and driving is socially unacceptable, public safety can be enhanced as they mature through the generations. Newly licensed adult drivers, although experienced with alcohol and more mature than young drivers, still have to be educated regarding hazards associated with combining alcohol and driving.

Social Drinkers

While lacking an exact definition, social drinking commonly takes place with two or more individuals; the alcohol may be integral to the ambience of the event. A social drinker does not drink as an end in itself, but rather drinks to accompany other activities.

Many social drinkers appear to be unaware of the increased risks posed to themselves, as well as public safety, from driving after consuming even small amounts of alcohol.

First Sanctioned Drivers

This is the group of drivers who have been identified for the first time as engaging in drinking and driving behaviour, whether by being formally charged, by receiving a 24 hour suspension, or through a jurisdiction's medical reporting/driver improvement. This is a heterogeneous group in that this includes new/young drivers; drivers who will go on to repeat the offence, binge drinkers and social drinkers. A first offence provides an opportunity to identify such drivers as potential repeat offenders. Whether or not they become repeat offenders depends on how they are dealt with after they are convicted and how they respond to the assigned interventions.

The challenge is to assess and identify the driver involved to develop an appropriate and effective response. For example, sending chronic alcoholics to a driver improvement course is not likely to be cost effective or have any long-term benefit. Referring a social drinker who demonstrate poor judgement or lack of knowledge to attend a program designed for chronic alcoholics is likely to be similarly ineffective.

2.2 GUIDING PRINCIPLES

In implementing STRID 2010, we recommend that the following principles from STRID 2001 be retained:

• share information and materials among jurisdictions in order to make the best use of limited resources;
• maintain and build on cooperative linkages and agreements between agencies and ministries;
• obtain buy-in from other agencies within the jurisdiction before introducing new and expanded initiatives;
• combine types of enforcement activity such as the Safe and Sober Program in the U.S. where police officers enforce seat belt and drinking driving laws at the same time;
• coordinate communications on STRID through a central body or agency;
• evaluate all new significant program elements so that other jurisdictions can gain information about the effectiveness of these measures;
• communications on STRID will be co-ordinated through CCMTA.
  

2.3 PROGRAM ELEMENTS

The program elements described in this section reflect the wealth of knowledge and experience that have been accumulated over the years since the inception of the initial STRID model in 1990, and most recently, the Vancouver workshop on impaired driving. The elements described here are diverse and are meant to address impaired driving among the target groups identified in section 2.1.

Although the target groups are varied, the approach suggested here is built around a number of key strategic areas. These are:

i) Education and awareness;
ii) Role of policing;
iii) Policy and legislation;
iv) Health Promotion;
v) Linkages; and
vi) Research

It is acknowledged that in some cases the recommended program elements overlap. This is because the maximum impact of these elements on the drinking and driving problem can be achieved when these elements work together. In many cases, the effectiveness of some program elements can be short-lived without a simultaneous and sustained application of other elements (e.g., enforcement efforts working in concert with awareness/education programs).

2.3.1 Education and Awareness

The following key elements are recommended in the area of education and awareness initiatives:

• Educate police, justice departments and the judiciary on the nature and management of drinking and driving and its consequences. Police, crown prosecutor and judiciary education/awareness about the severity of the impaired driving problem should be undertaken.
  
  
• Implement awareness programs in schools at an early stage (i.e., at lower grades) with appropriately targeted messaging. These programs should be maintained as an on-going component.
  
  
• Drinking and driving messaging should emphasise zero tolerance for this behaviour.
  
  
• Messaging should highlight the costs associated with drinking and driving, e.g., its impact on families and the high dollar monetary to society.
  
  
• Target/personalize educational campaigns for different audiences e.g., messages aimed at changing the behaviour of passengers of impaired drivers.

While public, private and government organizations in all jurisdictions devote time and resources to public awareness of the dangers and consequences of drinking driving, and enforcement campaigns, particularly during the Christmas season, have proven effective, there has been no attempt to develop national, coordinated enforcement and awareness programs. An initiative of high-visibility enforcement, similar to "Operation Impact" on occupant restraints, would garner media attention and capture the public interest and would address drinking driving at its peak seasons. This activity would be complemented by the already publicly popular Christmas enforcement campaign operated in all jurisdictions by a wide variety of stakeholders.

Key Activities:

a) The STRID working group should co-ordinate a national effort and assume responsibility for providing information to interested agencies. The current STRID working group may have to consider expanding the membership provide the highest level of co-ordination. Through this committee, there is an opportunity to integrate efforts and set national campaigns that focus on a broader violator group, such as the high-risk driver, for whom drinking and driving is a characteristic along with other problem behaviours such as failure to wear a seat belt and speeding, aggressive driving and running red lights.

Good communication and coordination among stakeholders will be important, to ensure that resources (human and financial) are used to the greatest benefit.

• Plan and develop communications to promote and increase visibility of STRID.

Key Activities:

a) Develop a centrally co-ordinated communications plan that includes methods for development and delivery of program information. This plan will address the needs of both government and non-government organisations (e.g., ministerial releases, information and briefing packages, information for dissemination by non-government program partners and opportunities to profile STRID at symposia, workshops and community events).

b) Investigate the feasibility of holding a bi-annual national drinking and driving conference to further information exchanges on research, government programs and enabling legislation, and public education materials and strategies.

2.3.2 Role of Policing

The role of policing is of fundamental importance in the fight against drinking and driving and its consequences. The following elements are recommended for more effectively enforcing drinking and driving offences:

• Train and encourage more police officers to develop Drug Recognition Experts (DREs) and more use of the Field Sobriety Tests (FSTs).
  
  
• Streamline procedures for processing drinking drivers.
  
  
• Encourage officers to lay more Criminal - Code charges for impaired driving rather than laying of 24-hour suspensions.
  
  
• Lobby for increased police resources to help increase the perceived risk of apprehension for drinking and driving.
  
  
• Encourage police to use passive sensors as an aid for identifying drinking drivers.
• Conduct combined enforcement and awareness campaigns during Christmas season, focusing on drinking driving.
  
  
• Participate each spring/summer in a nationally coordinated enforcement/ awareness campaign, targeting the high-risk or persistent offender.

Highly visible and intense enforcement has been shown to reduce a wide range of target traffic-related behaviours including intersection violations, speeding and drinking-driving. These efforts aim primarily at deterrence rather than detention, through increasing the public's perceived risk of apprehension. Highly visible roadcheck enforcement has consistently been shown to reduce the frequency of alcohol-related traffic collisions.

2.3.3 Policy/Legislative Initiatives

Appropriate policy and legislative initiatives are needed to support and serve as a basis for developing effective enforcement and awareness programs. They can also facilitate mechanisms to treat and manage drinking and driving offenders. The following policy/legislative initiatives are recommended:

• Record and track roadside administrative license suspensions on driver record and use this information as a management tool.
  
  
• Make it an offence to refuse a Field Sobriety Test.
  
  
• Introduce escalating sanctions based on BAC level to provincial regulations.
  
  
• Widen the search (look-back) window for drinking and driving sanctions to 10 years.
  
  
• Introduce reduced BAC thresholds for drivers who have been convicted of a drinking and driving offence.
  
  
• Take advantage of any technological innovations for enforcing drinking and driving offences. For example, breath alcohol ignition interlock device with periodic monitoring, as part of a relicensing program. Two jurisdictions have an ignition interlock programs operational, with a number of other jurisdictions considering or implementing programs.
  
  
• Administrative licence suspension of 90 days if driver is over legal limit of .08 or refuses a breath/blood test. Seven jurisdictions have this program as of June 2001.
  
  
• Use of vehicle-based sanctions such as vehicle impoundment, vehicle immobilization, licence plate tagging or confiscation for driving while suspended. As of June 2001, eight jurisdictions have some form of vehicle-based sanctions.
  
  
• Remove exemptions for work permits.
  
  
• Mandate server training programs as a condition of obtaining and maintaining a liquor licence.
  
  
• Implement minimum license suspensions of 1, 3 and 5 years for first, second and third or subsequent convictions for impaired driving within a ten-year "look-back" window. Seven jurisdictions have a suspension length of at least three years for a second offence and at least five years for third and subsequent offences.

2.3.4 Health Promotion

This aspect of the STRID 2010 recommends ways to manage the drinking and driving problem from a health perspective. This element acknowledges one of the principal obstacles to solving the impaired driving - alcohol dependency. The following approach is recommended:

• Implement mandatory assessment and rehabilitation programs for drinking driving offenders and provide a timely follow up.

Rehabilitation of convicted drinking drivers has become increasingly popular in recent years. These programs recognize that offenders require the knowledge skills and behaviours necessary to ensure they make correct choices regarding drinking and driving in the future. They also recognize that many offenders, especially those who repeatedly drink and drive after consuming large amounts of alcohol require rehabilitation for their drinking problems.

Not all drinking drivers experience the same problem. Therefore, assessment is required to determine the specific nature of their problems (e.g., alcohol, psychopathology, poor driving habits, etc.) so that the rehabilitation that is offered can be matched as closely to their needs as possible. This matching approach to assessment and rehabilitation rejects the notion that "one size fits all".

Assessment and rehabilitation programs can be expensive. However, most jurisdictions that have adopted these programs have done so on a cost recovery basis whereby the driver pays the full costs of the program.

2.3.5 Linkages

The multifaceted nature of the drinking and driving problem requires the attention and input of different disciplines and agencies. Communication and coordination between these agencies is therefore vital to take advantage of any potential synergies resulting from collaboration, to learn from each other, and to avoid unnecessary duplication of efforts.

• Representatives from the health promotion, medical and injury prevention fields and other appropriate stakeholder agencies should be invited to work with the Task Force to develop and advance the model and to assist jurisdictions in implementation of the elements of STRID 2010.
  
  
• Linkages with the enforcement and justice communities should be strengthened.
  
  
• More efforts should be made to cost-share the implementation of countermeasures where possible.

2.3.6 Monitoring, Evaluation, and Research

In the tradition of the previous STRID models, an important contributor to the success of STRID 2010 will be our ability to monitor its implementation, evaluate its component programs, and research any potential areas of opportunity for managing the problem of impaired driving. In this section we shall outline the areas of focus of these three aspects of the strategy.

2.3.6.1 Monitoring

Monitoring is the collection and reporting of data to assess the performance of the STRID program against the indicators identified below. We propose that the production of STRID monitoring reports be continued. As with previous STRID monitoring, the reports should cover the program and evaluation activities within each jurisdiction. It should also continue to provide information on progress toward the STRID objective at the provincial/territorial level as well as the national level. The CCMTA will examine ways to cost-share the production of the monitoring report for the duration of STRID 2010.

2.3.6.2 Indicators

This section contains some indicators for assessing the progress of STRID 2010 toward its objective. The goal here is to provide multiple indicators that would support some primary indicator. The primary indicator would be used to measure progress toward the objective. To the extent that all the indicators point in the same direction, there should be greater confidence in the results. Secondary indicators will be valuable in monitoring progress in the smaller jurisdictions, where sample size limits the reliability of the primary indicator.

2.3.6.3 Primary Indicator

The first STRID initiative used the incidence of alcohol among fatally injured drivers as its main indicator. This indicator is based on coroner reports from each jurisdiction. Nationally, about 80% of fatally injured drivers are tested for BAC.

Under STRID 2001, the objectives of the strategy were expanded to cover all motor vehicle fatalities involving a drinking driver (not just fatally injured drivers) as well as all motor vehicle collisions involving a serious injury in which a driver was drinking. The objectives under STRID 2010 mirror those in its predecessor strategy. The same indicators will, therefore, be used to monitor its progress.

The primary gauge of performance of STRID, in line with its principal objective, is the ratio of the number of fatalities involving a drinking driver to the total number of motor vehicle fatalities. An improvement (or a reduction) in this ratio could result from a reduction in the numerator and/or an increase in the magnitude of the denominator.

Thus, a relatively large increase in the denominator as compared to the numerator can give a false indication of the magnitude of process. Ways in which this base indicator can be improved or supplemented by other indicators is included as part of the research component of this strategy.

2.3.6.4 Definition of Drinking Driver

The definition of a drinking driver is one with any measurable BAC. Consistent with reporting definitions adopted by TIRF in annual reports, a measurable BAC is defined as greater than 1 mg%. The percentages for the other BAC categories would be useful to determine whether program activities have had differential effects on different types of drinkers. For example, enforcement activity focuses for the most part on the 80 mg% level or the 50 - 80 mg% range for those jurisdictions that have short term licence suspensions that are often used during enforcement campaigns., The percentage with BAC's > 160 mg% can be used as an indicator for tracking the impact of STRID on hard-core drinking drivers. This would be a particularly important indicator for evaluating assessment and rehabilitation programs. Therefore, BAC information could be categorized as follows: < 1mg%, 1 - 49 mg%, 50 - 79 mg%, 80 - 160 mg%, and >160 mg%. However, the actual BAC readings will be available so that BAC can be categorized according to the needs of the various jurisdictions.

2.3.6.5 Baseline

Since the STRID 2010 objectives are sub-targets of the overall national Vision 2010, the baseline for assessing the performance of STRID 2010 will be aligned with that of the overall Vision 2010. Thus, the achievement of STRID's target of a 40% reduction will be based on the average of data from 1996-2001. The years from 2002 to 2010 will be monitored annually and compared to this baseline period.

2.3.6.6 Other Indicators

a) A number of jurisdictions monitor the extent of drinking driving through traffic accident reports in which police cite alcohol involvement or impairment as a factor. While police reports tend to underestimate alcohol involvement in accidents, to the extent that reporting practises do not change from year to year, this indicator can be considered reliable. The lack of comparable data between jurisdictions limits the usefulness of this indicator for national monitoring. However, it could be used by individual jurisdictions, where appropriate to monitor changes in alcohol involvement in injury accidents, as well as all fatal accidents (including those where the driver is not killed).

b) Since alcohol involvement is not consistently reported in injury collisions for all jurisdictions, it is proposed that the percentage of collisions that are single vehicle night-time collisions be used as the indicator for injuries resulting from drinking and driving. Previous research has shown that a high percentage of drivers involved in such collisions have positive BAC's.

It should be recognized that most of the proposed indicators have limitations either in terms of their reliability or their validity. However, if a number of indicators are measured and the results all point in the same direction, then there can be greater confidence in the results.

2.3.7 Research

STRID 2010 will inherit a number of research ideas from STRID 2001 that have not been initiated or completed at this time. These will be supplemented by other pertinent research questions that we believe will inform our understanding of the impaired driving issue and facilitate our efforts at reducing its magnitude. This section provides a list of these research questions and activities.

a) Administration of Criminal Code DWI sections: It is believed that many impaired driving charges are dismissed and many accused persons are acquitted for a variety of legal reasons including inadmissibility of evidence, delays, breach of the right to counsel by an accused person. Although the dismissal or acquittal may be justified, the public and the police are frustrated that the efforts to enforce impaired driving legislation do not result in criminal sanctions. Is this a true picture of the administration of DWI under the Criminal Code; is it pervasive across the country; is it getting worse; why is it occurring; what should be done to resolve it (e.g., take non-injury producing DWI out of the Criminal Code, education of judges)?

This issue should be addressed on a national basis. However, it must be acknowledged that the enforcement of Criminal law, the prosecution of offences and the administration of justice are matters of provincial responsibility. It would therefore be necessary for each province/territory to initiate the necessary research. It is suggested that CCMTA members contact the Attorney General representatives on their inter?agency coordinating bodies to determine their interest and the feasibility of such a study. The federal Minister of Justice should be made aware of the proposed research and the overall perception that existing Code offences are posing enforcement and prosecution problems.

b) Investigate the profile of first offenders.

c) Research the differences in the incidence of drinking and driving behaviour between rural and urban areas.

d) Investigate the advantages and feasibility of random breath testing.

e) Summarize current best practices for managing the problem of drinking and driving.

f) Assess the public perception of impaired driving.

g) Continue to conduct nighttime roadside surveys to monitor the magnitude of drinking and driving. Extend these surveys to rural areas.

h) Obtain information on the use of designated drivers by binge and heavy drinkers.

i) Research and develop enhanced measures and indicators for assessing and monitoring the performance and effectiveness of STRID 2010.

2.3.8 Evaluation

Jurisdictions can learn from each other. Therefore, it is crucial for the success of STRID 2010 that the program elements implemented by the provinces and territories be evaluated to determine their effectiveness. The results of these evaluations will assist other jurisdictions in deciding which elements to adopt.

A number of programs have been evaluated over the course of STRID 2001. For instance, the results of the evaluation of programs such as the alcohol ignition interlock program in Alberta, and ICBC's enhanced enforcement program should be shared among the different jurisdictions.

a) Evaluations should be conducted for program elements such as the nationally coordinated enforcement/education campaign, server intervention, training for judges, lawyers and police, the use of 24 hour suspensions, and other vehicle immobilization measures such as plate impoundment or the use of a tire lock.

b) The jurisdictions should examine ways of cost-sharing these evaluations. Transport Canada would disseminate the results of these evaluations to all jurisdictions.

c) Evaluate the impact of zero BAC requirements for new drivers.

2.4 OTHER ELEMENTS

While the focus of this document is on managing the drinking and driving problem, there are a number of other issues related to the overall problem of impaired driving that were discussed at the Vancouver workshop. It is recommended that more research be undertaken on these issues in order to develop appropriate remedies for managing them. The areas that were identified and their suggested activities are presented below.

2.4.1 Impairment by Drugs

• Undertake research and nighttime roadside surveys to determine the scope of the problem by 2003
• By 2005 develop a separate strategy to deal with impairment by drugs

2.4.2 Impairment by Fatigue

• Undertake research and roadside surveys to determine the scope of the problem by 2003.
• By 2005 develop a separate strategy to deal with impairment by fatigue.

2.4.3 Impairment Drivers operating vehicles off highway

• Undertake research to determine if there is a link between drivers that drink and drive on highway and those that drink and drive recreational vehicles off highway (snowmobiles, boats, ATV's etc) by 2006.
• If there is a link between on highway and off highway impaired driving, develop a separate strategy that will bring this fact to the attention of those departments/agencies/governments involved in the regulation of off highway vehicles by 2007.

2.4.4 Impairment among other road users (bicyclists, pedestrians, in-line skaters, etc.)

• Review injury/fatality data to determine the scope of the problem by 2006.

2.4.5 Impairment due to driver distraction

• Explore the impairing effects of various sources of driver distraction and their contribution to crashes.

To initiate this process, three sub-groups have been formed under the STRID 2010 umbrella to focus on the areas of drugs, fatigue, and distractions (including cell phones) as potential sources of impairment to driving. The goal of this effort will be to develop sub-models under STRID to assist jurisdictions in managing the safety impacts of these issues.

3.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

The era of STRID 2001 was marked by considerable activity in all jurisdictions with respect to building the recommended infrastructure for managing the problem of drinking and driving. The experience across jurisdictions was diverse but, in general, very positive.

An examination of the available crash statistics indicates that reductions have occurred in the magnitude of the alcohol-crash problem in Canada since STRID 2001 was endorsed in 1995. These declines are in part due to a continued decrease in the number fatally injured drinking drivers but also due to an increase in the number of fatally injured drivers who were not drinking. In spite of these reductions, the alcohol crash problem is still significant. Close to a third of all drivers fatally injured in road crashes in 1999 had been drinking and an estimated 1,134 persons died in alcohol-related collisions.

While there is a significant amount of work yet to be done in eliminating the problem of drinking and driving, the foundations laid by STRID 2001 is a strong platform for the new strategy outlined in this document.

The goal of STRID 2010 is to achieve a 40% decrease in the percentage of road users fatally or seriously injured in crashes involving alcohol over the 2008 - 2010 period over comparable 1996 - 2001 figures .

To achieve this objective it is recommended that the following initiatives, which are aimed at hardcore drinking drivers, new/young drivers, social drinkers, and first sanctioned drivers, be undertaken by the various jurisdictions in partnership with interested stakeholders:

Education and Awareness

• Educate police, justice departments and the judiciary on the nature and management of drinking and driving and its consequences.

Role of Policing

• Train and encourage more police officers to develop Drug Recognition Experts (DREs) and more use of the Field Sobriety Tests (FSTs).

Policy/Legislative Initiatives

• Record and track roadside administrative license suspensions on the driver record and use this information as a management tool.

Health Promotion

• Introduce mandatory assessment and rehabilitation programs for drinking driving offenders and a timely follow up.

Linkages

• Representatives from the medical and injury prevention fields and other appropriate stakeholder agencies should be invited to work with the Task Force to develop and advance the model to assist jurisdictions in implementation of the elements of STRID 2010.

Other Elements

Develop sub-models under STRID to assist jurisdictions in managing the safety impacts of other potential causes of driving impairment, particularly in the areas of drugs, fatigue, and distractions (including cell phones).

Mid-Term Review

It is finally recommended that a mid-term review of the STRID 2010 and its targets be undertaken in the year 2006.