A suggestion the Government seems to make by hammering one single statistic out of context is that recidivists are responsible for drunk driving deaths and therefore we should conclude that the IRP law stopped repeat drunk drivers. That would be the only way the decrease could be attributed to the IRP scheme. And bearing in mind that it is 90-days that the person is off the road, then what we would need to examine is how many repeat drunk drivers cause an accident in the 90-days after they are initially stopped. None of this is discussed when the Government bleats on with one misleading statistic.
More important, and yet omitted from the Government talking points is the fact that people who blow over .08mg% at the detachment receive an Administrative Driving Prohibition (ADP) for 90-days. Further skewing the statistics is that, around the time they introduced the IRP scheme, they also started compelling people who received an ADP to complete the Responsible Driver Program and have an interlock installed before getting back on the road. As well, most people who served their 1-year prohibition for Dangerous Driving are now required to complete the RDP and interlock before again obtaining a BCDL. The Government keeps these facts out of the press releases.
So to suggest that the statistic is owing to the IRP scheme is completely misleading. Apples and some other unrelated fruit. Many other things changed at the same time, and when it comes to the 90-day scheme the only difference is that the Government prohibited and punished people on the basis of crappy evidence with a shockingly inadequate review process.
The only significant contributing factor is enforcement, which was intense for 14 months. This is an issue of resource allocation, and if the Government wants to keep the deaths down, they simply need to put money into enforcement.
They had a windfall when they did not need to pay to prosecute people and provide them their rights for 14 months. We would suggest that they put some of the money that they saved back into the justice system. The sense many of us have is that the Government is not committed to ensuring properly funded courts, prosecutors and legal aid. The IRP scheme appeared to be an indicator of some subtle contempt held by the Government toward their obligation to fund a justice system. When the Government backs away from the obligation to provide justice for the citizens, it certainly does not bode well for the society.
Served your 90-days but not back on the road?
If you disputed your 90-day IRP and lost, and have yet to pay for the interlock or RDP, give us a call right away before you start writing any cheques to the Government. We have received many calls from people in this situation. While we are in this legal limbo, it is not particularly difficult or expensive to have these requirements suspended.
We are getting people back on the road every day, and a number will have their licenses back before Christmas.
Noteworthy is that after CTV reported on the Government adjourning IRP hearings indefinitely without returning licenses, the Government capitulated and started returning licenses. This saved us from having to seek mandamus orders.
As for the holidays, we expect to write fewer blog postings. As matters develop, we will try to continue to keep our clients informed of what is going on.