Bill 16 Has Many Fans But Little Supporting Evidence

My latest Calgary Herald column takes a look at Alberta's Distracted Driving legislation, which takes effect on Thursday:

 

With police forces across Alberta eagerly on board, Alberta's new distracted driving law is now certainly a fait accompli, although that was likely the case long ago.
With the law taking effect on Thursday, we will have completed this headlong charge with very little scrutiny or debate of Bill 16.
Anecdotes about dangerously distracted drivers might seem compelling, but tell us nothing about whether this legislation will accomplish anything.
If we're going to pass legislation and devote police resources to enforcing it, then it's not too much to ask for the province to justify why they believe this will work and what evidence exists to demonstrate that.
In the meantime, police are making it clear that there will be no grace period under this new law
However, police have deftly sidestepped any questions (assuming anyone bothered to ask such questions) about how and whether certain provisions of this law will be enforced.
The law is very detailed and specific about what counts as "distracted" and what counts as "driving".
To most Albertans, "distracted driving" means just that: talking on a cellphone or texting while operating a moving vehicle. As far as this law is concerned, "distracted driving" goes well beyond that.
For example, "driving" under this law includes all sorts of scenarios where one is arguably not driving at all. You might be stopped for several minutes waiting for a train to pass, or stopped in an alley, a parking lot, or even a ditch, but you're still "driving."
Therefore, reading a text message or taking a phone call - or even holding a turned-off cellphone - under any of those circumstances constitutes a violation
So how far will police go in their eager enforcement of this new law?
The closest we've come to an answer is the reassurance that such matters will be left to the "discretion" of the officer, which is really no reassurance at all.
It might seem harsh to ticket someone in the Tim Hortons lineup calling his wife to double-check if that was one sugar or two she wanted. However, doing so is completely in line with the letter of the law. The offender would not have much basis for an appeal.
But how exactly does that make our roads any safer?
Supposedly, improved road safety is the goal of this legislation. At least, that's what the government keeps telling us.
The government points to "tremendous technological advances over the last 20 years" as one of the reasons why distracted driving has become such an issue.
But consider this: from 2003 to 2010, Canada went from 13 million cellphone users to more than 24 million. That's after cellphone usage doubled from 1997 to 2003.
Yet while this explosion has occurred in the usage of these devices, our roads have become safer.
In 1990 there were 3,445 fatal crashes in Canada along with 178,515 injury collisions. In 2009 - with more drivers on the road and far more in the way of distractions - there were 2,011 fatal crashes and 123,192 injury collisions.
That's not to dismiss the potential dangers of distracted driving, but merely a presentation of actual numbers to counter the many presumptions being made.
And while the Alberta government is busy selling anecdotes, south of the border actual research is happening, and it presents a much different picture.
Most recently, a major report was released by the Governors Highway Safety Association, analyzing more than 350 scientific papers on the subject (odd that no one here in Alberta has done so).
The report found that much of the research is contradictory and that there is really no evidence to suggest that these bans actually work.
In fact, after having previously supported such bans, the association is now urging states to hold off on introducing them.
That comes on the heels of two major studies last year from the Highway Loss Data Institute which found no reduction in crashes in states with cellphone bans, and the same for states with texting bans.
Of course motorists should avoid distractions while behind the wheel. But we should have been much more skeptical about the notion that the Alberta government could somehow fix the problem.

The Bloc is Dead! Long Live the Bloc!

It's been often noted that in recent years, the Bloc Quebecois more or less ceased to be a serious separatist party, and instead seemed to have morphed into a left-wing party simply representing the interests of Quebec.

 

Of course, the Bloc was all but wiped out in the last federal election, as the NDP orange wave swept over Quebec. But more and more it looks as though the NDP didn't just replace the Bloc, they've essentially become them:

 

Prime Minister Stephen Harper's plan to give B.C., Alberta and Ontario fairer representation in the House of Commons divides the country, interim New Democratic Party leader Nycole Turmel said Wednesday.
(...)
"The approach of the Harper government is really divisive right now. It's not constructive, it's not nation-building," she told Postmedia News in an exclusive interview.
Turmel, whose past membership in the Bloc Quebecois raised questions this summer about her own commitment to federalism, also slammed the Harper government over its announcement Tuesday that it would add "royal" to the names of the Canadian navy and air force.

It's hard to see how the Bloc's position would be any different. How on earth is any of this divisive? If anything, it's the exact opposite: Alberta, BC, and Ontario are under-represented, and this plan to add seats is a way of fixing that. Not doing could fairly be described as divisive.

 

We also see the Quebec-centric NDP approach in Turmel's reaction to the announcement that the names Royal Canadian Air Force and Royal Canadian Navy will come back into use. It's only divisive or controversial if your sole concern is the province of Quebec where the monarchy is much less popular. But the fact remains that we are a constitutional monarchy; the Queen is our head of state. Not liking that fact doesn't make it any less true.

 

Canada's system of government and Canada's system of democracy are not divisive. How sad that the NDP has been reduced to this sort of pandering.

 

UPDATE: Wow, even the Toronto Star gets it.

Nanny-Statists Target MMA & Exotic Dancing

My latest Calgary Herald column looks at developments in Alberta, B.C., and Saskatchewan, where politicians, bureaucrats, and other busybodies are looking to ban activities they disapprove of:

 

If one were to rank activities on a wholesomeness scale, I suppose mixed martial arts and exotic dancing might rate quite low.
What should offend us far more than scantily clad men pummelling each other or scantily clad females dancing on a pole is the existence of moralistic busybodies who feel consenting adults should be prohibited from enjoying or participating in such activities.
Last summer, the Canadian Medical Association voted to support a ban on mixed martial arts (MMA), despite the sport's growing popularity. Around the same time doctors called for a ban, the sport was sanctioned in Ontario and B.C.
Last week, the B.C. Medical Association renewed the call for a ban after a participant in an amateur MMA event in Kamloops had to undergo emergency brain surgery. The individual has recovered, and it's been suggested medical care and screening of participants at the event was not what it ought to have been.
The hostile stance taken toward the sport seems rather counterproductive if the goal is to reduce injuries. Offering supervision and expertise seems more likely to result in positive change. All the more disappointing is the self-righteous tone, rather than an evidencebased argument for a ban. Condescending disapproval is a flimsy basis for criminalizing an entire sport.
It seems Canada has an abundance of condescending approval, especially in Saskatchewan. Not only is our neighbour one of the few provinces where MMA is banned, it is the only province where strip clubs are forbidden. I believe fun is still permitted, but you should double-check that if you plan on travelling.
A Regina bar is in hot water after allowing a burlesque show to be performed, even though it featured no nudity. So apparently upholding this senseless prohibition involves enlisting government bureaucrats to scrutinize women and determine what constitutes exotic dancing.
The Saskatchewan government can't seem to mount a compelling argument in support of the ban. But when politicians are trying to make better decisions on our behalf, who are we to second-guess them?
A similar attitude persists in Alberta, although strip clubs are permitted. Here, the "freedom to create and spirit to achieve" does not extend to burlesque performers. The Alberta Gaming and Liquor Commission (AGLC) cannot imagine how such smut could be considered art, so surely it is no different and no better than exotic dancing. The two are treated the same.
Those involved in burlesque and those who enjoy the shows consider it art. Once again, you might think this could be left to the tastes of consenting adults, but provincial bureaucrats are having none of it.
In Alberta, performers wearing the traditional burlesque pasties are considered to be nude. Therefore, they must not come into any contact with any other performers. Any props or devices determined by AGLC bureaucrats to be "sexual" are also forbidden.
One Calgary venue was recently fined $10,000 for a show bureaucrats deemed "too racy." It's unclear the extent of the trauma suffered by those in attendance.
Burlesque performers are pushing back.
They recently held a performance protest in Calgary, and they've been gathering names on a petition.
However, much like Saskatchewan's exotic dancing law, if no liquor is being served, then burlesque shows are out from under the puritan boot of the AGLC.
Who - and from what - is this law aimed at protecting? All that appears to be in danger are the sensibilities of those who have deemed themselves the arbiters of what others should see and do.
Disapproval is one thing. But the tut-tutting of the nanny-statists should not be the final say on how Canadians live their lives.